Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Society|Fri, Oct. 02 2009 01:41 PM EDT

Judge Orders Prop. 8 Proponents to Release Private Records

By Nathan Black|Christian Post Reporter

Traditional marriage supporters who led California's campaign to ban same-sex marriage have been ordered by a federal judge to turn over their private e-mails, memos and other internal documents to lawyers seeking to overturn the ban.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled on Thursday in favor of attorneys who filed a lawsuit on behalf of two homosexual couples against Proposition 8 – the state's constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Charles Cooper, lawyer for the Proposition 8 proponents, had argued last week that the discussions between campaign officials were meant to be private and that publicizing them would violate free speech rights and possibly subject the supporters to harassment, as reported by The Associated Press.

But Judge Walker was not convinced that providing the records would subject them to unbridled harassment or inhibit their political activities.

"The First Amendment qualified privilege proponents seek to invoke, unlike the attorney-client privilege, for example, is not an absolute bar against disclosure," Walker wrote in an 18-page order, according to AP. "Rather, the First Amendment qualified privilege requires a balancing of the plaintiffs' need for the information sought against proponents' constitutional interests in claiming the privilege."

The judge placed limits, however, saying the lawyers must cover only central issues and individuals when seeking information. Public access to the documents may also be restricted.

Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, was disappointed by the ruling and said providing that level of information to "the losing side" would discourage others from using the ballot initiative process.

"It just seems like Alice in Wonderland for me, that we would get to a place that a consequence of winning an election is that you would have to open your play book," he said, according to AP.

Proposition 8 was passed by 52 percent of voters last November, overruling an earlier state high court decision that had legalized marriage for same-sex couples.

In addition to the lawsuit, Proposition 8 proponents may battle a 2010 ballot measure that seeks to repeal the amendment. Gay-rights group Love Honor Cherish filed ballot language last week. The proposed language states, "Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion."

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
  • Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Records were order released.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-confidential23-2009oct23,0,7762080.story

    TFR

  • Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Alockslee » Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:53 pm

    TLC, thank you for the clarification. You explained what you meant and now with a better understanding of it maybe folks here will be able to address your questions. Off the top of my head, I would suggest that as evolution progressed and humans developed society through the growth of civilization the concept of forming a long lasting bond became needed and recognized.

    There were other religions prior to Christianity and those religions and myths gave rise to the concepts possibly as well. I need to find the source of something I read on another website where the poster claimed that some sects of early Christians had same sex partners recognized under their religious beliefs and practices. There was a citation for it but I don't recall it just now.
    You might want to search that out yourself but I don't recall at the present time where I read it. Early Christians also believed in reincarnation just like Jews did but that was changed later too.
    You may also be aware that early popes and priests were allowed to be married but the practice was ended leaving the, unable to marry under current Roman Catholic religious laws. http://marriage.about.com/od/historyofmarriage/ss/marriedpopes.htm
    TFR

  • Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:33 pm Agree: 20   Disagree: 16

    TL Child-
    Marriage existed long before christianity-just google it.
    It ws created for hereditary purposes-yes, based on money and inheritance.
    Not sure what evolution has to do with creatonism-creationism deals with a creator-evolution does not deal with creation-it has to do with a creature evolving and adapting to an environment-there is no "creation" theory in theory of evolution
    Are you a true creationist? you actually believe the world is only 6500 years old and that man existed with dinosaurs? REALLY??? that's just plain ignorance...

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:58 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Alockslee, There you go again: "So once I read you complete replies to my prior posts and see what you offer as factual support the discussion can continue." Factual support. You mean like references and links to where one can check out the information? Why should I? YOU DON'T DO THAT YOURSELF!!! Example in the preceding post: "Early Christians also believed in reincarnation just like Jews did but that was changed later too." Why do you demand of others what you will not do yourself? Are you trying to get your picture in the dictionary next to the word "hypocrite"? When you start giving your own references for each of your assertions, then you will no longer be a hypocrite. "Until then, don't bother me." hide

