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 ...
Oh don’t be so upset darlin. Slavery was legal for thousands of years also. Don’t you miss the good old days?
I doubt if many people truly believes that there’s anything good about same-sex “marriage”. Maybe some brainwashed teenagers who want to be fashionable. But any adult who supports same-sex “marriage” hates our culture, our freedom, and our civilization.
Well, since he tossed Genesis in the trash, why would Leviticus or anything else matter?
that’s all you got?
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
Reynolds v. United States, 1878.
It applies to homosexual marriage and is a precedent setting decision...
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
Homosexual monogamy advocates seek ceremonious sanctification of their anatomical perversions and esoteric absolution for their guilt-ridden, impoverished egos.
Neither of those will satisfy their universal dissatisfaction with mortality or connect them to something eternal. With pantheons of fantasies as their medium of infinitization, they still have nothing in them of reality, any more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream.
Homosexual deviancy is really a pagan practice (and a self-induced social psychosis) at war with the Judaic culture over what is written in the book of Genesis (1:27, 2:18). The term "gaystapo" is very accurate.
Marriage is a privileged practice that requires a statutory license. All adults have privelege to marry one consenting adult of the opposite gender, therefore, 14th Amendment arguments of "equal privileges and immunities" do not apply...
Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right
Homosexual monogamy advocates seek ceremonious sanctification of their anatomical perversions and esoteric absolution for their guilt-ridden, impoverished egos.
Neither of those will satisfy their universal dissatisfaction with mortality or connect them to something eternal. With pantheons of fantasies as their medium of infinitization, they still have nothing in them of reality, any more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream.
Homosexual deviancy is really a pagan practice (and a self-induced social psychosis) at war with the Judaic culture over what is written in the book of Genesis (1:27, 2:18). The term “gaystapo” is very accurate.
Marriage is a privileged practice that requires a statutory license. All adults have privelege to marry one consenting adult of the opposite gender, therefore, 14th Amendment arguments of “equal privileges and immunities” do not apply...
Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right...
Not unless the full faith and credit clause is repealed.
Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
You don't know what you are talking about...
2. Existing California law banned discrimination against homosexuals. The straw poll that Cali voters voted in was in conflict with existing law, without attempting to repeal the existing law. In other words, the Supreme Court made the right decision from a legal standpoint.
Cali voters need to either repeal the anti-discrimination law, or create a constitutional amendment (Prop 8) defining marriage. Anything else is about as valid as an internet poll.
Church and State
My daughter just returned from a visit to South Carolina where everyone goes to church and about half the young folks get divorced somewhere along the line. I live in California. Greenhut was saying let the State do what it wants - the Church can do what it wants.
With the State allowing easy divorce, why does the Church allow easy divorce and remarriage. I am curious on this point. Greenhut was correct on scripture on this point wasn’t he? Even Roman Catholics can get anullments with relative ease ... at least I could in the 1980’s in an Alaskan diocese.
It just seems to me that our churches allow divorce to flourish and remarriage, too ... among our clergy, our politicians, our business leaders, our lay people ... me too! With nary a thought. And Jesus was very, very clear on divorce and remarriage. Plus I do not believe Jesus meant it was OK to remarry if you remarried the person you committed adultery with, i.e. John McCain.
Maybe the above posters are correct and Greenhut is wrong. But if so, it means that America’s churches’ are very, very weak and unable to exercise influence over even their own clergy without laws of the State. And that, my friends, is sad. I’d much prefer a “Greenhut world.”
Greenhut was saying let the State do what it wants - the Church can do what it wants.
I wish that were the case, but the homo-leftist bent is one of insatiable encroachment. They will not be satisfied to be declared "married" merely in their own eyes; they must have those who's church would not accept this abomination also endorse their lifestyle, by force if necessary. The examples of homo-sexist encroachment are legion for anyone with their eyes open even a little.
You simply need to have your eyes open and have basic understanding of statecraft.
If you want to address that point go ahgead. If you want to make a speech, try it out on someone else.
At least this S.O.B., Greenhut, is honest enough to admit that polygamy will be the next shoe to drop (unlike the California State Supreme Court “Justice” who tried to rationalize that allowing gay marriage wouldn’t lead to polygamy). Most men, religious or not, don’t want to see the Brad Pitts and Don Trumps of the world freed from the burdens of “serial polygamy” by exercising the option of legally marrying Jennifer and Angelina at the same ceremony (or Ivana, Marla, and what’s her name, in Trumps’ case). And, one would suppose, that even more women would oppose the idea of being Number Three wife in a legal harem (or the only wife in a polyandry situation). Nor would many people of either sex, wish to inadvertently assist in the spread of the R.O.P. by legalizing its most popular “sacrament”.
It has nothing to do with cramming foreign objects or other people's bodily appendages into your rectum.
Secondly, mammalian anatomical function is axiomatic; it is illogical to say you can defecate out a baby after being sodomized thoroughly... It don't work that way... never has... never will...
As I thought. You’re on automatic mind-numbed pilot and cannot respond to a simple point. Don’t need your balderdash. Toodles!
Looking back over the past centuries one can find great philosophers contemplating slavery, its rights & wrongs, its propriety or impropriety, its place in society. From Aristotle to Aquinas to Jefferson, this is true. Yet there appears to be no similar contemplation of same-sex “marriage” by the great philosophers. I’ve yet to hear anything resembling an intellectual argument for sanctioning such a thing. We live in a very emotion-driven age where a purposeless sex fetish has been elevated to a status it doesn’t deserve, for no better reason than that some people lust for it.
Oh, you had one???
What do you think the turning point was; when some people actually listened to you without laughing?
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.