Updated 12:58 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Society|Thu, Nov. 06 2008 04:32 PM EST

Lawsuit Against Gay Marriage Ban Irks Christians

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

The passage of a same-sex marriage ban for the second time in California has riled gay-rights activists, some of whom have filed legal challenges Wednesday night.

But traditional marriage supporters are decrying the court petitions, arguing that such legal actions are "a brazen attempt to gut the democratic process," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal firm.

"The people of California have spoken yet again, but that doesn’t mean anything to radical groups that want to impose their will at all costs," he said in a statement Wednesday. "Once again, they are attempting to use the courts to push their agenda since they can’t achieve it legitimately at the ballot box."

California voters passed Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, 52 to 48 percent. Although the measure was approved by a slimmer margin compared to the vote in 2000 when 61 percent voted for the ban and 39 percent, against, Prop 8 supporters are calling on the public to respect the decision California voters made on Tuesday.

"This is the second time that California voters have acted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters' decision," commented Andrew Pugno, attorney for the coalition of religious and social conservative groups that sponsored the proposition.

Pugno added that the legal action against the measure is "an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself."

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit, Strauss v. Horton, on behalf of several same-sex couples and the activist group Equality California.

The petition charges that Prop 8 is invalid because "the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians," Equality California stated in a press release.

"The lawsuit is completely frivolous," Lavy explained. "No structural revision to the state constitution has taken place here. The people have simply restored the definition of marriage that the constitution has always assumed."

Meanwhile, more than 1,000 people protested the approved measure on the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco. Seven people were arrested Thursday. And the fate of an estimated 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who married after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May remains unclear.

Leading up to the Nov. 4 vote, both sides of Prop 8 raised $74 million in what was said to be the nation's costliest ballot measure this year.

A coalition that included 100,000 volunteers backing Prop 8 ran ads informing the public of the wider consequences of not having the ban on same-sex marriage.

"Some say that gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with schools. But it has everything to do with schools," one ad states, highlighting one Massachusetts couple whose second grade son was taught in school that boys can marry other boys.

The "No on 8" campaign ran counter ads that outraged Christians for messages filled with "hate and intolerance." The counter commercial depicted two Mormon missionaries invading the home of a lesbian couple, taking their wedding rings and tearing up their marriage license.

Despite the legal challenges, the "Yes on 8" campaign plans to continue to defend traditional marriage and the decision California voters made.

"The coalition that has worked so hard for the past year to enact Proposition 8 will vigorously defend the People's decision against this unfortunate challenge by groups who, having lost in the court of public opinion, now turn to courts of law to pursue their agenda," Pugno stated.

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 | 7
  • Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:09 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    FG, what I was saying is that many of the law requirments written in Leviticus pretained to the nation of Israel only and many as a result of the work of Christ on Calvary are no longer required, specifically those that deal with the sacrificial requirments, but God's view of the sinfulness of the sexual practices of the homosexual lifestyle has never changed and was dealt with from the very beginning of Creation. What Mike22685 and others have been doing is saying that if were going to hold them accountable to the laws in Leviticus that speak against the sexual practices of homosexuality then we are accountable to obey all the other laws that are found in Leviticus, which is what led to my post that you are asking about.

  • Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:57 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    aritonang,
    Mike has an aversion to Scriptures. He doesn't like it when people quote the Bible, it makes him look bad.

  • Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Arit, do you ever speak aside from your copy and pasting abilities (which I must say are quite uncanny!)

  • Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    to mike

    Romans 1 : 18-32

    God's Wrath Against Mankind
    18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

    24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

    26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

    28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

  • Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    to Mike

    1 Corinthians 6:9 (Amplified Bible)

    9Do 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,

  • Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Full gospel, please explain. I see no correlation whatsoever.

  • Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:28 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Believer, if you're trying to assert that Christianity after the time of Christ didn't have a problem with homosexuality, consider the following.

