Saturday, November 07, 2009 Last Update:07:14 pm ET

Society|Thu, Dec. 04 2008 08:19 AM EST

Calif. Lawmakers Introduce Resolutions Opposing Prop. 8

By Lawrence Jones|Christian Post Reporter

Two California lawmakers and openly gay members of the Legislature have introduced measures supporting the repeal of Proposition 8.

  • protest proposition 8
    (Photo: AP Images / Stephen Chernin)
    Thousands of protestors gather near City Hall to rally against Proposition 8, Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008 in New York City. Rallies took place nationwide to protest the ban on same sex marriages.

On Tuesday, state Sen. Mark Leno and state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, both Democratic lawmakers from San Francisco, introduced concurrent resolutions that seek to put the California Legislature on record opposing Proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage approved by 52 percent of voters last month.

The bills argue that the measure, which amended the California Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, was an illegal "constitutional revision" that should have been passed by two-thirds vote by both houses of the legislature before being submitted before voters.

But backers of the controversial measure contend it was an amendment that was legally enacted through the state's initiative process.

The non-binding resolution would put the state's lawmakers on record in support of arguments made in the lawsuits challenging Proposition 8.

Legal experts have said the resolution will unlikely affect the ruling by the California Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case in Spring 2009.

"This is the court's decision, not the Legislature's, just as whether you balance the budget is the Legislature's decision and not the court's," said Jesse Choper, the Earl Warren Professor of Public Law at UC Berkeley's School of Law, according to The San Francisco Chronicle.

Supporters of Proposition 8 accused the lawmakers of “grandstanding for the cameras.”

“You’d think that these legislators would be focused on resolving the budget deficit or improving the economy," said Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, which headed the Yes on 8 campaign. "Instead, they seem more interested in grandstanding for the cameras and thumbing their noses at voters who enacted Proposition 8 by a nearly 600,000 vote margin."

A new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that the measure received its strongest support from evangelical Christians (85 percent) and Republicans (77 percent).

Andrew Pugno, general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, said he was confident Proposition 8 will be upheld.

"The Court is not swayed by meaningless legislative resolutions that have no bearing on the outcome of the court challenges," said Pugno. “This resolution adds nothing to the debate about the validity of Proposition 8."

The bills introducing the resolutions were supported by the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Legislative Caucus and several gay rights groups including Equality California, which is behind one of the three lawsuits challenging the measure.

Forty-four state lawmakers have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The three individual cases are Strauss v. Horton Tyler v. Horton, and San Francisco v. Horton.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign have until December 19 to submit arguments to the state Supreme Court explaining why the measure should be upheld.

In May, the California Supreme Court overturned a 2000 state law banning same-sex marriage. The passage of Proposition 8 reversed the court's ruling.

In addition to determining the validity of Proposition 8, the court is also expected to decide the fate of some 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in the state.

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
  • Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    yes i have but you ignore my answer, so that you don't have to feel guilty about what you do.

  • Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:52 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    You are still not answering my question, and I think its because you know you are not a good Christian when you behave in such a foul manner.

  • Sun Dec 14, 2008 8:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    awwww....mikey's playing peek-a-boo! "if i dont acknowlege what you said, you must not have said it"...how sweet. how cute. how infantile and lame.

    and you ignore my answer, so that you don't have to feel guilty about what you do.

  • Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Again, you ignore my question and attempt to insult me rather than answer it. I doubt God is smiling down upon you right now.

  • Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    boy, some people get REAL touchy when you speak the Bible to them. expecially if it contradicts their sin. nobody likes having their sin condemned.

  • Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    No, what you are doing is trying to make inflammatory remarks that don't have any basis in the Bible. Do you really believe your behavior of mocking everything people say is what Jesus would do?

  • Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:47 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    God tells us to judge sin. that's what im doing. so i am fine.

  • Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Funny how you ignored my question. Please answer, and then I'd be happy to respond!

  • Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    tell me, with your foul lifestyle, do you truly believe you are doing as Christ wished?

  • Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You make proving your ignorance an extremely easy task. Tell me, with your foul attitude, do you truly believe you are doing as Christ wished?

  • Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    yeah, that's a way of life.

  • Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    That's not a way of life. Also, there are different ways to have sex, and not all in the gay community have anal or oral sex, so again, there is no gay "lifestyle."

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    the one way of life that you all conform to is that you have sex with someone of the same sex.



    duh.

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Jester, tell me then, what is the one way of life that all homosexuals conform to? Are we all promiscuous? Are we all atheist? Are we all filthy rich? I'm not sure why you are personally attacking me (funny, so much like Prophet!) when I have said nothing offensive to you. DP, I wonder how long ago she took the course and what she would think about what I have said.

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I am currently on the phone with a psych professional who said she had a manditory course which included the "gay lifestyle". So, the professional educational psych community says there is a "gay lifestyle". I would go with the pros on this one.

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:28 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "lifestyle" as defined by webster:

    "the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture"

    sounds like homosexual lifestyle to me. unless you have become your own dictionary. i've read many of your posts and it seems you come up with your own definitions on many things. i guess thats convenient. if it doesn't agree with your opinion, make up your own definition.

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    But if you ask them to tell you what it is, they can't! A lifestyle has to do with things like your economic status, the places you go, the friends you keep, etc. There are many, many lifestyles within the gay community, and so you can't say there is an overriding gay lifestyle. It simply isn't using the word correctly. There is a gay community, absolutely, but we have many differences among us.

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:35 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "DP, there are many, many people in the gay community, and we don't all fit into the same "lifestyle." So sorry your mentality doesn't play out. "

    I wrote: "Everyone has a lifestyle. It is a 'fill in the blank' with who you are as in individual or a group."

    There are some things that every gay person has in common just like there are some things that all Christians have in common. For example, every Christian believes in Christ (or the term CHRISTian wouldn't mean anything). If there was nothing which gay people had in common then the term 'gay' would not apply to a group of individuals and the term 'gay' would be nothing.

    Wikipedia: Gay--"The term then began to be used in reference to homosexuality, in particular, from the early 20th century, a usage that may have dated prior to the 19th century.[1] In modern English,[citation needed] gay has come to be used as an adjective (occasionally even as a noun) that refers primarily[citation needed] to homosexuality. By the end of the 20th century the word gay was recommended by major style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex"

    Just for data purposes I googled "gay lifestyle"...it seems there are plenty of gays who believe there is a gay lifestyle!!!

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prop 8 is going to do for California (& the US) what Anita Bryant did for South Florida. Where is she these days, anyway?

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "...we don't fulfill the law because we have to, we fulfill the law because we want to."

    now there's someone who understand Kingdom principles!

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I agree with you on that point jester that we are made of 75% water so naturally we run downhill. Our sin and flesh is more appealing than suffering. There is a true story that I heard though about a muslim village that was devastated by the tsunami in Indonesia. All of the homes and including the Mosque had been destroyed. Before the Tsunami, Christians missionaries had tried to convert them but where unsuccessful. After the tsunami though a group of Christians from a nearby village came and helped them rebuild. They even rebuilt their mosque for them. Also to note that during the time that they were doing this they never once taught them the Gospel. Now since the muslim religion is based heavily on the concept of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth they were stunned that the Christians who they perceived as enemies would come over and help them rebuild, including their mosque. The muslims in this village became so intrigued about why they would do this that they asked them. The Christians from the other village just simply said that they were showing the love that God showed them through Christ. After learning more the entire Muslim village eventually converted to Christianity.

