A federal appeals court has declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, paving the way for a likely U.S. Supreme Court showdown on the voter-approved law.
"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
I heard that there are gays in the military and gays in California.
A conservative is someone who believes that firefighters, teachers, and police officers are overpaid.
"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Republicans experience suffering the way they experience all their virtues, i.e. vicariously.
According to "just war" standards of Christian theology, if Saddam Hussein killed 30,000 Iraqis, and the Iraq War killed 120,00, how was the War "just"?
The prop 8 thing did not say "gay people cannot get married". Gay people have always been allowed to get married. It simply defined marriage explicitly as it has always been defined.
Those men who want to "marry" men or women who want to "marry" women, don't need to prove discrimination to prevail, but they need to RE-define what a marriage actually is.
Marriage is defined in the Old Testament early on (Genesis).
You are not required to be a believer in God or the Bible to enter into a marriage, but you do have to accept what the thing you are borrowing actually is. I've always said civil unions, domestic partnerships are 100% fine with me; but you can't call something a marriage that does not consist of one man with one woman.
In the Bible, the source of the definition, Marriage is considered honorable to God. Homosexuality is considered extremely dishonorable to God. Now how can you take a dishonorable relationship (unnatural affections for your own sex) and wrap it in a cloak of honor (Marriage)? This would make the Bible inconsistent: Either Homosexuality is NOT dishonorable to God, or Marriage is NOT honorable to God. (You're the one borrowing biblical institutions, so you have to look at the inconsistancy regardless of your distaste for the rest of the Bible.)
You can't say well thieves can get married making a mixture of honor and dishonor. Because the two have nothing to do with each other. But homosexuality and and Marriage have so much to do with each other (here in this case that you force), that the gay people want to even call the union Marriage.
We can only hope that the Supreme Court will allow people to define marriage (we are not seeking to discriminate, but to maintain a long settled definition).
Because so far, what the courts have said in some jurisdictions, is that no one has the right to define marriage, and implicitly they are also saying that marriage has never been defined. And it gets pretty murky when definitions of things are banned. You may as well find in favor of a man who wants to check the box that he is a woman on various forms and applications. Or find in favor of the child that wants to drive at age 10 by simply "saying" he is 15, with the logic of, "who can define the length of a year?"
Some people may say that a gay judge is no more biased than a straight one in this issue, but that is not true. A gay judge has something to gain from his ruling that marriage may not be defined. A straight judge who already is able to marry has nothing to gain by finding for prop 8.
Christianity: Seeking an END to religion, one decision at a time.
The prop 8 thing did not say "gay people cannot get married". Gay people have always been allowed to get married. It simply defined marriage explicitly as it has always been defined.
Those men who want to "marry" men or women who want to "marry" women, don't need to prove discrimination to prevail, but they need to RE-define what a marriage actually is.
Marriage is defined in the Old Testament early on (Genesis).
You are not required to be a believer in God or the Bible to enter into a marriage, but you do have to accept what the thing you are borrowing actually is. I've always said civil unions, domestic partnerships are 100% fine with me; but you can't call something a marriage that does not consist of one man with one woman.
In the Bible, the source of the definition, Marriage is considered honorable to God. Homosexuality is considered extremely dishonorable to God. Now how can you take a dishonorable relationship (unnatural affections for your own sex) and wrap it in a cloak of honor (Marriage)? This would make the Bible inconsistent: Either Homosexuality is NOT dishonorable to God, or Marriage is NOT honorable to God. (You're the one borrowing biblical institutions, so you have to look at the inconsistancy regardless of your distaste for the rest of the Bible.)
You can't say well thieves can get married making a mixture of honor and dishonor. Because the two have nothing to do with each other. But homosexuality and and Marriage have so much to do with each other (here in this case that you force), that the gay people want to even call the union Marriage.
We can only hope that the Supreme Court will allow people to define marriage (we are not seeking to discriminate, but to maintain a long settled definition).
Because so far, what the courts have said in some jurisdictions, is that no one has the right to define marriage, and implicitly they are also saying that marriage has never been defined. And it gets pretty murky when definitions of things are banned. You may as well find in favor of a man who wants to check the box that he is a woman on various forms and applications. Or find in favor of the child that wants to drive at age 10 by simply "saying" he is 15, with the logic of, "who can define the length of a year?"
Some people may say that a gay judge is no more biased than a straight one in this issue, but that is not true. A gay judge has something to gain from his ruling that marriage may not be defined. A straight judge who already is able to marry has nothing to gain by finding for prop 8.
