PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona voters will decide again in November whether to change the state's constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
A 16-4 vote by the state Senate on Friday night sends the gay marriage ban to the ballot. It had previously been approved by the House.
Arizona voters rejected a similar state constitutional amendment in 2006. That measure would have also stopped the state from recognizing civil unions of same-sex couples.
Arizona law already prohibits same-sex marriages. Supporters say this proposal would protect the sanctity of families by preventing judges from overturning the 1996 state law.
Sen. Paula Aboud of Tucson, who is openly gay, accused the amendment's supporters of being "afraid of me and my relationship."
RSS
We can also boycott McDonalds http://www.boycottmcdonalds.com/
The Mac Attack just attacked our family and faith.
Yes, the pro-gay agenda will not be happy until they have all the rights that they want. And waiting in the wings of this sorted drama are the incest couples, polygamists, and others of that sort.
And this is how the tolerance preaching homosexuals react to such a statement.
"That is just absurd! Incest couples should not be allowed to marry. It's just not right. The same with polygamists. Its not right to have more than one partner."
So thus, the pro-gay movement shows the depths of its hypocracy and rhetoric.
It is absolutely imperative for California voters to get out and vote on Proposition 8 in November (an amendment to ban same-sex marriage in California - again). Go to ProtectMarriage.com and see how you can get involved.
Already, the ACLU and others are in a feverish desperate attempt to get the judges to NOT ALLOW VOTERS TO DECIDE. We must do everything we can to help our Californian brother and sisters to stop this insanity.
matt, I appreciate your response, but I'm still unclear that if someone believes that homosexuality is a sinful sexual lifestyle why they would be in favor of unions since that would also give approval to a lifestyle they are opposed to. If one is not opposed to that lifestyle then let them get married, but if one is opposed to it I would sense they would be opposed to both marriage and unions.
Believer(I've asked this question before and never got a real response, what is the difference in being in favor of same-sex unions as opposed to being in favor of same-sex marriage. Because I have heard some Christians say they are in favor of unions but opposed to marriages, I don't see the difference since both promote a sinful lifestyle that is clearly condemned by God.)
Hey, believer. I believe that same sex couples could viably receive civil union benefits. If they want to have a private ceremony and call themselves married, so be it. As for promoting a sinful lifestyle, Americans have the right to live by any moral, religious or ethical code that they choose as long as it is not unlawful. We, as Christians may not like it but imposing our will on others isn't the way to win the fight. I don't believe that same sex couples should marry in Churches because honestly, it's silly. Why would you want to celebrate your lifestyle in a place who's belief system clearly condemns it?
Hey, I just wanted to give you my perspective on the question you had
(continued)
Of course, from a moral perspective, I also hold these are wrong.
From a religious perspective, God said these are wrong (if not directly, the principles that support not participating in these acts are certainly in the Bible).
(continued)
As well, we must consider the cost of cohabitation to society. Because people who are single tend to eat out more, when they choose to cohabitate, the funds introduced to society via such activities are lacking. This is true also for those people who rent or purchase homes while they are single. The renting and purchasing of goods associated with homes/apartments introduces money into the economy - and this is reduced when two people choose to cohabitate. The benefits to society of marriage (because of child rearing and the longer and more content lives of the individuals involved) between two heterosexual people outweighs the loss to the economy in those sectors.
We mustn’t forget that people who cohabitate are more likely to separate after extended periods of time, or to divorce if they do marry, and the attendant costs to individuals and society concerning divorce apply to these people as well.
Our second someone said, “Abortion ensures that there are no children born out of such relationships, ensuring that society must not shoulder the costs of raising and supporting such children. Homosexual couples (absent artificial insemination and surrogacy) are not capable of yielding offspring and thus don’t contribute to society’s costs in that regard either. “
What you say concerning abortion is true to an extent. However, studies show (and personal experience has also shown) that abortion causes depression and other socio/psycho illnesses in many women. These in turn must be dealt with as mentioned above, and thus have a cost to society and individuals.
