tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post3486797981902166688..comments2024-03-24T23:41:23.944-07:00Comments on Talk Wisdom: CA Marriage Protection ActChristinewjchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-48689540162161729422008-03-11T10:55:00.000-07:002008-03-11T10:55:00.000-07:00Update: 3/11/08Calling all prayer warriors!The fo...Update: 3/11/08<BR/><BR/>Calling all prayer warriors!<BR/><BR/>The following is an email letter that I received this morning, calling for us to pray regarding the upcoming CA Supreme Court decision about marriage remaining the union between one man and one woman:<BR/><BR/>Desert Stream Ministries<BR/> March 11, 2008 <BR/> <BR/> <BR/>Dear Christine,<BR/><BR/>Please join me in praying for the California Supreme Court as the seven justices consider whether or not to overturn the will of CA citizens by instituting gay marriage. <BR/> <BR/>Last Tuesday, the Court heard a variety of arguments on the constitutionality of a voter-approved ban on gay marriage that occurred in 2000. In the winter of 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco overturned that ban and allowed over 4,000 gays to marry in that city. <BR/><BR/>These unions were voided and six of those couples have since sued to overturn the gay marriage ban. In spite of the fact that CA has a domestic partnership law that grants gay couples nearly all the same benefits of married couples, this lawsuit before the Court represents the relentless drive of gay activists to claim marriage as their own. <BR/><BR/>Marriage is the gold ring to which activists aspire; anything short of that prize is considered inferior, relegating gays to second class citizenship.<BR/><BR/>The problem? God defines marriage as intrinsically heterosexual, for the purpose of creating and protecting new life. Period. Any other configuration misrepresents His will for marriage. Gay marriage is a misnomer. The two words together signify a reality warp. <BR/><BR/>'Gay marriage' slaps God in the face, and manifests a blind pursuit of human rights.<BR/><BR/>Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege that the Creator accords a man and a woman. He can never bless and confirm two members of the same gender and nor should we.<BR/><BR/>The CA Supreme Court is currently split on the decision to overturn the gay marriage ban and allow these couples, and any other gay couple, to marry in the state. CA would then become only the second state in the union to do so. (The Mass. Supreme Court initiated gay marriage in the USA 4 years ago; they granted dissenting gay couples the right to marry on the basis that they had a constitutional right to so.)<BR/><BR/>Keep in mind that the California Supreme Court is the most influential state court in the nation. As CA goes, so will go the nation. Each state, regardless of previous legislation, will be that much more inclined to follow CA's powerful lead.<BR/><BR/>Pray that the CA court refuses gay marriage. The justices are currently split on whether or not to overturn the citizen's ban on gay marriage. Pray that 4 of the 7 justices stay true to what actually constitutes marriage-a man and a woman. <BR/> <BR/> <BR/>The Supreme Court has 90 days to make a decision. Pray they uphold the will of the citizens of CA, and the Creator.<BR/> <BR/><BR/>Andy Comiskey<BR/><BR/>*******<BR/><BR/>1Th 5:17 Pray without ceasing.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-86362068795096241852008-03-10T18:34:00.000-07:002008-03-10T18:34:00.000-07:00You are the one that brought up "biblical marriage...You are the one that brought up "biblical marriage" in your last comment. You tried (quite unsuccessfully) to do two things with your comment:<BR/><BR/>1. You attempted to make the false claim that biblical marriage was polygamous.<BR/><BR/>2. You attempted to make a race-baiting comment when you stated that "biblical marriage prohibited inter-racial relationships."<BR/><BR/>Next, you exacerbate your errors by changing the subject in order to avoid facing the fact that you were wrong on both accounts.<BR/><BR/>Your secular humanistic views are also a type of religion. Your movement is about imposing your secular humanistic religious ideas upon an entire populace. Thank you for admitting as much!Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-50996324683306060132008-03-10T16:16:00.000-07:002008-03-10T16:16:00.000-07:00I'm sorry Christine, I thought we were talking abo...I'm sorry Christine, I thought we were talking about government marriage rights not "proper Bible hermeneutics and exegesis". But I guess that does just further add evidence what your movement is about -- the imposition of religious ideas upon an entire populace. Thank you for admitting as much. :)Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09893326696367596809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-63069871568112619892008-03-10T15:44:00.000-07:002008-03-10T15:44:00.000-07:00David,You made the typical faux pas of one who is ...David,<BR/><BR/>You made the typical faux pas of one who is ignorant of proper Bible hermeneutics and exegesis.