Traditionally marriage in this country was only for white men and women and it meant that the woman became the property of her husband. Things change. Our laws aren't based on the Bible and therefore what the Bible says about marriage doesn't matter in this case. Separation of church and state protects everyone from being ruled by religion, including Christians.
"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
1) All that LD$, Inc., moolah spent on quashing Proposition 8, went down the drain. Why not spend all that moolah on something more--well, religious--you know, like all those poor people?
2) 2012 could be an interesting year, to-wit: If this decision goes to the U.S. S.Ct, and that Court rules, along with the constitutionality of the Health Insurance Portability Act of 2008, then a disgruntled, spurned by the Party in August 2012, Newtmentum, will start a Wingo-campaign to "pray the Court home," i.e. struck dead by Jupiter's thunderbolts.
This much rage, at least what's simmering under the pot, is bound to come bubbling up. "Stay tuned."
A conservative is someone who believes that firefighters, teachers, and police officers are overpaid.
"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Republicans experience suffering the way they experience all their virtues, i.e. vicariously.
According to "just war" standards of Christian theology, if Saddam Hussein killed 30,000 Iraqis, and the Iraq War killed 120,00, how was the War "just"?
The prop 8 thing did not say "gay people cannot get married". Gay people have always been allowed to get married. It simply defined marriage explicitly as it has always been defined.
Those men who want to "marry" men or women who want to "marry" women, don't need to prove discrimination to prevail, but they need to RE-define what a marriage actually is.
Marriage is defined in the Old Testament early on (Genesis).
You are not required to be a believer in God or the Bible to enter into a marriage, but you do have to accept what the thing you are borrowing actually is. I've always said civil unions, domestic partnerships are 100% fine with me; but you can't call something a marriage that does not consist of one man with one woman.
In the Bible, the source of the definition, Marriage is considered honorable to God. Homosexuality is considered extremely dishonorable to God. Now how can you take a dishonorable relationship (unnatural affections for your own sex) and wrap it in a cloak of honor (Marriage)? This would make the Bible inconsistent: Either Homosexuality is NOT dishonorable to God, or Marriage is NOT honorable to God. (You're the one borrowing biblical institutions, so you have to look at the inconsistancy regardless of your distaste for the rest of the Bible.)
You can't say well thieves can get married making a mixture of honor and dishonor. Because the two have nothing to do with each other. But homosexuality and and Marriage have so much to do with each other (here in this case that you force), that the gay people want to even call the union Marriage.
We can only hope that the Supreme Court will allow people to define marriage (we are not seeking to discriminate, but to maintain a long settled definition).
Because so far, what the courts have said in some jurisdictions, is that no one has the right to define marriage, and implicitly they are also saying that marriage has never been defined. And it gets pretty murky when definitions of things are banned. You may as well find in favor of a man who wants to check the box that he is a woman on various forms and applications. Or find in favor of the child that wants to drive at age 10 by simply "saying" he is 15, with the logic of, "who can define the length of a year?"
Some people may say that a gay judge is no more biased than a straight one in this issue, but that is not true. A gay judge has something to gain from his ruling that marriage may not be defined. A straight judge who already is able to marry has nothing to gain by finding for prop 8.
Traditionally marriage in this country was only for white men and women and it meant that the woman became the property of her husband. Things change. Our laws aren't based on the Bible and therefore what the Bible says about marriage doesn't matter in this case. Separation of church and state protects everyone from being ruled by religion, including Christians.
+1
Religion should have NOTHING to do with public policy for all. This is just another step in moving towards real seperation...
---------------------- Jesus Is My Savior...He Saves Me From REALITY
Traditionally marriage in this country was only for white men and women and it meant that the woman became the property of her husband. Things change. Our laws aren't based on the Bible and therefore what the Bible says about marriage doesn't matter in this case. Separation of church and state protects everyone from being ruled by religion, including Christians.
But the government does not marry you. They recognize your marriage. Marriage is not something the government doles out.
Like it or not GC, it is a Biblical institution that you support the government now comandeering and re-defining. That's fine, but don't try the flim-flam. I'm not drinking or smoking dope.
Religion should have NOTHING to do with public policy for all. This is just another step in moving towards real seperation...
And public policy should have nothing to do with how a marriage is defined. You are actually supporting a non-separation of church and state, now that it serves your purposes.
GC I also noticed you addressed NONE of the points raised in my post viz re-definition/ combination of honor and dishonor.
Christianity: Seeking an END to religion, one decision at a time.
