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

Society|Tue, Dec. 30 2008 10:49 AM EST

NJ Rules Against Church Group in Gay Rights Case

By Associated Press Writer|Geoff Mulvihill

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. – A church group that owns beachfront property discriminated against a lesbian couple by not allowing them to rent the locale for their civil union ceremony, a New Jersey department ruled Monday in a case that has become a flash point in the nation's gay rights battle.

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights said its investigation found that the refusal of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association to rent the oceanfront spot to the couple for their same-sex union in March 2007 violated the public accommodation provisions of the state's Law Against Discrimination.

While the ruling is decisively in favor of the couple, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, it does not end the case. An administrative law judge still must decide on a remedy for the parties.

"What this case has always been about from my clients' perspective has been equality," said Larry Lustberg, the lawyer for the couple. He said they will seek an order that requires the pavilion to be "open to all on an equal basis."

Brian Raum, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based group that represents the Methodist organization, Camp Meeting Association, said his clients would keep pushing back against being forced to allow civil unions on the property.

"Our position is the same," he said. "A Christian organization has a constitutional right to use their facilities in a way that is consistent with their beliefs."

Meanwhile, the parties in the dispute are awaiting a ruling from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether the issue should be decided in the division on civil rights or in federal courts. A lower federal court has ruled that the state could consider the case.

The dispute has become a rallying point for both sides in the political battle over gay unions.

Supporters of gay rights say the discrimination shows that New Jersey's two-year-old civil unions law falls short of its intent to give gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples.

Earlier this month, a state commission headed by J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, the director of the Division on Civil Rights and the author of Monday's ruling, recommended that the state allow gay couples full marriage rights.

Opponents of gay marriage cite the case as a prime example of their contention that by recognizing same-sex couples, states are interfering with religious freedoms.

"It's something we have to be careful about," said the Alliance Defense Fund's Raum. "As the rights of same-sex couples increase, the tendency is to have it conflict with the First Amendment rights of religious organizations."

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
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
  • Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    This is a great post. I'm working on a documentary, would any of you be interested in doing an on-camera interview? I'm in the Los Angeles area, but can travel.

    Please let me know.

    Thanks.

  • Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:26 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Gr8, that's simply not true. It would then follow that children raised by a single mother have gender confusion, which is not the case. The case most certainly is that the longer children stay in foster care, the more likely they are to engage in risky sexual behaviors and substance abuse. Would you rather that than have children raised by a loving same sex couple which has been proven to not have an adverse effect on the child?

  • Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    MIke, that Genesis reality gives a basis of understanding of how the family evolved, I know that sounds ridiculous to you ,Sir, but that reality has been grounded in every society as long as The Bible have been (over 6,ooo years), so this new phenomemon, shows some unwise grounds of defining two indivduals of the same gender as a family unity because both individuals have the same nature, and there will be some confusion of the masculine component.

  • Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Gr8, that's fine and dandy, but God didn't create single mothers or grandparents raising kids or even foster homes in his original design, so I think using the story of Adam and Steve (oops, freudian slip) Eve to determine what a current family should look like is a bit far fetched.

  • Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Through the act of marriage(wife and husband), the very act of union ,physically and spirtually, brings about the mathematical union of the children, which is the family.

  • Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Another thing Bryan and Mike, God was the creator of both man and woman, according to the book of Genesis, so, he is the creator of the individual and collctive component of the family, man didn't create the family, so no man can change that foundation. That is not hate, but a statement grounded in history and religion.

  • Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mr.Bryan, the present society is teaching and undermining the basic nature of men and women. Boys need men to teach them to be natural men and then morally responsible, not to be feminine like their mothers, sisters,etc. The love and respect for women should always be part of a Man's moral compass, but a man and a woman is natural different and the roles ,they have fit their individual different natures.

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Gr8, obviously society rests on families, but homosexuality doesn't undo families. If anything, its an answer to the thousands and thousands of foster children waiting to be adopted"

    DITTO!! Seriously, ask yourself deep inside: "do same-sex parents provide less of a family than straight couples do?" Because, believe you me, I've seen much more failed straight parents than I have seen failed same-sex parents.

    Why must a family consist of a man and a woman? Is it because of the 100 BC mentality where women are supposed to cook and take care of the child while men are supposed to go get the butter and the bread? Today, I know gay people that can cook better than my mom, and gay nurses that can take care of children better than most females can.