<BR/><BR/>The Bible does not <I>approve</I> of all that it records. It's just an honest book. It records the sins and errors of human beings. <BR/><BR/>About the inter-racial marriage question. In the Old Testament days, God wanted to keep the Israelites away from the pagan nations and their sinful habits and practices. They were called out to be a special people - holy and righteous before God...the "apple of God's eye" ...so to speak. <BR/><BR/>In order to keep their religious faith pure before Holy God, they were told not to intermarry with the pagan women. It didn't have anything to do with skin color. It had to do with morality and their obedience towards God's Laws.<BR/><BR/>Today, the Amish separate themselves from the paganism of this world. They do so in order to be obedient to God. They desire holiness and righteousness in their lives; and, they see this as their way to honor God. Do you want to label them as "racist" too?Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-27888214676439828902008-03-10T15:13:00.000-07:002008-03-10T15:13:00.000-07:00"Conclusion? People join in with all kinds of aber..."Conclusion? People join in with all kinds of aberrant sexual relationships...but they aren't called "marriage" they are called something else!"<BR/><BR/>Oh come on!! Are you REALLY being serious!! You know full-well that "biblical marriage" was in fact polygamous!!! Not only that, "biblical marriage" prohibited inter-racial relationships. You couldn't have come up with a more ironic response.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09893326696367596809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-67121057022544265132008-03-10T14:57:00.000-07:002008-03-10T14:57:00.000-07:00Hi Jos76,Welcome and thanks for your comments.You ...Hi Jos76,<BR/><BR/>Welcome and thanks for your comments.<BR/><BR/>You asked, "It is not quit[e] clear to me why so many right-wing conservatives are completely against gay marriage."<BR/><BR/>Did you watch the video called <I>"Marriage, The Image of God"</I> at the link provided? I think it would definitely answer your question.<BR/><BR/>David,<BR/><BR/>Tell me this. If a man wants to marry 3 women, what is that called?<BR/><BR/>Polygamy<BR/><BR/>If a woman wants to marry two men, what is that called?<BR/><BR/>Bigamy<BR/><BR/>If a man wants to be married to one woman, yet wants a woman "on the side," what is that called?<BR/><BR/>Polyamory<BR/><BR/>Conclusion? People join in with all kinds of aberrant sexual relationships...<B>but they aren't called "marriage" they are called something else!</B><BR/><BR/>Marriage has always been the definition of <B>"the union between one man and one woman."</B><BR/><BR/><I>Get your own word.</I>Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-28892206504501633972008-03-10T12:13:00.000-07:002008-03-10T12:13:00.000-07:00You're completely correct, Jos76. It is in comple...You're completely correct, Jos76. It is in complete contradiction to conservative values to prevent people from entering into legal contracts of their own choosing. What we see happening here is not conservatism, but theocracy -- the forced acceptance of religious ideas onto the population. <BR/><BR/>Additionally, making this out to be an issue of "democracy" is also fallacious. California, along with Oregon, refused to allow African-Americans into their state based upon their then nascent state constitutions. This, of course, was overturned by judges who understood that minority rights must be protected in the face of majority rule. That is why we are a constitutional republic with a Bill of Rights and the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, however, this issue is taking care of itself. Conservative Christianity is on a precipitous decline, with some 80% of American children leaving the religion once they reach adulthood. There is already a majority in support of equal marriage rights in Massachusetts, and we are quickly approaching a majority in California. Despite the actions of those who wish to impose their religion on us, justice and equality continues to march on.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09893326696367596809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-90524834325994795352008-03-09T18:29:00.000-07:002008-03-09T18:29:00.000-07:00It is not quit clear to me why so many right-wing ...It is not quit clear to me why so many right-wing conservatives are completely against gay marriage. They are essentially trying to convince people that mutually respectful relationships are not beneficial to the couple or the society around them. In addition, Democrats that favor civil unions over marriage rights are opening the door to straight couples entering into civil unions so that they can get the benefits alloted, without actually getting married. Civil unions, then , will actually lower the overall marriage rate. Who is to stop two straight “friends” from filing for a civil union in order to get work-related benefits in a state. Legalizing gay marriage would raise the overall marriage rates and civil unions would lower it. This is perhaps the goal of both political parties. Civil unions means no access to Social Security, whereas marriage does give access. <BR/><BR/>I’m a legally married gay man in Massachusetts, and because there is no federal recognition of our marriage, we will not contribute to the bankruptcy of Social Security because we will not have access to the money that we pay for legally married straight couples who tap into the Social Security Benefits of his/her spouse. Civil Unions may have nothing to do with gay rights, but rather may be a way of keeping money available in Social Security.