Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

The popular viewpoint is conservative not liberal. That's why it's taking the court's to do this.

This is one of those fights we're not going to win. We need to just trust God and make the church a haven or shelter in the storm of this crazy world. We can be the quiet humble sojourners God called us to be. Frankly, I long for the day when the church isn't reduced to a political action committee. When we preach the truth in our churches that will define us...not our politics. And if they come after us for what we preach...then we will be the martyrs and the Constitution will be on our side.

I don't find value in political crusades to control others.

A majority voted a ban on Marriage in California....do you really think the majority of Ca voters are conservative?

BTW the problem is not preaching the truth IN our churches....it's getting THEM to hear it...other wise we are just preaching to the chior

BTW this issue is not about preaching against homosexuality or legislating laws against homosexuality. The issue is a redefinition of a cultural norm

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Did you listen to yourself? What Constitutional right does the court have to overthrow the people? It doesn't unless you buy into the whacky jurisprudence where the court conferred that authority upon themselves.

Exactly.

One more question. Does anyone believe God still brings judgement on nations due to their immorality?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

I'm not sure if you realize the ramifications of this lifting of the ban. It isn't just about same sex marriages, but it opens the door to any type of marriage which covers same sex, beastiality, incest, polygamy, ect. If it is a constitutional right to form any type of marriage you see fit or family structure...then we are talking about more than one form of sexual sins but covering them all and making them legal.

Come quickly Lord Jesus.

On top of that we have gay friendly legislation that affect our kids in schools and on TOP of that they want to ELIMINATE any gender specific references from all text books like father and mother. They are attempting to remove ANY thing that speaks of a heterosexual relationship being what we normally thing of as a couple or a family. See this is not about a war with them. It's about their war with you and your family.

[Encryptus]

On top of that in many cases in California gays are not requesting equal rights, they are requesting preferential treatment !

For example it's not enough in schools to stay neutral, you are breaking the law if you do not portray in a POSITIVE light.

This is creating a special privileged class.

The voters did vote the laws in, but the were deceived in what they actually stood for, hence the current backlash by the public.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

On top of that in many cases in California gays are not requesting equal rights, they are requesting preferential treatment !

For example it's not enough in schools to stay neutral, you are breaking the law if you do not portray in a POSITIVE light.

This is creating a special privileged class.

The voters did vote the laws in, but the were deceived in what they actually stood for, hence the current backlash by the public.

Exactly

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Did you listen to yourself? What Constitutional right does the court have to overthrow the people? It doesn't unless you buy into the whacky jurisprudence where the court conferred that authority upon themselves.

That’s the court’s job. No system is perfect. We’re an imperfect people in an imperfect world. You see “liberty” is too precious to rely on “democracy” to ensure freedom. We have Constitutional rights defined by both the states and the federal government. When “the people” (through Democracy) vote for legislation it often falls on the courts to see if that legislation violates constitutional law. For example, let’s say 99% of Americans voted to ban blacks and whites from getting married. Now, just because “the people” want to ban interracial marriages, does that make it just constitutionally? The courts have to decide. So frankly, you’re right. In a court of law the will of “the people” isn’t the issue…the issue is “the law”. And we should praise God for that. The court found that California’s constitution doesn’t permit the will of the people to pass legislation to control the private living choices, relationships, or social contracts of other people unless it would endanger life, liberty, or property. These are the three essentials to law.

So in the end, yes, the courts are granted this right by their respective constitutions.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Sam

In other words, "The constitution does not say what it says. It says what the Supreme Court says it says."

The constitutions are not divine writ and they need to be interpreted, because what a statement means to some, it may mean something entirely different to another. The courts are charged with “interpreting” their respective constitutions.

Here’s the deal…courts in the US will typically rule in favor of individual liberty unless they perceive that said liberty would endanger life, liberty, or property. The only exception I can see as I think about it right now is abortion. Abortion endangers both the life of the mother and terminates the life of the unborn. However the courts have ruled that a mother has legal authority over the life of her unborn child seeing that it dwells within her person. That’s why as abortion because “safer” (frankly I disagree) the courts ruled in favor of abortion rights. Of course the “choice” position essentially takes the government out of the equation and leaves individual women free to choose. Therefore the sin of abortion isn’t a “national sin” it’s a “personal sin”. To demonstrate this let’s assume abortion remains legal…everyone could still choose not to abort. The onus is on the individual not the nation. Of course this will lead me to another issue that gets my goat if I’m not careful.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

I'm not sure if you realize the ramifications of this lifting of the ban. It isn't just about same sex marriages, but it opens the door to any type of marriage which covers same sex, beastiality, incest, polygamy, ect. If it is a constitutional right to form any type of marriage you see fit or family structure...then we are talking about more than one form of sexual sins but covering them all and making them legal.

Come quickly Lord Jesus.

Bestiality is currently defined as a psychosis. Won’t happen. Incest is seen as public health hazard. Won’t happen. Polygamy…now that one might happen. But I get your point.

Ultimately we have to learn to be defined by Jesus Christ and not this earthly nation…because this world will NEVER measure up nor will it ever please God…it’s impossible for the carnal man to please God or live by God’s Law. We’re strangers and pilgrims down here. I know we want to be popular governors of the people because we believe we can control their lives for the better…but that’ isn’t going to happen.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

the more people have such a defeatest attitude the more we WILL lose.

A man on the radio was asked his feelings. He said what two people do in their bedroom is none of business so I don't care. Apathy...this was not about what they do sexually in the bedroom.

The way I see it is that they’re all ready shacking up and they’re going nowhere. In my mind NOBODY should be having sex unless they are legally committed to one another. That means that a man or woman who wants to have intercourse should be married…even if they were each previously divorced for issues other than adultery. Of course as a Christian I’d never sanction such a marriage nor do I think the church should perform them. But if they want to live together…they should go down and have a civil marriage.

Now let’s think about gay people. They’re going to do it. They’re going to live together. While we don’t agree with the union, we also don’t agree with divorced people remarrying unless the divorce was on the grounds of adultery. It could it argued that we’re being selective in our judgment against gays because we aren’t crying out loudly at all about this other illicit marriages among straight divorcees…and they take place and will take place far more than gay marriages.

In all honesty…we do we choose to be silent regarding one illicit marriage and rush to judgment against another? Are we being partial in our judgment?

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

A majority voted a ban on Marriage in California....do you really think the majority of Ca voters are conservative?

All I know is that the majority voted to ban gay marriage for whatever reason.

BTW the problem is not preaching the truth IN our churches....it's getting THEM to hear it...other wise we are just preaching to the choir

No man comes unto the Father unless the Spirit draws him. We can’t MAKE people hear us if they don’t want to.

BTW this issue is not about preaching against homosexuality or legislating laws against homosexuality. The issue is a redefinition of a cultural norm

True. It does define a cultural norm of our society. However, it will NEVER redefine the norms and sacraments of the church. For the vast majority of human history “culture” hasn’t been in line with the church. And the church has flourished in other cultures that allowed this stuff…for example Rome allowed this too. I think God wants us out of politics and in the streets, hospitals, pregnancy centers, homeless shelters, food pantries, etc. We are CONSUMED with politics.