Here is an excerpt from Bill's essay:
Let’s face it folks: Morally and spiritually speaking, Australia – or America, or England, etc – is now on a par with ancient Sodom and Gomorrah. These two wicked cities, along with three others, were destroyed by a righteous and holy God who finally had enough of their filth, perversion and ungodliness.
But it is hard to see how Australia or any other Western nation can be said to be much better today. Indeed, in many respects we are much worse. As proof, one only needs to read some the articles on this site, documenting the daily descent into the pit.
The West is going down the tubes fast, and the levels of iniquity and unrighteousness seem almost incomparable to past evil. A quick look at some of my pieces under the ‘Culture Wars’ section, or the ‘Political Correctness’ section should make clear the moral and spiritual free fall we are now in.
And we are far more responsible and guilty than were Sodom and Gomorrah. As Leonard Ravenhill reminds us, “Sodom had no Bible”. If Sodom was ripe for judgment without special revelation, how much more are we with it?
Continue reading:
Living in Sodom
posted by Bill Muehlenberg at CultureWatch - 11 hours ago
Let’s face it folks: Morally and spiritually speaking, Australia – or America, or England, etc – is now on a par with ancient Sodom and Gomorrah. These two wicked cities, along with three others, were dest...
Let's read that last sentence from the quote above again:
If Sodom was ripe for judgment without special revelation, how much more are we with it?
What a great question!
My comment there, still in moderation because it's 3:00 a.m. in Australia:
Christinewjc
13.8.10 / 3am Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Bill,
Your essay is filled with much truth. It could also apply to America, as well as Australia. Our nations are going through the same types of chaos and lack of respect for God and His Word. The days are certainly evil.
When I feel myself getting down because “the days are evil,” I pick up my study guide called “Revealing The Mysteries of Heaven” by Dr. David Jeremiah. It is a great little book – thoroughly Bible-based, too. It gives me comfort during times of fear, doubt, worry and turmoil.
My son has the following Bible verse on his Facebook page today:
He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
Titus 1:9
That describes our work today. This is what you, Bill, are doing via this wonderful blog and on Facebook. I can only imagine Jesus looking at your heart and saying, “well done, good and faithful servant.”
I continue to learn a lot from you, my Christian brother! And I am so grateful that I found your blog “for such a time as this.” God bless you and keep up the great work!
In Christ,
Christine
We need to live lives in righteousness and holiness, and teach others to do so as well, and help others to find Christ.
Hat Tip:
Bill Muehlenberg's Culture Watch Blog
Posts
15 comments:
Hi Christine,
You called the judge:
"one rogue openly homosexual judge..."
The word 'one' and the words 'openly homosexual judge' are correct, but rogue? Really? How can a judge that was appointed by your dear President Reagan be rogue? Besides, if something is unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional. I would think you would be happy that the law is working as it should, even though you may disagree.
Besides, what about the millions of voters who nearly defeated Prop. 8? Everyone who liked Prop. 8 keeps mentioning 7 million as if it were a large percentage of people who voted on the issue. But just to remind you, it passed by just 52% of the vote. I also remind you that you supported the very lawyers who lost the case. If you read the finding, you will see that they did a lousy job at defending Prop. 8. If these same lawyers are going to be arguing the appeal and again at the Supreme Court, there is little chance of it being overturned.
Kevin,
Since you refuse to face facts regarding what is written in my posts and links, perhaps I shouldn't bother with another one. But I will include it here for the benefit of others who are reading along.
CWFA: The Prop. 8 Case Charade 8/12/2010
A closer look at Perry v. Schwarzenegger
Also, it appears that you didn't pay very close attention to what was said here:
Legal Insurrection: Ted Olson May Be Too Smart By Half
Excerpt:
The video of Olson being interviewed by Chris Wallace (embedded below) has brought cheers for Olson because of lines such as "Well, would you like your right to free speech -- would you like Fox's right to free press put up to a vote ...."
