California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

You know nothing about forgiveness. The fact that people regret their past mistakes has nothing to do with God punishing them after they have repented. So Paul the church planter never pastored?

Bro...you'd call Democrats baby killers and say nothing about women who actually choose to kill. In other words you're life ethics sound merely political. Your life ethics seem like they are only a ploy to garner Republican votes it has nothing to do with "orthopraxy" or right practice in the church. If you can so easily forgive women who actually choose to murder their babies...why heap guilt and call Democrats, who never chose to abort, baby killers? Is that forgiving?

For the record, most who vote Democratic do so based on economy, jobs, and health care. Very few vote Democratic because they support abortion.

You and I both believe in forgiveness. I differ from you in that I believe there is a hefty price to pay for sins committed even after forgiven.

I do not see Paul settling and pastoring a church. He evanglized and planted churches and kept moving.

[SOUNWORTHY]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

For the record, most who vote Democratic do so based on economy, jobs, and health care. Very few vote Democratic because they support abortion.

Sorry to say, too many Americans are a selfish, self centered lot. They will vote anything into office if they think it will benefit them personally and the government will provide more benefits to make them comfortable regardless of the immorality that may abound. I for one am concerned and even afraid for the direction we are headed. Some will even vote for an unknown just because he promises change. The Jew's wanted change in the old testament and they got it and so did the Germans. Change is not always good.

The government may not force our churches to perform a marriage ceremony for two gays but what is going to happen if these gays start suing our pastors because they refuse, can our churches afford that ? The ACLU would be more than happy to see every God fearing church in our nation closed. As far as the church becoming political(it has always been,) if we don't do all we can to defend our rights who will, not the ACLU ?

The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing ...

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Bro...you'd call Democrats baby killers and say nothing about women who actually choose to kill. In other words you're life ethics sound merely political. Your life ethics seem like they are only a ploy to garner Republican votes it has nothing to do with "orthopraxy" or right practice in the church. If you can so easily forgive women who actually choose to murder their babies...why heap guilt and call Democrats, who never chose to abort, baby killers? Is that forgiving?

For the record, most who vote Democratic do so based on economy, jobs, and health care. Very few vote Democratic because they support abortion.

You and I both believe in forgiveness. I differ from you in that I believe there is a hefty price to pay for sins committed even after forgiven.

I do not see Paul settling and pastoring a church. He evanglized and planted churches and kept moving.

I too believe there is a hefty price for sin, and Jesus paid with His blood and He wrote Paid in Full.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by SOUNWORTHY

Sorry to say, too many Americans are a selfish, self centered lot. They will vote anything into office if they think it will benefit them personally and the government will provide more benefits to make them comfortable regardless of the immorality that may abound. I for one am concerned and even afraid for the direction we are headed. Some will even vote for an unknown just because he promises change. The Jew's wanted change in the old testament and they got it and so did the Germans. Change is not always good.

The government may not force our churches to perform a marriage ceremony for two gays but what is going to happen if these gays start suing our pastors because they refuse, can our churches afford that ? The ACLU would be more than happy to see every God fearing church in our nation closed. As far as the church becoming political(it has always been,) if we don't do all we can to defend our rights who will, not the ACLU ?

The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing ...

Men fail to realize that God will triumph regardless of what good or bad men do.

[Antipas]

The more I thought about the post below the more I felt it necessary to address some of the points made. God bless all.

Originally Posted by SOUNWORTHY

Sorry to say, too many Americans are a selfish, self centered lot. They will vote anything into office if they think it will benefit them personally and the government will provide more benefits to make them comfortable regardless of the immorality that may abound.

I think it’s inappropriate to call Americans “selfish” and “self centered”. So far the primary concern among Americans domestically are jobs and health insurance. It’s not “selfish” or “self centered” to want a job that can sustain you and your family. Nor is it “selfish” or “self centered” to want your family covered with affordable health insurance. In today’s world medical expenses are so great any respectable husband and/or father would feel it their responsibility to have health insurance. I wouldn’t think much of a man who didn’t care if he had a job to earn a living to care for his family or didn’t care if his family was covered with health insurance should one of them become ill. So I think your first statement is an outrageous and accusatory distortion.

Immorality is an issue of the human heart and soul. Mankind is a fallen creature….even those who appear most righteous are brazenly immoral before a Holy God. Your statement also assumes that it is government’s role to neglect economic and social stability to police morality. I find that problematic. Government is entirely incapable of governing morality. That’s why our founders stated that our constitution is incapable of governing an immoral people and stressed the importance of private and individual Christian faith as a necessity for a civil society.

I for one am concerned and even afraid for the direction we are headed. Some will even vote for an unknown just because he promises change. The Jew's wanted change in the old testament and they got it and so did the Germans. Change is not always good.

