Posted on 05/26/2009 11:05:33 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
My pastor actually touched on the topic of the purpose of marriage in our Sunday sermon on Matthew 23 (in heaven they are neither married nor given in marriage).
It was an interesting interpretation. Marriage does not exist in heaven, because marriage’s purpose is the earthly task of procreation, which is not something that will happen in heaven. It has nothing to do with love.
And the “harm” done to those who’s “marriages” would just resort to domestic partnerships would have been... what, exactly?
I would love to see the reaction of the gays... They are fighting so hard to have people respect their rights, but the only problem is, they HAVE NO RIGHTS AS GAYS! They have the same rights as every man and woman under the CONSTITUTION! The constitution says nothing about gays having the right to marry. You want to get married, then make a CHOICE to be straight! You’re not born gay, you made a choice to perform a disgusting, ridiculous act.
Yeah! It means it was so well worded that they couldn't figure an angle!
What Bible is your pastor reading?
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.” Ephesians 5:25-27
Yes, but they let the others stand. Must be something there I don’t understand. Why would anyone vote both ways?
Take that, you looney homosexual activists!
I hope the same happens in Maine...
Um. . .well, the bible does command husband to love their wives as Christ loves the church, so I would say it has a whole lot to do with love. (But Godly love, not the gushy, hormone driven, flash in the pan and then gone kind of "love".)
Is there weeping and wailing and nashing of teeth in San Fran yet?
What idiot was the discenting vote? There is no way 1 sentence was a constitutional revision, this case should have been laughed out of the court. Obviously whoever this 1 vote was is an activist judge to the nth degree and needs removed.
CA justices did not say it’s one man, one woman. They upheld the constitutionality of the proposition.
"Wow. I’m sort of shocked, actually."
"I’m happy, but a tad confused..so now 17,000 or so illegal marriages are in fact legal..???"
Don't be shocked. The CA Supreme Court justices wanted to keep their jobs. Last time the CA SC strayed, we threw almost the entire lot out. Obviously, three of the justices didn't want to incur voter wrath in 2010 -- an off-year, I might add, when conservatives rule at the ballot box.
The 17,000 marriages staying legal is not surprising. Once the CA SC ruled they were legal, the prior law was amended. Prop 8 did not nullify past events. So the justices would have been wrong to declare the gay marriages null and void.
I don't care if some wierdos in Santa Monica and San Francisco legally call themselves wed. What I do care is that the gays lost, and that public school kids will not be forced to believe in the equivalence of hetero and homosexual marriage, which is what would have happened. I can already hear the school administrators saying, "After all, we must teach children the law of the state of California."
Two victories for the good guys in California this month -- kicking the crap out of Sacramento on taxes and BS, and kicking the crap out of San Francisco on their perverted lifestyle.
Now they can bring on their pathetic proposition in 2010, either to invalidate Prop 8 or to demote all marriages to domestic partnerships. Bring it on. It will lose by much more than they lost Prop 8.
That makes those 9,000 or so a rare breed, so to speak. Their life span, or the life of their marriag, provides a built-in sunset provision to that now-constitutionally banned activity. We may see a fight to label those marriage licenses a tranferable property interests that survive the death of the original licensees. Unlikely, but then that’s what granddad said about gay marriage.
Oh, darn. Guess Californian gays will have to go back to having the exact same rights and restrictions as everyone else does.
I assume Mind Freed is referring to sexual activity, not sexual attraction. (I hope so, anyway.)
Under that logic, shouldn't CA recognize illegal marriages into which a pair of men or a pair of women legally entered in other states such as Massachusetts?
Prop 8 was very simple, and under any normal definition of the word "is," same-sex "marriages" from last year should no longer be valid or recognized here.
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"
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.