Thursday, May 15, 2008

CA Extreme Ct's Shameful Decision

Wrote the following in the comment section of this post last night:

Speaking of pastors having the free speech right to state Bible verses - which state unequivocally that homosexual behavior is sinful - tomorrow the CA Supreme Court will hand down it's decision on whether or not to overturn Proposition 22 (which was voted on by the people in 2000 to recognize that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman in CA) and allow homosexual "marriage."

Knowing how liberal the members of the court are, I would not be a bit surprised if they decide to ignore and trump the votes of 60% of the people in order to push their own ideological agreement with those proponents of same-sex "marriage" on the public in this state.

I pray that Prop. 22 ISN'T overturned, but I fear that this liberal leftist court will not be able to resist the opportunity to do so.

If they do such a thing, it may be "legal" in CA to "marry" a person of the same sex; but it will NEVER BE MORALLY RIGHT IN THE EYES OF GOD. God's laws DO NOT CHANGE!

May 14, 2008 10:33:00 PM PDT

With the CA Extreme Court's "making new law" decision, CA has trumped the vote of the majority of people in this state who voted by 60% margin back in 2000 that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman in the state of California.

How ironic that this Extreme Court has done exactly what John McCain said in his speech this morning about radical judges "legislating from the bench." This court has overturned the will of the people in California.

This unrighteous decision just proves that the Alliance Defense Fund is correct in reclaiming pastor's rights of free speech in the pulpit. Getting that passed will be of the utmost importance in order to prevent so-called "hate crimes" laws - that are currently being pushed into law by homosexual groups and their supporters - which are designed to criminalize any voices that share the fact that homosexual behavior as sinful, shameful, physically, emotionally and spiritually dangerous. Getting pastors who follow biblical morality (and, of course, preach against and oppose homosexual behavior) silenced, is the final goal of the homosexual agenda. If they can, literally, shut all opposition down, then they (believe) that they have won not only the battle, but the entire war against God's Word and proper moral behavior.

There are two people who recently presented strong arguments against homosexual behavior.

1. Pastor Miles McPherson's sermon on February 10, 2008 is called Marriage, The Image of God. Go to the link, scroll down to that date, and you can either watch the video or listen to the podcast.

2. Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. - who recently wrote An Open Letter to a University President regarding the Suspension of a Black Female Administrator Who Challenged a Comparison between Homosexual Practice and Being Black.

Also see Dr. Gagnon's answers to questions that he has received regarding homosexuality.

[Note: I respectfully disagree with Dr. Gagnon's view that "salvation can be lost." Dr. Gagnon admits that Christians can disagree on this issue.]

Here is the letter and response:

A Question about Eternal Security and Sexual Immorality
From: Mark
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:20 PM
To: Robert Gagnon

Dear Dr. Gagnon:

Even as one who has learned a great deal from you through your articles, as a Presbyterian minister I must take exception to one aspect of your teaching regarding whether a lady would go to hell if she is in a lesbian relationship [RG: see email below]. Your answer, as I saw it, stated that it wasn't a given but a possibility seemingly based solely on this one thing. Homosexual activity is a sin (it's ironic that those who view that portion of Leviticus 18 as no longer relevant do see all the other teachings there on sinful relationships there as still in effect - incest and bestiality to name a couple).

However: Heaven is based upon what he did on the cross, and our acceptance of Him as Savior. Fornication, Fathers Not Being Involved in the Lives of Their Children, Lying, Divorce, Not Helping Those in Need if You Can, for example, are also sins, but no one seems to suggest that those who continue to lie from time to time, who left pregnant women to raise kids on their own, or who are who are divorced and remarried are all in danger of hell. Jesus does call them to change their ways as part of following Him and He always will, but to say that the promise of eternal life may now be null and void even if they truly believe (albeit erroneously) that God says homosexual activity based on orientation as okay seems extreme.

Let me be clear. I do not excuse these activities or homosexual activity. Having Jesus as Lord means having him as Lord in all of your life. I know that passage in Galatians 5:19-21. I am angered that we in the PC(USA) seem to told not just to acknowledge homosexual behavior but to celebrate it. All are sins that I confront equally as a child of God. When I hear the suggestion, though, that the Lord puts this one sin in a separate category regarding eternal judgment, raises concerns for me that we've gone from one sandy foundation to another another (Matthew 7). James 2:8-13- "Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at one point is guilty of breaking all of it." All Christians are called to be different. All Christians also continue to be sinners, too.

