Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

Society|Mon, Mar. 03 2008 05:02 PM EST

Calif. Supreme Court Takes Up Same-Sex 'Marriage'

By Katherine T. Phan|Christian Post Reporter

Conservative legal groups will face off with gay rights groups before the California Supreme Court Tuesday in a precedent-setting hearing that will determine whether two people of the same sex can marry.

Alliance Defense Fund and Liberty Counsel will be representing two pro-family groups who argue that the court should not redefine marriage for the sake of family, culture and children.

A brief submitted by ADF on behalf of Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund highlighted a ballot initiative, defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, California voters overwhelmingly approved in 2000. The group has warned that the court would be guilty of judicial activism if it were to overturn the will of the people.

“The government should promote and encourage strong families. In this case, marriage laws that will do that are under attack by political special interests wishing to further their agenda,” said Glenn Lavy, an ADF attorney.

“The law California voters passed defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Californians know this is the foundation for strong families. But certain special interest groups are trying to bypass the democratic process by asking the court to redefine marriage.”

Attorneys representing same-sex "marriage" advocates, on the other hand, have likened the gay “marriage” ban to racial discrimination and thereby unconstitutional.

Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex couples to legally marry.

The hearing is the culmination of years of the California high court's tackling with the marriage issue.

In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed some 4,000 gay and lesbian couples to wed in city hall. The state high court later voided all the same-sex "marriage" certificates, ruling that the mayor had overstepped his authority.

Lawsuits arguing for and against same-sex "marriage" were lodged in the California court system and consolidated in a case argued before Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer. In March 2005, Kramer declared that the state's marriage laws were unconstitutional, but his ruling was reversed by the California Court of Appeals in October 2006.

The California Supreme Court will review the 2006 ruling through six lawsuits – four of which were filed by the city of San Francisco and same-sex couples in support of same-sex “marriage.” The other lawsuits were filed by the Campaign for California Families (CCF) and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund in defense of the current definition of marriage.

Attorneys arguing for legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Tuesday's hearing will represent the City of San Francisco and three separate groups of plaintiffs representing 23 same-sex couples from Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Parties arguing in favor of preserving California marriage laws will include the state attorney general, a lawyer representing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, and CCF.

In addition to the hearing, the seven justices will also consider the legal arguments contained in thousands of pages of briefs submitted by over 40 interest groups.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The reasoning behind a marriage ceremony is to proclaim their vows of marriage to the public. They are proclaiming their decision to remain married to one another unto death. It's accountability. People could argue that a wedding is man-made institution and is not necessary to be married before God. Thus common law marriages become "authenticated." But the reasoning behind common law marriages, for the most part, is just two people who are involved in a dating relationship who happen to live with each other for a certain length of time. They have made no vow before God to remain faithful to each other till death. It's just a relationship of convenience, not neccesarily love. If they truly loved each other they would make that commitment before God..AND man.
    But people do not want to be held accountable. They want a love of convenience, that can be terminated at any time for any reason.

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:36 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Greetings and Salutations,

    Oh we of little faith.
    Where did the idea that God created marriage come? God created man, "male and female" created he them" (the "soul", it is neither male nor female). God shall later create the physical body and blow into it the "soul" (breath of life). He later will separate the genders.
    That man shall have companionship.
    And man shall cleave unto women, the two shall become as one.

    I might mention that the idea of man having one less rib than women is a fallacy. Males and Females have the same number of ribs. :)

    "Marriage" is an institution of Government, not of God. A piece of paper, a contract, which can be, or not be validated by the church in the form of a wedding.
    A wedding is an oath of two. A VOW unto God. Not a legal contract of man.

    As for me, who would I be to sit in a chair of passing judgment and claim the right to deny any human a Vow unto the Lord God? At the judgment, shall I be taken before God to say, "Yes Lord God, in the name of Jesus, I protected you from a Vow"?
    No, I am surely not so righteous as to demand others tow the line of my devotion.

    Love

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    QT,
    Yes, it does say in the Bible that we are all sinners.

  • QT »
    Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:32 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

    BTW,
    The term “rib” is just as easily be translated as “side.” Therefore, Adam, the primordial original male/female was split from head to toe. This idea is intimated by the last verse “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will cleave to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” That is, they will once again be “one flesh.”