There is a logical flaw, however, in Olson's primary legal argument that the Judge merely followed Supreme Court precedent on the issue of marriage (emphasis mine):
As a matter of fact, since 1888 the United States Supreme Court has 14 times decided and articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right. We're not talking about a new right here.
We're talking about whether a fundamental right, something that the Supreme Court has characterized as the most fundamental relationship we have in this country, can be deprived of certain individuals because of the color of their skin or because of their sexual orientation.
The problem with this argument is that the marriages the Supreme Court has addressed in the past were marriages between one man and one woman, which the Court -- in Olson's characterization -- has deemed "the most fundamental relationship we have in this country...."
On that, the supporters of Prop. 8 could agree. The traditional marriage has been recognized as being of fundamental importance to society, unlike other relationships, such as polygamy, which also have a historical and religious basis, but as to which society has made a value judgment.
By focusing on the fundamental right to marry, but ignoring that that right arose on the basis of the Supreme Court recognizing the fundamental role in society of traditional marriage, I think the legal team opposing Prop. 8 has set itself up for failure.
Olson's argument is something of a circular firing squad. In order to prove that society has no constitutionally rational basis for making a value judgment in favor of traditional marriage, Olson needs to prove that traditional marriage is not the most fundamental relationship in society. But, according to Olson, on 14 occasions the Supreme Court has said otherwise.
P.S. Go to the link to click on additional links within the post.
Hi Christine,
Since you have gotten me to listen to Glenn Beck lately, have you heard what he has said about gay marriage?
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008110048
I hope you get a chance to really listen to what Glenn Beck has to say about this. I would be interested in hearing your response.
By the way, I looked at a good part of what you provided. I found it interesting in the "Concerned Women For America's" website that they called it a sham trial. That is interesting because at this so-called sham trial the lawyers for Prop. 8 couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag. Their actions probably cost the whole case, including what will be presented to the Supreme Court. Since the Prop. 8 lawyers could not present a credible case (and not a single expert witness!), they lost it. Of course, the lawyers still benefitted--they got to keep all the money that was sent to them to 'defend' marriage. Of course, the legal process will continue. If it goes your way, will the judges be 'activist' judges? If the Supreme Court goes your way, will it be an 'activist court'? I dare say the answer will be no.
I disagree that the west is 'going down the tubes fast.' The writer of that (which you provided) gives an excellent case for making sure that Prop. 8 is kept out of the law. How about if the Catholic beliefs (all of them) become U.S. law? Or Muslim beliefs (all of them)? Would you accept those? Or should the laws only be based on your own religious beliefs?
No doubt I am happy about this decision. Unfortuntely what went on in the court will remain a secret, because the Prop. 8 side stopped the cameras. That too was a giant mistake for that side. Oh well. I just hope that the same lawyers have to go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Kevin,
"Since the Prop. 8 lawyers could not present a credible case (and not a single expert witness!), they lost it."
I'm curious - What constitutes an "expert witness" for this case? There's a lot of smoke being blown about this case. The issue is not whether or not traditional marriage is harmed, but rather does the Federal government have the right to dictate to the states what the definition of legal marriage is. Under our Constitution, the answer is no. That's what makes a judge activist: Do they rule beyond the authority granted under the Constitution. Since the 10th Amendment gives the Federal no authority to regulate marriage, this case should never have even been considered by a Federal judge.
You mentioned in a previous writing that I consider things too "black and white." You are correct that I consider a great many things with that clarity. However, your use of it repetitively seems to imply a difference between you and I. That is not the case. You also see many things in black and white. For example, when you said that what made people dangerous was that they were convinced they had the right answer, that is a very black and white statement. Logically, it ranks right up there with Obi-Wan's assertion that "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Millions, possibly billions, of people consider themselves as having the correct answer on any number of philosophical issues and yet cause no trouble for others. The danger occurs when they adopt the view that to advance their view, they are no longer constrained by ethics, morals, or law, except for the standards they maintain under their vision. That is why most of the terrorists advancing religious causes are Muslims - They have taken that step. Likewise, this judge, in deciding that he is no longer constrained by the Constitution, has taken that step. Obama, in nullifying bankruptcy laws to favor unions has taken that step. And when you act as an apologist for them, you have taken that step.