We must also consider that many homosexuals (even today, aside from the marriage issue) desire children. If homosexual couples who have children do divorce, the same issues mentioned above concerning divorce and the resulting lowered standard of living hold true for these couples as well.
The past successes in redefining the social mores concerning sex and marriage have resulted in high costs to society. While we can not be 100% sure this will be the case when society’s mores have successfully changed nationwide (indeed worldwide) concerning homosexual marriage, we must postulate there will be some consequences to society that will parallel previous successes.
Of course, we have not even begun to cover the other costs that attend sex outside of marriage, such as the psycho/socio problems, as well as physical problems, such as disease.
Additionally, concerning the practice of homosexual sex, there are costs to society that parallel those costs associated with heterosexual sex outside of marriage. However, there are also other physical costs that are inherent in sodomy that will increase in incidents of occurrence as more people embrace this option.
Thus, from a utilitarian perspective, I hold the position that sex outside of marriage, homosexual sex, abortion, cohabitation, divorce, and homosexual marriage are bad for individuals and society.
(continued)
Speaking from a utilitiarian perspective, it is not cost effective to allow things such as sex outside of marriage, cohabitation, abortion, and divorce, because they cost society in financial resources due to the fact that the people who participate in such things make it more likely that poeple will have to raise children alone and/or need counseling to deal with the consequences of such things. This in turn affect the insurance costs for all, as well as increases the tax burden for all.
Let us examine some of these costs:
If people were not to divorce, there would be no need to deal with the chemical and psychological and sociological aspects of the emotional ramifications of divorce. While there might be other issues that people would address through counseling and medical intervention, the effect of divorce would not be one of them. Additionally, there would be less drug addiction, because these same people would not suffer depression, or other psycho/socio disorders/illnesses brought on by divorce. As such they would not begin psychological treatment for these same disorders, and thus would not be introduced to medical solutions, which often lend themselves (by their very nature) to drug abuse and addiction. This in turn would reduce the likelihood of some of these people seeking drugs through fake or imagined illnesses - which costs society in terms of lost work, hospital visits/stays, and increased medical insurance and other medical costs, and increased taxes to support such things, including the loss due to thefts from people’s attempts to either obtain drugs or money to purchase the same. This in turn would also reduce the danger of physical violence/death that sometimes accompanies such thefts.
Someone else said, â€ÂAs for the child support matter, this potentially valid concern does serve, in a utilitarian sense, to cut counter to the typical arguments against homosexual relationships and abortion. “
Actually, in marriages where there are no children, and only one person in the couple works, alimony must be paid in cases of divorce (in most states). This reduces the standard of living for both parties. This in turn can make it more difficult to receive health insurance, which in turn further reduces the standard of living for both people, as well as increases the cost to society for many of the same reasons mentioned above. This issue is compounded when children are involved.
Additionally, even when both parties work and there is no need for alimony, their standard of living is still reduced upon divorce, thus resulting in cost to the individuals and society as a whole.
As society moves to ‘normalize’ and legalize what God considers sin, more and more things that many consider wrong or harmful are being normalized and legalized.
It will not be 20 years after homosexual MARRIAGE is legalized nationwide (and while I am against it, I recognize it will eventually occur) before pedophilia is legalized.
Its already illegal to have separate gender public restrooms in Colorado. Although I seriously doubt this was the intention, this makes it much easier for pedophiles to stalk/choose their victims.
As society moves forward in its headlong rush to not make people feel bad for doing bad things or being certain ways (its innate, or its an illness, or its genetic - pick the excuse and justification), society begins to rush headlong into decadence and crumbles much like other societies in the past. As society makes it easier to not be self-sacrificing and self-controlled, society moves toward implosion.
It used to be the role of government to ease and protect commerce and its inhabitants. Now it is the role of government to encourage individual desires and selfishness and feeling good.
Just as ‘normalizing’ (and making easier and legalizing) sex outside of marriage, cohabitation, abortion, and divorce have all had detrimental effects on ‘developed’ nations (note that many developed nations have reached a point in their birth-death rates, where there will be an insufficient number of adults to support a growing population of aging people - or are close to reaching this point without immigration), so will homosexual marriage.
