Self-proclaimed ex-gay Stephen Bennett has a habit of issuing questionable statements, apparently to gain news coverage. As he fades from his minor moment in the spotlight – even mainstream ex-gay organizations don’t seem to care for him – he makes more and more disturbing claims to draw attention to whatever ministry he is promoting at any given time. Bennett’s offerings are often for fee only, which is described as a tax deductible donation.
This time Bennett is upset over a picture issued by the White House of Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife holding their new grandchild, Samuel David Cheney. Samuel is the child of the Cheney’s daughter Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe. That’s the part that incensed Bennett.
Unlike the official White House photo caption, a man and a woman, a Daddy and a Mommy, are Samuel David Cheney’s REAL biological parents.
Then who is Heather Poe?
Heather Poe is Mary Cheney’s live-in lesbian lover. She may act like a parent, she may treat the baby as a parent, she may love this baby with all of her heart, but in this reality we all live in, Heather Poe is NOT the baby’s real parent. She has NO biological connection to the child whatsoever. Some man, the baby’s real Daddy, is the child’s other REAL parent.
In his fervor to portray same-sex parents as vile and invalid, which is callous enough, he does the same to all families with adopted children. The foundation of his argument is that only biological parents are “REAL” parents [his emphasis] no matter how much genuine love exists between them. Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, the largest ex-gay organization and himself the father of two adopted children, had this to say in response:
“I found Stephen Bennett’s release on the birth of Mary Cheney’s son Samuel to be in extremely poor taste. All life is sacred and should be celebrated regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.
As someone who regularly ministers to parents of gay and lesbian people I wholeheartedly encourage those parents to put relationship above all else. I do not know the Cheney’s personal beliefs about homosexuality but I do know that they have been publicly respectful of their daughter and her partner, Heather Poe, and welcomed them into their lives. That is what parents should do.
“Mr. Bennett’s diatribe about REAL parents was an affront to every family that has been blessed by the miracle of adoption. As adoptive parents, my wife, Leslie, and I consider ourselves the REAL parents of our precious son and daughter. No doubt, even at two years old, they consider us their REAL parents. Biology is not the determining factor in one being a REAL parent.
“Congratulations to Mary Cheney on the birth of her son, to Vice President and Mrs. Cheney on the birth of their grandson. I do pray that Ms. Cheney and Ms. Poe consider the deep need their son will have for a father and seek to have that need met in surrogate, but significant ways.”
Sometimes we overuse the word “hate” I think, but if so it may be because there are so many instances such as this when the hatred so overshadows everything else that anyone of conscience must recognize it. And if history is any indication, we will soon see emails and articles floating around which claim “the homosexuals are attacking Stephen Bennett” with some nonsense about how he really didn’t mean this or that. He may wish he hadn’t said it, but it’s pretty obvious he means it.
Read Bennett’s entire press release to understand the true nature of his statements.
Chambers is absolutely correct in calling out Bennett for his grandstanding comments. I called over to one of Bennett’s “ministries” after reading his “press release” and questioned him about this idea that being a bio parent is the qualification for being a “real” parent. He told me that he had made further clarification on one of his websites and if I would just click over to it, I would see that he differentiates between gay adopitive parents and straight adoptive parents. I asked him who the heck would do that, especially since they weren’t directed to go read somewhere else for futher “clarification.” After several more minutes of rather difficult conversation, I told him his whole press release was looney and then hung up. Bennett is the classic example of one man who traded one hustle for another.
My child is not my biological off-spring. In fact, I’m not even his adoptive parent. I’m a step-parent. I’m a real parent though and nothing Bennett’s bloviating, grandstanding comments can say will change that!
j.
I’m glad to see Alan Chambers speak out against Bennett, and I hope that Bennett’s statement only serves to marginalize him further.
…as Exodus continues to distance itself from individuals (Bennett, Nicolosi, Cohen) whom poorly reflect its Christian ministry, I retain hope that it will eventually sever ties with organizations, including Dobson’s Focus on the Family.