  • QT »
    Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:28 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

    <<<“And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” (Gen 2:22)

    God gave His son a woman (wife), not a man (husband). Jesus did not suffer on the cross to change what God created as a proper marriage, but Jesus did suffer on the cross to offer change and deliverance for those who are walking contrary to what proper marriage is. Praise God! >>>

    I believe that modern evangelical Christians put way too much emphasis on these early CREATION myths and distort what is actually being said here. The main thrust of Genesis is that the creation is “good.” We read in verse after verse in the first chapter of Genesis that God says his creation is Good. Yet the early Church and modern evangelicals continue to make this a story of the "bad fall of mankind." Christian philosophers had to conclude, with this distorted understanding, that humans are born with "original sin," a concept which is found NOWHERE in the Bible.

    Yet as any story teller knows, every good story needs a villain. Therefore the Serpent is introduced into the plot. What a great way to explain why “bad things happen to good people” and why there is suffering in the world? The Genesis story is not unique among the myths of the world in this respect. This story is merely a "placeholder" to explain things that ancient people could not understand. It’s not to be taken literally. Yet many people do, I'm sad to say.

  • Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:08 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Tom - you couldn't be further from the truth . . . but your accusations make me wonder about you and "all your friends."

  • Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:38 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    “And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” (Gen 2:22)

    God gave His son a woman (wife), not a man (husband). Jesus did not suffer on the cross to change what God created as a proper marriage, but Jesus did suffer on the cross to offer change and deliverance for those who are walking contrary to what proper marriage is. Praise God!

  • Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Plus I went to bed after I made my last comment and I wanted to know what they said - I have a pretty good idea but still wanted to read it.

  • Tom »
    Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    looks to me like ifeel and all his friends have a hard time with the truth so they just deny and flag
    Hmmmm Gods Blessing In Christ

  • Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:09 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them…” (Gen. 1:27, 28).

    As far as intimate relationships go, that is where it began.

    “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made” (Gen. 2:2).

    As far as intimate relationships go, that is where it ended.

  • Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:07 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    God made them male and female. Man’s helpmate was not made from the same direct substance as he was. That which was taken from man (woman) is the only one who can properly become one flesh with him (husband & wife). The wife assumes the role of protecting from within (rib), while the man protects from without.

    Two males are contrary to becoming one flesh according to God’s plan. Neither one was taken from the other. Neither one has the true ability to function as a rib (spiritually speaking). Therefore, becoming the one flesh that God intended is impossible for two males. Such a relationship is earthly, sensual, and devilish.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    aritonang,
    Amen.

    Overseer,
    Be very careful about what you say. God does not, in any way, enjoy sending people to hell, and He is very remorseful for having to do so. He loves each and every person who has ever been born. That includes murderers, rapists, homosexuals, liars, thieves, adulterers. Even you. "For God so loved the world....", "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
    I may come down on homosexuality (as well as all sins), but I would never say that I, or God, is happy that they are going to hell. I believe on that final judgement day that God's heart will be heavy with a grief that we could not even begin to fathom, as He says to countless people "depart from me...."

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:49 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    1 Corinthians 6: 9-10
    Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled) neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:08 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Monkey wedding pulls in the crowds in India

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/news/2008/02/26/wmonkey226.xml

    It is madness, I tell you.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:56 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    But, as always, ifeelfine is trying to get off the subject. I wish he would give me some kind of reasonable explanation why homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but not brother and sister.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    And yet, throughout the epistles, it promotes having only one wife.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:51 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine,
    It's just extemely narrowminded and judgemental of you to believe that the love shared between a man and woman in marriage, and two men in a marriage, is not the same love that can be shared between a brother and sister.
    You are right when you said "Where do we draw the line?" The answer to that, is we draw the line where God originally drew it: a marriage between a man and a woman.

    And if you ever come up with a petition to promote marriage between a brother and sister, let me know. Only then will I know you are truly concerned about the fate of non-traditional marriages. Love between two men is the same love that incest siblings share. If you can't support that, then get a new angle on why you are promoting gay marriages, because no one can take you serious otherwise.

  • Tom »
    Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sure ifeel is that the only part you take as true? or just when it fits your beliefs? hmmmmmm just wondering.
    Gods Blessing
    In Christ Tom

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Actually Prophet - polygamy was just fine in God's book originally. It's all over the OT and God seems to bless it on several ocassions.