Lets us examine the example of the ease with which divorce can be obtained has a highly detrimental effect on children and society. Abundant research has shown that this has damaged children immeasurably, and in turn has damaged society – with increases in behavioral problems and the likelihood that children without both parents in the home have a higher incidence poverty, of divorce and of having children out of wedlock. By redefining marriage as a contract in which one or both parties can easily break the contract, individuals and society have suffered, and are suffering. By redefining society’s mores to allow cohabitation outside of marriage, it is no longer considered taboo to cohabitate – this in turn has led to couples who do so and then marry being much more likely to divorce. This in turn causes more divorces. It is a cycle that our society has yet to unravel.
Someone has said, â€Âthe only person who can make a decision about his or her sex outside of marriage, his or her cohabitation, her abortion or his or her divorce is the person himself or herself. “
I agree. However, when such things affect me - even from a purely humanistic and selfish point of view, I have a right and duty to speak out to protect myself.
mike-
Who says I don't see my faults. Yes, I've had brothers and sisters in the Lord confront me with my "offensive" tactics but they do agree that today's church is soft and they since a re freshness of my forthrightness. Though they don't agree with my tactic they totally agree with my message - once they wither thru the names - LOL!!!
Just because you went to catholics school nearly all your educated life, doesn't make you a Christian. As far as judging you? God is the ultimate judge, so as far as if you go to hell or go to heaven - that's HIS CALL. But I judge you as whether or not you're a Christian based on you posts is a great American privilege. Are you a Christian is probably what I should be asking though? Are you???
Have a great and safe trip. I did say a prayer for you that it would be safe by the way. I love you ... even though you're a "brianiac"! LOL
Rolln, once again, you can't seem to have a discussion without pulling out some names. The methods you employ differ greatly from Jesus, I hope you do see that. FYI, I went to Catholic school from 2nd grade through a 4 year college, so I know quite a bit about Jesus and scripture. Its funny, I don't judge your Christianity by your sins, yet you feel perfectly qualified to judge mine. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. Wiat, maybe I'm making that quote up, since I don't know diddly about Jesus. Just one more thing before I hit the road (and I will be back on tomorrow, but I'm driving from CT to MD today) the names you claim gays are calling you, I have seen many people use those towards the gay community on here. Both sides have many faults. I am willing to see my own, why are you so scared to see yours?
mike-
You say: "you are attempting to force them down everyone's throughts and not even listening to the sides of those who oppose you, a practice Jesus certainly never employed."
First, I doubt you know diddle about how Jesus employed since your set against His teachings anyway. Jesus was a good name caller though - names like "get behind me Satan" when his real name was Peter. How about "broad of vipers" and "hypocrites" , "heathens", and on and on. Get a clue Mike. At least read the scriptures and post, brainiac.
"Forcing them down everyones throat"????? LOL! If you think my posting here on CP refers to everyone, then great. Remember, it's the gay agenda that is "forcing [their lifestyle] down everyones throat". They sue, harass, intimidate, name-call, flaunt the naked selfs in gay parades and do it incessantly and without respect for others feelings or religious beliefs. Join us in reality, mick.
mike-
Nice of you to chime in: You're right, I do have a tendency to "name call" a bit. Dongard does take it a bit hard too as he usually has to sulk for awhile before he comes out and plays again. Come on out Dongard - I'm sorry ... you big Baby! LOL!
Oh, Mike - on the name calling bit? Yeah, I'm certainly happy to know that you're taking the pious road as this would be totally contrary to the gay agendas method. You know the words the proudly throw at others who disagree with them: Names like - bigot, homophobic, intolerant, fascist, ignorant, zealots and on and on... but hey, I'm glad you're above all that.
Now for your history lesson: The checks and balances? I'm assuming you're referring to the judges - who you're right are not voted in via a majority. But other than that, most of what makes our government click is through a majority.