Moving on to Kevin's assertion that the Prop 8 lawyers were of low quality, that may or may not be true. The judge rendered the point moot. His initial declaration was that the case was not going to be decided as a matter of law, but would instead be decided by "fact finding." In this case, he basically nullified the Prop 8 lawyer's arguments, as well as the case law, precedent, and common law history. That's the reason why it was not a mistake to object to cameras in the courtroom. The judge had pretty much abandoned law, and was basically going to allow as many pro-gay marriage "experts" to express their opinions as possible to the widest forum available. It was intended to be a show trial in every sense of the word.
Hi Gary,
You ask: " What constitutes an "expert witness" for this case?" The judge explained that in his finding. One (out of two) witnesses were called by the Prop. 8 side. One didn't have a clue about gay and lesbian history in California, nor did he know the current law. The judge had a problem with that.
I don't know how the 10th Amendment fits into this, but if something is declared unconstitutional, then what the 'state' decided was wrong. But I may be wrong. I am not a lawyer.
You said: "The issue is not whether or not traditional marriage is harmed..." But that was the whole case made by the Prop. 8 people. And that is why they lost the first round.
I'm not sure what the problem is with 'fact-finding.' It was the duty of the Prop. 8 lawyers to defend Prop. 8. They stated that gay marriage was a threat to procreation. The judge said that there was no proof.
Anyway, I see that the Appeals Court has issued a stay, so I am not sure how long the next process is going to take. Maybe it will be fast-tracked and go to the Supreme Court.
I think that Randy Thomasson, who gave a rebuttal speech against Judge Walker's decision, did an excellent job to point out Walker's bias and the fact that he followed his "feelings" and the talking points of the radical gay agenda, rather than the Constitution, the rule of law, the rights of States to keep the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and upholding the votes of 7 million Californians.
The judge made a selfish ruling. He pleased himself rather than the following the rule of law in this decision.
Watch the video here:
ABC Local.go.com
Kevin,
"One didn't have a clue about gay and lesbian history in California, nor did he know the current law. The judge had a problem with that."
Which goes to bias by the judge. Knowledge of gay and lesbian history is irrelevant to the determination as to whether a law, any law, is unconstitutional.
"But that was the whole case made by the Prop. 8 people. And that is why they lost the first round."
If that was the "whole case" then I can see why they lost. The judge asked for something impossible to prove: That something which has never been tried on a large scale in America would harm an existing institution. Neither could the other side "prove" that it would not.
"I'm not sure what the problem is with 'fact-finding."
How about that there are no "facts" supplied by the "experts" that are legally relevant?
"I don't know how the 10th Amendment fits into this,"
If you read it, you should be able to figure it out. The 10th Amendment says that if the authority to regulate something is not specifically given to the federal government, then the states have control. Since nothing has specifically given the federal government authority over marriage, then the question of Constitutionality does not apply at the federal level. And since Prop 8 amended the state Constitution, the law was, by definition, constitutional.
Hi Gary,
I've read the 10th amendment. If you think it is as easy as that, maybe you should defend Prop. 8!
How does the Defence of Marriage Act fit into the Federal Government's role in marriage? It is a federal law that states that marriage is one man, one woman. Here is what Section 3 states: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
That, to me (and I am not a lawyer) suggests that the federal government is regulating marriage.
This all goes back to whether the Constitution is a dead document (no room for interpretation) or a living document, interpreted in a different way. I happen to believe it isn't a dead document.
The judge wasn't biased. He wanted to know the reasons for Prop. 8 and the beliefs that stood behind it. He asked for witnesses on both sides. The Prop. 8 side only produced two. He found that animosity towards gays and lesbians was one of the reasons for its passage, and that violated the equal protection clause. California law now states some people cannot get married to certain people, while other people can marry. A religious idea (which is what Prop. 8 is based on) is not a valid reason to prevent people from doing something like getting married. If Christians don't like gay marriage, then they don't need to marry a person of the same sex. Simple as that. Unfortunately, some Christians think they can force their religious belief on the rest of the population by voting.