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted what you stated there. Is this what you are saying?


Dr. Gagnon's response:

From: Robert Gagnon
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:50 PM
To: Mark

Dear Mark,

The question you raise has to do with the larger question of eternal security, classically defined as “once saved, always saved.” I do not subscribe to it because I don’t believe that Jesus or any NT author, including Paul, subscribed to it. There are literally dozens of texts that make this point. The thought here is not that individuals must merit their salvation but rather that the absence of transformation or the presence of serial unrepentant immoral behavior of an extreme sort demonstrates a fatal deficiency in faith, i.e., in not letting Jesus live in one by grace. When Paul says in 1 Cor 6:9-10 that sexually immoral persons, including those who engage in incest, adultery, and man-male intercourse (and by extension lesbian intercourse) shall not inherit eternal life he is not making this statement only about unbelievers. Both the context of the Christian incestuous man in ch. 5 and the analogy of a Christian, a person who is really and truly joined to Jesus, having sex with a prostitute in 6:12-20 make clear, in my opinion, that he also has in view believers who live immoral lives. It is because the incestuous man’s eternal life is at risk that Paul takes the extreme measure of putting him on church discipline, in the hopes that he might be saved on the Day of the Lord.

Thus also he could say to the Thessalonian believers, in the earliest extant New Testament document:

For you know what commands we gave to you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God: your holiness, that you abstain from sexual immorality (porneia) . . . [and not live] like the Gentiles who do not know God. . . . because the Lord is an avenger regarding all these things. . . . For God called us not to sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) but in holiness. Therefore the one who rejects [these commands] rejects not humans but the God who gives his Holy Spirit to us. (1 Thess 4:2-8)

And to the Galatian Christians:

The works of the flesh are obvious, which are: sexual immorality (porneia), sexual uncleanness (akatharsia), licentiousness (aselgeia) . . . , which I am warning you about, just as I warned you before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. . . . Stop deceiving yourselves; God is not to be mocked, for whatever one sows that one will also reap. For the one who casts seed into one’s flesh will reap a harvest of destruction and decay from the flesh, but the one who casts seed into the Spirit will reap a harvest of eternal life from the Spirit. And let us not grow tired of doing what is right for in due time we will reap, if we do not relax our efforts. (Gal 5:19-21; 6:7-9)

In 2 Corinthians Paul expresses deep concern that

I may have to mourn over many who have continued in their former sinning and did not repent of the sexual uncleanness (akatharsia), sexual immorality (porneia), and licentiousness (aselgeia) that they practiced. (12:21)

Mourning is mourning over death, the possible loss of eternal life for believers who live in this manner. Later, in Rom 6:19-22 and 8:12-14, Paul urged Roman believers to reverse the trend of the immoral life described in Rom 1:24-27, otherwise loss of eternal life would ensue:

For just as you presented your members as slaves to sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) and to [other types of] lawlessness for the sake of lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for the sake of holiness (or: sanctification). For when you were slaves of sin, you were free with respect to [the demands of] righteousness. What fruit did you have at that time? Things of which you are now ashamed, because the end (or: outcome) of those things is death. But now, since you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you have your fruit for holiness (or: sanctification), and the end (or: outcome) is eternal life.

The message of Ephesians is similar:

[N]o longer walk as the Gentiles walk, . . . who . . . have given themselves up to licentiousness (aselgeia) for the doing of every sexual uncleanness (akatharsia). . . . Sexual immorality (porneia) and sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) of any kind . . . must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. . . . Know this indeed, that every sexually immoral person (pornos) or sexually unclean person (akathartos) . . . has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming on the children of disobedience. (Eph 4:17-19; 5:3-6)

And there are many other texts. For me not to say what I said would leave out the whole counsel of God. The deception that a number of the above texts refer to is deceiving oneself into thinking that, as a Christian, who could continue in serial unrepentant sin of an egregious sort (like adultery, incest, same-sex intercourse, sex with prostitutes) and get away with it. It’s not limited to same-sex intercourse. The divorce/remarriage analogy is not a good one, both because Scripture does not treat it as serious an offense (though serious) and because it tends not to be serial behavior (unlike repeated acts of homosexual practice). I would agree, too, that regular, particular grievous non-sexual forms of behavior could also get one excluded from the kingdom of heaven even if one confesses Jesus as Lord.

I realize that Christians have differing views on this issue. I am convinced by Scripture itself that loss of salvation is real and possible for believers. In that sense I am always reforming in the direction of Scripture, or at least trying to do so here.