Convenient to make “clarification” on an obscure section of his website when the press release is all over the place. The page he is talking about seems a bit fishy to me. It’s not in the search engine caches (which would make it hours old) and I suspect though can’t confirm at the moment that it was placed there later, when someone complained. I know for a fact he was notified ahead of this article.
Last night on TV I saw some young woman talking about her family. She said something along the lines of:
I know who my biological father is and our relationship is about what you’d expect from an absent father. But my REAL father is the man who raised me, my step-father.
Chambers is right. He and Leslie are the REAL parents of his children. He’s the one who will be there at sports events, up nights when they are sick, forking out the bucks for piano lessons, saving for college education, worrying sick over their teen-age crushes, and basically doing what parents do. And I don’t doubt that they will be very good, loving parents.
As will be Mary Chaney and Heather Poe.
Bennett is a gadfly and is being rightly treated as such.
I’m glad Chambers spoke out against Bennett’s remarks. Where did Chambers’ comments come from?
Bravo the Mr. Chambers, BOO to Mr. Bennett. I can’t say I’m surprised by Bennett’s attitude, I’ve always found his contempt for us to be palpable and highly offensive (the comment about telling your child to leave their partner at home for Christmas STILL rankles me).
I am surprised by Mr. Chamber’s attitude. While far from what I would consider “ideal” he has become increasingly consistent and respectful in his views, especially since disassociating himself with Cameron (even if he did it in a slightly softer way than my preference). So, kudos and I hope it continues (not that I expect him to be totally gay affirming, but even acknowledging that we have families is a huge step for ex-gay groups).
This is a wonderful demonstration of just how distorted the logic of those not supporting same-sex parents becomes. It becomes harder to hate and criticize others when it strikes a chord close to home…and that is exactly what we’ve seen demonstrated here.
I anticipate we will continue to see more “slips” of bigotry…it is never acceptable, and now it seems, finally being corrected in small but significant steps.
If only we would read the research…imagine….
The Mary Cheney’s parents were not respectful to her at all when she was with her father at the 1st Republican National Convention and he was “officially” nominated to be the “Vice Presidential Running Mate.” She was not welcome on the stage, especially the 2nd night when George W. Bush was nominated to be the Republican Candidate for the President of the USA.
They also don’t seem to be publicly supportive of Mary Cheney and her spouse, Heather Poe, as the parents of Samuel David Cheney. Why didn’t they insist that both of his parents also be in the official “White House” sanctioned picture to be released to the press?
Besides, the White House is a building in Washington, DC, it is not a person. The Bush Administration is ashamed that Cheney has a “married” lesbian daughter. A government issued document does not a marriage make anyway.
To biologically be a parent is no sign that a biological parent will be a good parent.
Maybe ex-gay ministry leaders will start exposing the hypocrisy of each other ministries and let us ex-ex-gays just sit back and watch the cat-fights while those leaders destroy their own ministries in the process.
Very nice to see the email from Alan.
One thing that he left out concerned me, though. While Alan does refer to Heather Poe as Mary’s Partner and while he later refers to the child as “their” son, he does not congratulate Heather on the birth of her son…just Mary and the Cheney’s. So close to getting there…
Not sure if Stephen Bennett added this after the criticism by Alan or not, but this is a disclaimer of sorts on the SB Ministries site as part of an introduction to the press release. As far as I’m concerned, it just reinforces how mean-spirited his attack on same-sex parents really is:
“NOTE: SBM PRAISES parents and individuals – mothers and fathers – who have taken on the noble task of adopting children and giving them a chance at life in the God ordained family unit including a Daddy and Mommy. Every child deserves a Daddy and Mommy. We understand, sometimes through death or divorce, that unit is broken – and parents do the best they could to raise and nurture their child or children. We celebrate them. Sometimes in a second heterosexual marriage, children are adopted. We praise these men and women who do all they could to raise these children. THESE ARE REAL PARENTS. This is NOT playing “house.”
Homosexual parenting is something TOTALLY different.
Some heterosexual couples are unable to have children by natural relations due to infertility or other reasons, and may choose other fertility options. We praise them for taking on the enormous task of becoming REAL parents and raising children.
In the press release below, we are SPECIFICALLY and ONLY addressing the issue of homosexual parenting – NOT adoption, NOT fertility issues or anything else with heterosexual married couples. We are SPECIFICALLY addressing homosexuals trying to redefine a family as children with “two Daddies” or “two Mommies.”
We praise and thank God for ALL FAMILIES with a father and a mother – who have chosen to raise children as their own – through natural relations, adoption, or other means. These are REAL families and REAL parents.
Remember, as Christians, WE have been adopted or “grafted in” as sons, daughters and heirs into the Kingdom of God. WE ARE God’s children – He IS our Heavenly Father — and NOTHING could ever, EVER change that relationship! Praise God!”
David,
I spoke with Bennett probably two days ago shortly after his press release went “live.” As I mentioned, he told me there was a disclaimer, but I had to look long and hard to find it and it’s logic was so twisted I nearly called him back and told him so, but after my first interaction w/ him, I didn’t feel I could stomach any more. There is something seriously twisted about that man.
j.
Joe Allan,
I think you are factually incorrect.
She was not welcome on the stage, especially the 2nd night when George W. Bush was nominated to be the Republican Candidate for the President of the USA.
In her book Mary claims that she was welcome and that she made the decision not to go on stage. Whether or not you believe that to be true, there is nothing to refute her claim and we should avoid making unfounded assumptions.
They also don’t seem to be publicly supportive of Mary Cheney and her spouse, Heather Poe, as the parents of Samuel David Cheney. Why didn’t they insist that both of his parents also be in the official “White House” sanctioned picture to be released to the press?
The Cheneys are consistently supportive of Mary publically. She and Heather are not in the photo for probably the same reasons that her sister and brother-in-law were not in the White House photo of their 5th grandchild.
Every child deserves a Daddy and Mommy…
Remember, as Christians, WE have been adopted or “grafted in” as sons, daughters and heirs into the Kingdom of God. WE ARE God’s children – He IS our Heavenly Father — and NOTHING could ever, EVER change that relationship! Praise God!”
Apparantly Bennett thinks we need a Heavenly Mother.
Oh, is Chambers also a biological parent?
My late partner/husband, Ed was officially a step-father to his wife’s 2 children before they got married. And when Ed and Jessie were separated for a while, she got pregnant by another man. But, because they were back together before her last daughter was born, Ed’s name was put on the birth certificate as her father.
Ed and Jessie were not only divorced before 1967, they were living in different states, he in California and she in Missouri, near St. Louis. She got pregnant again in 1971 and had Ed’s name put on her son’s birth certificate as his biological father. Ed told me that there was no way that he would claim to be the father of that lazy good for nothing 20 year old when he finally saw Christopher in 1991. Ed said that he only worked enough to keep his car in running order and mooched of his mother while he lived with her.
Ed’s official step-daughter, Linda Block, told me in Huntsville, AL at the motel on the night before Ed’s funeral in Athens, that Ed was the only father she knew. She was 4 when Ed married her mother and she got married when she was 17 and remarried to a Jewish man later. Linda said that no man could have a better father than Ed was. He made sure they had enough food to eat, clean and decent clothes to wear and he took them to the Church of Christ with him every Sunday. From what Ed had previously told me and what Linda told me, Jessie was more like a daughter than a wife, she was not like a real mother should be and take care of the children.
Linda’s husband made the reservation for me in his name at the motel and paid for the 1st night in there. They did not personally know me; but, they knew how much Ed loved me and they did it out of respect for him, too. I feel that if I had met them not long after I met Ed, I would have been treated like family back then, too. Ed’s sister, Flora, treated me like I was Ed’s spouse when we visited her in Escalon, CA in March ’85. She did not treat us any differently that she would have treated any other married couple who were her relatives.
Ed did do his best to show his love to Linda and the other daughters after I became his partner. Linda’s brother, Phillip had estranged himself from his mother’s family after he became a Jehovah’s Witness because they were “Church of Christ.” Ed’s son, Kenneth, did not show up at the funeral because Ed had not asked anyone to take him to see Kenneth when he was visiting relatives close to where Kenneth lived after Ed was divorced. Ed’s being openly gay had nothing to do with that at all. Jessie did not go to the funeral but she stayed at Kenneth’s in Huntsville when his sisters were down for the funeral. At least, the others were with the family, except for Ed’s oldest daughter, Diane, did not show up. Linda’s husband told me that Diane would make a promise to do something and not follow through with it. If I had been “rich enough” to handle all of the funeral arrangements myself (Flora paid for them), Diane’s name would not have appeared on the Official Death Certificate. She was not the one who was the informant of Ed’s death, I was and I signed the papers stating that I was his partner, too. I did not notice the error until I was on my way to Alabama.
Timothy, when you said, “The Cheneys are consistently supportive of Mary publically” I don’t think that’s entirely correct. Previously Lynne Cheney denied that her daughter is a lesbian when asked about it in an interview.
Granted, this is really nitpicking and your overall point is correct. If Mary Cheney says her family is supportive of her we have no reason to question that. It’s primarily Dick Cheney’s belief that all other gays and lesbians don’t deserve the same support and love that he gives his daughter that we should really have a problem with.
In related news, Stephen Bennett has a daily commentary at http://www.igroops.com/igroops/sbm/blog/VIEW+00000002
He supposedly calls Warren at eHarmony.com, and the response is different than what Warren has been saying. What is weird to me is that Stephen’s account of the discussion seems overly melodramatic.
Allan is not my legal middle name; Allen is.
I know exactly what happened and I think that Mary Cheney altered the actual truth in her book to make her parents and the White House look favorable, too. Even George W. Bush’s official biography does not have that two other evangelists led him in the “Sinner’s Prayer” before Billy Graham did. The 3rd “conversion” incident was a political move by George H. W. Bush and was “arranged” by him.
I saw the other “Official White House Photos,” too and I don’t understand why the other grandchild’s parents are not in the picture. I believe that it is all politics.
Timothy Kincaid, you might have seen them publicly supportive of Mary and Heather, but I have never seen it on the news, in the newspapers or at press conferences either.
Alright – first of all Heather Poe is the other mother. She is not a man and does not play Daddy in any sense of the word. Secondly, who is Stephen to ridicule others??? If he were truly concerned about the souls of Mary Cheney, Heather Poe and their son, then he would most nearly take a different approach to them. His article is disgusting at best, embarassing to believer’s and makes a sham out of our Lord’s grace.
Mr. Doty – I don’t disagree with your assumptions about Mary or Bush. Actually I think you’re probably correct. But at this point you’re just speculating based on your own preconceived biases, so how can you claim to “know” the truth in these matters unless you were present and part of the conversation?
Rick, if you still need help adding links let me know. Pasting that much text directly from another site, esp in that way, makes it difficult for those coming along later to tell that it wasn’t written by you. That’s why we have those nifty new formatting buttons above the comment box 😉
Thanks
Glad to see you take my request about more concise posts so seriously, Joe.
Norm!
We asked Alan for his comment on the press release and he gave this to us.
Mr. Doty, I apologize for misspelling your name.
However, surely you must realize that this was not some intentional slur, sign of thoughtlessness, or even an indication of my failing intellect. It was an accidental misspelling.
However, your response is curious. I dare say 99% of people when confronted with a misspelling – especially one of such insignificance as transposing two common spellings of a name – would not blink twice. You, on the other hand, trot this out as though it had some bearing on the subject at hand.
If you want to go off on wild and baseless assumptions regarding some event about which you know nothing and people you’ve never met, that’s your business. But to try and bolster you credibility by pointing out my misspelling of your name only demonstrates an attitude of arrogance and a lack of courtesy.
David Roberts, on June 5th, 2007 at 4:30 pm Said:
So I assume Chambers’ sent a private message regarding Bennett that he allowed EGW to publicize.
Again, I think it’s great Chambers is willing to speak out against homophobia and anti-gay extremists like Bennett. However, I would find his comments more sincere if he could get Exodus to take an official and public stand against hate-rhetoric as much as it focuses on opposing hate crimes legislation and gay marriage.
Rick, I saw that “clarification” too and was completely unimpressed. In fact, it lampoons his entire argument in the press release. He’s still trying to make a distinction between heterosexual adoptive parents as “REAL” parents and same sex parent parents who are “just playing house.” The problem is, he gives no new rationale for the distinction. And considering he blew his original distinction (biological parent =”REAL” parent) out of the water in the clarification by acknowledge adoptive heterosexual parents as “REAL” parents, he’s effectively nullified his whole argument. Seems like a rather lame clarification to me.
Unless he was merely wishing ot clarify what a bonehead he is, of course.
Oops, sorry David. I’ll try to do better with that. I hadn’t noticed the quote feature until you mentioned it… thanks for letting me know. : )
Well, I guess a response is required, isn’t it?
Actually, Alan called me two years ago when I posted on XGW and told me, “Don’t ever respond to those people over there. Don’t you see – they’re just baiting you and trying to get a response from you.”
Well, thanks Alan for the advice, and then I see you say one thing — and do another.
Let me set the record straight: read everything I wrote re: the press release at:
http://www.igroops.com/igroops/sbm/blog/VIEW+00000002+00000004#00000004
Regarding Alan, since he’s so “kind” to share what he did, he left out some of the additional information from his response to me. Maybe it’s best if you have it all:
Dear Stephen,
I hope this finds you well.
Someone sent me the link to your release (http://www.earnedmedia.org/sbm0530htm) regarding Mary Cheney’s baby. I was asked to comment on the release and I most likely will but I did not want to do so until I shared my thoughts on it with you first.
First, we absolutely agree that the best possible environment for a child to be raised in is one with a mom and a dad who are married and committed for life. I am not an advocate of gay adoption nor do I support fertility clinics that help gay couples (or single people for that matter) conceive. You know that I don’t support any form or civil union, gay marriage or homosexual relationship.
That said, I found your post to be in very poor taste. Sadly, Samuel Cheney has been denied a father. He does however legally (as far as I know) have two mothers. I think this is a tragedy, but it is nonetheless a reality for this little boy. There is a good chance that Heather Poe is going to play a significant role in his life and be a caregiver to him. She may not have any biological link to the child but that does not mean she won’t be a parent to him.
I took exception most with the fact that you went on and on about REAL parents only being biological. You have to know that is an affront to the millions of parents, like Leslie and me, who have adopted children. People often ask us about their REAL parents to which we reply, “We are their real parents.” We may not be their biological ones, but we are the realest parents they will ever have. I know what you meant, but it came off very badly and I think it needs to be changed.
As for the release in general, it seemed like a huge stretch and one designed to get something, anything, into the media. Criticizing the WH for celebrating the birth of our Vice President’s grandchild is in just rude. The truth is that all life is sacred and we should celebrate it—regardless of the circumstances surrounding it. Had you written a piece encouraging Mary Cheney and Heather Poe to ensure that Samuel had strong male influence in his life and talked about the negatives of depriving him of a father I would have applauded you, but your piece only came off as an angry and mean spirited rebuke of two people who simply need Jesus and of their parents who are trying to love their daughter. You have no idea how the Cheney’s truly feel and no right to judge them.
I hope you consider a retraction of some kind.
Best,
Alan
My response back:
Alan –
Speak as you must. I suggest you finish reading SBM’s full press release found at:
http://www.igroops.com/igroops/sbm/blog/VIEW+00000002+00000004#00000004
This press release had NOTHING to do with adoption. I understand how this could have hit home with you.
God does NOT call heterosexual adoption sin. Homosexual parenting IS the worst social experiment of our time.
I suggest you read the rest before making comments that I have already publicly – on our website and in the media – addressed.
Lord bless you,
Stephen J. Bennett
Alan felt the need to comment, I responded, and now you have the whole story. Enjoy.
I think the attempt at an American theocracy is the worst social experiment of our time.
I think it is important to note that the link you give above is not the “full” press release – it’s not the press release at all, but an entry in your blog. At the bottom of that entry is a link to the actual release which is also the subject of our post:
For comparison:
Press release which went out May 30th.
Blog entry about press release sometime after.
You may have written the blog entry as a response to an earlier private rebuke of what you said in your release, or you may have realized yourself how insulting your comments were after submitting the release, or you may just have wanted something to point to should this situation play out – I don’t know which. But expecting us to believe what you have submitted above is insulting to the intelligence of everyone reading this.
As for Alan Chamber’s email to you, it seems to me that he gave you more courtesy than you deserve, and your posting of private correspondence out of obvious spite is more telling of you than him.
Stephen,
Did you think you were sharing some sort of “revelation” here with Alan’s extra thoughts? It seems to me that he posted the most pertinent parts of his letter to you publicly, being ever-diligent so as not to stir up one hornets nest with another. No one here has a problem with Alan having personal religious convictions and we’re all well aware of our differences of opinion about political policy since he is typically respectful while being candid and forthcoming with those thoughts. You, on the other hand, have taken quite a different approach.
David is spot on. Your posting says way more about you than Alan.
Stephen, I agree with you 100% in the original post. You seem to think the Vice-President is evil for his presentation–undermining the President’s goals. So, why don’t you vote for a Democrat next time since your party is not serving your interests well. In fact, tell others to vote democratic next time. The Cheneys are completely subverting the family in so many ways, and I can hear the crumbling of American families from coast to coast because of this terrible thing that has happened. Biological parents are the only real parents, and it is better to be in a biological situation (even in cases of abuse and unlove) than in a loving, caring situation. It will be horrible that Samuel will be able to experience the love and caring of Heather, and he will even possibly see her as his parent. Shock and horror! Will he ever know the truth that biology is the only thing that matters? What about pets? Since pets are removed from their parents and adopted by humans (who might even be gay), that is wrong. What if the Cheneys have pets? Shock and horror!
Stephen, I am glad that you show us your light and honesty. You are a beacon of good will and truth. I hope that you no longer hide from XGW since we will “bait” you, and you know what that means when a bunch of gay people bait. Yes, I have been ironic, but I admire you for finally having courage to come out to the website. BTW, the worst social experiment of our time? Not gay parenting (if that were true, you would see loads of kids condeming the parenting and tons of social service problems–not there). The worst experiment? Trying to persuade homosexuals to be straight–causing marriages to ruin, kids to deal with family destruction, secret sin. That all comes from your side of the fence. For example, my friend who was told he could be straight, went through therapy and religious programming for 13 years, got married and had 2 kids, got arrested at the park, lived a life of desperation and killed himself leaving a family in ruins. Yes, Stephen–people who advocate change helped lead a family to destruction. Not the Cheneys.
Had a horrid moment there, but suddenly realised I don’t actually have to select which of these two men are the biggest BS artist.
Bennett’s Earned Media release contains those choice turns of phrase that one can well imagine any adoptive parent taking issue with: “real” parent, versus someone who “acts” like a parent.
Apparently… somewhere out there are Alan and Leslie’s kids real mummy and daddy. According to Stephen. Generous soul, isn’t he?
But… but…
In our excitement, let’s not forget Alan’s own efforts over the years to ensure that some of these “acting-not-real parents” are indeed treated — when push comes to shove — as legal strangers to the child, and each other. Even if the child is born into wealth and privilege and more than enough (unfortunately, often poor) male role modelling, the fact is that he and both his parents are living in Virginia… and that’s without even get into Alan’s/Exodus’ efforts to promote social ignorance and social prejudice around that child with gay parents…
In your view, how’s the Miller v Jenkins case progressing Alan?