Regardless, there is no doubt in my mind that one day gay marriage will be legal in this country. It may take a while, but it will happen.
In fact, the Tenth Amendment goes even further to give the power to the people!
Amendment X - United States Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That is why voting is held in such high regard here in the United States!
Prop. 8, along with dozens of other states that had their constituents vote on the definition of marriage, have all upheld the right of the people to keep the thousands-of-years-old definition of marriage - as the union of one man and one woman - intact. One obviously biased judge should not have the authority to overturn the votes of 7 million Californians!
These days, judges and even Congress tend to trample on the rights of Americans to vote on specific issues by either legislating from the bench and/or doing an end run (like the Dem majority in Congress did with Obama Hellcare) around the will of the people by breaking the rules of the legislative body in order to get their way. This is CORRUPTION - plain and simple!
Here's another example of corrupt politicians trying to "lord it over" the rights and the will of the American people.
The Census Bureau only has the Constitutional right and duty to have people in each household give the number of people living at a residence. This is done every ten years. Yet, Congress tried to pull another fast one with the "American Community Survey" which is a highly intrusive document where the government wants more and more private information demanded from residents.
When I was being harrassed by the American Community Survey division of the Census Bureau, I found an online "legal way to get out of" having to fill it out.
The enforcement of such a survey was also a violation of my Constitutional right to privacy, as well as a violation of the Tenth Amendment.
In my view, the homosexual judge utilized his biased ideology and violated the 10th Amendment by negating the votes of 7 million people who wanted to keep marriage defined as it has always been defined - the union of one man and one woman.
Kevin,
"That, to me (and I am not a lawyer) suggests that the federal government is regulating marriage."
I understand that. I also understand that the US Constitution gives them no power to do that. Obviously, the judge in question does not believe it either or he would have ruled in accordance with the Federal law. He did not, which supports the idea that he is pursuing his own agenda.
"I happen to believe it isn't a dead document."
Liberals say that a lot. It's another one of the dishonestly ironic things they promulgate. According to them, if it were "dead" then it would have power and stand firm. But since it is "living" they are free to ignore it and substitute their own meaning.
"The judge wasn't biased."
And you can prove this how?
"He wanted to know the reasons for Prop. 8 and the beliefs that stood behind it."
Which were already well known and established since, because liberals oppose democracy, it took a ridiculously long time to get on the ballot and was subject to challenge after challenge to prevent people from having the ability to vote.
"He asked for witnesses on both sides."
Which were unnecessary to follow the law and of use only as a sham justification for a decision he had already made.
"He found that animosity towards gays and lesbians was one of the reasons for its passage"
Which is completely irrelevant as a matter of law.
"and that violated the equal protection clause."
There is nothing in the law that states that because some part of population passes it for any personal reason that the law violates equal protection. Basically, that's supporting the liberal view of "thought crime."
"California law now states some people cannot get married to certain people, while other people can marry."
Every law regarding marriage in the world in any country states that some people can marry while others cannot. Every law has designated conditions that define it's applicability. Period.
"A religious idea (which is what Prop. 8 is based on) is not a valid reason to prevent people from doing something like getting married."
A secular idea, which is what this ruling is based on, is not a valid reason to strike down a properly enacted law and force a change of definition of an established institution on an entire society.
"If Christians don't like gay marriage, then they don't need to marry a person of the same sex."
They just have to support it on a societal level. No. We don't.
"If Christians don't like gay marriage, then they don't need to marry a person of the same sex."
You keep saying that, but the only people who are forcing government action are you and your ilk.
"If Christians don't like gay marriage, then they don't need to marry a person of the same sex."
I absolutely agree, but it won't make you happier or your marriages better. It will only make you more resentful, because people will still know that you are forcing a counterfeit definition on the country and they will act accordingly.