You know Rolln, a big reason Christians are losing ground is because you're not producing logical arguments, such as those Dongard and PhatDajuan made. You completely dismissed Dongard's question and quite honestly responded like an ignorant child. The will of the majority most certainly does not always pave the way in America, that's why we have a system of checks and balances (I'm going to hold my tongue and not call you a Bozo here, as you so kindly did to Dongard before.) This country was founded on Christian principles, but it was more importantly founded on the principles of freedom. That includes freedom of religion, meaning no one religion has the right to trump the others or to call all the shots in the country. There are many non-Christians in this country, yet you seem to think that doesn't matter because you're on a holy crusade from God to run the ship. While your passion for the Gospels is admirable, you are attempting to force them down everyone's throughts and not even listening to the sides of those who oppose you, a practice Jesus certainly never employed. Gays have had to get loud and in people's faces because we can only take so much of people like you plugging your ears and saying "la la la, I can't hear you, if you don't like my way, get out of my country!" Here's the fundamental problem: Its MY country too. I work, I pay taxes, I abide by the laws, I therefore have just as much right as you do to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States, and we've had quite a few hurdles to jump before we could get there. Regardless of the court's decision, I know this is going to become a Roe v. Wade type argument where both sides will continue fighting for many years to come, but I believe justice will prevail, and it would be ignorant of either side to claim their know, without a doubt, that their side will be victorious.
Hollywood was the first to crumble under the gay agenda (not that this is saying much), the businesses of America were the next to go, the military is next in line (especially if democrats have control), the court system failed under them, and NOW it's the Christian church. In Canada, pastors are being fined and even imprisoned for their preaching. If we don't stand up as a Church and fight against gay rights, then we won't have a place to worship outside of the "underground" or catacombs as someone else once put it on this site.
I agree with believer:
The gay agenda will never, and I say NEVER, be satisfied with nothing less then FULL RIGHTS in every aspect of society. The gay agenda has realized that their name-calling, intimidation, manipulation, lies, and infiltration has not only worked, but has gained steam. The know that the only real hurdle in front of them is the church and they are having some effect there as well.
I've asked this question before and never got a real response, what is the difference in being in favor of same-sex unions as opposed to being in favor of same-sex marriage. Because I have heard some Christians say they are in favor of unions but opposed to marriages, I don't see the difference since both promote a sinful lifestyle that is clearly condemned by God.
There is admittedly some disagreement within the Gay community over what's more important, the word "marriage" or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is "civil unions." If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.
Here's an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I'm sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I'm throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death.
At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically “UN-married†once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in Massachusetts continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.
At the very least, the federal government should allow Gay spouses to file joint tax returns and to designate one another for survivorship benefits under Social Security. If a "civil union" would allow us to do this, I'm all for it. If not, then nothing but full marriage equality will suffice.
Why doesn't the government just give same sex couples the option for a civil union or a domestic partnership. They would have all of the benefits(insurance, joint account, etc.)which is a big reason people want gay marriage. If they want to have a ceremony, buy rings, and call themselves married, let them do it. I just don't see the point of same sex couples wanting to have marriage ceremonies performed in mainstream churches though. Why would someone want to celebrate their lifestyle in a place who's belief system doesn't even support it. That would be like if I wanted my baptism to take place at a buddhist monastery. lol
Hey, Dongard. I understand people in your lifestyle have had a hard time over the years, but coming on to a Christian website and calling us Kooks and our beliefs a cult isn't going to help your cause in any way. "You don't support my cause because you're stupid!" isn't a very convincing argument.
dongard-
Hey, I know you won't move even despite countries that would marry you and your partner. WHY? Because we are the best country in the world! We're based on Christian values - sorry you were born here, so now scram. This country was founded on men who didn't cry when the MAJORITY imposed it's will.
Stop with the ingenuineness and get real.
dongard-
If you want the supposed right to marry into your perversion, go to a country that is more "open-minded", because we're going to do everything possible in this country to stop this same-sex marriage nonsense.