    So tell me, how are we ruining the family unit?

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Gr8, obviously society rests on families, but homosexuality doesn't undo families. If anything, its an answer to the thousands and thousands of foster children waiting to be adopted (and there simply aren't enough heterosexual families willing to adopt them.)

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mr.Brian and Mr.Mike, there is no wrong interpretation, the Bible and history shows the fundamental development of any society and the basic foundation is the family consisting of a husband and wife. It is not the persecution of homosexuals as individuals, because the individual can be saved, but the very unnatural act comes into question, and the act is an abominible to God who is the Aythor of creation and nature, the Bible express that clearly gentlemen.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Gr8tgary38,

    We are not removing God's Authority from this state. But perhaps would it be possible for us to take a few steps back and ask ourselves if we have misinterpreted God's will? Or perhaps sometimes we are too proud to do so?

    Is it truly God's will for homosexuals to be persecuted?

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And nobody is erasing those principles, that's not what happened here.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    This country's history is embedded in the tradition that God was with the country from the beginning, so Mike, you can't eradicate biblical, moral principles from the society because the society still have a vest interested in the God of the scriptures. Those scriptures taught the American people of this God.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Also, this society still recognize a Supreme Creator which is in its Pledge of Allegiance and on its currency, so the government doing this, recognize the source of the authority that it has, and the responsibilty in respecting not only the individuals( whether same-sex oriented or not) but the institutions that respect the govenment ,but also the Final Author of the Authority GOD.

  • Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    OK, the will of the society (AKA the law) was violated by this church, and now there's a lawsuit agains them.

  • Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No true church would go against the will of any civilize society,for the bible in first timothy 2:1-2, "Therefore I exhort, first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, nad giving of thanks be made for all men. For kings and all who are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and reverence." God ordained all believers to respect authority, because the ultimate authority comes from the Lord God himself.

  • Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    OK, so then could the federal government arrest church leaders who decide to sell alcohol to minors on their private property if they decide it is God's will? The first amendment does not make churches infallible, and this church went against public law.

  • Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    See, Mike, the first amendment is so embedded in this society that you can't deny the church's right to act legally in matters concerning public property and the conduct within its property peramiteers.

  • Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    At this point of the issue I will accept the opinion from a professional law firm that specializes in religious freedoms. It is not clear cut as you portray it to be. Ocean Grove does appear to be completely privatized under 501(C)(3) according to the IRS, ADF and Ocean Grove. The outcome of the federal case will put this issue to rest.

  • Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Then Ocean Grove needs to completely privatize, which they have not done! They take public money, the property becomes public (just like hospitals that refuse to give morning after pills lose federal funding.)

  • Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    I am not fabricating a story but using the information at hand. Thank you for this latest information and it does make the situation more interesting. But I believe your story is misrepresenting the whole truth. The "public funds" were emergency relief money provided to make repairs to hurricane damages which puts this into another consideration. ADF does not concur with your conclusion. The facilities are still owned and operated by a church and protected by the 1st amendment.

    Talking with the representative at ADF this morning he says the story you provided is half truth and that this is still a clear case of a 1st Amendment violation by an administrative body. The federal lawsuit they filed in 2007 is still valid and in action regardless of what a NJ administrative body determines. It will be interesting when this reaches a real court of law. The ADF is too professional to take a weak case and they have a very successful track record for protecting religious freedom.

    ABOUT Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association v. Vespa-Papaleo
    - This federal lawsuit was filed to protect the constitutional rights of a private religious organization to
    practice its faith without threat of retribution from the state.
    - The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights launched an unconstitutional investigation that carries the
    threat of prosecution against a Christian organization, Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.
    - In accordance with its deeply held religious beliefs and its mission, OGCMA declined to host a samesex "civil union" ceremony at one of its worship facilities.
    - The religious association has the right to use its own private property for purposes consistent with its
    mission.
    - OGCMA is a religious non-profit corporation formed in 1869 to promote Christian spiritual birth, growth, and renewal through worship, education, and cultural and recreational programs in a
    Christian seaside setting. Ocean Grove's site has hosted church and worship services for more than 100 years.
    CURRENT STATUS of Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association v. Vespa-Papaleo
    ADF attorneys filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on August 11 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in response to the state of New Jersey's investigation of a complaint from a same-sex
    couple that demanded to use OGCMA's private worship facility for a "civil union" ceremony.
    FOCUS OF LAWSUIT - WHAT IS AT STAKE?
    The government cannot force a private religious organization to use its property in a way that would violate its own religious beliefs. The state of New Jersey is applying its Law Against Discrimination in a manner that interferes with OGCMA's First Amendment rights to free speech, free association, and free exercise of religion.

  • Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If this country recognize a Christian heritage,Mike, then, the Methodist does have a right to monitor their property according to what they were taught,which centers on that historical Christian hertiage, and the Bible plays a whole part of that.

  • Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:58 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    What I am saying is grounded in fact, not emotion.

  • Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Thank you for your last comment Mike, it is good to get a variey of opinions on this matter, hopefully though you may see every other view that is expressed is grounded into something more than emotionalism, but in something which in righteous example.

  • Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You are fabricating a story so you can continue to play martyr:

    "A local advocacy group, "Ocean Grove United"[19], disputes this, contending that the issue involves public, not religious, property.[20] They contend that the beach and Boardwalk Pavilion are open to the public and that the Camp Meeting Association has accepted public funds for their maintenance and repairs. They also cite the Association's application to the State of New Jersey for monies under the state's "Green Acres Program", which encourages the use of private property for public recreation and provides a $500,000 annual property tax exemption. In their application for these funds, the Camp Meeting Association reportedly stated that the disputed areas were open to the public. U.S. Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. (Democrat), in whose Congressional district Ocean Grove is located, stated "they've taken state, federal and local funds by representing that they are open to the public."

    Once they took public funds, they lost the ability to privately choose who to rent the property to and who not to. That is state law. If they didn't want to get into this whole mess, they should have remained private. It is not private property, and the state is not forcing anything on them. It is very common knowledge that accepting public funds for maintenance requires you to be a public group.

  • Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is a 100% bonifide Christian 501(c)3 operation just as any regular church. This whole camp is Christian and religious. The state has no right forcing its views onto the operation and use of the church; what NJ is doing is breaching the first amendment.
    http://www.guidestar.org/
    Who We Are
    Since 1869 the OGCMA has offered a wholesome christian vacation spot on the New Jersey shore, with religious services, seminars, retreat center and youth programs as well as a headline entertainment and a non-commercial beach and boardwalk.

    This organization is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity.
    This organization is not required to file an annual return with the IRS because it is a church.
    NTEE Code
    X99-Religion Related, Spiritual Development N.E.C.
    X20-Christian
    X11-Single Organization Support
    MISSION AND PROGRAMS
    Mission
    The mission of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, rooted in its Methodist heritage, is to provide opportunities for spiritual birth, growth and renewal through worship, education, cultural and recreational programs for persons of all ages in a Christian seaside setting.

    Programs
    Now & Forever Fund: Your unrestricted gift allows us to use your support in an area of ministry where the need is greatest - worship, youth ministry, evangelism, music, buildings, or operations. We also have The Camp Meeting's Annual Fund For Program Support which include Special Ministries' Youth Ministry Bible Hour Sunday Morning Worship Sunday Evening Worship Camp Meeting Week Capital & Facility Needs Gospel Musical Ministry

  • Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    The state is forcing it's positive law desires on the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association and forcing the use of their private property against their religious belief. This is considered 'takings' and is a form of facism, actually. Facism is not too unlike Marxism except with private ownership under govt control Vs govt ownership. Along with ADF, I contend the law is unconstitutional.

    I am curious about your claim for public Vs private use; where can I find that information you site?

    Did the same sex union nondiscrimination belong in the law when the church group first bought the property, or was this a new provision since the church owned the property? It appears the church group bought the property around 1872 and I doubt at that time the state was forcing its ungodly design onto private property owners. The ungodly provision is of recent origin, is it not?

    The real and true issue is the march of increased Facism/Marxism and growth of the state at the expense of private liberties. Just compare; in 1872 the state didn't force this stuff onto private property use now look at what the power of the state is doing.

  • Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk, NOTHING has been forced on this church. You much these intense martyr allegations without knowing all the facts! The church had the option to rent privately or publicly, and they decided to rent publicly. According to that town law, once you rent publicly, you may not discriminate, regardless of your religious affiliation. If they didn't want to open up that can of worms, they should have stayed private, which they did not.

  • Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike,
    I believe you just reinforced my point. You said "My dad's company is private, therefore, they can honor certain holidays, hire certain people, and report their money investments in certain ways." You're dad is allowed to use his private property as he determines is proper. The NJ case involves the state forcing the use of private property contrary to the owners choice and liberty. This case has nothing to do with public safety. I suppose you should make your case clearer why it is Biblically proper for the state to intervene and force owners how to use their private property contrary to Biblical doctrine and conscience.
    The NJ case illustrates the march of Marxism in the US where the state makes and enforces positive law Vs natural law and ends up destroying the rights and liberties of individuals and private organizations. This is called 'interventionism' which allows the state's power to subvert the sovereignty of peoples liberties and use of their private property.

    At first glance, communism may look like the fairer system, and Christianity the more selfish. In fact, of course, communism and its blood-brother, fascism, have been responsible-in Asia, Europe, Africa and South America-for more human misery over the past century than any other systems of belief thought up by man. By denying human beings their individuality, all totalitarian systems brutalise the human condition, reducing everyone in their sway to the status of ants, or cogs in a machine." http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13439?CFID=8308263&CFTOKEN=34331219

  • Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    HAWK, there is a clear difference between property ownership laws and the laws of private companies. My dad's company is private, therefore, they can honor certain holidays, hire certain people, and report their money investments in certain ways. The building they are in is private property, however, it is still under the jurisdiction of the city, and if they were to break city law, they would be taken down. Same issue here. There is a clear line that you are ignoring to make your point.

  • Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Who just flagger slacker? His attack was on me, and I was not offended. Can't we discuss almost anything here? Come on, folks.....

  • Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:02 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    What do you mean "this time?" If you've asked me directly before, I did not know it. Just remind me, if I miss a question, please.

    I suppose you are referring to my response to this:

    "Actually you should look up and read some of Jefferson's writings, it is a far fetch to call them "enlightment principles" they were full blown christians but your new age movement has totally changed that to make the country believe in something different..."

    I did read Mr. Jefferson's views (most of them) while I was a student at his University in the 1960s. He was certainly no "full blown" Christian. He was a deist. And his and other founders' principles were right out of John Locke and the Enlightenment.

    My writing that your remark "petered out" must have been my opinion your use of the tired, old (and inappropriate in this context) retread "new age." I have no interest in "new age" formulations. That was a canard.

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike;
    What if we take your argument one or two steps further. What if the state gives us ENDA; will churches then be forced to hire gays, lesbians and transvestites even though that is against the churches doctrine? What about hate speech; will certain teachings of the Bible become criminal when taught from the pulpit or in
    Sunday School classes?

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mtg;
    Sorry this concerns you. It's an aside as I see the power of the state dominating more and more as the authority of the state grows and engulfs the sovereignty of other entities such as family, church and private industry.

    mike; we've established that the church owns the property. Do they pay property taxes for the parcel? If they do then the property is for commercial/community use and if they don't then the state needs to keep out as this is God's domain. This concept of sphere sovereignty is a hard concept to understand in this day and age when the state has become the false idol of salvation and the independent rights and authority of the church are not taught and are under attack.

    The capture of Manuel Noriega could be a good example. He escaped to the Holy See's embassy in Panama and the US troops honored the sovereign right of that property by not invading it. Instead, they waited outside playing rock n roll music until it drove Noriega nuts and he surrendered.

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike is right about that one.

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Thanks, prophet for the answer, I thought you had made the comment to correct my point of view. I welcome all corrective help as long as it IS corrective as I do make mistakes but my desire is to hold to a true representation of Biblical truth. It is easy for me to have tunnel vision and I learn from many Christians here on the post.

    By the way on the other post regarding the "s" that is sometimes put in the word Revelation is really an important distinction; the book is called The Revelation of Jesus Christ rather than revelations of end time events; using the "s' puts the focus on the events, rather than on Jesus Christ, which is really what the book is about. A bit of a pet peeve of mine. :D

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk, should a church be able to open a bar and serve 18+ alcohol if its on their private property? There are certain civil laws that churches do indeed need to abide by, and this particular piece of property had very specific laws from the town. Its not like we're talking about an actual church building: it was a property they owned specifically to rent, and therefore it was a for-profit property which fell under the jurisdiction of the town.

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Why is this boilerplate aphorism tossed in here? It serves no useful purpose.