    It can be easy to sin but we don't fulfill the law because we have to, we fulfill the law because we want to. This is what Jesus is speaking of when he says he didn't come to abolish the law but fulfill it. As sons we do what needs to be done out of love. Why can a mother lift a car off their child when a strong firefighter might not be able too. Scientifically it is because of adrenaline but it proves a point that through love we gain strength to overcome. In part with that through love we also develop faith. I think that the opponents of prop 8 are viewing it from the perspective of a slave where as the supporters view it from the viewpoint of a son. It isn't about teaching them about the existence of the sin because obviously if they voted against it they know that we are saying that it is a sin. Rather I feel that since they have the perspective of a slave their interests are not always the same as the masters where as a son does what they can to help the father because what the father reaps they reap later as their inheritance. Changing the mindset from slave to son can not be taught through simple lecture but it almost has to be realized by the sinner. If you can remember that first moment where you understood God's love that is a very powerful moment. The holy spirit really takes over.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    jester, but I think it's more than that I truly believe they have bought into the post modern mindset that says there is no absolute truth so therefore what's wrong for you may not be wrong for someone else, but the whole post modern mindset could also be a smokescreen to allow people to not have to deal with their sin, but you're totally correct in saying it's all about dealing or not dealing with our sin and I think the anger is a result of people having their sin exposed for what it is and they already know it for what it is. I mean it's not a surprise to them when someone tells them they have sin in their life and what that sin is, but it still ticks them off when somebody regardless of the person's motive does that to them, but this is not a new phenomona since it's the very thing that got John the Baptist beheaded and Stephen stoned.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    the reason why they "win hearts" is because man is naturally evil in his heart. it is easier for them to accept sin, than to accept discipline. no one wants to be told that they're sinning. and i think the reason why people who aren't homosexuals are supporting their agenda is because they understand their own sin. and if they can forgo criticizing someone elses sin, then others will do the same for them. even christians are doing this.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    True, there could always be a chance that one day the hate crimes bill could be passed, but will it be passed because prop 8 wasn't in place or will it be passed because less people are biblically grounded. I think prop 8 is only attacking a symptom of arrogance. Adam and Eve were thrown out of Eden because of their arrogance and the way that God fixed that was through Christ. By sacrificing himself for the sinners Christ redeemed us. The only way to deal with this head on is a reflection of what God did for us, by showing love and compassion towards the ones we wish to save which is why Jesus also said that we should love our enemies. This means going to the homosexual community and asking what can we do for you without any preconditions just as God did for us(there are lines that you have to draw here just like you don't give a book of matches to a 5 year old). When their heart changes so does their lifestyle. But if you can't even approach a group of people because of something that we have done may it be right or wrong how can we effectively evangelize them? If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around does it make a sound? If we ignore this prop 8 will just be overturned eventually. The reason why the homosexuals have been gaining some support is because they have been good at winning hearts. If they are better at winning hearts than Christians that should be a wake up call to us.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    i agree. as i pointed out in my post. but as we see that the constitution changes. "hate" speech may not be covered under the first amendment (see http://www.christianpost.com/article/20081203/church-ad-banned-for-being-offensive-to-gays.htm).

    the day will come when speaking out against homosexuals will be illegal, under hate crimes. then we'll see who the real christians are.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No court especially the supreme court will ever uphold a lawsuit that says that churches must marry homosexuals. That is completely against the first amendment. If some liberal judge does pass it for some reason you can count on it being over turned. I don't think we need to have this fear. In a worst case scenario if by some crazy means the first amendment is gone then all that needs to happen is that the pastor refuse to marry them. If pastors are saying they will go to jail if the hate crimes bill is passed that prohibits them from saying homosexuality is a sin I think Pastors will be bold enough to go to jail over this too.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    i'll include delightinthelord in that list.
    and smbga
    prophet
    daniel paul
    forgivensinner
    star
    online4him

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    but i do agree with you. believer is one of the few that can hold a decent conversation....that includes both sides of the issue.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    jew,
    we have a word for people like you too. "Poser"

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ah Believer, one of scarce few here who can engage in real discourse, nice to see you again too. I'll admit I was quite taken back with the passage of prop 8 but it was more work that kept me away than anything else, but enough with that.