If you can't find one, let me know and I'll be able to help you out. I may even buy your tickets - as a "wedding gift"!!
dongard -
Sorry I didn't answer your question:
Why should a majority out weigh the minority - Welcome to America, bozo. If you don't like it, MOVE!!!! Like I've said before in other posts, there are countries that would love to have you. So stop your whining you big baby!
I suppose between your two choices I would most closely fall into the: Homosexual are deviant and who cares
Though I wouldn't say I don't care as I have always spent time with my gay friends to be there for them in their times of crisis - like my friends that have died of AIDS (some even accepting Christ before they died - halleluia! Looking forward to meeting up with them in heaven).
yourtaxdaddy
how true and the most consistent message that history has taught us, is beware of the priests. religion has caused the death of more states that any other reason.
several years ago i was in Egypt. in one of the temples there only remained the outer columns and the floor. back where the holy of holies used to be time had striped it clean to the floor. what remained was a clear stairway trench behind the altar where the priest would climb up and impersonate the god and demand that the king sacrifice the virgins or the chickens to the temple.
and as the tour guide so wisely noted no one asks what happens to the chickens(virgins) after the sacrifice.
religion 101.
Historically, time and time again, many nations have fallen from within as they depart from moral clarity.
God doesn't even have to pour out any judgement on us. We can choose to destroy ourselves with our own moral decay.
And if we can't do it ourselves, the activist Judges,
Justice Ronald George http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/justices/george.htm
Justice Joyce Kennard
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/justices/kennard.htm
Justice Kathryn Werdegar
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/justices/werdegar.htm
Justice Carlos Moreno
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/justices/moreno.htm
and the mainstream media will do it for us.
rollin4him
focus on my question.
i want the right to marry my partner and derive the benefits that the state gives to married couples. you do not agree.but so far most of the answers from your camp fall into two streams.
one homosexuals are deviant and who cares.
two the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. hmm seems i've heard that before. what about one for all and all for one. when can i count on you to stand beside me as i am not as you would have me be?
i believe your religion is myth and should not govern my rights as a citizen. you claim that your religion is the only answer. so what. tell me why a majority has the right to force a minority even as small as mine to live in the shadow of your grace. is this what you think america should be. the enforcement of power. and yes i know you will pull the poor baby card.
i stand here willing to accept your rights, cannot you accept mine?
dongard-
"without oneside imposing it's will on the other" - boy, are you in reality. Nice little posts, but one side WILL impose on the other. The gay agenda spends millions imposing and exposing their agenda. Admittedly, the Christians have had a huge impact in setting the moral compass of this nation, and we're are slowly losing ground in many areas. But like I said, when those California judges imposed their will AGAINST the will of the people. It's all about imposing SOMEONE"S will.
rollin4him
maybe there is a judge, who knows. i don't. guess what. that's america as written into our constitution. you know the contract that we accept as citizens.
you do have to answer here and now for rules that you seek to impose on others. i do not accept your rules. you do not accept mine. fine. this is a very old debate. and the answers in the past have not been pretty.
the promise of america is that we agree to live together and work it through. without one side or the other imposing its vision without recourse and fundamental rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
if i am wrong here then give me an answer as an american i can respect, not some christianist cult double-speak. it just won't cut it on the national stage. and make no mistake you are speaking to the nation here.
dongard-
You're right- my religion will die, but Christ and His Kingdom lives forever. And guess what - no unrepentant gay agenda folks will inherit this Kingdom. We're just passing through - Dongard - eventually you'll have to face the Judge and none of your gay friends will standing next to you - just you and the Lord! Repent, Dongard, for the Kingdom of God is at hand>
rollin4him
get out more, visit a club, talk to the 18-35 group, not only do they not believe you they don't care. your religion is dying as fast as condos in sun city.
hey dongard-
Actually, we and it sounds like the people of Arizona should actually thank you folks on the gay agenda side of things. The California over-rule has frightened and awaken scores of people.
I guess we're plain out tired of the agenda's lies, intimidation, manipulations, attacks, name-calling, victimization scheme. I'm starting to sense (not just the Christian community-either) that this game is over.
rollin4him
whoa guy easy on that garden rake, ease up a bit, sit in the lawn chair and take a deep breath.