I hope this helps,


I would argue that people who do not genuinely confess and repent of their sins before accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior over their lives my not genuinely be saved in the first place. Therefore, their names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

Once genuinely born again, one cannot lose their salvation. However, a nominal or willfully sinning person who has not made a true commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ, but has simply given themselves the label of "Christian" may NOT have been genuinely converted. Jesus said, "you must be born again." He also said, "if you love me, you will keep my commandments." Those who have not made the heart commitment (meaning, not just an intellectual thought that Jesus might be the Savior), may not have been born again through Jesus Christ in the first place. Such people are in grave danger when Jesus, who knows each and every individuals heart and soul, goes through what the Scriptures tell us is "the separation of the sheep and the goats."

Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats:

Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Note Matthew Henry's commentary on Matthew 25:32-33

II. The appearing of all the children of men before him (v. 32); Before him shall be gathered all nations. Note, The judgment of the great day will be a general judgment. All must be summoned before Christ’s tribunal; all of every age of the world, from the beginning to the end of time; all of every place on earth, even from the remotest corners of the world, most obscure, and distant from each other; all nations, all those nations of men that are made of one blood, to dwell on all the face of the earth.

III. The distinction that will then be made between the precious and the vile; He shall separate them one from another, as the tares and wheat are separated at the harvest, the good fish and the bad at the shore, the corn and chaff in the floor. Wicked and godly here dwell together in the same kingdoms, cities, churches, families, and are not certainly distinguishable one from another; such are the infirmities of saints, such the hypocrisies of sinners, and one event to both: but in that day they will be separated, and parted for ever; Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, Mal. 3:18. They cannot separate themselves one from another in this world (1 Co. 5:10), nor can any one else separate them (ch. 13:29); but the Lord knows them that are his, and he can separate them. This separation will be so exact, that the most inconsiderable saints shall not be lost in the crowd of sinners, nor the most plausible sinner hid in the crowd of saints (Ps. 1:5), but every one shall go to his own place. This is compared to a shepherd’s dividing between the sheep and the goats; it is taken from Eze. 34:17, Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle. Note, 1. Jesus Christ is the great Shepherd; he now feeds his flock like a shepherd, and will shortly distinguish between those that are his, and those that are not, as Laban divided his sheep from Jacob’s, and set three days’ journey between them, Gen. 30:35, 36. 2. The godly are like sheep—innocent, mild, patient, useful: the wicked are like goats, a baser kind of animal, unsavoury and unruly. The sheep and goats are here feeding all day in the same pasture, but will be coted at night in different folds. Being thus divided, he will set the sheep on his right hand, and the goats on his left, v. 33. Christ puts honour upon the godly, as we show respect to those we set on our right hand; but the wicked shall rise to everlasting shame, Dan. 12:2. It is not said that he shall put the rich on his right hand, and the poor on his left; the learned and noble on his right hand, and unlearned and despised on his left; but the godly on his right hand, and the wicked on his left. All other divisions and subdivisions will then be abolished; but the great distinction of men into saints and sinners, sanctified and unsanctified, will remain for ever, and men’s eternal state will be determined by it. The wicked took up with left-handed blessings, riches and honour, and so shall their doom be.

HT: Miles McPherson: Marriage, The Image of God

Dr. Robert Gagnon

Blue Letter Bible's Matthew Henry Commentary


Additional posts on this topic:

Americans For Truth: CWA: California Supreme Court Betrays “We the People” on Marriage


To ensure that marriage is protected and the voice of the people is heard, a constitutional marriage amendment must be placed on the November ballot and national efforts need to be made to generate a federal constitutional marriage amendment. The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people.

Matt Barber, CWA Policy Director for Cultural Issues [Barber is on the Board of Americans For Truth], said “The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench. It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there’d be a day when so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. If anyone then had suggested the ridiculous notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off.

“So-called ‘same-sex’ marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it’s in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable.

“The majority of Americans recognize the fact that legitimate marriage and family are cornerstones of a healthy society. Reasonable people have had enough and are refusing to allow radical extremists to redefine marriage and family into oblivion. So-called ‘same-sex marriage’ is a ridiculous and oxymoronic notion that has been forced into popular lexicon by homosexual activists and their extremist left-wing allies.

“If people who engage in homosexual behavior want to dress up and play house, that’s their prerogative, but we shouldn’t destroy the institutions of legitimate marriage and family in order to help facilitate a counterfeit.

