California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

[ChristopherHall]

Get ready.

California ban on same-sex marriage struck downWASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a much-anticipated ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/sam...age/index.html

As gays are rewarded the civil right to marry we as Christians must re-affirm our commitment to biblical marriage between a man and a woman within our ranks.

How do you feel we should respond? Should we go "political" or should we engage through teaching? Or both? Will our political efforts undermine our message? Will it boost our message?

Now the issue is...will they try to "force" Churches who believe in traditional marriage to perform these unions?

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Get ready.



As gays are rewarded the civil right to marry we as Christians must re-affirm our commitment to biblical marriage between a man and a woman within our ranks.

How do you feel we should respond? Should we go "political" or should we engage through teaching? Or both? Will our political efforts undermine our message? Will it boost our message?

Now the issue is...will they try to "force" Churches who believe in traditional marriage to perform these unions?

First of all I do not care if gays can or can't marry. I think it is a sin like anything else. The fact is it will be made legal whether it is today or a year down the road. I do not agree that gays do not have rights, they do because they are human. I do not think they SHOULD be able to be married, but I am not going to lose sleep over it. If we are to combat this like we do other sinful things then we need to keep doing what we are doing now. Speak out against it. No matter what we say people already have their minds made up. Either you are for it or against it. I am against drug usage, but I would not mind if the legalized it if they tax it out the wazoo. It would take the stigma away and you might find drug usage decline instead of increase. Look at the countries where it is legal drug related problems in those places are minimal compared to here.

I don't think that the government will 'make' the church do the unions. I think they will leave it as our choice. Which is fine with me. As long as the seperation between church and state stays the way it is then they can not make us. I am a different conservative. I think the seperation of church and state is needed. Just think if you have enough people that got a big enough push the government COULD MAKE us do things that are against our beliefs and morals. It would not be a good day if the non-christian side or the chrisitan side won out. There is NO way the country would be a better place if the non-christian side won and I do not think the country would be all that better if our side won out.

[DividedThigh]

homosexuals are just people with a sexual preferance they dont deserve any special treatment for that part of who they are, none, they are people just like all of us, the law should be blind in that area, in my humble opinion, they are not unique or special just different in there own way, i dont agree with there behavior and my bible teaches it is abominable, but legally they dont deserve any special treatment or minority status of any kind, dt

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

First of all I do not care if gays can or can't marry. I think it is a sin like anything else. The fact is it will be made legal whether it is today or a year down the road. I do not agree that gays do not have rights, they do because they are human. I do not think they SHOULD be able to be married, but I am not going to lose sleep over it. If we are to combat this like we do other sinful things then we need to keep doing what we are doing now. Speak out against it. No matter what we say people already have their minds made up. Either you are for it or against it. I am against drug usage, but I would not mind if the legalized it if they tax it out the wazoo. It would take the stigma away and you might find drug usage decline instead of increase. Look at the countries where it is legal drug related problems in those places are minimal compared to here.

I don't think that the government will 'make' the church do the unions. I think they will leave it as our choice. Which is fine with me. As long as the seperation between church and state stays the way it is then they can not make us. I am a different conservative. I think the seperation of church and state is needed. Just think if you have enough people that got a big enough push the government COULD MAKE us do things that are against our beliefs and morals. It would not be a good day if the non-christian side or the chrisitan side won out. There is NO way the country would be a better place if the non-christian side won and I do not think the country would be all that better if our side won out.

That was a very balanced answer. I feel very much the same. I believe our focus should be how we are to live as Christians…not so much controlling what others do. Why? Because no matter how hard we try we will never be able to control what others do or how others want to live. I believe our quiet, humble, clean living, will attract more people than loud rancor and public diatribe ever will. It goes back to, “as for me and my house…we will serve the Lord.” Sometimes our political crusades are distractions even if we mean well. We should praise God that we live in a free country…even if in our opinion it’s too free.

Freedom is sacred…even when free men are not.

We maintain the freedom to preach.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

That was a very balanced answer. I feel very much the same. I believe our focus should be how we are to live as Christians…not so much controlling what others do. Why? Because no matter how hard we try we will never be able to control what others do or how others want to live. I believe our quiet, humble, clean living, will attract more people than loud rancor and public diatribe ever will. It goes back to, “as for me and my house…we will serve the Lord.” Sometimes our political crusades are distractions even if we mean well. We should praise God that we live in a free country…even if in our opinion it’s too free.

Freedom is sacred…even when free men are not.

We maintain the freedom to preach.

Thanks. I think that in the long run we will do more harm than help if we start screaming at the issues. What good does it do in a dissagreement when you start yelling people get more mad. Often times domestic disputes start off with a small arguement that excalte to other things. In witnessing is it affective to tear down the doctrine to person believes in order to lead them to truth? NOm infact it is counter productive. I had a fairly good acquaintace in college that was gay. She was actually batting for both teams. She knew that I did not agree with her lifestyle and she respected that I cared enough about her to pray for her. I never made it a confrontation and it never became one. But I assure you if I made it an issue then it would have been bad.

I agree with DT that there is no difference between them and us but the sin.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Get ready.