    As far as I can tell, the domestic partnership laws in CA provide many of the protections and benefits of marriage but not all. As I've said before, despite the fact that many gays would not be satisfied with a strengthened domestic partnership system where said partnerships and marriages are fungible I think it would be more than adequate. I don't care what you call it. I just want to make sure that all citizens who abide by the law are entitled to the same rights and privileges.

    As for you jester, there's a word in yiddish that perfectly describes you, schmeckel.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    what's gonna happen when homosexual marriages are finally "legalized" and a pastor refuses to do a gay wedding? can anyone say "lawsuit"? i'm sure that any lawsuits will end up in the circular file anyway. pastors already have the right to refuse to do weddings of anyone as it is. but for how long?

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Here is the argument that I would make against prop 8. Before I start though I must say I am against Gay marriage and I believe that the church should not encourage it within it's walls, but we are not talking about the church anymore when it comes to prop 8. We are talking about everyone within the state of California, many of whom this law would apply to are not obedient Christians or even Christians at all. That creates a problem because in the end what is the point of enforcing this law on them when it serves no purpose in saving their lives to Christ. They can not be justified by observing the law according to Galations 2:16-21

    know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

    "If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

    Even Paul mentions in Romans, "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts". God did not destroy them with his wrath but he let them be. How can we do more than God and go beyond what he has done. We are then trying to change things by our own strength and abilities. The only way California will change is if we save these individuals because to the people that are not under God the law is nothing and I come back to my original point that if God's law is meaningless to them what have we accomplished. It is not preserving marriage for God's people because they are not God's people. You can not tell someone to be obedient to your father when they have no relationship to you.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    sounds like your view of our heaven is the same as our view of your heaven.
    there's gonna be a LOT of well-meaning and good Jews in "heaven". (yeah, i'll use that word if you want. i dont want to hurt your sensitivity by calling it what it really is. i'll get flagged for speaking the truth here.)

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    yes, good to have you back, I thought maybe you choked and died on the crow you had to eat after this proposition passed, just kidding of course, but seriously why not promote strong domestic partnership laws that would insure that any two people who are the primary caregivers of each other, regardless of their genders or sexual orientation or involvement, are given the same legal rights and benefits as a married heterosexual couple. Plus there is one poster who has led me to believe those very laws are in place already in California?

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Ugh, the intellectual slothfulness is shining through.

    The benefits are tied in with the love one spouse feels for another because those benefits, which you see as dollar signs and write offs, represents yet another means of ensuring that one's spouse is adequately provided for and can receive the best care possible. For example, medical proxy rights, those that enable a spouse to make emergency medical decisions when the afflicted spouse is unable to make those decisions himself or herself, are a benefit flowing from marriage. Imagine the dismay of a loving (and they are capable of love) gay couple with one partner dying in a hospital bed unable to speak or communicate. Absent spousal rights (or a fully executed medical proxy, which would have to be drafted by an attorney and cost money thereby imposing an undue burden) the healthy partner would not be able to give consent to a life saving operation, instead forcing the hospital to wait to obtain consent from a next of kin, who may for all we know have disowned said patient for being a homosexual. Similarly, suppose that one partner decides to leave his entire estate to his partner in his will. Absent the statutory spousal share, a challenge to the will (on the basis of incapacity or undue influence as has been done in the past with respect to homosexuals) could potentially divest the surviving partner of his entire inheritance. Neither is just about money. It is about respecting the relationship of 2 consenting, law abiding adults and affording them the same protections under law that straight couples enjoy. The gay community is looking for the protections that those benefits provide.

    As for your perception of heaven, I could care less. If heaven if full of people like you it's more akin to hell, to be frank. Anyway, playing your little game, as a Jew I know I'm going to heaven anyway.