True, change is not always good. However, this underscores the degree of desire for change. A black man named Obama may actually become President of the US. That means the American people must be sincerely fed up with Republican arrogance and corruption. I wouldn’t blame the American people…I blame the Republicans who have abused their offices so badly that the American people will vote for anything promising change. Put the responsibility where it belongs.

The government may not force our churches to perform a marriage ceremony for two gays but what is going to happen if these gays start suing our pastors because they refuse, can our churches afford that ? The ACLU would be more than happy to see every God fearing church in our nation closed. As far as the church becoming political(it has always been,) if we don't do all we can to defend our rights who will, not the ACLU ?

I see a problem with this line of logic. You’re stating that we should restrict the liberty of another to live as they choose and to have equal rights to marry whosoever they choose because you don’t want to take a stand? Don’t you understand that if our liberties are attacked we have an authentic case to fight for those liberties? Right now we’re rallying to try to restrict the liberties of others. We are a free nation. America has nearly always granted more freedom as opposed to restricting freedoms. So let’s face it, they will get the right to marry. We have to be prepared to defend our rights if they challenge those. That is a legitimate battle. There is a good chance that nothing will come of it. Never has a church been forced to perform a wedding because churches set their private standards of sacrament. Some churches require counseling and a couple has to meet the requirements for that counseling. A requirement that we’ll have to be sure to continue is that the couple be comprised of one man and one woman. And we dig in and stand for that truth. Right now we’re seen as standing against the liberties of others.

The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing ...

And we must preach the truth and live according to the Gospel. We cannot make it our mission to politically force others to live as we would like them to live.

[SOUNWORTHY]

A true Apostolic can not vote for Obama, not because he is black but because he is an ultra liberal. I didn't say all Americans are selfish and self centered, I said too many are. They think of themselves above the morality of the nation. Some of them have had the government supporting them for generations.

[SOUNWORTHY]

[QUOTE=Antipas;468025]



Never has a church been forced to perform a wedding because churches set their private standards of sacrament. Some churches require counseling and a couple has to meet the requirements for that counseling. A requirement that we’ll have to be sure to continue is that the couple be comprised of one man and one woman. And we dig in and stand for that truth. Right now we’re seen as standing against the liberties of others.



QUOTE]

Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches
h/t Transfigurations

Simply changing the definition of marriage opens the door to a flood of lawsuits against dissenting religious institutions based on state public accommodation and employment laws that prohibit marital status and sexual orientation discrimination.

Additionally, religious institutions that refuse to recognize a new state-imposed definition could be stripped of access to government programs, have their tax exemption denied and even lose the ability to solemnize civil marriages.

We need only look at Massachusetts for a preview of what to expect. There, in 2004, justices of the peace who refused to solemnize same-sex unions due to religious objections were summarily fired.

It did not matter that other justices of the peace were available to do the job because, by Massachusetts law, same-sex unions were now entitled to equal treatment. A religious belief became a firing offense.

It is but a small step for the state to impose this rationale on churches and other houses of worship and end legal recognition of religious marriage ceremonies that do not comply with the state’s expanded definition of marriage.

This is not the only example of what is to come. Massachusetts, like many other states, strictly regulates private adoption agencies through licensing.

Historically, this has not posed any difficulties for religious institutions, but Massachusetts now demands that all licensed adoption agencies be willing to place children with legally married same-sex couples.

AnglicanXn: The “but clergy have a right to refuse to marry anyone they don’t want to marry” line is a very thin line of defence. Point of comparison: in an “employment at will” state, the employer has the right to terminate anyone without any reason. But, despite that, the employer does NOT have the right to terminate all African-American employees.

So, just as clergy have the right not to marry anyone they choose not to, they will NOT have the right to make a blanket decision not to marry homosexual couples without risking the charge of discrimination.

For those who are dubious, just look to the example in Canada. Connect the dots:
1) Homosexuals are entitled to be married.
2) Clergy derive their right to marry from the state, and are state actors in solemnizing marriage.
3) Anti-discrimination laws prohobit discrimination based on “sexual orientation.”

Right there, you have clergy exposed to legal charges for refusing to marry homosexual couples. But most governments will, for now, carve out a religious conscience clause (as was supposedly done in Canada). Even the liberals did not dispute that, absent a conscience clause, clergy would be liable for not performing homosexual marriages. But how long will that religious conscience clause last?

You know that the homosexual activists will work to eliminate the clause as soon as they think they will be able to do so. Additionally, churches which accept homosexual marriage work to undermine the religious conscience clause, especially for clergy in that denomination.