<BR/>Jos76<BR/>http://www.jos76.wordpress.comJos76https://www.blogger.com/profile/01483616609442136071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-40265395293804702202008-03-08T11:13:00.000-08:002008-03-08T11:13:00.000-08:00For some reason, blogger is not allowing me to pos...For some reason, blogger is not allowing me to post from my dashboard today. It is giving me a "server error" message when I tried to post my current message.<BR/><BR/>How strange is it that I can post comments?<BR/><BR/>I think that several people must have "flagged my blog" or something. Or, maybe the blogger dashboard problem is a separate problem. Who knows?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, please go to <A HREF="http://talkwisdom.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/which-jesus/" REL="nofollow">Talk Wisdom over at Word Press to read, "Which Jesus?".</A><BR/><BR/>I wrote it in direct response to this post and thread of comments.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-83857444014124770692008-03-08T08:06:00.000-08:002008-03-08T08:06:00.000-08:00I got hate mail!!GUEST'S MESSAGE: The problem is n...I got hate mail!!<BR/><BR/><I>GUEST'S MESSAGE: <BR/>The problem is not with God or his son. It falls with Gods followers. You preach love but your message is nothing but hate and intolerance. Your hateful words hurt many families and mostly the children of these families. Because of intolerance Children of Gay families are more likely to commit suicide. You go on about protecting children but at the same time you and your right wing followers hurt more children than another group of people. I thank God that not all Christians are nuts like you and your followers and that they follow God true words...love your neighbor. protect all of Gods children. You will lose your unfounded fight and the true children of God will triumph.<BR/> <BR/>I hope you can sleep at night knowing the harm you have caused gay families and single parent families. You and your followers have made Religion a dirty word. <BR/>You just prove how crazy all of you really are...Keep up the good work!</I><BR/><BR/>Dear Hate Mail Writer,<BR/><BR/>I can't quite tell whether or not you are a gay christian movement advocate or a non-believer.<BR/><BR/>I would, however, like to invite you to view the following video:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.therocksandiego.org/messages/" REL="nofollow">Marriage, The Image of God</A>.<BR/><BR/>Then, you can come back here and apologize to me for <B>your hateful words towards me</B>, your misrepresentation of the facts concerning true Christian beliefs, and for personally slandering me because I follow Jesus and His Word, the Bible.<BR/><BR/>The reality is this. It's not my words that you hate and reject; it is the Word of God and what He says about homosexual behavior that you hate and reject.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-12630308150803005472008-03-08T07:48:00.000-08:002008-03-08T07:48:00.000-08:00Thanks Stephen. Christians need to stand up for t...Thanks Stephen. Christians need to stand up for the truth, no matter what the other side wants to call us.<BR/><BR/>I think that CA Christian churches have <B><I>FINALLY woken up</I></B> from their lethargic slumber. The double assault of that homosexual indoctrination bill being passed into law (SB777) last year, and the CA Supreme Court case being decided right now (on whether to overturn Prop. 22) has brought forth the reality that if we do not do something to stem this tide of pressure, our religious freedoms will suffer drastically. In fact, such laws may even result in taking away our religious rights to preach the true gospel and God's Word about morality. <BR/><BR/>I see what is happening in Massachusetts since gay "marriage" was forced upon the people in that state. It's terrible! The gestopo gay activists are so busy promoting their filth in the schools and taking away parents' rights to bring up their children without homosexual indoctrination; it's a wonder whether or not there is any time left in the school day to teach educational curriculum!<BR/><BR/>We know who the enemy behind all of this really is. Yes. These people (and those who support them) are tragically deceived.<BR/><BR/>Stephen, I don't know if you had seen my previous post that had a link to Pastor Miles McPherson's sermon entitled <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.therocksandiego.org/messages/" REL="nofollow">Marriage, The Image of God</A>.<BR/><BR/><B>It is one of the best, most comprehensive sermons on the subject of marriage being God's idea as the union of one man and one woman and why the church needs to reject gay "marriage" that I have ever heard!!</B><BR/><BR/>Go to that link, find that title, and click on the arrow to view the message. I would really love your opinion on it.