Posted on 06/05/2008 9:21:12 PM PDT by umgud
Gee, I guess “Party A” could equally well be “Hold My Pickle Holding Company, LLC”
And “Party B” could be “Redwood Round Receiving, Inc.”
Look, a new venue for “Corporate Mergers”!
I have made a personal vow to never be so desperate for money that I would take a job working for whichever piece of filth is elected Mayor.
> Marriages between different tribes was also once
> considered an abomination before “God.”
Not in the Bible.
Moses was married to a Chushite (Black), and Solomon was married to an Ethiopian.
You can read about Moses’ family’s reaction to his Cushite wife in Numbers chapter 12. They were very unhappy with his choice, but God had another perspective.
Read for yourselves.
However, the Bible says that it is an abomination for men to lust after men and for women to lust after women. You can read about that in the New Testament in Romans 1, as well as in Leviticus and Deuteronomy in the Old Testament.
If she is doing it out of religious conviction and NOT bigotry, she would not.
Perez was argued on the basis of Andrea Perez's convictions as a Roman Catholic. Miss Perez was a Mexican-American woman considered "white" because she was not "Malay," "Mongolian," "mulatto," or "black," as was her fiance, Sylvester Davis. She said her church didn't say she couldn't marry a black man, and if the State of California did, it was a violation of her First Amendment rights.
Mrs. Davis died in 2000. If she was a devout Catholic until death, we know what she would have thought about her case opening the door for homomarriage.
And another thing: Unlike "mixed" marriages, there is NO instance in the scriptures of the OT or NT that make any reference to a homosexual union of any two persons in approving terms. None whatsoever.
If the past is any indication of what may come, there may be sanctions against denominations that refuse to place homo and traditional marriage on an equal plane. But they will NEVER be able to legislate changing the Bible.
Well...if they do...in the words of Charlton Heston: "From my cold, dead hands!"
So. A 4-3 “ruling” by one of the most liberal, if not THE most liberal courts in America makes homosexual marriage “okay” to you?
If, by fiat, that same court decided that it is fine for your tax dollars to be used for euthanasia, then that would be “okay” with you?
Please explain how opposition to homosexual marriage is analogous to racism.
Somehow, I think that your entreaty to calnative to check the Bible is akin to asking the California or Massachusetts legislatures to respect the will of the people.
It shows that even misguided dimwits can use a computer to search the Internet for something they think is relative.
Does the Bible mention anything regarding marriage and race?
Well, then, I guess we just have to take it when 4 out of 7 black robed philosopher kings say that thousands of years of history, culture, and nature are wrong, and they, in their infinite wisdom, are wiser than anyone that has ever lived, and wiser than the Creator.
Actually, it doesn’t “redefine” as much as it “undefines”.
Unless said “sane Bolshevik” had the goal of destroying marriage and family with the end goal of worship of the state.
I’ve seen the argument “unless there are laws that are outlawing hetero marriage, homo marriage is no threat”.
Obviously, outlawing the use of “husband, wife, mother, father” are de facto outlawing the recognition of marriage.
To which the reply was that these efforts were minimal and do not apply to the argument.
I’m betting calinative’s favorite “Bible verse” is “Judge not”
without any context, nor knowledge of the complete verse.
I don’t think this is a casualty. She could actually grow an unexpected future because of this...
Well put. I also do not accept the comparison of “homosexual marriage” to interracial marriage. Two separate things. Humans have interracially mixed since we learned to cross great bodies of water. Homosexual behavior has been around as well, but we never pretended that it was marriage.
Good post. And like most good posts that drive the point home, it is accompanied by crickets from the other side.
I agree. It looks like we’re in before the Zot.
IB4Z
Well, then, I guess we just have to take it when 4 out of 7 black robed philosopher kings say that thousands of years of history, culture, and nature are wrong, and they, in their infinite wisdom, are wiser than anyone that has ever lived, and wiser than the Creator.
***Well said. So I’m copying it for when I need to search for it later.
“I wonder if she’d have done the same thing after the Perez v. Sharp
ruling in 1948”
Just so some lurkers/posters that have been too busy with working jobs
know what you are talking about...
here’s a link to the Wikipedia listing on the subject.
(As always, I give the boilerplate warning of “verify before trusting” when
reading Wiki articles)
Perez v. Sharp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp
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.