“On a positive note, the Court’s decision today will likely serve as a wake-up call to both Californians and their fellow Americans across the country. I’m certain this decision will help fuel a California marriage amendment and re-ignite debate over a federal amendment which would protect marriage as between one man and one woman.”

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.


Christinewjc said...

There is a saying that goes something like this:

"There are two tragedies in life. One is not to get your heart's desire. The other is to get it."

I think that this new law that goes against God's Word is an example of that saying.

God will turn, even this, into something good.

He is still in the business of redemption!

He is redeeming the time.

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.

2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

2Ti 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

2Ti 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

2Ti 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

2Ti 1:13 ¶ Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti 1:14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully the CA voters will pass the marriage amendment this Fall. This is another reason those amendments - and a Federal one, in my view - are so important. I mainly feel sorry for the public school children who will have more of the "gay marriage is normal" garbage crammed down their throat now.

Christinewjc said...


I just heard some disturbing news about this. Former judge Andrew Napolitano claims that even if the Marriage Amendment placed before the voters passes here in CA, the homosexual "marriage" advocates will challenge it to the CA Extreme Ct. again. Since these are lifetime appointees, Napolitano said it is likely that they will vote it back into legalization. And, he also said that it can't be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court! What's up with that?

I hope Napolitano is wrong about all of this.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry, Christine. Given the most recent polls, the constitutional amendment won't pass so this is all a moot point.

Matt W. said...

Revelation 20:

11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

We shouldn't be surprised when Unsaved people act immorally. Our prayers, and our work, should be for the Salvation of their Souls.

Additionally though, it is correct that we need to fight to keep our free speach rights intact, because how do you fully share God with others if parts of it are off limits.

GMpilot said...

"If they do such a thing, it may be "legal" in CA to "marry" a person of the same sex; but it will NEVER BE MORALLY RIGHT IN THE EYES OF GOD. God's laws DO NOT CHANGE!" --Christinewjc

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. --Leviticus 20:13

Okay, that's very clear. And God's laws do not change.
So please tell me again why you aren't out there killing such people, as your God commands.

Christinewjc said...

GM, we have been through this many times before. Yet, you still refuse to acknowledge the truth.

If they don't repent and turn to Jesus Christ, they will not only die a physical death, but also spiritual death - being separated from God for all eternity.

That's a LONNGGGG time!

As the Leviticus verse tells us, "their blood shall be upon them."

The verse doesn't say "murder them." It says "they shall surely be put to death."

Read The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and the corresponding verses listed there.

GMpilot said...

If they don't repent and turn to Jesus Christ, they will not only die a physical death, but also spiritual death - being separated from God for all eternity.

That's a LONNGGGG time!

Yeah...I still can't find that passage where God warns Adam of a "spiritual death". Maybe you can tell me what edition you're using.

The verse doesn't say "murder them." It says "they shall surely be put to death."

The verse doesn't say, "I will take their lives", either. It uses passive voice, i.e. "something will be done to them." Since these are God's divine directives to his people, it is implied that they, the people, are to carry out God's will in this, as in all other orders he gives them. After all, he starts out with, "And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you." Lev 20:8

Can it be any more clear than that?

I went to your Treasury; it explained nothing. All it did was try to reinforce one verse with a collection of similar verses. IOW, apologetics at its finest. Well, I used the same source--the Bible--and I gave you the above verse, which reinforces my point very well. So, since it's clear that you, as a believer in God's commandments, would do as he commands; and since we (you) know that God's laws 'DO NOT CHANGE': Why aren't you out there killing them? Or do you still refuse to acknowledge the truth?

Christinewjc said...


You are a perfect example of the "once confused, ALWAYS confused" crowd.

Your errors in proper biblical exegesis are most apparent when you stand there like a child stomping his feet and try to make ridiculous points to fit your own flawed worldview.

Recall that Scripture interprets Scripture. That is why I led you to the Scripture Knowledge page.

People, like you, usually don't find what they are looking for when they refuse to recognize the truth in the first place.

Christians don't go out and kill homosexuals (or anyone else for that matter) because God's previous law - "Thou shalt not kill" (Hebrew word was closer to "murder")- prohibits it.

Instead, God sent a Redeemer to save our souls from eternal death. Jesus' last command was:

Mar 16:14 ¶ Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

One could say that the meaning of the words - "they shall surely be put to death" - are similar to - "but he that believeth not shall be damned."

