Calif. court upholds gay marraige ban

[LifeHiscost]

When this reaches the supreme court and is struck down as promoting hate crimes, or for some other unknown reason, it will be more clear and evident of the withdrawel of God's Holy Spirit

and the sooner than might be expected return of Jesus, to deliver His children from this cesspool of a world.

Would you call that an extreme view? Remember Sodom and Gomorrah.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them.

And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Genesis 19:6,7,9,15,24 KJV

Not savory, but true, nonetheless!

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

HEY LIFEHISCOST

THE California counts said that the ban on up held

so not gay marriage but the ones that were married

before the vote will stand

that is what I understand...

dgrimm60

Here's the whole story. I find most interesting, the very last comment after the end of the article. I'll be glad to research the article on that, if you're interested. Their solution would certainly stop discrimination. We could then all legally jump in bed with the devil. Something that would be pleasing to those who find legalists hard to bear.

Regards!

Prop 8 Upheld, Gay-Marriage Proponents Turn to Politics

Time.com

California upholds gay marriage ban, weddings stand AFP/Getty Images/File – People rally in front of the California Supreme Court during the case on Proposition 8 in March 2009in …

By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER Michael A. Lindenberger

Gay-marriage supporters who want to restore California's place at the head of a growing number of states welcoming same-sex marriages are going to have to do it the hard way: by persuading the same neighbors who voted to ban such marriages last fall to change their minds. They aren't going to get any help from the state's supreme court, never mind that Chief Justice Ronald George's historic opinion last May ruled that any discrimination against gays is no less outrageous - and illegal - than discrimination based on race or religion. Despite the sweep of that ruling, George and five other justices ruled on Tuesday that there is nothing so special about gay-marriage rights that make them exempt from the state's famously disruptive and pliable constitutional-amendment process.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the Attorney General's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process," wrote George for the 6-1 majority. "But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it." Translation: Until Californians themselves change their system for amending the constitution, it will be the people - not the courts - who have final say on even the most fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution. (See pictures of the gay-rights movement, from Stonewall to Prop 8.)

Besides, George wrote, Prop 8 - the initiative that reinstated the ban on same-sex marriages - hardly eviscerates the sweeping opinion he wrote last year. Gays, he said, are still entitled to the highest level of protection against discrimination afforded in the land, except in the instance of marriage.

That's little consolation to the other side, of course. And while the ruling may have taken the issue out of the courts for now, it has placed the issue squarely back on the political front burner. Rick Jacobs, president of the Courage Campaign, a 700,000-member political movement, said efforts to put the issue back before voters as soon as 2010 have already begun. "The initiative process in California is flawed," Jacobs tells TIME. "The very idea that a majority can vote to take rights away from a minority is flawed. It really is quite outrageous."

That view got one vote on the court - that of lone dissenter Justice Carlos J. Moreno. "The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized [in last year's opinion], it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities," Moreno wrote. "It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority."

But while the rest of the justices disagreed with Moreno, George's opinion did suggest a way out: Californians could change the constitution again and write in extra safeguards that would make it more difficult for changes to weaken the most important rights enshrined in the constitution. But in saying that, the court also rejected an argument by attorney general Jerry Brown, a likely candidate for governor, who had argued the court should itself declare some rights off-limits to the regular amendment process. George declined, saying that's something only the people can do.

Gay-marriage supporters are now trying to use the same amendment process that created the fix they are in to restore gay marriage. "The tools are what the tools are, and until the process is fixed we don't have any choice," Jacobs says. "We have no choice other than to use the system that is in place."

A new ballot initiative will put California back into the gay-marriage fight, which has considerably broadened in the months since Prop 8 passed. States like Vermont and Maine have embraced gay marriage, and New York is among others that may do so soon. And in a telling bit of irony, Moreno began his dissent by quoting not from his own court's historic 2008 opinion, but from one issued earlier this year in Iowa. "The 'absolute equality of all' persons before the law [is] 'the very foundation principle of our government,'" he wrote.

The fight for gay rights has been broadened in other ways too - not just geographically. President Obama is under pressure to stop enforcing the military's prohibition that prevents gay servicemen and -women from serving openly. And activists want Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, a law they say that is increasingly at odds with the small but growing number of states that have made gay marriage legal.