  • Tom »
    Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I know how about we draw the line at what God says? One man One women the two become one. ANYTHING else is wrong in His eyes. including homosexaulity, more then one wife/husband sex before marriage, sex with soemone other then your wife, including someone of the same sex. Personally I like Gods standard becuase it is perfect. We humans on the other hand we sure no how to screw things up. I think we need to just repent of our sins, all of them, not just homosexaulity, turn from our sins and follow the narrow road that leads to eternal life. Thru Jesus Christ. Gods Blessing
    In Christ Tom

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:52 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Prophet - You're so right. Where do we draw the line? It's such a slippery slope that we shouldn't allow marriage at all. I mean if you allow a man and a woman to marry, pretty soon a man will want to marry two women, where does it end? Let's do away with marriage all together.

    The slippery slope argument is completely ridiculous and morally bancrupt. If you want to argue that a life long partnership between two loving people is equivilant of incest, go for it but so far you haven't made the point. Good luck to you on it though.

    Are you interested in signing my no divorce petition? I mean after all, if we allow divorce, where will it end, pretty soon, divorced folks will want to get remarried - we can't have that. And pretty soon, they'll want to get married five, six, maybe even seven times.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:32 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Well, it couldn't be about love. Otherwise, you wouldn't have a problem with the brothers and sisters who are in love with each other, who want to get married.

    If it's not about tolerance, nor about love, what's it about?

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Prophet: You don't get it at all and never will. So you think allowing gay people to marry is just about tolerance? It completely shows how ignorant you are.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:20 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    dont tell me that ifeelfine is really a bigot in disguise, is he?

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet: Tell me, why would I want to allow that?

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine,
    While you're in the mood for petitions, don't forget the petition to allow brothers and sisters to marry.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Tom: If you would sign the petition, then why not comment on CP on stories regarding divorce? And if you're serious about the petition - I'll give you my email address as I would love to get that going - seriously, I would.

  • Tom »
    Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    wow two for one BAP and ifeel i'm honored. BAP didn't say a jack-rabbit would be a crow but it would think it was a crow if it was raised by one with out the influnce or bonding of a moma or dada jack rabbit. Same with someone who is gay more then a few studies say that something was missing from our very young age which cause one to have some very strong emotional pulls to one of the same sex. Thus your not really born that way. Let me ask you a silly question, do you remember your first step? first words? how about being potty trained. How about getting spanked under the age or 4? kissed? hugged? most people cann't. does that mean then I was born potty trained? speaking? walking? nope! something influenced me to be able to do so. Now before you get yourself all in a tither, I am not equating being gay to potty trained but the theory is the same. to answer ifeel question yes I have had some pretty indepth talks with those who were/are homosexaul, and we still are friends, Why becasue they know that i value there friendship and their human worth WHILE not agreeing with thier position and with them knowing that I believe that the Bible is clear about homosexaulity and that it is a sin no more no less then others. As for signing your petition yes i would. Now ifeel i really don't care if you think I am calling God a lair or not with regards to Homosexaulity monogamous or not. I don't answer to you I answer to Him thru Jesus and They say it is a sin without making any distinction. Gods Blessing and we will be praying for ya
    in Christ Tom

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    God made them male and female. Man’s helpmate was not made from the same direct substance as he was. That which was taken from man (woman) is the only one who can properly become one flesh with him (husband & wife). The wife assumes the role of protecting from within (rib), while the man protects from without.

    Two males are contrary to becoming one flesh according to God’s plan. Neither one was taken from the other. Neither one has the true ability to function as a rib (spiritually speaking). Therefore, becoming the one flesh that God intended is impossible for two males. Such a relationship is earthly, sensual, and devilish.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    And another "just out of curiousity" question for you Tom: If I started a petition to get a measure on the ballot to make adultery illegal (except in instances of marital infidelity), would you help me collect signatures?

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:14 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Whoa, Tom!

    You can’t be putting words in my mouth. I never said a jack-rabbit could – in a million years – ever choose to be a crow any more than a gay guy could choose to be a straight guy. I might be country, but I’m not stupid.

