Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Society|Fri, Oct. 17 2008 10:31 AM EDT

Californians Head into 'Family Voter Weekend' with Pro-Marriage Momentum

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

One week after voting season officially kicked off in California with the mailing of absentee ballots, families throughout the state will come together to discuss their values and ideals about families during “Family Voter Weekend” and make their vote starting Saturday.

Also this weekend, the last broadcast presentation in a three-part simulcast will go out to hundreds of churches and thousands of believers across the state of California with the intention of mobilizing voters through educating them on how Proposition 8 will impact rights, children, churches, education, public health, faith, and society as a whole.

“Prop. 8 is much more than about marriage,” exclaim supporters of the ballot initiative that would outlaw same-sex marriage in California.

“The way you vote on Nov. 4, 2008, will change your world!”

With less than three weeks before voters head for the polls, support for Proposition 8 – which would overturn the California Supreme Court's ruling allowing gay marriage – has been continuing to pull ahead, last week making a 10-point reversal in only 11 days after a CBS 5/SurveyUSA survey showed Proposition 8 support leading 47 percent to 42 percent. A Field Poll just last month showed the amendment was losing.

A concurrent poll released from Lake Research Partners, a leading Democratic public opinion research firm, confirmed a change in the numbers with 47 percent of California voters for the amendment and 43 percent of voters against it.

Pastors and church leaders involved in the movement to protect marriage credit several campaign strategies for this turn-around, not least of which is the 40-day prayer and fasting commitment of thousands across the state, which began about the same time the numbers started to shift.

“No natural occurrence could explain such a dramatic shift in these numbers,” said Jim Garlow, lead pastor at Skyline Church in La Mesa and one of the team of pastors overseeing the church outreach campaign, in a released statement.

And unlike opponents of Proposition 8, which have received large donations from celebrities in often not-so-family-friendly Hollywood, funding for the “Yes on Proposition 8” campaign has largely come from grassroots supporters.

More than 60 percent of the donations have been less than $100, contributing to a total of well over 20 million raised to date, “Yes on 8” reports. Furthermore, gifts under $1,000 to campaign outnumber contributions to “No on 8” at a ratio of 12:1.

“We are encouraged by these numbers, and are heartened to see the response to all of our hard work paying off,” said Garlow. “However, we are not celebrating yet. We take this as reason to continue our effort even more vigorously as we race toward the finish line.”

On the other side, Steve Smith, manager of Equality for All, a coalition of groups working to defeat the gay marriage ban, predicted the bank accounts for the two sides would even up by Election Day on Nov. 4.

"What's happening is a little seesaw battle," Smith told The Associated Press after Proposition 8 backer ProtectMarriage.com reported taking in $25.4 million through Sept. 30 of this year. The main committee opposing the measure reportedly raised $15.8 million in donations around that time.

This weekend dozens of California pastors will continue to preach sermons on the topic of marriage and family, and families will be gathered to cast their vote-by-mail ballots in advance of the election, so that they are free to work to get other voters to the polls on Election Day. Continue »

Pages: 12
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 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    I think you misunderstood me. I said that I don't say anything different to homosexual proponents.
    I didn't say the YOU didn't. I think you misread. Sorry about the confusion.

  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    That has nothing to do with what you said: you say that I say anything different to other homosexual proponents.

    I never said that you do.

  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You didn't say "Prophet, you prove yourself wrong again and again, and I saw that on the other thread you were posting on." ?

  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Actually, I never said that, again, those are words you pretend I have said. You are becoming increasingly delusional.

  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You've seen me on other posts? Good, then we know that you're lying when you say that I say anything different to other homosexual proponents.

  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, you prove yourself wrong again and again, and I saw that on the other thread you were posting on.

  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:14 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    You said "Oh no, anyone can see that you most certainly do attack things I say consistently."
    Correct. But you take it personal. You think if I were having this conversation with another homosexual, that I'd say anything different? Well, I have had this discussion with other homosexual proponents, and whether it was you, or Joe Schmoe, I say the same things. So, you are taking it personal, which you really shouldn't.

  • Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:08 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Oh no, anyone can see that you most certainly do attack things I say consistently. You have a vendetta for me because I have proved your ignorance one too many times and you simply can't stand being upstaged by someone you would like to look down on.

  • Sat Nov 01, 2008 11:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I attack homosexuality. If you take it personal, it's not my fault. I'm just speaking what the Bible says. And anyone reading my posts on here will see that. Though I really don't need to defend the truth from anyone. It speaks for itself.

  • Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Which Prophet does not try to do. Rather, he attempts to attack me and won't answer a question honestly. Again, I say, he has no ground to stand on.

  • Sat Nov 01, 2008 9:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    (You have no ground to stand on)

    I disagree; Marriage according to Jesus is between a man and a woman; he went straight back to the defining passages in Genesis.

    And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (Matthew 19:4).

    But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6).

    I would say Jesus own words is sufficient ground in which to stand.

  • Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Again, you ignore the issue and attempt to turn the spot light on me. You have no ground to stand on.

  • Sat Nov 01, 2008 2:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Copy and paste. If I asked you for evidence to support your view that homosexuality is an inborn trait, I can guarantee you'd be copying and pasting too (because you've already done that numerous times). By the way, directing someone to a website is the same thing.

  • Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Neither do you, my friend. But it is quite apparent that those two words are different and do not mean the same thing.
    The truth is that homosexuality is a sin, and those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom of Godl

  • Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ...which we've already established you don't understand, but rather copy and paste from. Try again, my friend.

  • Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The reference is the concordance.

  • Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    OK, so then you need to find me those references I was talking about. You can't dispute a point and say "oh I read it in a book somewhere" but then tell me that you actually don't understand what was in the book.

  • Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    "Prophet, I love my partner in a different way than I love my parents."

    Now, you're getting the idea.

    I am unsure as the exact meaning of "orexis", but I do know it is different than "epithumeo", which is the type of lust that is commonly refered to.

    If I was writing a book, and in one place I said "I adore my friend dearly" and in another place said "I love my wife dearly", and it was translated into another language, that used the same word for both, it is easy to see how one could misinterpret what the message is.
    Both words are very similar in what they mean, but they are yet very distinct.
    But anyone who went back to the original language (english) would see that they are two different words. And though they may not know exactly what "adore" may mean, they would know that it is not the same thing as "love".

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, I love my partner in a different way than I love my parents. Please, do me a favor, since you have this knowledge from your concordance, explain to me in detail how the 2 lusts are different, other than the fact that one was only used once.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So there are distinct differences between the different loves.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Exactly.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    There is a difference in terms of the physical attraction, certainly, but I would take a bullet for anyone I love.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So, you see no difference between a love for your brother in Christ, and the love for your partner?

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:31 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No, because that was stated as a personal opinion, not a fact. Opinions do not require a resource, but facts certainly do. Please, enlighten me on their fundamental and factual differences.

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Eros love is way different from agape love and phileos love.

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I know it's absurd to you. But since you're so hot on having references...can you cite me references that state that the different kinds of love are merely philisophical?

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Love is love...those words are philosophical explanations of it, which are actually quite absurd to me

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Eros, Agape, and Phileo. All translate into "love"....but none the same kind of love as the other. Funny...huh?

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    But isn't it funny how they both translate to lust in our language? You have yet to give me a legitimate reference which I can read for myself, so I do not yet have any reason to think you have any idea what you are talking about.

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    I didn't say ""Oh, its a source I have in my house, but honest its a real one!"
    Keep it real.

    You think the word used in Romans 1 is "epithumeo" which is what Jesus used to describe lusting sinfully after someone. It's not. The word used is "orexis" which is similar, but not the same. If the lust you are thinking it means was the intention than Paul would have used "epithumeo".
    It's really not hard to understand. I mean if the two words were even close to being similar I might give you credit, but they are completely different words.

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, your concordance does not explain in any detail the use of the different lusts as you are saying. You simply wrote that the one word was only used there....OK, so? You need to give me something I can read beyond what you typed if you want yourself to be considered credible. Saying "Oh, its a source I have in my house, but honest its a real one!" simply doesn't suffice.

  • Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    LOL. No I didn't Mike. I looked it up in my concordance. I don't know where you got the idea that I looked it up in wikipedia....

  • Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You published a word you found off wikipedia. You did not cite a source. Please give me a website or book where I can actually read up what you are speaking of.

  • Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No I haven't failed. I posted it.

  • Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I asked you to post something here. You have failed to do that.

  • Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    LOL. The concordance doesn't exist?

  • Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Your reference is nonexistent, hence why I do not read into your posts with any degree of seriousness.

  • Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    My reference is the concordance.

  • Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So basically what you're telling me is you do not have the references for where you found that information, because this "truth" is something I am interested in reading up on. Trying to be philosophical does not suit you.

  • Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Every truth (actually very little truth) requires a ten page explanation. As a wise man once said, "The more words used to explain something must mean that the person is trying to hide something."

  • Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The lust you like to associate with this scripture is "epithumeo", which is the word Christ used in Matthew 5:28.
    The word used in Romans, "orexis", is the only time in the entire Bible that it is used. So we can see, that it does not mean the same thing as the lust that you try to propigate.

  • Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, honey, those are not references, those are things you said. References are links to entire studies or papers which I can read for myself, not a little blip. So sorry, try again. I'll wait for them.

  • Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,

    I hear what you are saying, however, as a Christian who believes in sacred scripture, I cannot agree with it. Marriage according to Jesus is between a man and a woman; he went straight back to the defining passages in Genesis.

    And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (Matthew 19:4).

    But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6).

    He saw the creation accounts in Genesis as authoritative in His day. And what is authoritative for Jesus is authoritative for Christians also.

    To give sanction to homosexual marriage would be to give approval to that lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful; however, homosexuality is just as forgivable a sin as all other sins.

  • Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If you're talking to me look at my post from Sunday October 26 at 11:09 pm.

  • Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Me?

  • Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ...whenever you have a chance, those references would be great!

  • Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    As I've pointed out, the word lust there does not mean the same lust that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 5. So, no, it's not talking about orgies.

  • Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Because they did not encounter them in the ways we do today. Historically, they were encountered in Pagan practices, not in loving relationships, and I think there is a clear line between love and lust. If I was with my partner solely for sex it would be lust, but quite honestly we can go for weeks without sex and still feel just as in love.

  • Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,

    Though I disagree, thanks for commenting on the actual passages. These passages speak nothing about orgies; they specifically prohibit relationships between those of the same gender (a man should not lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman) and (likewise also men, leaving the natural use of the woman). These passages speak of those who submit to unnatural lusts and never once do the writers of Scripture mention a love relationship between same sex couples, why?

  • Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Online, its talking about an orgy. Men left women (adultery) and then burned in their LUST for one another. Lust and love are 2 very different things, and in a committed couple you love each other. Prophet, again, you ignored my request for your references. If you claim to have a "theological explanation" with your breakdown of the 2 words, than surely you have the references so I can read it myself?

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.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
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