Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prop. 8 Trial Wraps Up, Leaving Some Christians Wondering if Their Votes Counted
NC Register ^ | February 6, 2010 | Sue ELLIN BROWDER

Posted on 02/06/2010 3:07:30 PM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 02/06/2010 3:07:30 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; markomalley; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; ...
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


2 posted on 02/06/2010 3:08:08 PM PST by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Should the pro-marriage votes of Catholics, Baptists and other people of faith in California be disregarded as irrational, “discriminatory” and unconstitutional?

Why not? Happens all the time in the Ninth Circus. Overturning voters' initiatives is standard, workaday stuff in that court.

3 posted on 02/06/2010 3:10:40 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (I'm Ellie Light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Only the bigotry of leftists would ever consider this.


4 posted on 02/06/2010 3:10:55 PM PST by etradervic (It's the People's Seat ! http://www.toomeyforsenate.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
If this is successful, will we disqualify elections where black candidates lose because the voters were racists? Will we disqualify electios where gay candidates lose because the voters were homophobic? Will we disqualify elections where hispanic candidates lose because the voters were against (illegal) immigration?

Where do these "thought trials" end?

-PJ

5 posted on 02/06/2010 3:15:31 PM PST by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

How do they even get this into trial?


6 posted on 02/06/2010 3:19:37 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

“Where do these “thought trials” end?”

at the grave if we look to history as a teacher.


7 posted on 02/06/2010 3:22:07 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer

They should fast track this to the SCOTUS, so they can smack down the leftist radicals. Again!


8 posted on 02/06/2010 3:23:54 PM PST by LibFreeUSA (Show me what Obama brought that was new and there you will find things only blind and destructive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

They got a homosexual judge who was willing to hear the case.


9 posted on 02/06/2010 3:23:56 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (I'm Ellie Light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The real question is whether the court has a right to even hold this trial in the first place.


10 posted on 02/06/2010 3:42:32 PM PST by Rocky (Obama's policy: A thousand points of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Exactly! I have been troubled by this trial, for all these reasons. I am concerned about the precedents that could be set, far beyond court orders in favor of homosexual marriage. Their goal is to restrict what or who we can vote for. If any policy can be construed as being driven by “animosity” towards a politically correct group or cause, then, such election will be declared illegal.

This is clearly not just about marriage. Prop. 8 simply restored the previous definition of marriage, AND, BROUGHT THAT DEFINITION BACK IN LINE WITH FEDERAL LAW. Since it brought the definition of marriage back in line with federal law, why exactly do we see a federal lawsuit on the subject of marriage definitions in this case? Clearly there is another agenda behind this lawsuit.


11 posted on 02/06/2010 3:43:11 PM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Just because I have the passing thought to shoplift something does not somehow make the act a moral one. Likewise, just because a person is sexually attracted to people of the same sex does not nullify Scriptural sanctions against the act.

To be clear: neither those who love to steal, or who love telling lies, or who practice sexual immorality of any kind will be granted salvation. (I didn't write Revelation 22:15) I say this fully knowing that many of the participants of this socially conservative forum are living with a “significant other” but are not married to them. (so guys, why not just get married if you are acting like you are married?)

If anyone looks at the arguments being made by the Soddomite Lobbby about allowing them to “marry” (in the eyes of the State, not in God's eyes), most of their points go back to the tax exemptions and benefits that government offers to married couples. One of the main roots of gay marriage is the Income Tax Code!

When we allow government to exempt married couples from a tax, government naturally will take it upon itself to define who is married. Because of the power of the State and its pervasive nature, it is natural for the State's definition of marriage to prevail over the Scriptural and cultural definition.

In short it is time to get government out of the marriage business. Why should I allow government to permit or forbid me to be married. Government must only be allowed to recognize the status that I inform them of. As must as I object to the idea the homosexuals can “marry”, whatever they do in private that is peaceful and consenting should be nobody’s business under our Constitution.

This gives the proponents of the Fair Tax one more point: a tax on sales cannot depend upon the status of the taxpayer. This nullifies one of the main points of contention by the Soddomites about “gay marriage”.

12 posted on 02/06/2010 3:49:40 PM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: Political Junkie Too
Will we disqualify electios where gay candidates lose because the voters were homophobic? Will we disqualify elections where hispanic candidates lose because the voters were against (illegal) immigration< P>I think this is the precedent desired.
14 posted on 02/06/2010 3:53:43 PM PST by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Prop. 8 brought things back inline with the common law. I look at amazement how something so obviously wrong could have gained traction.


15 posted on 02/06/2010 3:55:36 PM PST by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer
some bimbo was on John Bachelor last night (w/a guest host) on this subject and yapping that it's "a civil rights issue."

I had to turn the radio off.

16 posted on 02/06/2010 4:00:21 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (governance is not sovereignty [paraphrasing Bishop Fulton Sheen].)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

They want to play the race card, comparing themselves to Blacks who could not vote in the 1960’s, let’s play it back.

We overturned laws that kept Blacks from voting and now, they desire some sort of new law to prevent religious people from exercising their vote?


17 posted on 02/06/2010 4:00:35 PM PST by DakotaRed (What happened to the country I fought for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

One can also see the promotion of who will be allowed to vote. Obviously, Christians of many alliances are prejudiced and the courts may eventually determine that membership or attendance at certain churches would be ample reason to take away the right to vote for those people, in any election.


18 posted on 02/06/2010 4:09:14 PM PST by CH3CN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Surreal.


19 posted on 02/06/2010 4:19:29 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: etradervic

“Only the bigotry of leftists would ever consider this.”
__________

And, oddly, the case for gay marriage is being led by Ted Olson. Weird.


20 posted on 02/06/2010 4:29:12 PM PST by awake-n-angry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson