We had the chance to talk this week to Todd Wagner, Pastor at Watermark Community Church in Dallas. (if you missed it, the interview is podcast)
In a world where church discipline is almost non-existent, is it about time someone stood up and did something like this? Or can a church go too far? Is Watermark going too far?
(click here to read the Dallas Morning News article...click here to take our little poll about this.)
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Marriage Amendment Fails
Well, it's over...for now...perhaps until there's another election year.
It was not going to pass...but that doesn't mean it was without meaning. We found out how the senators voted (here)...and we found out that the only two senators to not vote were Kerry and Edwards...seems appropriate they might want to have it both ways.
I am disappointed but not surprised.
49 voted for the amendment...48 against.
Reminder why it has become necessary.
It was not going to pass...but that doesn't mean it was without meaning. We found out how the senators voted (here)...and we found out that the only two senators to not vote were Kerry and Edwards...seems appropriate they might want to have it both ways.
I am disappointed but not surprised.
49 voted for the amendment...48 against.
Reminder why it has become necessary.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Not optimistic...but always hopeful
Let me be clear if i haven't already: I am disappointed in the President.
I can't give the reasons for that disappointment any more completely nor concisely than what i detailed in the previous post.
But tomorrow when the president addresses the issue of the Marriage Protection Act, he has at least a small chance of redeeming himself with those in the base who are as disappointed as i am. yesterday in his saturday radio address, the president said what he has said before (albeit only before he was re-elected). I don't expect we will hear anything new from the president and it comes so close to the beginning of the debate in the senate that it's all but impossible to defend the charge that it's purely political to shore up a fractured republican base.
There's no way to go back in time...the president can't do what he should have done...that opportunity has come and gone...but if the president will be strong (and i feel almost silly even suggesting it) and seem to mean what his political advisers are telling him he must say, there is the chance.
What i will not do is hop on board and be proud of this president on this topic. he has lost that opportunity with me...and, i fear, enough others to make '06 a 'grave and gathering threat.'
UPDATE: a not-so-positive 'i told you so': on friday we called attention to the fact that the venue of the address had been changed from the Rose Garden to the Old Executive Office Building and had stopped being referred to as a ceremony and was now a 'speech in the White House'...and said that that is not without meaning...you might be interested in the this line from Sunday's article in the Washington Post: "The White House told activists that Monday's speech would be in the Rose Garden, but after criticism that he was using such a symbolic site, the White House moved it to an office building next door."
***
UPDATE II: in the press briefing on friday, tony show addressed the change of venue for the President talking about the Marriage Protection Amendment...perhaps the tone of it can't come through in the tracscript, but his response carried a meaning that seemed dismissive when heard and observed...that the change was not a weather-related change...here is a portion of the exchange:
Q But when we asked you back on May 19th, is this a priority for the White House, your response was, we shouldn't get into prioritizing what's Congress' business.
MR. SNOW: Well, yes, yes, yes, because I don't know how you define what a priority is. The President has made it clear what he wants. He would like to see the Senate pass the bill. But I -- literally, I don't -- I'm not going to get into a priority list even now, Jessica. It's one of those things that tries to attach some sort of a motive or political weight to what is pretty much a simple statement of something he's said many times before. (me: i don't think that's what people who will be going are expecting)
Q Was there a Rose Garden ceremony for it? (me: meaning 'he may have addressed it before, and maybe it will be 'pretty much a simple statement of something he's said many times,' but at those times he didn't do it at this level)
MR. SNOW: There's no Rose Garden ceremony. It's a speech in the White House. (me: meaning 'no...it's not at that level...it's just a speech in the White House')
***
as always, i reserve the right to be wrong.
I can't give the reasons for that disappointment any more completely nor concisely than what i detailed in the previous post.
But tomorrow when the president addresses the issue of the Marriage Protection Act, he has at least a small chance of redeeming himself with those in the base who are as disappointed as i am. yesterday in his saturday radio address, the president said what he has said before (albeit only before he was re-elected). I don't expect we will hear anything new from the president and it comes so close to the beginning of the debate in the senate that it's all but impossible to defend the charge that it's purely political to shore up a fractured republican base.
There's no way to go back in time...the president can't do what he should have done...that opportunity has come and gone...but if the president will be strong (and i feel almost silly even suggesting it) and seem to mean what his political advisers are telling him he must say, there is the chance.
What i will not do is hop on board and be proud of this president on this topic. he has lost that opportunity with me...and, i fear, enough others to make '06 a 'grave and gathering threat.'
UPDATE: a not-so-positive 'i told you so': on friday we called attention to the fact that the venue of the address had been changed from the Rose Garden to the Old Executive Office Building and had stopped being referred to as a ceremony and was now a 'speech in the White House'...and said that that is not without meaning...you might be interested in the this line from Sunday's article in the Washington Post: "The White House told activists that Monday's speech would be in the Rose Garden, but after criticism that he was using such a symbolic site, the White House moved it to an office building next door."
***
UPDATE II: in the press briefing on friday, tony show addressed the change of venue for the President talking about the Marriage Protection Amendment...perhaps the tone of it can't come through in the tracscript, but his response carried a meaning that seemed dismissive when heard and observed...that the change was not a weather-related change...here is a portion of the exchange:
Q But when we asked you back on May 19th, is this a priority for the White House, your response was, we shouldn't get into prioritizing what's Congress' business.
MR. SNOW: Well, yes, yes, yes, because I don't know how you define what a priority is. The President has made it clear what he wants. He would like to see the Senate pass the bill. But I -- literally, I don't -- I'm not going to get into a priority list even now, Jessica. It's one of those things that tries to attach some sort of a motive or political weight to what is pretty much a simple statement of something he's said many times before. (me: i don't think that's what people who will be going are expecting)
Q Was there a Rose Garden ceremony for it? (me: meaning 'he may have addressed it before, and maybe it will be 'pretty much a simple statement of something he's said many times,' but at those times he didn't do it at this level)
MR. SNOW: There's no Rose Garden ceremony. It's a speech in the White House. (me: meaning 'no...it's not at that level...it's just a speech in the White House')
***
as always, i reserve the right to be wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)