With the way things happen--fast and furious--I may be entering this fray a tad late, but I thought I should probably check out the Sermon on the Mount first.

Barack Obama last week stated that he was influenced more by the Sermon on the Mount than an obscure scripture in Romans. This came about in answer to a question regarding legalizing marriage for homosexual couples. He said he didn't think it should be called marriage, but that civil unions or something akin to them should be allowed, as designated by the states.

Then he said, in justifying civil unions, that he thought the Sermon on the Mount was a better indicator on how to deal with things than the scripture in Romans.

Romans 1:27 KJV states: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

So, this is about as clear as it gets in the Old or New Testament that homosexuality is not looked upon by God with approving eyes. The words lust, unseemly and error point that out, as well as the earlier phrase, "leaving the natural use of the woman."

Not sure I would call the epistle of Paul to the Romans obscure, but to each his own, I guess.

Perhaps Obama means that it doesn't say directly that homosexuality is a sin. It doesn't show up as one of the ten commandments, though most of us look at "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and extend it to all kinds of sexual sin, including homosexuality.

I've reviewed the Sermon on the Mount, from the Beattitudes in Matthew 5 through the parable of the wise and foolish men. Since there's nothing referring to homosexuality, one way or the other, in the Sermon on the Mount, Obama must be pointing to other lessons learned to justify civil unions.

Maybe he's referring to being merciful so we may obtain mercy for ourselves. Maybe it's being a peacemaker, to be called the children of God. Maybe he's pointing out hate crimes towards homosexuals in that we should not even get angry with our brother, let alone kill them. Perhaps because Jesus says love thy enemies, of which there must be some out there who consider homosexuals to be their enemies.  Forgive others their trespasses so we might also be forgiven?

Then we get to judge not, that ye be not judged, and not beholding the mote that is in thy brother's eyes before casting out the beam that is in your own.

There's a lot going on in the Sermon on the Mount, much more than I've mentioned, and nothing that justifies homosexuality. However, Obama may be saying we need to be merciful and not judge.

Okay. We should extend mercy and not judge anyone. We have desperate need of the atonement of Christ, just like everyone else. However, I don't think it says anywhere we should condone sin in any form, or that we should call it a lifestyle preference or a natural result of genetics.

None of this goes to the heart of this discussion, however. Obama isn't speaking for a church or a religion. We're not talking about interpreting the scriptures as to what they say about homosexuality. We're talking about whether or not those who consider themselves homosexual should have certain rights and benefits as citizens of this nation which have been exclusively afforded to married couples in the past.

In other words, while it may be couched in language of tolerance, love and compassion towards all men, or it may have the death of loved ones and other tragedies as a backdrop, the matter boils down to money. Should homosexual couples be able to file jointly on their tax returns, if it benefits them? Should they have right of survivorship? Should they have any say when their life partner winds up in a coma, something only immediate family or a spouse would have a right to now.

That's why any nod to the scriptures by Obama, even if the question related to Romans to begin with, was not a good way to proceed. Instead of trying to give us a Sunday School lesson, he should have just said it was a matter to be decided by the people, since it involves money and benefits. If people want to allow civil unions so that people can have something akin to marital status, then they should be able to do that. If they don't, then they should vote no. Calling the scripture in Romans obscure and throwing out the Sermon on the Mount instead was a deflection of the question, pure and simple.

But then, that's what Obama's been doing all along.