Search This Blog

Sunday, December 6, 2009

After Three Marriages and Five Children Meredith Baxter Outs Herself as Lesbian

Let's see if I've got this right. A woman who was married three times and had five children was really a lesbian all along and all her problems with men stemmed from the fact that she really didn't know who she was. Hogwash! Isn't it just as likely that Baxter's disastrous relationships with men turned her away from men and toward lesbianism?

And now she's making herself the poster girl for being that "one person you know" who will affect the way you vote on "gay" rights. How much of this interview was an act. "I'm such a private person." And the National Enquirer was going to out her so she beat them to it to frame the story her own way. Where does the real Meredith end and the actress Meredith begin?

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Lesbians are not born, they're made. How many years did Baxter live as a heterosexual woman? A lot more than the seven years she's spent with her girlfriend. Sexual expression is a choice. Heterosexual men in prison can choose homosexual sex as an outlet. Disillusioned heterosexual women can choose lesbian lovers who "understand" them.

As I watched this interview I recognized several women I know who decided they "had a right to be happy" so they threw off their moral values ("I don't know what I believe any more!") to justify sinful (heterosexual) choices. Meredith sounded just like them in this interview.

She can reecreate her past to justify her present lifestyle, and it may even convince some people, including herself, but I don't buy it. Rationalizing evil is still rationalization.

Pray for Meredith Baxter and her lover. Life is short; eternity is long. And as Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan recently said, active homosexuals cannot go to heaven. Mortally sinful behavior is an impenetrable obstacle to union with God. Only repentance opens the door to salvation. One of the saddest things about this episode to me is the public scandal that will lead many others into sinful choices, especially the young.

There are a few who commit serious sin, but never lie to themselves about what they are doing. Oscar Wilde, I think, was one of these which probably explains his deathbed conversion. And praise God for it! His portrait of Dorian Gray was more than a little autobiographical. Unlike Wilde, however, Meredith Baxter has not only embraced immorality, she has also become a person of the lie calling evil good. What a devastating thing to do to her children!

I'll be offering my daily rosary for her in appreciation for those seven seasons on Family Ties when she played such a loving mom. May the Lord lead her back to the truth and to repentance and resurrection.



Meredith Baxter Became a Lesbian, Let’s Pray She Becomes a Christian

14 comments:

Dorien/Roger said...

Oh, dear Lord!!! I can't believe that you actually believe the garbage contained in your blog on Meredith Baxter. Homosexuals can't go to heaven????? Apparently you've never heard of a loving God, and I shudder to think what yours must be like.

You are of course entitled to your beliefs, but I am truly shocked that in today's world supposedly intelligent and otherwise decent people can hold them.

Compassion. Understanding. Tolerance. You might try looking them up in the dictionary...and better, practicing them.

Sincerely,

Dorien Grey

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

God made the rules I didn't. And I didn't say homosexuals can't go to heaven, I said "active" homosexuals and, like the Cardinal said, it's in St. Paul. Read Romans.

No one who dies in the state of mortal sin (homosexual or heterosexual) will enter heaven. For a person to be culpable, the sin must be grievous, he must know the sin is grievous, and he must give full consent of the will. Only God knows whether these conditions exist for a particular sinner. But Baxter and others who lobby for lust are in serious danger and it's sure not compassionate to pretend they aren't.

As for the nature of God, liberals tend to see Him as the Pillsbury Doubhboy ruling over a Candyland heaven. I have more respect for God than that. He loves us unconditionally but He also wants us to return His love freely. He will not force anyone into heaven. Jesus talked a lot about who loves God: "those who hear the word of God and keep it" and those are the people who will enter into heaven, repentant sinners who turn back to God.

You seem to see God as nothing but a pushover who's beholding to your "law of tolerance." But some things are intolerable and God told us so.

dolorosa said...

A loving God is also a god of commandments and justice therefore there is a Heaven and a Hell. In the Bible, Romans 1, it is written that it is not natural.
Also, fornication can send anyone to Hell if they don't repent.

Ophelia said...

I am so proud of Miss Baxter for accepting her true self. Being happy is where it is at!

Judge Mental said...

If disastrous relationships with men caused women to become lesbians, there would be a hell of a lot more lesbians in the world.

Also, if homosexuality is a mortal sin why isn't it in the Ten Commandments? On the contrary it is listed (male homosexuality, that is) with such abominations as the eating of pork. Enjoy your ham dinner in honor of the non-ham eating Christ next Easter.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Judge Mental,

The 10 Commandments do include homosexual behavior -- it's implied in the 6th commandment that covers all the sins of lust. But if you need something more specific, an admonition from the New Testament in fact, check out Romans 1. Paul connects lust to idolatry, a natural connection actually, since lust makes sexual pleasure into an idol. "In consequence [of their idolatry], God delivered them up in their lusts to unclean practices; they engaged in the mutual degradation of their bodies, these men who exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator....God therefore delivered them up to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and the men gave up natural intercourse with women and burned with lust for one another. Men did shameful things with men, and thus received in their own persons the penalty of their perversion." Pretty explicit, I'd say!

