California Churches Plan a Big Push Against Same-Sex Marriage ( Propostion 8 )

Los Angeles Times ^ | August 24, 2008 | Jessica Garrison

[kellynla]

Early on a late September morning, if all goes according to plan, 1 million Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, evangelical Christians, Sikhs and Hindus will open their doors, march down their front walks and plant "Yes on Proposition 8" signs in their yards to show they support repealing same-sex marriage in California.

It is a bold idea, one that may be difficult to pull off. But whether or not 1 million lawn signs are planted in unison, the plan underscores what some observers say is one of the most ambitious interfaith political organizing efforts ever attempted in the state. Moreover, political analysts say, the alliances across religious boundaries could herald new ways of building coalitions around political issues in California.

"Pan-religious, faith-based political action strategies . . . I think we are going to see a lot more of [this] in the future," said Gaston Espinosa, a professor of religious studies at Claremont McKenna College.

The greatest involvement in the campaign has come from Mormons, Catholics and evangelical Christians, who say they are working together much more closely than they did eight years ago when a similar measure, Proposition 22, was on the ballot.

Mark Jansson, a Mormon who is a member of the Protect Marriage Coalition, said members of his group are also reaching out to Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus.

Organizers say the groups turned to each other because of the California Supreme Court's ruling in May allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in the state. Thousands of gay couples have wed in the state since June 17, the first day same-sex marriages became legal.

"This is a rising up over a 5,000-year-old institution that is being hammered right now," said Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church, an evangelical congregation in La Mesa.

[kellynla]

"What binds us together is one common obsession: . . . marriage," Garlow said.

[kellynla]

ping

[pepsionice]

I would start preparing myself mentally for 3-person marriages within the next five years. It will happen, and we’ll wonder just how far this “concept” can go (four-person marriages, marriage to a dead person or ghost, multiple marriages, cousin-to-cousin marriages, and even marriage with an animal species).

[ovrtaxt]

Don’t forget the chirlins too.

[kellynla]

“I would start preparing myself mentally for 3-person marriages within the next five years.”

steak dinner says you’re wrong...

homosexual marriages have gone as far as they’re gonna go...
with, at best, 10% being homosexual, the majority are not going to allow this to continue.

[proudofthesouth]

I disagree. Legalizing pedophilia is also on their agenda.

[proudofthesouth]

I was told by my Alabama state rep that THREE times a bill has been introduced into the Alabama state house confirming that marriage is between a man and a woman ONLY and all three times the demonrats have blocked it!

The homo's AREN'T going to give up and their evil cohorts the demonrats won't stop helping them.

[NutCrackerBoy]

I applaud this move. It’s in everyone’s best interest stop the cultural mayhem.

[musicman]

[Man50D]

The homosexual movement has nothing to do with the rights of homosexuals. It is one of many methods socialists employ to destroy our representative democracy and replace it with socialism. From the Communist Goals read into the 1963 Congressional record:

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

[musicman]

"....and we’ll wonder just how far this “concept” can go "

[expatguy]

Sorry FRiend, but the Rubicon has already been crossed.

You can't undo what you have done or seal Pandora's box.

There will be 3 person marriages and more within the United States in LESS than 5 years unless...

You can can explain why a marriage must be limited to two people without mentioning God or religion.

You can explain how by limiting a marriage to two people does not discriminate against people who want to marry multiple partners.

Those two questions will be the insurmountable hurdles that will pave the way for every other perverse "lifestyle" you can imagine.

[Vaduz]

California Supreme Court’s = crazy people are owned.

[Loud Mime]

I believe there is a good chance we’ll see a drop in the age for some legal events, which would redefine “children.” I’m all for it.

I want to see these gangsta’s, punks and hot rodders tried as adults. If they can’t discern adult behaviors at 15, they won’t at 35.

[kellynla]

“The homosexual movement has nothing to do with the rights of homosexuals. It is one of many methods socialists employ to destroy our representative democracy and replace it with socialism. From the Communist Goals read into the 1963 Congressional record:

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

Thank you !

We all need to be reminded!

[kellynla]

steak dinner...put your money where your mouth is...

[manc]

another group which no one has seemed to get in touch with are muslims, they do not approve of homosexuals at all.

If the message got out about these gays wanting to marry and who is in favour for it then believe me muslims will not be voting miuch for the dems no more and certainly muslims will vote on this issue.
I know or have known many muslims and they are firmly into their faith and firmly against homosexuals.