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:53 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show TLC, thank you for the clarification. You explained what you meant and now with a better understanding of it maybe folks here will be able to address your questions. Off the top of my head, I would suggest that as evolution progressed and humans developed society through the growth of civilization the concept of forming a long lasting bond became needed and recognized. There were other religions prior to Christianity and those religions and myths gave rise to the concepts possibly as well. I need to find the source of something I read on another website where the poster claimed that some sects of early Christians had same sex partners recognized under their religious beliefs and practices. There was a citation for it but I don't recall it just now.You might want to search that out yourself but I don't recall at the present time where I read it. Early Christians also believed in reincarnation just like Jews did but that was changed later too. You may also be aware that early popes and priests were allowed to be married but the practice was ended leaving the, unable to marry under current Roman Catholic religious laws. http://marriage.about.com/od/historyofmarriage/ss/marriedpopes.htm TFR hide

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:35 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 4

    Alockslee,

    I know your problem, you think too hard. My question was to the EVOLUTIONISTS AND ATHEISTS--those who do not believe in the creation story.

    I want to know, if evolution is true, and we evolved from animals, then where did humans get the idea to marry since animals do not get married. I have posted this question under the articles about evolution; however, I like to post my questions under different articles in order to receive an answer.

    Like I stated, my question was not hate speech. Furthermore, just so you understand the type of person that I am, if I believe something, I will come out and say it. Therefore, if I thought that homosexuals were animals, I would state it.

    Furthermore, what problem do you have with calling humans animals in the first place, because I am sure that you believe in Evolution--so much for being evolved from animals, when you cannot consider someone an animal now.

    However, I am a creationist, and it would definitely be offensive to call someone who believes in creationism an animal since they believe that they were create by Yahweh.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:27 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show TLChild » Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:15 pm Alockslee, My question was not based on hate speech. I did not understand your point trying to explain that same-sex marriage was recognized during ancient times. Older men marrying young girls was recognized during ancient times, women were mistreated during ancient times, however, do you think that because something was allowed in ancient times should be allowed now. If your answer is NO, then that is the position I am taking as a Christian. I do not care how much same-sex marriage was recognized during ancient times, I do not want it to be recognized now. I think that you demonstrate hate speech all the time against the f&e squad, as you call them. ---------------------------------------------------- In Response: there is limited space to write a post on this site. using the term f&e squad is simply abbreviation. They are Christians, they are not in line with what Christianity is. The fact that same sex marriage existed before the current period shows it to be historically accepted and some here have argued that marriage has been historically opposite sex only. Hope that clears up the confusion for you. Your former post was a slamming of LGBT Community by comparing them to animals or did you forget what you said. If you want civility, then practice it. For years the f&e squad have railed against the LGBT Community and they are in no position to dictate anything to anyone nor prevent their Civil Rights form being fully vested in them. Hiding behind religious freedom is no excuse and you don't hear that on the level that is being used by them from any other religious based group. Once the Hate Crimes legislation is passed then the matter can be addressed more readily and perhaps the level of screaming from your fellow believers will lessen finally. At least those on your side will certainly consider their hatred when their followers give them up after they are charged and convicted for crimes against the LGBT Community and that has existed for far too long. TFR hide

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    My question again, since Alockslee did not answer it.

    I have a question for the evolutionists and atheists. Where did the idea of marriage come from since we know that animals do not get married?

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:15 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 4

    Alockslee,

    My question was not based on hate speech. I did not understand your point trying to explain that same-sex marriage was recognized during ancient times. Older men marrying young girls was recognized during ancient times, women were mistreated during ancient times, however, do you think that because something was allowed in ancient times should be allowed now. If your answer is NO, then that is the position I am taking as a Christian. I do not care how much same-sex marriage was recognized during ancient times, I do not want it to be recognized now.

    I think that you demonstrate hate speech all the time against the f&e squad, as you call them.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:01 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show mathetes during the time your not stalking me how about answering my posts on the following threads: High Court to Hear Arguments on Mojave Cross U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Fate of Mojave Desert Cross New Effort to Redefine Marriage in Calif. Takes 1st Step Why Do the Heathen Rage? - International Blasphemy Day High Court Asked to Review Religious Graduation Speech Case There are many many more but those are enough to start with. Those should keep you busy for a while. Please go through each one individually, address each point, provide your supported arguments and remember to stick to factual analysis instead of religious rhetoric since the latter is just speculation and this requires your to respond with secular factual verifiable information. After you have done that, then I can respond to your posts. You will of course recall that you did beg me to hold an email exchange which you never replied no doubt just to get identification information on me to hand over to your fellow religious fanatics to harass me which doesn't work as you know after failing in your attempts. So once I read you complete replies to my prior posts and see what you offer as factual support the discussion can continue. Until then, don't bother me. TLC, you asked for clarification and I gave it to you, and thanks for admitting my points were known to you before you asked the following: TLChild » Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:22 am I have a question for the evolutionists and atheists. Where did the idea of marriage come from since we know that animals do not get married? Now that you have confirmed that you knew it before you posted, then your post was nothing more than hate speech. TFR hide