Arizona knows exactly what is coming down the pike and are using simple common sense to thwart the lying and deceptive tactics the gay agenda has been using for years. Dongard just gave us one of those lies: "...have spoken on this issue, so why are extremists elements bringing it up yet again" That's a lie, right Dongard! You and your perverse troops know very well that Defense of Marriage act is an easy law suite to be overturned. California is the victim of this same lie. One man, one woman - overturned against the will of the people. Gay agenda has no problem putting out the "Oh, you hate us" card trick too. That's LIE #2: The victim line - notice how openingly gay rep. Paula Aboud states; people are "afraid of me and my relationship." The poor baby. You're so victimized. We're not afraid of your relationship, we want to get rid of your perverse lifestyle that you're wanting to force others to accept.
I don't claim to be a political science major, but before an amendment can be added to the Constitution of the United States does it not need to be ratified by a certain number of states who have individually voted to accept the amemndment which is why the Equal Rights Amendment never got passed?
daniel paul
you failed to address the question. christians have frequently demanded that a single instance (as in a vote) be respected as settling the question for "all time." well here's an example of a vote, and yes one that when against you point of view.
so your choice is simple here, either respect the right of the people to redefine and change there minds on issues, or accept each judgement as final. as yes this is a trick question, because the people have spoken and christianity is nasty little cult of a few kooks according to the best minds and the people of the ancient world.who are you to change the will of the people?
Daniel Paul: Same-sex marriage is not the extremist point of view. America doesn't always get it right when voting (think women's suffrage, civil rights, etc). You're just appealing to the lowest common denominator - not a Christian quality at all.
ARIZONA HERE THE WORD OF LORD!! AND TAKE HEED!! DO NOT THIS AND BRING JUDGMENT ON THIS STATE...FOR YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!
"Arizona voters will decide again in November whether to change the state's constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman."
How sad it is when we, as sinful human beings, take it upon ourselves to put God's perfect and Holy Word in the hands of sinful mankind legislation. I feel that if Arizona proceed in this great folly as San Francisco, CA; it will also bear the Judgement of all Mighty God upon it as well. God's Word is the final authority and He has made it very clear in His Word that we must not add or subtract from it. As a minister of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, I must speak a word of warning in this message, to those who would defile or change the Holy Word of God and His Laws. I pray that whoever reads this, will know that THERE IS NO NEGOTIATION OF THE WORD OF GOD in the matters of marriage that is ONLY BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. My question to those who wants to negotiate the Constitution or amend it, is how did you come into this world. Were you conceived by two men or by two women or is it as the Word of God says by a man and a woman which constitutes marriage. Is there hope for the homosexuals and lesbians? The answer is yes! That hope can only be found in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and by repenting from that sin and turning to Christ and then born-again. Please read the following Scripture and decide whose word will you stand on?
Ephesians 5:25 (NLT)
25 For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her
Ephesians 5:31-33 (NLT)
31 As the Scriptures say, “A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.â€Â
32 This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.
33 So again I say, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Genesis 2:21-25 (NLT)
21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep. While the man slept, the Lord God took out one of the man’s ribs and closed up the opening.
22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib, and he brought her to the man.
23 “At last!†the man exclaimed. “This one is bone from my bone, and flesh from my flesh! She will be called ‘woman,’ because she was taken from ‘man.’â€Â
24 This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.
25 Now the man and his wife were both naked, but they felt no shame.
1 Peter 3:7 (NLT)
7 In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered.
The PreacherAz
The term 'extremist' is one that denotes a minority point of view to the extreme. Gay marriage is the extremist point of view.
As for the majority of people in this country...we have a right to vote on issues we care about. Only extremists and tyrants wish to deny us that right. Read the Declaration of Independence concerning King George.
according to standard answer from very reliable sources, christians and the adf, the people of arizona have conclusively spoken on this issue, so why are extremist elements bringing it up yet again.