    With respect to your quip about religion influencing the formation of government, oy gevalt. Let's establish something once and for all, if you want to draw upon the bible as a source of inspiration and guidance in your life that's all fine and good. In terms of the constitution and the laws of this nation the bible is IRRELEVANT. As I mentioned before, the bible seemed to be fine with slavery but we did away with that long ago. Once marriage became within the purview of the state, licensed and regulated it's religious ties were broken and it became something defined and administered by the state. As such, it's subject to the constraints of the state and federal constitutions. Ever heard of equal protection?

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    alex, opposition to same-sex marriage is not necessarily, if at all, about changing lives as it is defending God's original and only design for marriage. Plus one of the worst haters of Christians was Paul and look what God did with him when He got a hold of his life. To me chances of winning an antagonist to Christ is much easier than trying to win a complacent person to Christ, just ask Lee Strobel. I'm not saying we should set out to get people angry, but if that is the result of living and testifying for the Lord then we need to trust God and realize chances are the Holy Spirit is bringing conviction on that person(s) and they are not as much angry with us as they are with God's dealing with them and the sin in their life.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    i wish people could go to heaven just because they're "good". but God is a holy and perfect God. and sin cannot abide in his presence. so those who practice sin will not abide with him. it's actually pretty simple.
    and as for the idea of "benefits" of marriage. what kind of benefit did Abraham get from marrying Sarah? a wife. there were no tax write offs and incentives. im married. and if they were to do away with all the monetary and other benefits of marriage, i still would have gotten married. when i met my wife, i didn't see dollar signs and write offs. i saw love...unlike all the homosexuals who post on here who are worried about the benefits.
    and the bible (which was in place before our constitution) defines marriage as between a man and a woman. apparently, that part of the constitution was based on a Godly standard, but now people want to change that.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Jester, fair enough. I'll admit that I've lost all respect for Christianity, with a few rare exceptions, since stumbling across this site. The viewpoints and, more to the point, the "rationalizations" (and I use the term loosely since rarely is there reason involved) behind those viewpoints are incredibly disturbing. The often professed goal of moral legislation requiring all to live under the strictures of Christianity is proving and will ultimately prove to be the grave hubris that inflames anti-Christian sentiment.

    But getting down to business, let's pick up the "what are they losing" line of argument. For starters, they're losing out on the legal benefits attached to marriage, such as interspoual tax-free transfers, medical proxy rights, inheritance rights, and numerous others. Absent an equally forceful push from Christians to create a separate but equal system of legal benefits you are indeed depriving them of something. Moreover, there is the tangential issue of respect and acknowledgment of their relationship (which for me is not the most salient point but is often a sticking point within the gay community).

    As for "protecting the sanctity of marriage" you miss the major point that religion lost all right over marriage and how it is defined when it became a state institution. It is the STATE that issues marriage licenses not the CHURCH. Religious institutions merely conduct a ceremony which is incidental to the status and benefits of marriage. Sorry to say that once that happened "g-d's design for marriage" went out the window and was instead replaced by the constitutions (state and federal) which govern all things within their respective spheres.

    As for my Judaism, [insert expletive here] you. Seriously. Pardon me if in my religious education I was taught to value the spirit of the teachings rather than the verbatim verse and more importantly to value and accept "good" individual regardless of their sexual orientation. My congregation includes a number of gays who are cherished members of my religious community. Judaism is focused on questioning the teachings, testing them against the world and reaching the conclusion of what is right rather than blindly obeying the text as written. Talmudic scholars have been discussing Jewish law and ethics for almost 2 thousand years, not just thumbing to a page and saying "Aha!" Biblical literalism is simply the basest form of intellectual and spiritual laziness.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:06 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    jew,
    i've read enough of your posts to know that you never had any respect for christianity. and christians are just using their rights to do what they need to do. if i'm not mistaken, this country is a democracy. take away our right to decide, then it becomes a dictatorship or socialistic.
    are we taking away their right to love? no. are we taking away their right have sex? no. are we taking away their right to eat wherever they want? no. are we taking away their right to work or own a business? no.