Jacobs tells TIME he still sees California as the epicenter of these fights. Obama will get a taste of the passions running deep in the Golden State as soon as Wednesday night, when he appears at the Beverly Hills Hilton in Los Angeles for a fundraiser. Lieutenant Dan Choi, an Arabic-speaking Iraq War veteran who is the first soldier to be dismissed from the Army under Obama, will be standing outside with Jacobs and others to urge the President to take action. "So much is coming from California right now," says Jacobs. "Don't Ask Don't Tell is really hurting American national security. This lieutenant is a West Point graduate, served in the Triangle of Death [in Iraq], and is now being fired, kicked out of the Army, because he went on the air and said he loves a man."

If gay-marriage supporters do press the vote again, they will have one ready source of allies - the 18,000 couples who were married in the brief window of time when gay marriage was legal in California and whose marriages remain intact. The court unanimously upheld those marriages in Tuesday's opinion. Already, the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights advocacy group, has released a video promising that it will not back down even after the latest California defeat. (See pictures of the gay-rights movement, from Stonewall to Prop 8.)

Meanwhile, gay marriage opponents were relieved that the court ruled in favor of Prop 8. Speaking just before the ruling was announced, the Rev. Albert Mohler told TIME that the court must tread carefully to avoid eroding its credibility. "Repeatedly, courts at every level have taken action to undermine their own legitimacy in view of public," said Mohler, who is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. But he also said that thanks in part to the democratic nature of amendment processes like those in play in California, even the most outrageous rulings can be absorbed by the church.

"The courts are part of a larger governmental structure that remains legitimate," he told TIME. "So long as there is a democratic recourse to change [decisions that Christians consider extreme], I would counsel the church to continue to see the courts as legitimate. Should the California supreme court invalidate Prop 8, it would put that court in direct defiance of the people of California." As long as the initiative process exists, there is a political solution, he said.

That's exactly what's on the minds of people on the other side. They have already begun to gather signatures and hope to ask voters to change their minds in 2010. After that, somebody may want to take George's advice and think though whether it makes sense to be able to change the constitution so easily in California.

Related articles on Time.com:

* Gay Marriage: Is California's Supreme Court Shifting?

* Jerry Brown Reverses Course on Gay Marriage

* A Gay Marriage Solution: End Marriages for Everyone?

[Doug]

I know the churches position on gay marriage, but isn't prop 8 simply discrimination? How do we know for sure being gay is a choice, and something they can't control?

[Gerr]

Would it be discriminatory to prohibit a person from marrying their pets?

their sibbling?

Don't many if not most men have desires and urges to take beautiful women to bed? Do they all choose to act on these urges?

[GreatLakesGramma]

Homosexual marriage isn't only about sex any more than heterosexual marriage is. What the gays that want to marry want is the same type of close, committed relationship with a soul mate that the rest of us want. They want their partner to be allowed to remain in the hospital room with them while they are critically ill or dying, the same as your spouse would be allowed if you were there. They want their partner to be allowed to make the decision to "pull the plug" or not, the same as you would be the one to make that decision for your spouse. They don't want the partner's family to come in and take over and exclude them. They want to share finances and file joint tax returns, and inherit their joint property when one of them dies. They want their choice of mate respected the same as ours.

[bonnie]

Homosexual marriage isn't only about sex any more than heterosexual marriage is. What the gays that want to marry want is the same type of close, committed relationship with a soul mate that the rest of us want. They want their partner to be allowed to remain in the hospital room with them while they are critically ill or dying, the same as your spouse would be allowed if you were there. They want their partner to be allowed to make the decision to "pull the plug" or not, the same as you would be the one to make that decision for your spouse. They don't want the partner's family to come in and take over and exclude them. They want to share finances and file joint tax returns, and inherit their joint property when one of them dies. They want their choice of mate respected the same as ours.

With the exception of joint tax returns everything you have mentioned is available to them.

All that would be of a concern can be taken care of legally if they choose to.

Or at least in MN they can. I have friends that have taken care of all important issues and no one can void that except the two of them

[Gregory Matthews]

I know the churches position on gay marriage, but isn't prop 8 simply discrimination? How do we know for sure being gay is a choice, and something they can't control?

Are you aware that SDAs in California were divided on the issue. Two formally organized groups of SDAs arose during the battle over Prop. 8. Both groups had well-known SDAs in leadership positions. Both groups advertised their views--one in favor and one against, and did so identifying their relationship with the SDA Chruch.

Yes, one group clearly stated that it would be religious discrimination to prohibit marriage to homosexuals.

[John317]

I know the churches position on gay marriage, but isn't prop 8 simply discrimination? How do we know for sure being gay is a choice, and something they can't control?

There is a sense in which it is a moot question, because God is able to help us resist sin and overcome things in our life even when they are part of our inheritance.