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Delight,
    My apologies. For some reason I never saw your question. I think because my post wasn't disputing yours, it was more of an observation. So I wasn't looking for a response to it. LOL. I apologize. But that is a curious question. In John 10, Jesus said

    34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

    35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

    Now, we can all agree that we are not true gods in the sense that we are deity. But many theologians believe that the word "gods" can be translated as "magistrate" or "judge".

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mike,
    I would suggest the ordinance is unConstitutioanl as it infringes on private property along with the long held tradition of God's property which the state did not cross over.
    "A Christian organization has a constitutional right to use their facilities in a way that is consistent with their beliefs."
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    DP, you clearly do not understand what happened! The church had a specific type of property that the town said any private organization could not discriminate (it had to be all or nothing.) The church chose to be selective (meaning they let some people who were not church goers rent, but not others,) and now they are facing the consequences. This infringes on nothing. The church, not the gay couple, made an oops.

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "You are trying to justify your beliefs by criminalizing the gay community."

    I believe it was the gay community which is criminalizing the beliefs of this church...thus the lawsuit. It is part of the pro-gay agenda (which you deny) to criminalize Biblical beliefs by the church.

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Church and state means that the state can't tell the church what to believe, "

    The church believes it is wrong to rent their property for gay unions. You say the state isn't to tell the church what to believe. Problem solved. No renting to gays.

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    iff;
    Spend the time and read Kuyper and Basiat, it will be well worth your while to understand govt and sphere sovereignty.
    Romans 13 is usually interpreted as government maintaining a limited role of protecting innocent citizens from evil persons whether an invading enemy or from evil citizens within. Being an agent of God the definitions of good and evil are quite clear in order to carry out God's will; but limited to a policing agent and not much more. The rest is left to individuals and the church to run society.

    Since socialism (& Marxism) is contrary to God's will the use of Acts by socialists is an abomination.
    London journalist Richard Spencer put it well two years ago in The Telegraph: "Christianity and communism are fundamentally incompatible-one a spiritual creed, the other materialist. Christianity lays down that a man's responsibility to his neighbour is personal, a matter for his individual conscience, while communism decrees that all duties are collective, to be enforced by the state."

    Spencer noted, "At first glance, communism may look like the fairer system, and Christianity the more selfish. In fact, of course, communism and its blood-brother, fascism, have been responsible-in Asia, Europe, Africa and South America-for more human misery over the past century than any other systems of belief thought up by man. By denying human beings their individuality, all totalitarian systems brutalise the human condition, reducing everyone in their sway to the status of ants, or cogs in a machine." http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13439?CFID=8308263&CFTOKEN=34331219

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mtg;
    you're welcome. In your searching I would suggest you also read John Eidsmoe, ME Bradford and David Barton for the Christian worldview perspective.
    Bradford points out that there are from 150-200 individuals identified as our founding fathers, yet the secularists only focus on 4 or 5 such as Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, etc. But Bradford documents that all the others are solid Christians; about 95 -96% of the founding fathers.

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Thanks, HAWK, for the reply beginning "I agree that most Americans are miseducated about our history."

    It is very interesting, and it sent me looking for facts in several directions. It was much more effective than slacker's reply, which petered out into somthing about new age movement or somesuch that I can't really remember because it was so inane..

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet,
    No answer to my question regarding your curious post to me about Jesus condemning sin when I spoke about Christians judging sin? I hope you were not just trying to find fault where there wasn't any. If you were making a point, please make it.

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    We are not criminalizing homosexuality. Only you would say that. But we don't want to allow gay marriages. Big difference.

    Town laws are under the same jurisdiction as federal. Local governments cannot infringe upon the religious freedoms.

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Church and state means that the state can't tell the church what to believe, and the church cannot force the state to hold certain beliefs. If a town has certain laws, then the church is bound to follow them. This is not a church/state issue. You are trying to justify your beliefs by criminalizing the gay community.

  • Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk: Thank you very much for your response. While I checked out the two links - I didn't read either one of them thoroughly given their length. I did go back and reread Romans 13 as I didn't remember specifically what it said and I'm surprised you suggested Acts as neither one of those recomendations is very supportive of your position. Acts is often cited by socialists in support of their position and the chapter in Romans really didn't support what you were saying either. Do you have other scripture perhaps that might support your argument?

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