New Hampshire has "a long and proud tradition taking the lead in opposing discrimination," Lynch said Thursday. "Today that tradition continues."

It will be the fourth state to offer civil unions and the first to do so without a court order or threat of one. Couples who enter civil unions will have the same rights as married couples. Same-sex unions from other states also will be recognized if they were legal in the state where they were performed.

Lynch, a Democrat, called the measure a matter of conscience. "How could any one of us look into the eyes of our neighbors, our friends or our loved ones if we continued to deny them these basic legal protections?" he said. The bill passed both chambers of the Democrat-controlled Legislature last month, largely along party lines.

Among those attending the bill-signing ceremony was New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson, whose consecration in 2003 as the church’s first openly gay bishop divided the worldwide Anglican Communion to which it belongs. Robinson and his longtime partner plan to take advantage of civil unions. "This is not a radical departure," Robinson said of the bill. "This is a real confirmation of what New Hampshire has always been about: the freedom of its own citizens and fairness for everyone."

Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage. Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, Maine, California and Washington allow either civil unions or domestic partnerships, and Oregon will join the list with New Hampshire in January. Hawaii extends certain spousal rights to same-sex couples and cohabiting heterosexual pairs. http://www.sfgate.com

So, what’s all that got to do with us? After all, this is Arkansas and not New Hampshire, California, Washington, Michigan, or any of those other sin-backing, heathen-run states that would allow such goings-on. And besides all that, this is a church bulletin and not some political newsletter.

A brother once said to me, "Politics is politics and religion is religion". Many people I know (including Christians) use that sentiment to justify their habit of supporting men and/or women for political office whose stated intentions include efforts to undermine the moral standards and authority that God has ordained for all of mankind.

One of the greater difficulties a Christian has in standing on the "politics is politics and religion is religion" position is that first he/she has to effectively make the case that there are special areas in our lives (as Christians) where the Lord has exempted us (as Christians) from making moral choices. Not many of us would try to make arguments such as, "marriage is marriage and religion is religion", "work is work and religion is religion", "school is school and religion is religion", or "television is television and religion is religion". We don’t try to make those arguments (at least most of us don’t) because we realize we can’t make a separation of our conduct or choices in any of those areas from our Christianity. Reason being, we understand in each case the former (marriage, work, etc.) must be and is governed by the latter (religion). But when we step into the privacy of a voting booth, we somehow don’t consider ourselves held to the same standard.

"Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place (these) over them (as) leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens." (Exodus 18:21)

We were told by some in the 1990’s that character shouldn’t really be an issue when it came to a man’s ability to lead this country. In contrast, the Lord thought character did matter when the time came for Israel to choose leaders. Seems to me that’s a pretty valuable principle to hold onto anytime we have an opportunity to select those who will be in a position to direct or change the moral course of our nation. With all due respect to those who may disagree, "able men who fear God" doesn’t exactly come rushing to my mind when I hear any candidate for political office claim they would support same sex "civil unions".

And if you’re still wondering what all this has to do with us, last year Arkansans overwhelmingly elected a state attorney general (an office that’s been a stepping stone to that of our state governor) who stated publicly and whole-heartedly that he would be supportive of same sex unions for Arkansas. Next year, chances are extremely high that at least one and possibly both of the major political parties will have candidates running for the highest office in this country who will not only offer their support for "civil unions", but for equally immoral stands on issues such as abortion. That’s what it has to do with us. When we, with eyes wide open, cast our lot for men and women (regardless of party affiliation) who openly declare their support for immorality, who’s to blame when depravity becomes law of the land? It’s not the fault of the elected official. To blame them is akin to blaming a rattlesnake for biting you if you pick it up. Why blame the snake? You knew it would bite before you picked it up. That’s what rattlesnakes do. It’s your fault you were bitten. That principle has the very same application when it comes to elections. When laws sanctioning sin as acceptable (and respectable) are enacted, the fault lies with the people who cast their votes for those who passed and signed the legislation, knowing full well what that man or woman said they would support and do if elected. Why blame the politician who only did what they said they would do?

Can a Christian separate his politics from his religion?

"And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him." (Colossians 3:17)

A better question may be, "What can a Christian separate from his religion?"

This isn’t about donkeys and elephants. Nor is it about Social Security, Medicare, taxes, highways, foreign policy, or the hundred and one other things politicians wrangle over every day. It’s not even about wiping away immorality from the law of the land. This is about a Christian thinking twice before they lend their hand to helping elect those who would lead our country further down the road of moral degradation.

Many years ago, a brother said to me, "When it comes to politics, I don’t vote my morals, I vote my pocketbook" . Hopefully, no one reading this shares that or similar sentiments. If you do, then shame of you. The 2008 elections are shaping up to be turbulent. Campaigning politicians are on their stumps and Christians need to be paying attention. We need to be—we have to be— aware of the moral implications of the choices we make anytime and every time we help to elect those who’ll lead this country.

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. (Proverbs 29:2)