    By the way you never did prove how exactly a person becomes straight. Were you gay and decide to make the flip? If so, how’d it happen for you? If you know of any gay folks, personally, who switched to the, have ‘em post here. I’d love to chat ‘em up and know it’d be a grand time of fellowship.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:12 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Tom - How many gay people do you really know? . . . And by "know," I don't mean the Old Testament "know" :) Really, how many? Have you taken the time to sit down with a gay person and find out about their life, what they're like, etc? Have you really listened to what they are saying? I'm curious - I bet the answer is "no" because its hard to have a conversation with one and not come away with a sense that they didn't have a "choice" in the matter. I know probably 30-50 gay people and every one of them said they were born this way. And it makes sense, I was born the way I am, you were born the way you are. Personally, I think you call God a liar everytime you say things against monogomous homosexual relationships because the evidence is there - they were born that way.

  • Tom »
    Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Gee and I thoiught you would come up with something clever being you a country boy an all now that is the d*****rnest thing I do declare you disappoint me, oh well Gods Blessing on ya In Christ Tom

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Gee, Tom

    I widh you'd have re-posted your original message to me. Your posting really seemed to change A BUNCH since the first time I read it (and someone had the God-given sense to flag it)...

    I guess you decided it was better to back-pedal on all the profanity masked with just startin' letters, endin' letters and a whole lot of ********* in between

    Shiucks, when I first read your piece, it made me think of Romans 3:13-15 (King James Version - It's what my Momma and Pappa) raised me on): 13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15Their feet are swift to shed blood."

    But than again, that's just my little ol' take on things.

  • Tom »
    Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Your right BAP it is a strange choice, but you can bet if that jack rabbit was raise by them there crows without the bonding from moma or dada jack. That little ole rabbit would be running around the country trying it's darnest to fly, Same way with someone who is gay, cept they are human and can make choices. They can either seek help and healing that God offers or to follow the wisdom of the world and become part of the gay lifestyle,it is still thier choice. tough choice I agree but a choice nontheless my friemd. Enjoy the snow spring is coming. Gods Blessing oh yea seems some just can't stand to hear the truth so they just flag and deny. Oh by the by I would and have welcome anyone from the gay lifestlye into my church just as I would a drunk, adulter, etc etc., Jesus never turned anybody away, but it wouldn't change the message I would speak.Sin is Sin Out of Love of course. In Christ Tom

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Darn it! I was just getting ready to reply to Tom when someone flagged his posting. Tom would you mind re-submitting.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Patriot,

    I agree with what you said. It just doesn't add for up, even logically, to say that this is a style of life they'd want, or choose to have, especially considering how culturally taboo it generally it is and all they have to lose in the end.

    When one weighs both the pros and cons from the gay persons perspective, it's hard to argue this is a lifestyle that they'd want to have and be involved in knowing full well all the consequences involved. Who'd want to be on the end of such hostility?

    It would be like saying that a black person, if given the choice to pick their color of their skin, and they lived in the South, especially prior to the cival rights era and that from the non blacks (who in this case would be symbolized as non gays) view say that these blacks choose their lifestyle. Or perhaps, consider yourself a jew in pre nazi germany only to be told that you some how just don't cut it and aren't allowed certain rights simply b/c of circumstances related to your birth that you personally had no control over at all.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:08 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Howdy, Tom!

    Whew, you sure are saying a lot of stuff here. I wish to goodness that I could muster up all the fancy ideas and words you and other folks here have been tossin’ into the ring. I’m just a country boy sittin’ next to the fire, lookin’ out the window and takin’ in some of this pretty white snow.

    You said gay boys choose to be that way. Pardon my sayin’ so, but that don’t make too much sense. Like they’d really want to get their fannies whooped by puttin’ the moves on the wrong guy, families disownin’ them and everyone starin’ at ‘em at the local store, cafe or gas station, or facin’ folks like you at church? Nope – it just don’t add up. Heck, it’s almost like sayin’ a jack-rabbit can choose to turn into a crow if he flaps his big-ole bunny ears hard enough. Nope. You just don’t make good sense, friend…

  • Tom »
    Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Yes you are right nowire but then again Jesus did say many are called but few are chosen didn't He. As far as Narth and Love won out and such. By their succes rate they show that one can change if they wish to, with the Lords help. And it saddens us to see those who profess to be Christians walk away from what the Bible clearly says and support what clealy is a sin in Gods eyes. Not just ours but more important in His.. You see nowire I have no desire to see anyone take the wide road that leads to destruction, but that all would come to repentance and seek Gods Kingdom in Spirit and Truth through His Son Jesus Christ. Where our minds can be renew into the things of God. Gods Blessing on ya In Christ Tom

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:52 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Tom says: "As Christian we need to stand up to the evil that is working it's way through society..."