    we are just protecting God's design of what marriage is. you may be a jew by birth and heritage, but you are not a jew by spirit.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:52 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    See, the problem that all of you fail to recognize is that the root of the outrage over Prop 8 is that the rights of others are being determined based upon what YOU believe. Frankly, what respect I had for the Christian community has been dashed by this entire ordeal. While I disagree with you all regarding the abortion issue, I nonetheless respected the underlying motivation, preserving the lives of unborn children. Here, however, there's no upside. Gays will continue to have relationships, cohabitate, and even raise children despite this egregious abortion of the federal and state constitution. The real result of this is that hard fought, equal rights have been repealed merely to fit in with tangential beliefs in the bible. If the Christian community spend even half as much time working to assist the poor and needy as it does combating the gays the world would be a far better place.

    Bottom line, while the bible is the centerpiece of your lives you have to recognize and respect that there are others out there who find it irrelevant and wholly non-binding. Scale back the missionary quest of bringing the WORD to the unrepentant masses and perhaps the public image of Christians will change drastically. As I've often commented, it's about the carrot and not the stick. Taking away people's constitutional rights is using the stick and results in what we have here, mass outrage and backlash. Instead, offer what you have to say on the issue, in a discrete and respectful manner (i.e. not publicly calling gays abominations against g-d or taking out ads to that effect) and if they choose not to subscribe to your way of thinking leave them to their own devices.

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:26 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    oh mike. don't go postal on us. homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle.

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    DP, there are many, many people in the gay community, and we don't all fit into the same "lifestyle." So sorry your mentality doesn't play out.

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "There is no "lifestyle" to being gay."

    You misunderstand. Everyone has a lifestyle. It is a 'fill in the blank' with who you are as in individual or a group. When we think of the Amish 'lifestyle' it brings pictures to mind of simple living and the things like the morals, values and such that guide their community.

    When it comes to the gay lifestyle one of the items would be same-sex attraction and same-sex physical relationships. This is one of the things which define the 'gay lifestyle' just like here big pickups with big tires, a gun rack and a nascar sticker in the window is part of the 'red-neck lifestyle'.

    Just FYI, the def of what lifestyle means comes from the dictionary. It's just what the application of the word to the concept means.

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Alex12,

    For those who KNOW who Christ is and his claims; they will be held accountable. The scriptures also teach that the Lord considers WHERE one was born and WHAT one knows. For example, consider the following passages -

    I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to them that know me: behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia; this man was born there. And of Zion it shall be said, This and that man was born in her: and the highest himself shall establish her. The LORD shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there. Selah (Psalms 87:4-6).

    For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
    (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
    Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel (Romans 2:11-16).

    Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Romans 2:26).

    Peace

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    yes the Bible is pretty straightforward. men having sex with men is a sin. women having sex with women is a sin. now THAT is pretty straight forward.

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Yes Romans is pretty straight forward for Christians but what about non Christians that do not know of God or his glory?

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Romans 1 is actually pretty straight forward . . .

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I find the developments in CA over prop 8 to be very interesting. I think there are a lot of hard questions that we should be asking ourselves as Christians from watching this. I was recently talking to someone who is connected with many organizations in California and he noted that the homosexual reaction to the church has been very fierce. Some pastors have been forced to hire bodyguards while other churches are being defaced. It is very sad that this is happening and we all know that we take the narrow gate and not the wide gate when we become Christians. Yet there were some questions that popped up that made me think about how constructive prop 8 is when it comes to saving lives to Christ within in the Homosexual community. How can we teach obedience to God when we are hated, and lastly are we more focused on changing lives through the law or through the gospel.

    I am interested to hear everyones take on this. I am not saying this to challenge what is right or what is wrong rather asking a general opinion on the issue.

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Right, you know, cause the Bible was always so straight forward when explaining things.

  • Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Romans 1 isn't talking about orgies, otherwise it would have said so.

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
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