The Holy Spirit and the birth from above restores to us the freedom to choose obedience to God or not. That doesn't mean we won't continue to "be gay," but it does mean we can dedicate our lives to Christ and let Him change us through His Spirit. There's no reason to think that God doesn't operate on the same basis today that He did in 1 Cor. 6:9-11.

I see the position of the state as quite different from the church on the issue. The state as a responsibility to grant and guarantee equality before the law and in society. The church has a responsibility to tell the truth as it believes God has revealed it in the Bible.

So I favor the right of gays to legal unions but not to marriages because I see marriage as the creation of God.

[GreatLakesGramma]

Where gay marriage is legalized, Christians who believe it is morally wrong to support those marriages are sued by gays for discrimination. Photographers have been taken to court and fined for refusing to take wedding photos for them. Churches and pastors have been fined for refusing to marry them or allow them to use their church or other buildings for their wedding or reception. For this reason, although I am sympathetic to their desires to have a relationship like heterosexual couples have, I am strongly opposed to legalizing gay marriage.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: Doug

I know the churches position on gay marriage, but isn't prop 8 simply discrimination? How do we know for sure being gay is a choice, and something they can't control?

Are you aware that SDAs in California were divided on the issue. Two formally organized groups of SDAs arose during the battle over Prop. 8. Both groups had well-known SDAs in leadership positions. Both groups advertised their views--one in favor and one against, and did so identifying their relationship with the SDA Chruch.

Yes, one group clearly stated that it would be religious discrimination to prohibit marriage to homosexuals.

Ok - but the SDA church position is pretty clear - homsexuality is sin. Legalizing marriage based on a specific sin - would be like legalizing a marriage committed to child abuse or some other sin like under-age marriage or polygammy or ...

We could argue that "it is not fair to the couple" that wants to engage in it - but still..at some point moral clarity is of interest and we might even find it useful to note the denomination's position on that moral issue.

in Christ,

Bob

[Gregory Matthews]

Where gay marriage is legalized, Christians who believe it is morally wrong to support those marriages are sued by gays for discrimination. Photographers have been taken to court and fined for refusing to take wedding photos for them. Churches and pastors have been fined for refusing to marry them or allow them to use their church or other buildings for their wedding or reception. For this reason, although I am sympathetic to their desires to have a relationship like heterosexual couples have, I am strongly opposed to legalizing gay marriage.

I would like to see you substantiate any cases in which a church or pastor in the United States had been fined as you stated above. The U.S. Constitution is clear as to the religious rights that churches and their pastors have. There are a number of legal organizations available to people who might face such charges. Please cite such criminal (Or civil) cases.

[Gregory Matthews]

Ok - but the SDA church position is pretty clear - homsexuality is sin. Legalizing marriage based on a specific sin - would be like legalizing a marriage committed to child abuse or some other sin like under-age marriage or polygammy or ...

in Christ,

Bob

Are you positive of what you said? Is the position of the SDA Church that homosexualty is sin? Or, is it the posisiton of the SDA Chruch that homosexual conduct is sin?

Or, do you believe that there is not difference?

I wonder: Is is a sin to be a celebate heterosexual? If not, why would it be a sin to be a celebate homosexual?

[Dr. Shane]

I think it is important to educate people about the meanings of words especially in regard to obsessive/compulsive disorders like homosexuality. However I think we need to avoid beating them up when they misunderstand terms that are commonly misunderstood.

I understand the difference between the disorder and the behavior. When I read BobRyan's post "the SDA church position is pretty clear - homosexuality is sin." It doesn't really give me heartburn although I would not have worded the same thought that way. His point is well taken and correct. If we try and dice and splice his words in a game of "gotcha" we do disservice to the topic being discussed. The church does teach that homosexual behavior is sinful. We also teach that child abuse, incest and polygamy is sinful. If we are going to endorse same-sex marriage than shouldn't we also endorse marriage between siblings, adult and children as well as multiple partners? That is a valid question and we shouldn't get sidetrack on the proper use of the term homosexuality.

[Dr. Shane]

How do we know for sure being gay is a choice, and something they can't control?

It doesn't matter if they can control it or if it is a choice. That is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I was born a heterosexual and can't control being attracted to attractive women. So does that justify me committing adultery? Looking at pornography? Going to strip clubs? After all, I was born this way. I can't help it.

[Dr. Shane]

Homosexual marriage isn't only about sex any more than heterosexual marriage is.

[LifeHiscost]

Originally Posted By: Doug

How do we know for sure being gay is a choice, and something they can't control?

It doesn't matter if they can control it or if it is a choice. That is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I was born a heterosexual and can't control being attracted to attractive women. So does that justify me committing adultery? Looking at pornography? Going to strip clubs? After all, I was born this way. I can't help it.