As gays are rewarded the civil right to marry we as Christians must re-affirm our commitment to biblical marriage between a man and a woman within our ranks.

How do you feel we should respond? Should we go "political" or should we engage through teaching? Or both? Will our political efforts undermine our message? Will it boost our message?

Now the issue is...will they try to "force" Churches who believe in traditional marriage to perform these unions?

They haven't been given the right to marry...they had the right all along just like everyone else, they were required to marry someone of the opposite sex. They were receiving equal treatment under the law, they had the same rights to marry as everyone else. So now I guess polygamy laws should be struck down so that polygamist have the right to marry. Wonder how long before we are allowed to "marry" our pets? If we throw out what marriage has meant all along it has no meaning at all.

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

They haven't been given the right to marry...they had the right all along just like everyone else, they were required to marry someone of the opposite sex. They were receiving equal treatment under the law, they had the same rights to marry as everyone else. So now I guess polygamy laws should be struck down so that polygamist have the right to marry. Wonder how long before we are allowed to "marry" our pets? If we throw out what marriage has meant all along it has no meaning at all.

well said baron, that was my point, dt

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

They haven't been given the right to marry...they had the right all along just like everyone else, they were required to marry someone of the opposite sex. They were receiving equal treatment under the law, they had the same rights to marry as everyone else.

I understand your logic, but it doesn’t cut the Constitutional mustard. For example let’s say that the government ruled that everyone had to be baptized Catholic if they wanted to become Christian. Well, you and I would cry that we want the right to be the kind of Christian we want to be and that our right to be a Christian was being violated. According to the above logic the government could say that we have equal rights, everyone is treated equally in the sense that everyone has to be Catholic. Funny thing is…this was done for centuries down through history. They saw it as being perfectly fair and just.

The issue with this particular subject is that you have two citizens arguing that they want to have the right to marry “whoever” they like period. Now the question becomes; does civil government have the right to tell people who they can or cannot marry? This was already visited in the Supreme Court, I believe it was in 1969 (Lovings vs. Virginia?). Here’s a little background. In America marriage had always been a “private” social contract. In a court of law all it took were creditable witnesses to affirm that a couple was “married”. The government had nothing on record nor did it issue licenses to get married. Often family Bibles were admissible in court because family marriage records were often recorded in the covers. Marriage was a private contract. But things changed in the 1920’s. States began to pass laws requiring marriage licenses in effort to prohibit mixed marriages. So we then see a wave of states passing laws requiring the state’s permission to marry by forcing people to get marriage licenses. So in a sense our marriage license system is the remnant of institutionalized racism. Anyway this was challenged (I think it was Lovings vs Virginia in 1969). Of course, there was the argument that the law wasn’t discriminatory because they were free to marry “within the limits of the law”, meaning they were free to marry, but only among their own race. The court ruled that constitutionally the government couldn't prohibit two citizens of different races from entering marriage.

So now the question is citizen A wants to marry citizen B. Does the government have the legal right to discriminate against them based on gender? We’ll affirmative action legislation and court rulings clearly state that the government cannot decimate based on race, religion, gender, etc. That there word, “gender”, becomes problematic. The government is only allowed to see them as citizen A and citizen B. Not as “man and woman” when it comes to civil rights.

So as you can see…it’s a complex issue. Like many things in our world, it’s sinful. The question is…do we do we place it under legal prohibition or criminalize it?

So now I guess polygamy laws should be struck down so that polygamist have the right to marry.

That may be next…but interestingly in early America polygamy wasn’t prohibited, it was just not recognized in a court of one’s peers where culturally it was rejected. So polygamists traveled west were they could found a culture that allowed for it.

Wonder how long before we are allowed to "marry" our pets?

I think that’s a leap…but if someone did request legal rights to marry their pet…they have deeper issues than “marrying their pet”. LOL

If we throw out what marriage has meant all along it has no meaning at all.

Yep, that’s what I told my wife. If they legalize gay marriage in Ohio my wife and I might as well get a divorce because our marriage doesn’t mean anything at all anymore.

I can’t help it…the world will be the world. As a Christian I just live above the fray.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

I understand your logic, but it doesn’t cut the Constitutional mustard...

The issue with this particular subject is that you have two citizens arguing that they want to have the right to marry “whoever” they like period. Now the question becomes; does civil government have the right to tell people who they can or cannot marry? This was already visited in the Supreme Court, I believe it was in 1969 (Lovings vs. Virginia?).

First of all, California did not strike this down based on the US Constitution, but on the California Constitution. Your analogy being a religious one obviously crosses up with the First Amendment. The problem that you fail to see is they already had the right to a civil union in CA, the term marriage was reserved for unions between people of the opposite sex. This is an attempt to force other states that have DOMA to be forced into accepting same-sex marriages through full faith and credit.

YES!!! The state does have the right to restrict who you marry...

They have age restrictions.
You can't marry your kids, grandparents, cousins, etc.
You can't marry if you are already married.

[Baron1710]

CH - I don't have time to address your mistaken history of marriage in the United States tonight, but maybe this weekend I can help dispose you of those revisionist notions.