The Imams in their mosque have a lot of power over their congregation too

I just hope the homosexual marriage question gets to the muslim population and someone gets in touch with their Imams

[manc]

agree, look at those MA sickos who first got their sham marriage
half of them are now divorced of course they went to other states many of them to get the divorce causing all sorts of trouble again

If we let these mentally perverted people to have what they call a marriage then they’ll be wanting to get children and brainwash them into a sick lifestyle and you can bet child care services will not be getting involved as many of them are liberals and perverted

[manc]

WOW thanks for that link I have never seen it before

I got suspicious when those in MA got their sham marriage and then went ton other states wanting a divorce and others wanted to get a hold of kids.

They wanted a divorce i another state why, so that state in a weird round about way would now recognize their sham marriage thus now opening the next argument in that new states courts

[kellynla]

“another group which no one has seemed to get in touch with are muslims, they do not approve of homosexuals at all.”

I’m not interested in muslim support...
one more terrorist attack in America and the muzzies are gonna have to pack up their koran and families and go back to whatever hellhole they originated from!

as far as terrorists attacks in America are concerned,
we abide by the baseball rule, “3 strikes and you’re outa here!”

[manc]

I see your point but if this means stopping the moral decay in this country and getting more votes to stop the great perverted then I think it should be done

enemy of my enemy and all that but again I do see your point

[fwdude]

I’m not interested in muslim support...

Neither should any sane government after 9/11. We should view Islam as Bush said we should view any country that harbors terrists or terrorism. Islam harbors terrorism. It should be outta here.

[fwdude]

homosexual marriages have gone as far as they’re gonna go...

Wrong. Look at counties that have gone farther down the liberal path of moral chaos and you see every conceiable abomination being pushed for legitimization. Sweden, one of the first countries to recognize same-sex marriage, is now seeing a serious push to legalize not just polyamourous marriage, but to abolish any normative ideas of sexuality.

[kellynla]

America ain’t Sweden. LOL

but you’re welcome to put your money where your mouth is...
steak dinner?

[fwdude]

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

America ain't California either.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I agree with your insight that the Dems have no interest at all in preventing perverse behavior being enshrined in law and promoted in policy as the equivalent of authentic marriage.

I have to make a critical comment, thoughm, about your tagline ("Homosexuality IS a choice! There isn't any biological reason for it. They CHOOSE to be that way!")

Of course, no one expects careful distinctions in a tagline, but the problem with yours is that it does not distinguish between an unwanted same-sex attraction (orientation) and fully voluntary homosexual acts (behavior.)

Same-sex attraction is a tendency which can be a trial and a difficulty for those who experience it. Whether it arises from genetic factors, pre-natal hormonal influences, early childhood emotional experiences, environmental impacts on gender identity development, or some combination of the above, it is not "chosen" by the individual so much as discoveed and experienced.

Where "choice" comes in, is when the person decides on what behavior to practice in order to resolve the tensions of his inner feelings.

People are responsible for chosen behavior, not for unchosen attractions, appetites and drives.

[kellynla]

so, put your money where your mouth is smartypants or move on...

[expatguy]

You're on.

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

[kellynla]

Excellent!

So when CA passes Proposition 8, you owe me a steak dinner.

I like mine medium rare.LOL

deal?

[kellynla]

hello?

[expatguy]

Deal.

[CounterCounterCulture]

[scripter]

That’s an excellent summary and one of the best posts I’ve read on the subject.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you.

[DesertRenegade]

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is one of the few media figures with the guts to challenge the homosexual activists. On her show she once debunked a fax she had received with pro-homosexual talking points: "It goes on and says 'Pedophilia and child molestation have zero to do with being gay, homosexual orientation' and that’s not true. That is not true. How many letters have I read on the air from gay men who acknowledge that a huge portion of the male homosexual populace is predatory on young boys."

[fwdude]

You’re replying to the wrong poster. I didn’t bet the steak dinner - and I didn’t give it 5 years.

[Lucky Dog]

A man who marries more than one woman, is called a polygamist and suffers legal sanctions if caught. However, his merely being attracted to, and wanting to marry, more than one woman does not result in him being called a polygamist or suffering legal sanctions.

A woman who sells her sexual favors is called a prostitute and suffers legal sanctions if caught (except in Nevada). However, if a woman merely wants to sell her body, but does not, she is not called a prostitute.

