Posted on 08/03/2008 5:34:38 AM PDT by kellynla
According to local pastor Wiley Drake, the 5.4 magnitude earthquake that hit Southern California on Tuesday was not just one of those typical seismic events that take place with some regularity in these parts, but it was "[a]nother queer quake trying to get California's attention." Apparently, the Lord is mad about the legalization of gay marriage in this state. He can't be that mad, given that the quake didn't cause any death or much destruction, but Rev. Drake offers a warning: "We had better listen. 5.4 this time what is next!?"
Drake is something of a caricature of a religious-right figure, so it's not fair to depict his crude opposition to gay marriage as typical of that found in Orange County's conservative evangelical communities but, ultimately, most opponents of gay marriage rely on religious judgment to justify their position. Foes of gay marriage are backing a November initiative, Proposition 8, which would insert these words in the state constitution: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."
The pro-Prop.-8 Web site ProtectMarriage.com argues that the court's ruling "has far-reaching consequences": "Schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between 'any two persons' rather than between a man and a woman, the court decision has opened the door to any kind of 'marriage.' This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it."
Those hardly sound like far-reaching problems that demand a constitutional change. The public schools already teach a great deal of buncombe, and few kids are likely to be permanently scarred by anything new they will be taught. What other kind of marriages will be allowed?
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
Mr. Greenhut, I'm sure you are familiar with Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
Proposition 8
amen
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
It's one thing to be tolerant, to look the other way- and quite another to be forced to agree to, and even cheerlead for something you don't support.
Marriage and the family are the basic building blocks of society, even predating history- and you want us to agree to standing it on its head.
No sale- and I'll oppose it no matter what you write, or what abominations of law you get corrupt judges to agree to.
Enough is enough with this nonsense.
Not unless the full faith and credit clause is repealed.
OK...Let’s “Let it go”.... and then tax the hell out of the “industry” that develops for it... have ‘marriage parlors’ that have a hefty license fee to operate, and retail sales & excise taxes on the goods & services....and there’d have to be a fee for all the marriage licenses too...then we take all the revenue, and fund education with it - so we have “Gay marriage - it’s for the children”....
I don’t want my government to pretend things to be true that aren’t true. Our government used to pretend that black people aren’t people and it was called slavery. The Nazis pretended that Jewish people aren’t people and it was called the holocaust. Our government currently pretends that preborn people aren’t people and call it “choice”. We don’t need our government to pretend that homosexuality is normal. It isn’t.
/sarcasm
Nobody EVER said same-sex "marriage" would destroy some individual strong, committed marriage. Fake marriage devalues marriage in society's view, especially in the message it conveys to children. It devalues it much the same way that counterfeit money devalues legitimate currency. Divorce also devalues marriage - so what's the point the idiot Greenhut is trying to make?
No rights sounds better.
“most opponents of gay marriage rely on religious judgment to justify their position.”
Religious judgement? How about God’s direct word through Jesus Christ?
““Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? “ Matthew 19: 4-5
How about God’s revelation through the inspired writings of the Apostle Paul?
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” I Corinthians 6:9-10
Earthquakes happen. But I do find it a bit ironic that the heart of homosexual activism sits on the San Andreas fault.
The author’s basic assumption that marriage is simply a contract in secular terms is flawed. Marriage is not something the state merely rubberstamps to promote religion. Marriage between a man and a woman is a unique institution that provides defined and unique benefits to the state, which the state recognizes and rewards with a unique status. Marriage benefits the state in that it not only binds together legally two individuals, but also binds together legally and genetically two separate families. All governments suffer from family or tribal fighting and stability is a definite government goal and benefit. When a man and woman marry, they are agents for binding what was two tribes into one tribe, not through the marriage itself but through the children from that marriage. Thus, even if the marriage itself dissolves through divorce or death, the tribes are still bound and stabilized through the children. This is one of the reasons marriage partners are scrutinized by the state in the process of getting a marriage license. The state has an interest in fostering long-term stability of the legally-bound tribes rather than just the instant couple before it.
Homosexual “marriage” is different. It is a relationship between two adults without the binding effect of genetics passing to the next generation. In fact, to the extent homosexuals can have children, they must do so by separating the child from at least half its genetic tribes. It therefore bestows a lesser advantage to the state and should not be treated as equivalent or identical to heterosexual marriage. Equal protection guarantees under our various national and state constitutions should therefore not apply. This is not to say that heterosexual marriages that don’t produce children should not be given the same protections of other heterosexual marriages. Protections should be based on possibility rather than actuality in these cases.
I do agree with the writer that a lot of religious people and groups have devalued marriage and the best possible approach would be to both fight the attempt to make homosexual and heterosexual marriage identical legally and to take marriage much more seriously than we do these days. After all, if Christians don’t value marriage, why should be the state? That means, to me, that Christians needs to stop looking the other way on cohabitation, on infidelity, on fornication and other sins against the holy institution of marriage.
Now, after that rant, I see it is time for me to run off to church. Got a 7 am meeting to attend here on the Left Coast. I will check back later in the day.
“But I do find it a bit ironic that the heart of homosexual activism sits on the San Andreas fault.”
The clowns in SF have evidently forgotten what happened in 1906 and more recently in 1989...
How is it that for 5000 years, every society on this planet allowed marriage only between a man and a woman? The majority of these societies were not even Bible believing. Now in the last 15 years anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is suddenly a religious nut.
Apparantly lots on people think they are smarter than 5000 years of recorded history. I’m not so sure.
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.