Let's just say my is for morality according to the Word.

Blessings!

[GreatLakesGramma]

Everyday Heroes

[GreatLakesGramma]

The above article does not mention any pastors being fined for refusing to perform same sex weddings, but if a Christian photographer was fined over $6000 and ordered to accept same-sex wedding jobs, why should anyone think that pastors will be exempt? I have read that in Canada, where hate speech laws are already in effect, it is illegal for pastors to quote Bible texts condemning homosexuality in their sermons. Why should anyone have any expectation that it will be any different here if the same laws are passed? The extreme liberal faction has already given ample evidence that they plan on stripping away any rights we have to live or speak in any way contrary to their agenda.

[Outta Here]

I was born a heterosexual and can't control being attracted to attractive women. So does that justify me committing adultery? Looking at pornography? Going to strip clubs? After all, I was born this way. I can't help it.

It does not justify committing adultery, using pornography or going to strip clubs. Does it justify you getting married? Does it justify having a monogamous relationship with one person whom you love?

[Doug]

Originally Posted By: Shane

I was born a heterosexual and can't control being attracted to attractive women. So does that justify me committing adultery? Looking at pornography? Going to strip clubs? After all, I was born this way. I can't help it.

It does not justify committing adultery, using pornography or going to strip clubs. Does it justify you getting married? Does it justify having a monogamous relationship with one person whom you love?

Isn't the first sentence things that society already accepts as "normal"?

[there buster]

Quote:

The U.S. Constitution is clear as to the religious rights that churches and their pastors have.

Are you aware of the recent developments in New Hampshire?

[LifeHiscost]

The above article does not mention any pastors being fined for refusing to perform same sex weddings, but if a Christian photographer was fined over $6000 and ordered to accept same-sex wedding jobs, why should anyone think that pastors will be exempt? I have read that in Canada, where hate speech laws are already in effect, it is illegal for pastors to quote Bible texts condemning homosexuality in their sermons. Why should anyone have any expectation that it will be any different here if the same laws are passed? The extreme liberal faction has already given ample evidence that they plan on stripping away any rights we have to live or speak in any way contrary to their agenda.

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh."Luke 21:28 KJV

Regards!

[Robert]

Is the position of the SDA Church that homosexualty is sin? Or, is it the posisiton of the SDA Chruch that homosexual conduct is sin?

According to the Bible the answer is both.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Gregory Matthews

Is the position of the SDA Church that homosexualty is sin? Or, is it the posisiton of the SDA Chruch that homosexual conduct is sin?

According to the Bible the answer is both.

Homosexuality (a state of being) is a byproduct of the nature of sin. It wouldn't exist if there had never been "the fall". More precisely it wouldn't exist if mankind did not have a fallen nature.

So according to the Bible not only is the sexual act sin, but the presence of indwelling iniquity is sin too. Hence homosexuals stand condemned, under law, not only for the act, but the nature that's prompts the act.

Ellen White has some good points here:

The teaching given in regard to what is termed "holy flesh" is an error. All may now obtain holy hearts (minds), but it is not correct to claim in this life to have holy flesh [a glorified, immortal, sinless humanity]. The apostle Paul declares, "I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing" (Rom. 7:18).

When human beings receive holy flesh, they will not remain on the earth, but will be taken to heaven. While sin is forgiven in this life, its results are not now wholly removed. It is at His coming that Christ is to "change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body"(Phil. 3:21). . . .[2SM 32, 33]

Through sin the whole human organism is deranged, the mind is perverted, the imagination corrupted. Sin has degraded the faculties of the soul. Temptations from without find an answering chord within the heart, and the feet turn imperceptibly toward evil. [MAR 91]

[GreatLakesGramma]

According to the Bible, God never defines someone by what they are tempted by, but only by what they actually do. God does not call you a thief or a liar if you are tempted to steal or lie, but never give in to the temptation, he calls you a thief or liar because you actually do steal or lie. When the Bible refers to homosexuals, it is talking about people who actually engage in same-gender sexual activity, not people with same-gender attraction.

Temptation is not the same as sin. Although Jesus said that if a man looks at a woman to lust after her in his heart, he is already an adulterer, that is not mere temptation he is talking about. It is choosing to dwell on that thought once the temptation has come. A homosexual who chooses to be celibate out of love for God and submission to His will is no different in God's sight than any other sinner who is choosing to resist his own besetting sin by God's power, out of love for Him.

I have spoken to several Adventist pastors about this, and they all agree with it, so I am assuming this is the official position of the Adventist church.