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "How hypocritical can one person be?"

    Bad hair day?

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:01 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

    Alockslee,

    I do not think anyone is disagreeing that there may have been same-sex marriages during ancient times, because Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of all types of sin, including homosexuality. Therefore, it is possible that there were same-sex marriages during ancient times. Nevertheless, I just realized, I do not understand your point and why you are making it.

    I only asked a question, and somehow you have created an entire scenario like I have stated that same-sex marriage has not been recognized before.

    However, I notice that according to you, same-sex marriage used to be recognized. Therefore, the people during ancient times realized that a rise in the homosexual lifestyle will bring the wrath of Yahweh. Therefore, they outlawed it, if there was a law.

    However, I couldn't care less about same-sex marriages being recognized during ancient times--all I care about is my country not allowing same-sex marriages today.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:24 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 4

    Alockslee,

    You stating that your comment is a source is not good enough for me. How can I make this clear, I NEED LINKS, WEBSITES, TITLES OF BOOKS, AND SO FORTH, ANYTHING BESIDES YOUR OPINIONS.

    It is amazing how you state information, and then act as though that was a source.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:00 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show You posted: TLChild »Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:22AM I have a question for the evolutionists and atheists. Where did the idea of marriage come from since we know that animals do not get married? ________________________________________________________ In Response: LEt me simplify it for you since you are having such difficulty with the subject. You asked for info where marriage came from. I gave you the current beliefs about it and then provided the historical data which showed it existed prior to your f&e squad invention. Now, the rest is easy since same sex marriages as shown in my prior post existed prior to your current day beliefs it proves that the f&e squad don't have a lock on it. So now you can respond to the data and produce some valid historical citations which will need to be secular and not some interpretation that you or someone of your ideological system just recently invented. As in Real History from the Roman or Greek period of say BCE and then prove that same sex marriages weren't recognized. TFR hide

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:27 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 5

    Alockslee stated Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:55 pm

    "In Response: While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, recent publicity and debate over the past decade gives an impression that civil marriage for lesbian and gay couples is novel and untested. There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. It is believed that same-sex marriage was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history."


    Alockslee,

    I am confused. In part of your first sentence you stated:

    "While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples."

    However, down to the end of your response you stated:

    "It is believed that same-sex marriage was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history."

    Therefore, my question to you is, was same-sex marriage recognized in the past or now people are trying to recognize it. See the problem with trying to respond to YOUR comments without reliable sources is, you are writing confusing and contradictory information.

    Once you clear up the confusions in your posts, just maybe, I will be able to respond.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:05 pm Agree: 10   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Alockslee, Your post to TLChild is another good example of hypocrisy: "Where I provided some historical information about the history of marriage showing same sex marriage existed prior to the bible. Since you hold it to be different perhaps you can put forth some verifiable information like I have to support your position please. We are looking for valid verifiable information which requires that it come from reliable sources and not some f&e squad site which is neither reliable nor valid in the least." You demand from TLChild "verifiable information" from "reliable sources" YET YOU DO NOT PROVIDE THE SOURCES TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN ASSERTIONS! How hypocritical can one person be? hide