And this from the same Paul who chided Peter for keeping those dietary rules you're talking about. God had lifted the ban against them, and Paul criticized Peter for being deceitful when he stopped eating with the Gentiles when the Jews were around. (Galatians Chapter 1)

I will presume that you are ignorant of Scripture rather than twisting it to your own purposes. Homosexual activity is explicitly condemned by St. Paul as I've illustrated and immoral heterosexual activity such as fornication and adultery are also condemned. God is an equal opportunity rule-maker when it comes to condemning lust. Does He do it to spoil our fun? Of course not, He wants us to be happy, but He made us and knows what works. Lust will never fill up the empty heart -- only an intimate relationship with the God Who made us for Himself.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Correction, it's Galatians chapter 2.

Judge Mental said...

Yes, Paul is explicit, regarding MEN enganging in lustful acts with OTHER MEN, but here again it says nothing about women lusting after other women. He merely writes that women were having "unnatural intercourse"; this could very well mean bestiality for all you know. Or maybe they were using crude dildos on themselves because "their" men were busy with other men. WHY wasn't he specific about women doing "shamful things with women"? He gave himself the perfect segue when in the very same sentence he says it specifically about men.

I'm sorry but who is Paul to tell God which of His laws are still in effect and which are not? You can't pick and choose the laws you see fit. God clearly says that all his laws are eternal. Where does God Himself "lift" those laws? God doesn't change his mind, and he doesn't make mistakes. I would prefer to read the "lifting of the ban" from God's own mouth, because from God's own mouth he said His laws are eternal. What part of "eternal" didn't Paul understand? You see, the man was an opportunist. He knew that keeping all of God's laws, as God commanded, was a stumbling block for gentiles who wanted to convert to the new faith. And he needed gentiles for the faith to survive. I understand that Paul himself kept the dietary laws until his dying breath. I wonder why. Even Jesus said he didn't come to change the Law. So Paul is above Jesus in your eyes?

The 6th commandment covers all forms of lust does it? It doesn't say "thou shalt not lust" or "thou shall not engage in sinful acts of lust". If it did it would cover adultery as well, because it's a very general statement. Adultery on the other hand is specific. Which brings up the point, why don't Christians like yourself condemn all the people who cheat on their spouses? Instead you zero in on women like Meredith Baxter who is in a monogamous relationship, but not one to your liking. Here's an idea. Let God be the judge. I'm sure you're not perfect either and you have no place to tell others they are going to hell. If it's going to happen anyway, isn't that enough for you? Why participate in hateful blogs about people who never harmed you personally?

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Oh please. Stop straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. God and Paul are not in competition. God Himself made Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles.

And God Himself abrogated the dietary laws in Acts chapter 10 when He gave Peter the vision that every animal was "clean" and told him to "take and eat."

As for me sending people to hell, is that a joke? I don't have the power to do that and personally I want everybody to go to heaven. But heaven isn't Candyland and those committed to evil will find the gate closed unless they repent. When someone is about to go over a cliff, it's an act of charity to warn him to watch his step. Only God knows the state of a person's soul, but his actions, especially when public, need to be addressed for his own good and lest the person lead others into sinful behavior.

As for my saying nothing about heterosexual lust, you obviously don't read my blog on a regular basis. I talk about the sinfulness of contraception and abortion which obviously don't affect same-sex couples. Duh! And I have also addressed adultery, fornication, and divorce.

Judge Mental said...

Okay, forget the dietary laws for a moment. Peter just wanted to fit in, as Paul had the strength of numbers on his side. This looks like a Catholic blog. Can you show me in Acts where he throws out the 2nd commandment? I hope so because I don't want you to go over a cliff.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

I'm scratching my head. I have no idea what you're talking about. The second commandment forbids taking God's name in vain, blasphemy, and swearing. Since I never swear or blaspheme I think I'm safe at least on that commandment. I certainly have my own sins which is why I go to confession frequently, but they aren't in that department.

Thanks for being concerned about the state of my soul. I can always use prayers.

Judge Mental said...

The second commandment is the prohibition against graven images, or did the Catholic Church alter that so it's part of the first commandment? I think I heard that somewhere. The one you mention, taking God's name in vain, is the third commandment.

Thanks for your time. Take care.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Do I detect a note of anti-Catholic bigotry?

Actually, the Protestants are the ones who changed the Bible. Martin Luther dropped out several books that disagreed with his distorted theology for one (Maccabees 1 and 2). And, if you look at the history of the Bible, it was the Catholic Church that selected the books that make up its canon. Some Christians seem to think Jesus handed it to the apostles before He ascended.

Shall we pray for each other?

Judge Mental said...

I don't have a bias one way or the other. Maccabees 1 and 2 are apocrypha not recognized by the ancient Jews as official canon. So I wouldn't say the Protestants changed the Bible in that regard; they merely kept the same books found in the Jewish Bible, no more no less. (Not that I wouldn't put it past Martin Luther to do anything to fit his theology)