The Bible is filled with verses that discuss eternal life with God verses, eternal, spiritual death in hell. Jesus himself unequivocally warned about hell. One of the more mild points he made about it was that it is "a place to be avoided." Just because you refuse to believe this truth doesn't make it false or untrue.

In addition to the "do not murder" commandment, as believers in Christ we are to live righteously.

Dr. David Jeremiah states:

In Christian theology, the word "righteous" has two applications. First, the believer is declared righteous by God because of the believer's faith (as Abraham was in Genesis 15:6). It is a legal standing, a positional perspective. Second, the believer is expected to live righteously—that is, live a holy life that reflects his righteous standing in God's sight.

limpy99 said...

I haven't stopped by here for awhile, but I thought of you when I read about the CA Supreme Court's decision. Personally, I think it's the correct one, and I can tell you that my marriage doesn't seem to be any less valid so far. So there's hope for us heteros I guess.

Frankly, I still don't get the big deal. These are civil marriages. No one is saying that you or your church has to recognize them. In fact, you remain free to damn those people to hell for all eternity. But the State has to recognize the legality of their relationships. I don't understand at all how that poses such a threat to you, your beliefs or your relationships. You will never have to interact with a gay married couple. You don't even have to meet them. You can cross the street to avoid them. You can have a blog saying that they'll go to hell if they don't repent.

Actually, you have that covered.

I understand that as a resident of CA you could argue that you're being required to legitimize a relationship you feel is against God. And you can argue that, but it's not a legitimate argument within the civil arena. There are many things each individual would change within the government, but as members of a greater whole, nobody gets to pick and choose what they will and won't support. You elect representatives and executives, they appoint judges, and the judges decide the law.

And by the way, for the love of all that is holy, please, please, please stop with this "activist judges" nonsense. They're not activists. They're interpreting the law. The law already exists. it's there in the CA Constitution. The part about equal rights and all that. You could look it up. The fact that you don't agree with their interpretation doesn't make them activists, or that they're just making laws out of whole clothe. That's a ridiculous, tired argument and it's beneath you.

The fact is that if the US Constitution is correctly interepted, EVERYONE has the right to be happy as an individual, and it doesn't say "except the queers". I know; I just checked it. So, as someone above already pointed out, unless an amendment passes, any legitimate interpretation of the US Constitution would say gay marriage is legal. On the CIVIL level. There is no way that any court decision would or could require a church to ignore their beliefs and have to recognize a gay marriage. It's not going to happen, nor should it. Hell, I'd argue against that.

So relax. Your marriage is safe, your church is safe, your beliefs are safe. Two gays getting married won't change that at all. It'll just make the lines longer at Town Hall.

Hope everything else is well.

limpy99 said...

As for Napolitano's argument, I'm not sure what the basis of the challenge would be, but if the anti-gay marriage amendment passes, I can't see that a court would have a basis to overturn an amendment. The state constitution is the basis for the law within the state. An amendment becomes a part of the constitution. The amendment is then the law of the state. It isn't subject to review at the state level.

The gay marriage advocates could challenge the amendment on the grounds that it violates the Federal constitution. While a state is free to provide more rights than the federal constitution, they are not free to provide less. Think of the Federal constitution as the foundation of your civil rights. Your state can build on top of it, but isn't allowed to tear it down.

Under such a challenge, the case would, I think, have to be heard in the federal court system, rather than the state system, as it involves a question of federal law.

And then the 9th Circuit would allow gay marriage and you'd call them "activists" and then the supreme Court will find some reason to deny it and I'll call them a bunch of right-wing religous extremists and we'll be back to square one.

OK, enough of this. Lunch over, back to work.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Limpy99, certainly has been a long time since your last comment here.

I realize that you are well educated on such matters and you put forth a good argument. However, I think that what is being ignored (unfortunately) is the fact that the people of CA VOTED back in 2000 and a 61% MAJORITY VOTED to keep, and recognize, marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

Why should four judges usurp the votes of millions of people who voted against same-sex marriage? Twenty-seven other states have voted to keep marriage as the union of one man and one woman in their states. Are more liberal black-robed judicial activists (yes...they ARE activists!) going to overturn the votes of millions of people in those states too?

Sorry Limpy99...your argument does not hold water - even with religious beliefs placed aside.

