U.S. Church Sermons Being 'Monitored' for Anti-Homosexual Views

http://www.LifeSiteNews.com ^ | July 30, 2004

[Salman]

As a pastor of a Church here in Southern California, I would only pray that they would come and monitor my sermons.

Quite so. "Monitoring" a sermon, despite the menacing tone, only means showing up to listen.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

- Homosexual Agenda Ping -

Not directly related to the Queer Jihad, but it falls along the same lines of rampant intolerance towards anything Christian and right-wing/conservative.

I look forward to the day when I conduct my church's Youth Ministry from inside a prison cell! Bring it on, heathens!

Is there a "Christian Persecution PING List" around here?

If not, I'll start one.

[AdequateMan]

The real crux of the issue is that since regulation of marriage is not a power granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government, it belongs to the several States, or to the people. So, in order for the Federal government to regulate it, it must first grant itself that authority in the Constitution. Marriage is otherwise a state issue, and has been treated that way in most cases except, for example, Utah's being told to ditch the polygamy prior to statehood. See Amendment 10 for support for this argument. Really, what you're also saying is that if the Constitution does not expressly imply that you have a right to gay marriage, that it must be illegal. (remember that we were talking only of Federal law). This is fallacious, as demonstrated by the Ninth amendment to the Constitution, which reads: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. What this is saying is that just because the founding fathers decided to enumerate or list some of the rights that the government recognized, that that list cannot be used as evidence of the lack of some other right not listed. So to legalize it would take a change in law at the state level, whereas to make it illegal would take an amendment to the Constitution.

[nickcarraway]

Hmmm, Utah was told to ditch polygamy, and over one hundred years later polygamy still isn't legal.

The problem with marriage and state rights is it isn't an issue that can be contained to a state, unlike most issues. A person can know that a certain behavior is against the law in one state, and not in another state. But a person can't be married in one state, then cross the border into another state and not be married. A few states will be able to force their laws onto a lot of other states. And this issue is going to have a severe impact on our economic freedom, because it is going to force multi-state companies to be held hostage by maybe even one state. It's already happening. Because the mayor of San Francisco decided to do something he had no authority to do by state law, my county is using our tax money to fund these illegal marriages. According to your plan, because of something the Massachusetts Supreme Court dreams up one day, a guy in Alabama may see his taxes go up, and his pay go down. And you call that states rights and liberty? Thanks.