<BR/><BR/>I asked our friend Jaded to view the video and then tell me what she thought of it. Never heard back from her. Mamalicious (remember her?) viewed it but, apparently, it didn't change her mind about how she views God's Word on the issue.<BR/><BR/>Good to see you here! Sent a note to you (snail mail) recently.<BR/><BR/>I'm looking forward to seeing the events you had mentioned in your last email.<BR/><BR/>God bless you this day!<BR/><BR/>In Christ,<BR/>ChristineChristinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-89774615817180514712008-03-08T05:06:00.000-08:002008-03-08T05:06:00.000-08:00Great response Christine. Homosexuals DO want to r...Great response Christine. Homosexuals DO want to re-define marriage. It's a fairy tale. It's a fantasy. It's playing house -- one's the "man" and one's the "woman." I know.<BR/><BR/>Kudos for sticking up for the truth. These people are so tragically deceived, it's sad. They truly need the love of Christ to set them free from their sin and deception.<BR/><BR/>That's not hateful, homophobic or bigoted. It's biblical, moral and it's REALITY.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-63268408185314870692008-03-07T20:24:00.000-08:002008-03-07T20:24:00.000-08:00Before marriage became a "civil" institution, it w...Before marriage became a "civil" institution, it was God's idea. The Bible confirms that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Anything else other than that union is called something else.<BR/><BR/>Charlotte, marriage was originally set up (both biblically, and secularly) in this nation as the union of one man and one woman. It is not discriminatory to deny marriage to homosexuals. Heterosexuals must follow the rules too. I can't marry my son or my daughter. My daughter can't marry her brother.<BR/><BR/>Homosexuals can have their relationships. But they don't have the right to re-define marriage. Putting the traditional definition for marriage as one man and one woman in the CA Constitution will prevent endless lawsuits and activist judges from overturning the will of the people in CA. Prop. 22 was passed in 2000 by 63% of the voting public. Why would you want to disenfranchise millions of voters just because you, and a small percentage of gays and lesbians want to change the definition of marriage?<BR/><BR/>The reasons are clear. Just because you don't happen to agree with them doesn't make your complaints correct or your views valid.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-37907902590393438962008-03-07T13:16:00.000-08:002008-03-07T13:16:00.000-08:00Marriage is a basic civil right that should be att...Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.comCharlotte Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13409719695261294226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-2759694035649962432008-03-07T13:14:00.000-08:002008-03-07T13:14:00.000-08:00As marriage is a civil institution, it must be adm...As marriage is a civil institution, it must be administered fairly by the state. The legal implications of homosexuality are no different from the legal implications of red hair. If a religion taught that all redheads were evil, we would disdain them, but I for one would say they had a right to say it.<BR/><BR/>On to your ten.<BR/><BR/>1. <B>Fathers</B> Then ban divorce. Forcibly abort children born out of wedlock. I don't see this is an issue concerning gay people.<BR/><BR/>2. <B>Norway</B> The bad statistics that will not die. This has been debunked. The way to avoid a Norway is to deny benefits for children born out of wedlock.<BR/><BR/>3. <B>School</B> And the family that objects to an interracial couple depicted in a story? Or good people of other or no religious faith. Take it up with the school board.<BR/><BR/>4. <B>Prosperity</B> So, gay people ought to be impoverished?<BR/><BR/>5. <B>Social</B> In legal terminology <I>mother</I> and <I>father</I> have no relevance. Both parents have the same legal rights. This has nothing to do with gay people.<BR/><BR/>6. <B>Federal</B> DOMA is likely unconstitutional discrimination against law-abiding Americans.<BR/><BR/>7. <B>Activist</B> <I>Activist judge</I> simply means "I don't agree with this ruling."<BR/><BR/>8. <B>Preserve religious freedom</B> But not all clergy <I>oppose</I> same-sex marriage. The rights of clergy are violated daily by the current status. No one can force clergy to officiate. The law will not allow clergy to act within the dictates of their conscience and and according to their religion if their denomination celebrates same-sex couples.<BR/><BR/>Interfaith marriage is legal in all 50 states. Conservative and Orthodox rabbis are not obligated to solemnize interfaith marriages. Mr. Stern needs to consult a rabbi.<BR/><BR/>9. <B>Population</B> I suspect that people will continue to procreate even if the lesbian couple down the street (with the new baby) are married.<BR/><BR/>10. <B>Laws set standards.</B> And if our laws that tell us it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation can be easily dismissed, what other protections can be?John Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10086357600768124139noreply@blogger.com