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:01 pm Agree: 11   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show C'mon Alockslee, try to focus here for a minute. "mathetes, is there a specific post from me on this thread that is not an opinion that requires additional supporting citations?" YES: Alockslee » Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:55 pm : 0 : 0 Flag YOUR ASSERTION: "There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. It is believed that same-sex marriage was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history." YOUR REFERENCES: Zero. YOUR PARANOIA: "If this is yet another attempt to retaliate against me for stopping you ability to threaten me anonymously on my blog at http://alockslee.blogspot.com/, then of course I understand your frustration that you can't post and threaten me with impunity any longer." FACT: I have never entered your web site beyond the front page. I laughed myself silly and moved on. "Remember that in order for me to respond to your questions you must first provide answers to my previous questions propounded upon you in the proper format requested that was asked and stop these avoidance practices since you just look foolish each time you try to play this game." Why should I follow your rules, if YOU won't follow your own rules? "Finally, if you are speaking about a post from another thread then ask your question on that thread and stop stalking me across this site and focus on discussing each individual article on the appropriate thread. Cross posting will only confuse you further and not result in gaining anything that you seek." I only comment on the articles which interest me. As posted above, my request for you to follow your own rules referred to your comment on this page. If you think I'm "stalking" you, you really are paranoid. Please seek treatment immediately. "Please respond and let me know which of the above applies to your latest personal attack since it doesn't address anything from the article here it can only be judged on its face as such." Alockslee, read this closely. If you think it's a personal attack to ask you to stop being a hypocrite and follow the rules you yourself proposed (even, demand) of others, then you just don't understand rational discussion. hide

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:12 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 7

    Flagged as inappropriate. show TLC, could you please answer my post in this thread from: Alockslee » Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:55 pm Where I provided some historical information about the history of marriage showing same sex marriage existed prior to the bible. Since you hold it to be different perhaps you can put forth some verifiable information like I have to support your position please. We are looking for valid verifiable information which requires that it come from reliable sources and not some f&e squad site which is neither reliable nor valid in the least. TFR TFR hide

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:06 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 7

    Flagged as inappropriate. show mathetes, is there a specific post from me on this thread that is not an opinion that requires additional supporting citations? Please quote in in full so I can address your concerns. If this is yet another attempt to retaliate against me for stopping you ability to threaten me anonymously on my blog at http://alockslee.blogspot.com/, then of course I understand your frustration that you can't post and threaten me with impunity any longer. Remember that in order for me to respond to your questions you must first provide answers to my previous questions propounded upon you in the proper format requested that was asked and stop these avoidance practices since you just look foolish each time you try to play this game. Finally, if you are speaking about a post from another thread then ask your question on that thread and stop stalking me across this site and focus on discussing each individual article on the appropriate thread. Cross posting will only confuse you further and not result in gaining anything that you seek. Please respond and let me know which of the above applies to your latest personal attack since it doesn't address anything from the article here it can only be judged on its face as such. TFR hide

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:31 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Alockslee, You are always demanding proof and references from those with whom you disagree, yet I notice that your post contains exactly zero references. You mention a lot of supposed "facts" yet you give us no authority on which to base our acceptance or rejection of this information. In case you've forgotten your own rule, I'll print it here to remind you: Alockslee Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:59 am : 2 : 4 Flag .... In Response: Well said! Here is a suggestion for future postings among those of us who can actually stick to the topics contained in the articles: 1. Only engage in factual posts and support via links, portions from reputable sources;" Remember writing that? Why don't you follow your own rules and cite references which are acknowledged as neutral (neither liberal nor conservative) and authoritative by all? I'll check back in the morning to see what references you've supplied. hide

  • Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:55 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show TLChild » Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:22 am I have a question for the evolutionists and atheists. Where did the idea of marriage come from since we know that animals do not get married? -------------------------------------------------------- In Response: While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, recent publicity and debate over the past decade gives an impression that civil marriage for lesbian and gay couples is novel and untested. There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. It is believed that same-sex marriage was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history. Looks like evidence exists that predates your religious beliefs. BTW, the concept had to exist that allowed same sex couples to be married otherwise it wouldn't have been mentioned in the first place. That point never seems to be brought up by the f&e squad, wonder why?? Guess that is too difficult for them to deal with and proves the concept predates their false revisionist history. TFR hide

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    miiiiiiiiiiiiiiike!

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:50 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    I will, just like I do with TLC. I think its fair to let Reformation know that it is a bit absurd, but if he/she doesn't care, so be it, no skin off my back!

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    miiiiiiii-eeeeeeeeee.......K!

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    Then just ignore him. It's not like you have to read it.

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:26 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, I never said Reformation can't comment, did I? I merely said its ridiculous to post the exact same thing in multiple threads.