Ask yourself this - if the Anglican Church of Canada officially endorses homosexual marriage, how can an individual Anglican priest in a hierarchical denomination, claim a religious conscientious objection to homosexual marriage? You’ve got to know that the human rights tribunals (stacked with those of an intolerant liberal POV) will simply declare that there is no valid relgious objection and that the individual clergy is simply discriminatory.

This is a very real risk, and one that we need to pay very close attention to.

[QUOTE=SOUNWORTHY;468687]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Never has a church been forced to perform a wedding because churches set their private standards of sacrament. Some churches require counseling and a couple has to meet the requirements for that counseling. A requirement that we’ll have to be sure to continue is that the couple be comprised of one man and one woman. And we dig in and stand for that truth. Right now we’re seen as standing against the liberties of others.



QUOTE]

Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches
h/t Transfigurations

Simply changing the definition of marriage opens the door to a flood of lawsuits against dissenting religious institutions based on state public accommodation and employment laws that prohibit marital status and sexual orientation discrimination.

Additionally, religious institutions that refuse to recognize a new state-imposed definition could be stripped of access to government programs, have their tax exemption denied and even lose the ability to solemnize civil marriages.

We need only look at Massachusetts for a preview of what to expect. There, in 2004, justices of the peace who refused to solemnize same-sex unions due to religious objections were summarily fired.

It did not matter that other justices of the peace were available to do the job because, by Massachusetts law, same-sex unions were now entitled to equal treatment. A religious belief became a firing offense.

It is but a small step for the state to impose this rationale on churches and other houses of worship and end legal recognition of religious marriage ceremonies that do not comply with the state’s expanded definition of marriage.

This is not the only example of what is to come. Massachusetts, like many other states, strictly regulates private adoption agencies through licensing.

Historically, this has not posed any difficulties for religious institutions, but Massachusetts now demands that all licensed adoption agencies be willing to place children with legally married same-sex couples.

AnglicanXn: The “but clergy have a right to refuse to marry anyone they don’t want to marry” line is a very thin line of defence. Point of comparison: in an “employment at will” state, the employer has the right to terminate anyone without any reason. But, despite that, the employer does NOT have the right to terminate all African-American employees.

So, just as clergy have the right not to marry anyone they choose not to, they will NOT have the right to make a blanket decision not to marry homosexual couples without risking the charge of discrimination.

For those who are dubious, just look to the example in Canada. Connect the dots:
1) Homosexuals are entitled to be married.
2) Clergy derive their right to marry from the state, and are state actors in solemnizing marriage.
3) Anti-discrimination laws prohobit discrimination based on “sexual orientation.”

Right there, you have clergy exposed to legal charges for refusing to marry homosexual couples. But most governments will, for now, carve out a religious conscience clause (as was supposedly done in Canada). Even the liberals did not dispute that, absent a conscience clause, clergy would be liable for not performing homosexual marriages. But how long will that religious conscience clause last?

You know that the homosexual activists will work to eliminate the clause as soon as they think they will be able to do so. Additionally, churches which accept homosexual marriage work to undermine the religious conscience clause, especially for clergy in that denomination.

Ask yourself this - if the Anglican Church of Canada officially endorses homosexual marriage, how can an individual Anglican priest in a hierarchical denomination, claim a religious conscientious objection to homosexual marriage? You’ve got to know that the human rights tribunals (stacked with those of an intolerant liberal POV) will simply declare that there is no valid relgious objection and that the individual clergy is simply discriminatory.

This is a very real risk, and one that we need to pay very close attention to.

The individual who wrote this article obviously doesn't know that Canada doesn't have an equivalent to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Therefore there are no protections for free speech or religion in the Canadian legal system like we have in our Constitution. Even courts in Canada have noted this provision of the US Constitution that would even protect "hate speech" according to the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment.

Please review:

Does Canada have an equivalent to the First Amendment?

No. Although many Canadians are aware of the United States First Amendment, the Canadian approach to freedom of expression issues is different.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Jurisprudence of the United States’ courts, including the Supreme Court, severely restricts any state action to suppress free expression, including hate speech or propaganda. For example, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-7675.ZS.html, the Supreme Court of the United States found that a municipal law prohibiting the burning of a cross was an impermissible restriction on the First Amendment.

Gay rights activists would have to fight for an Amendment to the US Constitution to justify suing churches based on their religious convictions.

[SOUNWORTHY]

Think again!!

Originally Posted by SOUNWORTHY

Think again!!

If gays tried to force anything upon churches...it would be war. And we would wage the greatest civil rights movement for religious liberty this world has ever seen...and that my friend would be a real battle worth fighting and winning as opposed to trying to use government to try to control others. It would be game day and it would finish the issue. I'm no coward, I believe God would show himself victorious (remember we're not in this battle alone). I say bring it on.