    But enough about fundamentalism. It saddens me to see people implying that those who are being Christlike in their acceptance of homosexuality are not true Christians. Then they worry about more and more people turning away from the church. If you continue to exclude anyone who disagrees with you, it would be the end of Christianity. Fortunately, more rational minds will prevail.

    As for groups like Narth and Exodus, their "success" rates speak for themselves. And if they didn't fill innocent people with self-doubt in the first place, and then claim to be able to "cure" it, they'd be out of business.

  • Tom »
    Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    Yes and if you would read the writings of the founding fathers you would find that they did indeed ackknowledge that this country was founded on Judeo/Christian beliefs as found in the Bible. Washington was not a deist according to many historians and his own writtings, but is this an agrument about the goverment or its role. Or is this is a moral issue that Christian need to stand against? Me thinks both John Adams said in 1798 Oct 11th "Our Constitution was made only for a moral religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" This country welcomes all and should. there are also laws on the books that will protect those in the gay lifestlye. Since it is a choice they should not be crying out for a morally equivalent solution. Sorry. As Christian we need to stand up to the evil that is working it's way through society. Gods Blessing In Christ
    Tom

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:18 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Re; JoshGilmanTue Mar 04, 2008 2:24 pm

    You make three claims.

    Your first assertion is that same-sex marriage degrades the original intention of marriage. Help me understand the historical, theological, scientific and legal rationale supporting your claim.

    Your second contention is that homosexuality is a sin. Again, you do not support your claim within a theological context. Please help me appreciate you position by explaining, in detail, what you mean.

    Thirdly, you suppose I have never met a person like you, before. You could not be more mistaken.

    More importantly, what you have also failed to do is justify how theological arguments have any place in legislation within the United States.

    The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of 1787 are the bedrock foundation of our non-sectarian United States. These documents, crafted by America’s “Independence Fathers” through group consensus do not make our nation a Christian state.

    The Declaration of Independence makes one reference, each, to: “Nature’s God,” “Supreme Judge of the world,” Creator,” and “divine Providence.”

    Colonial leader Stephen Girard and other atheists could simply acknowledge this language as poetic metaphor. Deists, such as Franklin, Jefferson or Washington were certainly amenable to neutral religious language. And theists, including Jewish colonist and revolutionary congressman, Francis Salvador – the Catholic and Declaration signatory, Charles Carroll – and Protestant colonists of any denomination – could easily attach rich meaning to this language in ways unique to their own faith traditions.

    The Constitution of 1787, having no other theological references, closes, “in the Year of our Lord.” These words don’t make the Constitution a Christian covenant. This expression was a convention for dating the year – having no more significance than weekday or month names do. “Thursday” does not mean that Americans worship Thor. Nor does “July” or “August” signify that the US is in covenant relationship with the Roman emperor and deity, Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus.

    The Bill of Rights makes no reference to God.

    These three documents do not mention “sin,” “sinner,” “Jesus,” “Christ,” “Jehovah,” “Redeemer” or “Savior.” They are not a “Christian Manifesto,” as some claim. They demonstrate the bold willingness of all those signing these texts to set aside religious differences “in order to form a more perfect union.”

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:04 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (Titus 2:11, 12).

    The grace of God is a teacher, teaching us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, to live soberly, righteously, and godly. If we say that we are a Christian that has the grace of God in our lives, but we deny and walk contrary to the teachings of grace, then we speak as a liar.

    In addition, the grace of God that bringeth salvation will teach us that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination. If we think otherwise, then we are sitting under the tutelage of a substitute teacher, a liar and a deceiver.

    I question the spirit behind any religious organization that shouts loud for legalizing an abomination while silencing the holy scriptures that speak against that abomination. Such organizations have replaced the Holy Spirit with an effeminate spirit. These organizations look longingly towards Sodom and Gomorrah, justifying their return to the cities of abomination by twisting scriptures unto their own destruction.

    May the eyes of their understanding be enlightened before it is too late, and indeed, the hour is late.