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    oh forget it. never mind. mike is just too easy of a target.

    hey mike85.....is that your iq by any chance?

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    alright alright....let me try and be civil in this discussion....

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Mike,

    ". Stick to the discussion, or don't discuss at all."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Are you the comment police? Give it a rest. This is called a comment section, and not a chatroom or forum, for a reason. If I want to comment on the weather, I can. If I want to comment on the Dallas Cowboys, I can. You have issues if that offends you.

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 1:18 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Not so much, but nice try!

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:54 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

    Mike85
    It just makes you look like you are running from page to page and trying to dodge your questions that you cannot defend.

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:30 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

    Reformation, post something once and I promise I'll read it. Posting more than once just makes you look desperate.

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:25 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 6

    Mike85,
    You want to challenge that of what you posted?

    Original text of the Codex Sinaticus. 9 Or know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit God’s kingdom? Be not deceived: neither lewd persons, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor catamites, nor sodomites.

    http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=38&chapter=6&lid=en&side=r&verse=9&zoomSlider=0

    Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Its heavily corrected text is of outstanding importance for the history of the Bible and the manuscript – the oldest substantial book to survive Antiquity – is of supreme importance for the history of the book.

    We didn't add to nothing. It has always been there. So your argument is weak.

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:45 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

    Reformation, what irritates me is reposting the same thign in multiple threads, which I stated clearly. Please read before posting your pious nonsense.

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:22 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

    I have a question for the evolutionists and atheists.

    Where did the idea of marriage come from since we know that animals do not get married?

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:19 am Agree: 6   Disagree: 7

    Nothing irritates me more than people who post that they are Christians but believe that homosexuality is not a sin.

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:46 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 6

    Mike85,
    Does what I say irritate you? If it does, you should check your heart and wonder why?

  • Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:17 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 3

    Reformation, nothing irritates me more than people who post their less-than-important posting under multiple threads. Stick to the discussion, or don't discuss at all. Like I said in the other threat when you posted the exact same thing, it most certainly is your point of view, you need to learn the difference between a fact and opinion.

  • Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:07 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 8

    I wonder if Christ delighted in my fornication, when I wasn't married . I wonder if he delighted in all the crimes I committed. I wonder if he delighted in the drugs I did. Yes, He had mercy and compassion. Yet, I had to turn from those things when coming to serve Him. Being a homosexual is something Christ does not delight in. Just as He didn't delight in all of my sin. For those complaining about gay rights, you do have the right to be gay, you do have the right to hate God and Christians, but the right you don't have is to call yourself a Christian and be a practicing homosexual. That's not my point of view, it's the one who created you and His view.

  • Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:19 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

    Prophet, right, because there is reason to believe the Mormon church should lose their tax exempt status due to a breach of tax law.

  • Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:09 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 6

    Which goes back to my comment earlier:

    Personally, the only reason I see for them wanting the information on who supported P8 is so they know who to target.

  • Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:08 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    Right, and no christian has ever attacked a gay person, ever, in history.

  • Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:59 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 5

    And still, no Christians tore down signs and accosted people like the gays did in California....

  • Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:58 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

    Prophet, gay marriage has passed in many other states without millions of dollars being pumped into the state to run commercials. That is what made CA different.

  • Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:29 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

    Mike,

    Gay marriages laws have been passed in a number of states without incident. I wonder what would make California any different. The answer: nothing.

  • Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:31 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

    Prophet, if Prop H8 hadn't passed, I can assure you the "christian" lot would be doing the same (seeing as how you love to protest when anyone is even remotely inclusive!)

  • Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:20 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 5

    Personally, the only reason I see for them wanting the information on who supported P8 is so they know who to target.

  • Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:17 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 6

    "The LAWS do not depend on your religious beliefs and can't be imposed upon others and not be eventually ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL."

    Only if they are strictly religious. To be frank, the concept of Separation of Church and State is based on peoples religious views (Christians all the way to atheism).

  • Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:13 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

    Some one forgot their meds again!!!

  • Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:33 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Mike, No one is more surprised than me this morning. I don't write anything trying to be popular; there must be a lot of people who, though they might disagree with you on some things, are concerned about that association in the other post. I hope you're having a good day. hide

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