Spoken to the Loften’s recently? Or ever?
(Is it just me: or does everyone love a catfight between two highly moral but utterly unethical people? Ha ha ha, urgh… no it’s not actually funny at all. Depressing.)
Wow, I retract my earlier statement questioning Chambers’ sincerity. Chambers’ personal message to Bennett certainly demonstrates Chambers is very committed to not-too-lightly calling-out fellow conservative Christian leaders.
I’m not sure what Bennett’s point was in disclosing Chambers’ personal message. If anything it shows that there seems to be universal agreement that Bennett’s criticism of the Cheney family is off base.
God does NOT call homosexual adoption sin. God does NOT call heterosexual adoption sin. God does NOT call bisexual adoption sin.
In fact, God does not call the adoption by any single parent, by any heterosexually married heterosexual couple, by any homosexually married couple a sin at all. God does not address adoption by anyone as a sin, no matter what the sexual orientation.
As we Southwesterners here in NE Oklahoma would say, “Sexual Orientation? It ain’t in the Bible.”
But, in the book of Ruth, the Jewish widow Naomi had no living sons at all. (You can read the complete story beginning with Ruth 1 and continuing to the end of the book by reading the rest of the chapters.)They had died when Naomi was living in Moab. Her sons had not had any sons with their wives, Orpha and Ruth. Orpha chose to remain in Moab. Naomi’s other widowed daughter-in-law, Ruth, made a one-sided covenant with her mother-in-law and pledged to go wherever Naomi went. Naomi chose to go back to Bethlehem, Judah (a part of Israel at the time).
(Levirate refers to “marriage by a widow to the closest living relative of her late husband.” In other words, “levirate” refers to a marriage of in-laws with the man being legally required to marry the widowed in-law if she had no sons.”
The levirate law applied and since Naomi’s late husband had died before she had a 3rd son, the closet living male relative was required to marry Naomi. But, Naomi was too old to have more sons. But, the closest living male relative (aka a kinsman-redeemer) of Naomi’s late husband did not want to marry Naomi, or even her widowed daughter-in-law. That levirate marriage was necessary for Naomi to get her late husband’s property back.
Naomi had actually chosen Boaz to be Ruth’s new husband and Ruth was allowed to be a gleaner picking up dropped grain in Boaz’s fields which the harvesters left behind. Boaz treated Ruth as a special lady from the very first day that he met her working in his grain field.
Ruth followed Naomi’s instructions and because Boaz was sleeping on the threshing floor, apparently to be a security guard of his property there, Ruth laid down by him and uncovered his “feet” (both literally and figuratively – “feet” is also used as an Hebrew euphemism for male genitals).
I am going to make a long story short here. Boaz redeemed Naomi’s late husband’s property which would have actually gone to her husband’s oldest living son. His marrying Ruth was equal to marrying Naomi herself. The son that Boaz had with Ruth was the same as Naomi’s son legally. When Ruth became a mother, they did not say “Ruth has a son;” they said, “Naomi has a son.” Ruth was a surrogate mother for Naomi. And it was all legal. (But, Naomi had no biological connection to the child with Ruth had.)
In modern terms, that would mean that Naomi was the adoptive mother of Obed, the first son born to Ruth.
Now comes the surrogate mother question which Fundamentalist Christians apparently don’t approve of happening.
God does NOT call heterosexual adoption sin. Homosexual parenting IS the worst social experiment of our time.
The implication, of course, is that God DOES call homosexual adoption (or parenting) sin. Ummm… what book and chapter would that be in?
Hey Stephen, those scriblings in the margins of your Bible aren’t from God.
Timothy Kincaid said:
God does NOT call heterosexual adoption sin. Homosexual parenting IS the worst social experiment of our time.
Since when is “homosexual parenting an experiment“?
Back about 6 years ago, I was seeing Dr. McCoy, a psychologist at the local Indian Health Center. He was sort of like a mentor to me and our time together was more like visiting while the purpose of the visits was to help me cope with my disabilities. One of the first things he would ask me was, “Joe, how’s your ministry going?” I was doing volunteer ministry as an individual with persons with HIV/AIDS back then.