I have to run out and can't answer fully right now, but I read this article by Mike Reagan and some of what he stated would apply in countering your argument:

Reagan told NewsMax: "We have seen this time and time again, Democracy usurped, the voters wishes do not matter, whether its Proposition 187 or the Gay Marriage Ban, its no longer 'We the People,' it is now, 'They the Judges' who make the decisions in the Golden State. As the son of a former Governor of this state I am disgusted."

Noting that the courts have been thwarting the express will of the people, Reagan explained to NewsMax in an exclusive interview that “Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot initiative designed to deny social services, health care, and public education to illegal aliens that passed with 58.8 percent of the vote was overturned by a federal court, in effect telling the voters their will doesn’t count.

“The state of California has a history of voting for ballot measures. But any time Californians seem to vote for an issue that may be even slightly conservative, the liberal left goes out and shops judges, or as in this case, shops courts, and gets them to overturn ballot measures overwhelmingly supported by the voters,” Reagan said.

The fact that the CA Supreme Court MADE UP the "right" for same-sex marriage should alarm everyone.

Reagan reiterates this point when he states:

California voters have no remedy for judicial interference with their expressed will.

Reagan asks the most pertinent question:

Why should I vote?” Reagan asked. “I have no reason to vote so as of now I’m stopping. It doesn’t matter what the voters think. It only matters what liberals in black robes think.”

Christinewjc said...

Hi Matt,

Good points! Free speech rights at the pulpit will be the next target for elimination if the radical homosexual agenda has its way.

When the votes of millions can be usurped by four liberals in black robes - something is VERY WRONG WITH CALIFORNIA!!

Carlotta Morrow said...

Great post (again) Christine! I'm hoping with you and most of California that this marriage amendment will pass without any interference. But I know that may possibly be just a wish instead of a prayer.

Folks who are complacent about this just don't understand the implications of accepting homosexual marriage. Our children in public schools are already being inundated with this homosexual agenda to teach its acceptance. Now if marriages are considered legal, the schools will begin throwing in the mommy/mommy and daddy/daddy "married" families propaganda as well! Further confusion added to our already morally crumbling public schools. (Christian schools just too expensive for those who can barely make a living.)

Glad to see pastors like Miles and others speak out against this. Glad our TV stations are bold enough to even want to seek a Christian pastors comments!

Anyways, knowing that God is still in control of all of our messes still gives me much comfort.

Come quickly Lord!

Carlotta Morrow said...

And regarding those who don't believe that once saved, always saved, where is their peace?

The most calming thing about being a born-again child of God is the knowledge that we are His forever! "Christians" who believe they can lose their salvation are no different than any other religion in the world because they are trusting in their own merits believing somehow that they can be "good enough" to be accepted by God.

The question always will remain for any professing believer, is whether or not they are truly saved to begin with!

Anonymous said...

"The fact that the CA Supreme Court MADE UP the "right" for same-sex marriage should alarm everyone."

That "right" is called the equal protection and privacy clauses of the California Constitution. I have to agree with Limpy here. There really is no conservative argument against this decision. Only one of these seven judges were appointed by Democrats -- the other six are Republicans. Our Republican governor has come out in clear opposition to this state constitutional amendment.

Limpy is also correct about formulating a FEDERAL equal protection argument (14th amendment). The 9th Circuit could quite easily strike this proposed ballot initiative from the state constitution if (and that's a big IF) it passes.

Ultimately, to really achieve your goal here you need to rescind the equal protection clauses in both the state, and federal, constitutions. Good luck with that. :)

Christinewjc said...


You and Limpy can keep on ignoring the fact that the CA Extreme Ct. overstepped its boundaries by making a new law rather than interpreting existing law.

I think that this post makes better sense than what you and Limpy have stated:

Why CA Gay Marriage Ruling Is Bad

Christinewjc said...

I have been sounding the alarm bells about this awful development happening in CA ever since Massachusetts’ loonie judges did the same thing.

I have also been sharing how biblical prophecy fits in with this issue. Jesus did say that the signs of the times would be “as in the days of Noah” and the “Days of Lot.”


Jesus likened the days of his return unto the days of Lot. What do we know about the days of Lot other than the rampant homosexuality that marked it? Isn’t it odd that we do not know much more about it? I do not think so. In fact, I believe that it is exactly what Jesus was referring to.

Christinewjc said...

One dissenting judge's opinion:

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its
own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.

Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority,4 the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

In doing so, the majority holds, in effect, that the Legislature has done indirectly what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power.

The majority (referring to the judges) has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality
and justice.

The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex.

Written by BAXTER, J