  • Tom »
    Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Actually joe all ya did was some nice ad hominem attacks yourself although as ifeel say a little bit more articulate. So I guess we don't have much of a dialogue. Gods Blessing on you and yours
    In Christ
    Tom

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:54 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Re: Tom Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:28 pm

    Tom, I took the time to respond to each of your points in my Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:55 pm posting.

    I simply ask that you return the favor, in kind. Unless you return the courtesy of responding to my points - which you have not - we are not engaged in a dialogue.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:34 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Regardless of the side of the debate on which you sit, at the very least you should report things accurately. There are 3 primary branches of government: the executive, judicial, and legislative. In California, the legislative branch has twice approved laws that create same-sex marriage. The governor vetoed the bills both times with the statement that the judiciary should determine the outcome and that he would support that outcome either way. So if the SC of CA rules in favor of same-sex marriage, it won't be judicial activism as at that point as all three branches of government would have spoken (albeit with a bit of weaseling on the part of Schwarzenegger).

    Moreover, while 8 years ago prop 22 passed, there is ample evidence that this is no longer the majority view in California. People's views do evolve (whether for the better or worse is up to debate: e.g. Disco). I'm certain that if there had been a ballot initiative in CA in 1920 (and many other states decades later) to outlaw interracial marriage it would have handily passed. However, no one would suggest that such a ban would represent the majority view.

    Its certainly reasonable to argue against same sex marriage from a moral perspective if that's one's belief, but its intellectually dishonest to incorrectly present data supporting that view. In the end, that sort of data manipulation and the (profoundly linguistically annoying) use of sneer quotes around the word marriage make many supporters of traditional marriage look like a bunch of redneck hicks who couldn't argue themselves out of a paper bag. Sneer quotes are a linguistic cludge that shows the author is simply too lazy to describe exactly why he disagrees with the terminology. Use it or don't use it. But don't be a weasel.

  • Tom »
    Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:28 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Jay, if you would care to check the NARTH web site, you will find many articles relating to the subject at hand. as well as exodus international as well as Love won out plus more for personal testimonies of those who's lives have changed. Bibilically as you seem to know or should we are not to condone sin. We in fact are to stand against. To be a light and salt to a lost world. Are you if you stand for gay marraige? or any sin for that matter? but this one is a choice as appossed to one where you have no choice. i.e gender race. No I will stand by my statement. If you condone the sins of this world in which the Bible so clearly states as wrong then you do need to look at your belief system and hold it to the light of the world Jesus Christ and His standard. He doesn't and hasn't changed. So pray that is a good thing but seek His Kingdom and His righteousness first. Gods Blessing In Christ Tom

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    Jay Walsh,

    I do not support same sex marriage simply because I believe it degrades the original intention of marriage, and that in general homosexuality is a sin. I have no person vendetta against same-sex couples nor do I discrinimate them in any way whatsoever. I do not believe someone who is homosexual is anymore worse or better than me. I don't hate the person, I hate the sin (As Jesus said).

    It seems to me you've never met a person like me before. From your descriptions it sounded like those opposing same-sex marriages had some personal vendetta against it. I simply am following God's commands by not endorsing sin in the country I live in.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:55 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Re: Tom Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:06 pm

    Tom: Contrary to your assertion - which you neither defend nor explain - denying same-sex couples equal access - when it comes to enjoying the protections, rights, privileges and responsibilities enjoyed by heterosexual couples - under the law in civil marriage IS most certainly a human rights issue. Plain and simple.

    “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” We separate ourselves from so-called Christians who twist the Word to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties. And we will stand firmly with these couples who request nothing more than equal treatment under the law.

    You assert that people are able to change their sexual orientation, yet provide no scriptural and scientific justification for your position. Tom, are you able to change your sexual orientation to a same-gendered object, at will? If so, we would love to hear more about it. You say that supporting the civil rights of ALL tax-paying Americans who wish to marry is biblically wrong. Again, you provide no detailed explanation or irrefutable proof.

    Because my family and I radically disagree with you, you suggest we are not Christian and our beliefs are illegitimate. How intellectually weak and spiritually bankrupt your arguments must be to resort to mere “ad hominem” attacks.

    My family and I will be praying for you, as well.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Jay Walsh - I wish I was as articulate as you! Great post!

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links