Does polygamy involve sexual activity? Does prostitution? Is some one who merely feels like they wish to engage in these activities but doesn’t labeled with these words? Does homosexual behavior involve sexual activity? Why should someone who merely is attracted to the same sex but does nothing about be labeled such? In short, unless it is a psychosis, why is the term “homosexual” any different? Is the logic clear, yet?

No one except God can know what attractions a person feels absent some action. Is a person called a thief who merely tells others that he or she is attracted to taking the property of others? Is a person who picks up some else’s property, looks at and replaces it called a thief? How about some one who says “you make me mad enough to kill you.” Is this person called a murderer?

Therefore, the question is on the table as why should some one, who feels a simple desire but never acts upon it, be labeled, e.g., "homosexual"? By analogy with your definition of homosexual, a polygamist is any man who "feels" like marrying more than one woman whether he does, or not. Similarly, any woman who may want compensation for sex whether she gets it, or even asks for it, is a prostitute. Likewise, anyone who gets angry enough to want to kill the object of his or her anger is a murderer whether he or she does anything or not.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You're right on that point: a person who merely feels tempted by fornication, or polygamy, or homosexual sex, or embezzlement, or murder, but does not do it cannot be accurately or justly called a fornicator, or a polygamist, or gay, or a thief, or a murderer. No one is morally condemned for being tempted: Scripture says Jesus Himself was "tempted in every way that we are, but without sin."

There are legitimate labels, though, for tendencies. I perhaps haven't had an alcoholic beverage for 20 years, but (if I know I have a strong tendency to overindulge in alcohol) I may still be an alcoholic. A "reformed" alcoholic or a "dry" or a "straight ans sober" alcoholic: but I still have that tendency. And it's a good thing to know, because it motivates me to avoid certain situations, and to be on my guard so I don't fall.

People do have innate tendencies. One may have a tendency to anger, another to laziness, another to lust, another to overeating. The tendencies are innate weaknesses, different for different people, and they are not sins in themselves, but they do incline us to certain sins.

So it is accurate to say, perhaps, that somebody has same-sex tendencies --- and we could say accurately that he has, overall, a "homosexual orientation". Notice tha's using "homosexual" as an adjective. I don't really like the use of "homosexual" as a noun ("He's a homosexual") because it sounds too much like an identity.

And nobody's "identity" is defined by their degree or direction of sexual attraction, which is, for all of us, a peripheral and rather fluctuating thing.

[Lucky Dog]

…nobody's "identity" is defined by their degree or direction of sexual attraction…

(You realize that your statement could land you in legal trouble in certain jurisdictions, do you not?)

Marriage (the original subject of this thread) between two people of the opposite sex (heterosexuals) as an institution recognized by the state (in contrast to religious recognition) confers certain rights and obligations. For example, spouses may inherit as next of kin, may make certain decisions that bind both members of the marriage, may direct the upbringing of children that are products of the union or adopted, etc. Additionally, marriage serves as the foundational element of the “nuclear family” which is the foremost, or primary, element of any enduring society.

Contrary to your assertion concerning homosexuality as an “identity” (which most logical people would class as a “piercing glance into the obvious”), there are individuals and groups who have successfully forced codification into law, the term “sexual orientation” as, not only the source of an “identity,” but as a protected class.

Additionally, in Massachusetts and California, these groups have used this “identity” to usurp the definition of marriage. Because of this insidious subversion against traditional marriage, a number of states have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as only the legal union of a man and a woman. Unfortunately, the very fact that there are core differences between state laws on this topic will force the issue to the federal level.

These differences will eventually force the SCOTUS to rule on the issue under the “full faith and credit clause” of the US Constitution. Regrettably, the SCOTUS track record on such controversial issues is not particularly heartening.

The efforts of homosexual practitioners to alter beyond recognition, the traditional meaning of the term “marriage,” is nothing less than an attempt to destroy the institution, itself. With the destruction of the institution of marriage, will come the eventual dissolution of the “nuclear family,” and with that, the ultimate destruction of our society.

Therefore, use the term “homosexual” with great specificity. It should be restricted to mean only those individual who actually engage in sexual activities with members of the same sex, not those who may think about such or desire such or have an innate tendency toward such.

The first step in defeating an enemy is defining who is the enemy. And make no mistake about it, homosexual practitioners are the declared and bitter enemy of all who support the traditional family, our republic and Judeo-Christian values.