The Doc surprised me on time when he told me that he was writing a recommendation for a gay man to adopt a child. He volunteered to do the same for me if I wanted him to do it. He knew about my background as a teacher in public school and in church, too. He also knew about the rapport I had with my nieces and nephews and their children, too. He said I would make a great father. I would have accepted the recommendation if I had a partner living with me, or who would be living with me, if I were to adopt. My younger sister’s older daughter, Rhonda, that it would be a great idea for me to adopt, single man or not. Rhonda has a daughter and 3 sons.
It would not be an experiment for me to be an adoptive parent; but, it would be an experience. I would have been more like a grandpa than a daddy in the way that I get along with children.
One time a friend and his wife were visiting me and they had two daughters. It was during winter time. When it came time for them to leave, the older girl who was about 4 asked me to help her put on her coat instead of waiting for her parents to do that. Every time they came to see me, the girls’ faces would brighten up with big smiles.
Since when is “homosexual parenting an experiment“?
I guess because it’s not something everyone thinks is ok. You know, like Judaism.
Well, sorta 😉 I imagine the “experiment” part comes from the fact that is very recent that we have begun to officially allow it in some places. Judaism has been around quite a while.
One also has to consider the source on this one, Stephen Bennett will say just about anything to get some ink. As far as I can tell, only the marginal, questionable organizations will have much to do with him at this point, so he is getting more desparate. like the bra from the 70s, he has no other visible means of support, unless he has gone back to selling signs or painting pictures of Cher.
So on the subject of Homosexual parenting, I don’t think parents are playing house. I bet the cheney’s are going to try to raise a god fearing child. Instead of pointing finger’s at “bad parenting” how about just congratulating them on their blessing.
David, you said:
Every person I know who has dealt with Mr. Bennett for any length of time has come away saying that there is something profoundly wrong with him. This includes people struggling with, as Bennett would say, “SSA’s” who have left feeling like all he was interested in is his own image and what he could get out of it.
While I disagree with a great deal that Chambers says, his actions regarding Bennett and other extremeists, have enhanced his standing with me. Sorry to say that Bennett’s standing just keeps plummeting like a rock. His obvious grandstanding is more about getting himself in the spotlight than about any thing else.
j.
Oh PUH- lease!
NOW that Chambers is feeling insulted as an adoptive parent, he gets into the fray.
Hey, Chambers the point is that if you give someone like Bennett and inch, eventually he’ll take YOUR mile too….
“when they came for the Communists, I didn’t speak because I wasn’t a Communist”.
Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. That’s why you don’t foment, foster or make it, Chambers.
The anti marriage political activity is one of those injustices….
I know a gay soldier fighting in Iraq. He’s been in service for seven years. And he’s only 26 years old.
He’s doing more than his share of securing Bennett’s and Chamber’s rights.
When they come for weasels and cowards…is there any reason for me to speak for the cowards?
This is a clear case of Stephen Bennet trying to claim he didn’t say what he clearly said.
Years of protracted shellacking of ones head with megagallons of hairspray takes it’s toll on the human brain.
I see no need to judge people on the basis of past or present hairstyles.
How arrogant for Bennett or Chambers to consider Samuel Cheney’s life a tragedy before it even has played out. How about shutting up about it for twenty years or so, then interviewing Samuel Cheney for the real story. I’m sure he’ll appreciate you insulting his mothers. And I’m sure he’ll have lots of regard for the fact that Mr. Bennett exploited the occasion of his birth for media attention. I hope Samuel’s moms keep a record of your comments so he can at some point tell both of you what he really thinks of your political grandstanding at his expense. In the meantime, I’ll tell you what I think: you both exploit other people’s situations and struggles for personal gain, and think nothing of it, and that is the real tragedy.
You’re right Phillps. Don’t you just hate it when people aren’t entirely clear about which families they want to destroy?