Hi Christine,
The libs continue with their inversion of language to hide their actions and motives. "Forcing" in this case means preventing the government from taking action, as in marriage. Unbelievable. At any rate, I'm not worried. I have prayed extensively over this (well, for me anyway), and the answer is that this is nothing to get upset over. Things will unfold according to plan. I'll keep adding my voice to point out the illogic that libs try to pass off as law, but be at peace.
Hi Christine,
You say: "This is CORRUPTION - plain and simple!" It isn't plain and simple to me. It is the way that democracy works. You keep saying '7 million...' What about the other millions who didn't want Prop. 8 to become law?
Hi Gary, you say: "But since it is "living" they are free to ignore it and substitute their own meaning." But that isn't the case at all. If the founding fathers weren't specific about every single thing that could possibly happen in this country, 200 years after its writing, then there has to be some interpretation.
You also say: "Which is completely irrelevant as a matter of law." Really? You actually believe that if a law is passed by the voters that animosity was the real reason for a law, you are happy with that? If so, you are very lucky that you are in the majority.
" Basically, that's supporting the liberal view of "thought crime." The liberals I know never use the phrase 'though crime.' That is only used by conservatives.
"Every law has designated conditions that define it's applicability. Period." So you were fine with the idea that blacks could not marry whites?
"It will only make you more resentful, because people will still know that you are forcing a counterfeit definition on the country and they will act accordingly." Interesting statement. I am not resentful of the fact that straight people don't want to marry people of their own sex. My marriage has absolutely nothing to do with yours, nor with Christine's. If you think it does, then you might need to focus on something else for a while. Let people act 'accordingly.' As I said before, I know that gay marriage will be accepted in this country by the majority in the not too distant future. I've seen the poll numbers. The original part of Prop. 8 had 64% support. Then Prop. 8 passed with just barely 52%. That is a giant drop in a couple of years. Soon those who support gay marriage will be in the majority.
I too am not upset about this. Time after time in this country minorities have gotten their rights. That is the beauty of this country.
Kevin,
"If the founding fathers weren't specific about every single thing that could possibly happen in this country, 200 years after its writing, then there has to be some interpretation."
Wow! You’re right! They couldn’t have. If only they had specified some procedure that the Constitution could be changed if needed that didn’t involve dictates from judges from the top! Oh, wait…They did! That’s a relief. Anyway, it isn’t needed in this case anyway. They were very specific in the 10th amendment. If the Federal government isn't specifically given authority, it belongs to the states.
"You actually believe that if a law is passed by the voters that animosity was the real reason for a law,"
I believe it is legally irrelevant. Lots of people voted for Obama specifally because he was black. That's a crappy reason, but it's also legally irrelevant. I also believe that animosity played a very small part in the passage and that the liberal judge is using that as an excuse to ignore the law.
Liberals may seldom use the term "Thought Crime," but much of their general view follows the party lines of 1984. Criminalize attitudes, make certain words unusable, ignorance is strength, etc.
"So you were fine with the idea that blacks could not marry whites?"
My, my…An implication of bigotry from a liberal gay male. What are the odds? (Hint: Probability approaches 1.) It’s not bad enough that liberals think blacks are stupid, but they also seem to think they are deaf and blind as well. Otherwise, there is no way that they could help but notice that the people yelling at them for taking advantage of their right to vote on Prop 8 were squarely in the liberal camp. This was not bigotry, of course. Liberals hate anyone who disagrees with them. That’s just the way despots are.
"My marriage has absolutely nothing to do with yours, nor with Christine's."
You have no marriage. You play house with a guy, and the state of California winks and says "Fine by us" even though the people disagree. The US, and until recently most other Western nations, have always defined marriage as one man and one woman, through case law, common law, etc. As such, it is not the province of a single judge to redefine it.
"Time after time in this country minorities have gotten their rights."
Yes they have, and until recently on Constitutional grounds. Unfortunately, since modern liberalism came into power, minorities have been given special rights and the ability to override the Constitutional protections and rights of everyone else. That is the shame of this country.
Post a Comment