    Justin Martyr
    [W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men;…because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution…And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy (First Apology 27 [A.D. 151])

    Eusebius of Caesarea
    [H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it [Lev. 18:24–25] (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).

    63 years later the Bible as we know it would be given to the Church.

  • Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike22685, please keep in mind that many of the laws in the Book of Leviticus were meant for the nation of Israel, the Jewish people alone and were rescinded with the arrival of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Although there are many Orthodox Jews who still follow those laws today, the Hassidic Jews are a good example.

  • Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Romans 7.


    Verse 14 says it all "For we know that the law is spiritual...."

  • Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Acts 10

  • Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:42 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Arit: Lev. 19:19 " 'Keep my decrees.
    " 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
    " 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
    " 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
    27 " 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

  • Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:35 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    to mike

    Leviticus 18:22
    Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

    Leviticus 18:22 (Amplified Bible)
    22You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.

  • Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:34 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    to Mike

    Hebrews 13:4
    Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

  • Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Acts 10

  • Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Arit, do you read the rest of Lev, because if so, I hope you don't shave your sideburns or trim your beard, and heaven forbid you eat fruit from the ground (that is only for the poor.)

  • Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    for mike

    Leviticus 18:22
    Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

    Leviticus 18:22 (Amplified Bible)
    22You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.

  • Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike22685, if it involves sexual intimacy it is sin in the sight of God.

  • Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Romans and Corinthians. And all the scriptures that say that marriage is between a man and a woman.

  • Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    I still haven't found a single scripture that says being in a committed gay relationship is a sin!

  • Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:47 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I can see a woamn on the street corner trying to prostitute herself and be more than qualified to say that she's sinning, even though I know absolutely nothing about her.
    I still havent found a scripture that says we must live in sin.

  • Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Prophet, I know God and you do not know me, so I'm not sure how you feel qualified to comment on the status of my relationship with God. Again, just because people have a different interpretation of the Bible from yours does not mean that they do not know the Bible. Its a very silly point of view.

  • Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:11 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    The problems of society can be solved through the scriptures.
    As I listen more and more, I realize that you call yourself a Christian, but do not truly know God, nor His scriptures.

  • Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:03 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    You share what you believe to be the Bible calling it a sin. Your problem is that you fail to think critically about anything, as referenced in your interpretation of the Bible and issues facing society.

  • Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well, since the Bible calls it a sin, then I concur with it. I share God's opinion.

  • Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    ...in your opinion.

  • Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:16 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Homosexuality is a sin.

  • Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Prophet, I am not living in sin, you think I am. Believer, you interpret his word differently than I do, you cannot say you hold the truth and I do not.

  • Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    mike22685, but God's plan for your life will never violate His truths as taught in the Word of God.

  • Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Show me one scripture in the Bible where it says that we are to live in sin.

  • Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike,
    If "God's" plan is for you to live in sin....maybe you're listening to the wrong god.

  • Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Oh sure it is, but God also reveals his plan for each of us individually. I think to pretend I know how God's plan for me will unfold because I've read about it in the Bible would be silly.

  • Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike22685, I do not need to nor do I speak for God because God's Word is clear in this matter.

  • Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    I didn't say fight with someone. I'm talking about the freedom that Christ offers. Freedom from sin. Is it not worth fighting for?

  • Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer, you can choose to speak for God, I'm going to leave that one alone.

  • Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:12 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    mike22685, again you can call it anything, but in the sight of God it will never be seen as a marriage and therefore as long as you and your partner continue to be sexually intimate with each other you are living in sin. And if you have no regret or remorse about that, then that is a good indicator that you are not a truly born again believer, because God disciplines those who are truly His children whom He loves.

  • Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mornin' Prophet,
    First, you're givig me and excersize on this one giving I never really thought this deep into it. It's all good, though.
    Ok. I think you may be allowing your lustful man (your words from another post) to come through something that is also available to each of us ~ brotherly love. You find it all the time with older people who deeply love each other, which is to care so very deep about another's welfare. Pure undefiled deep love and commitment to another's life ~ I feel that way about friends and I have no sexual desire for them. Parnters facing down challenges. I even remember as a child devoting myself that we would someday be old and gray sitting on a porch somewhere reminsing over our lives. We are designed for relation, both sexual and non-sexual.
    So, to answer your question, if I was able to help get the medical care they needed through adding them to my insurance, I'd do it. If I had no one else in the world and I was in the hospital, I'd want them right there by my side strengthen me, comforting me, consoling me, making the tough decision in the event they needed to be made. I would want my best friend if I no longer had a spouse or children. How much more normal can you get than that?

  • Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:14 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, freedom is worth fighting for, but not with people who count, and you're not one of them. Believer, you can call it imitating, but again, I think that's a defense mechanism because you can't cope with the fact that gays are allowed to marry and in fact do have a typical marriage.

  • Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    prophet, perhaps the better term would be two people who are living in the same residence who are not romantically involved who would benefit from having those rights.

  • Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    forgive,
    So, you think that two people who are wanting the medical care, insurance, nest of kin, visitation rights etc etc, wouldn't be romantically involved? I don't know any normal people that are that way.

  • Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    I understand. Sometimes freedom isn't worth the fight.

  • Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike22685,is that like genuine imitation leather since a homosexual relationship will never be seen as marriage in the sight of God.

  • Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, I'm not going to go into my struggle with you because it would fall on deaf ears. You cannot wait to condemn me for everything I say, and you're simply not worth it. Believer, for a gay couple, who is in love, to have a "domestic partnership" with the rights of marriage would be calling it something other than what it is, a marriage. Again, you simply don't like me using the term marriage, and that is too bad.

  • Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "such laws who are each others significant other and are not in any way shape or form sexually involved. "

    There were two sisters who lived up the street from me when I was growing up. They were in their 70s and never married. They shared the same home.

    I think the problem is the tax code itself. And all God's people (and everyone else) said....

  • Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Good Evening, Prophet
    No, it is not and they never even considered it ~ they were rommmates, friends. They have separate insurance. And the older gentlemen did indeed re-write his will to make my brother-in-law his legal beneficiary about a year ago.

    My brother-in-law and friend never thought in those terms, but I can see where believer is coming from having a similar situation in our family.

  • Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    prophet, it's not just about the money, but about medical care and even the ability to be seen as the next of kin with regards to medical decisions and visitation rights in medical facilities. I know a lot of elderly couples who could benefit from this and sex is certainly not an issue. But I do appreciate what you are saying as well.

  • Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    forgive,
    Is that a domestic partnership? They should get a break on insurance and all the other perks that married people have? If one dies the other gets the goods?

  • Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Humm, I now see what believer is saying. I also have, although it's a brother-in-law, who has been in a similar situation for close to 14 years. He became a room-mate with an older gentlemen, who frankly just wanted the company and activity back in the house. (And he gained a pretty large active family.)As time went on my-brother-in-law, not ready to deal with his obesity issues, found a friendship and solace in the arrangement. Now after many years, his friend is much older and very frail and he has become his caretaker. He has also lost close to 200lbs realizing many things about his own life through this friendship. He is currently feeling better about himself and hoping to find himself a decent woman in hopes of getting married some day soon.

  • Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    prophet, heaven forbid no, but I do know couples like my sister-in-law who could and should benefit from such laws who are each others significant other and are not in any way shape or form sexually involved. The thing is that same-sex marriage/union or domestic partnership has nothing to do with sex those couples are having sex already and will continue to have sex regardless if any of these laws are passed.

  • Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer,
    So you believe it's okay for two people to live together in a domestic partnership and having sex?

  • Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "They are purely friends without any sexual desires or expectations of the other."

    If anyone missed O'Reilly tonight...set your VCR.... He had a gay person who wrote that blacks betrayed his civil rights by voting for prop 8 and his other guest was a black lesbian. Oh...my....

    Another guest raised an interesting question. What about when people want marriage to be between 3 people who all 'love' each other?

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
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