Question of the Day: The Overturning of Prop 8

Has the recent court decision which overturned Prop 8 destroyed your marriage? And if not, how do you keep your marriage alive and well?

You Might Also Like

20 Replies to “Question of the Day: The Overturning of Prop 8”

  1. Would you like to have someone with an obsessive compulsive sex disorder teaching your kids?

    You are right that the ruling isn't about marriage. It is about making the most sexually disordered 5% of society the new normality and authority on sex, and then insuring they have access to your kids, at school, at church, or wherever.

  2. I think you missed the question, Looney….

    Further, I would say it is more than 10%…

    And it is about civil rights – their civil rights which is guaranteed by law, a law in a democratic Republic. I prefer Monarchy myself….

  3. In other words, your marriage has not been destroyed by gay marriage, polygamy, the raising divorces rates and cohabitation rates, so now we have to turn to fear that the radical gay agenda is alive and well and will take our children, our churches, and our guns from us….

  4. Joel, I live in California. Depravity is gradually becoming the state religion, and they are imposing this on the children through the schools. I have actually been there when the gay activists were doing their presentations.

    Sexual morality is a foundational concept in Christian morality. With modernist theologians arguing that sexual morality and healthy families are an affront to Christianity, and intellectuals institutionalizing LGBT anti-morality, the stage is set for a banning/persecution of Christianity while corrupt judges argue that this in no way infringes on religious freedom, since morality isn't part of religion. I don't view this as the radical LGBT agenda, since it is being driven by theologians and intellectuals. Perhaps we should call this Satan's agenda, because most intellectuals are unwitting cogs in the system?

    Of course the church will survive and triumph, so I am not really worried (except for my kids and potential grandkids), but I think theologians do need to think twice before referring to uncivil wrongs as civil rights and imposed lawlessness as the rule of law. There will eventually be consequences.

  5. I'm still confused how a definition added to a state constitution was considered in violation of the federal equal protection clause. As far as I can tell everyone still has the same rights… all men have the right to marry women in the state of California, and all women have the right to marry men…

    Did I miss something that discriminates against some men and some women not being able to marry the opposite gender? My theory is if you have 7 million people in a state vote and pass something that you don't agree with or want to abide by then move to a different state. It's really that simple.

    If you consider it discriminatory and unconstitutional to have a state definition in place that blocks someone from doing something that they want to do then you might as well surrender the entire illegal immigrant debate as well.

    As I recall we have a federal definition that blocks residence of this country from receiving equal services, opportunities, and classifications by deeming them illegal residence… this is a definition that clearly violates the federal equal protection clause according to the logic of this judge's ruling.

    If must be a terribly hard lot in life to be a gay illegal alien in California.

  6. As a colleague in another business once pointed out, “I don't mind gays thinking about marriage. Then they can try gay divorce.”

    As a minister, the question becomes would there be a time I would personally be in trouble for NOT performing a gay marriage? Would it ever come to that?

    And the question you pose has a purpose, but I think the larger question should be asked as well. What may not effect my personal marriage one iota does not mean it has potential destructive components for society.

    As to civil rights, there are still plenty of ways to grant civil rights to gay couples without extending the term “marriage” to the deal. This is much more than civil rights. I can go a long way on civil rights and working for civil rights for gay couples without extending “marriage” to the equation.

  7. Looney, sorry for the moderation, but I have it set for one link… but you are on the whitelist now, although that doesn't always work. Sorry about that.

  8. Looney, I can fully understand the state of Depravifornia, (trademark, Joel Watts 2010), but doesn't that come with the system of government, in which the 'will of people' and not the Law decides everything? (Granted, this is more philosophical)…

    Theologians do not establish civil rights – legal systems do.

  9. RCondron – the 'theory' would assume then that if one state wanted to have slavery, then that state could. Or if one state wanted to ban Christianity, that State could. This is called a Democracy, where the majority rules. We have a Republic, where the Rule of Law is dominant. The 'will of people' is an excuse used to trample the rights of others if enough people say it is okay. Your theory was shot down by the Founding Fathers and has caused chaos in ever democracy in history.

    Perhaps you should state the foundation for your 'federal definition.'

  10. Dan, your question about about being forced to marry…wait, Looney already responded. That is a very real problem.

    Perhaps you could relate how allowing gays the same economic benefits of 'marriage' that heterosexuals have could be destructive to society.

    On a side note…

    I am having a problem with a State defining a Christian institution,which is what this is becoming. I think that we have to start to remove that from the State's control, even if that means separating the two kingdoms here.

  11. Joel, you could probably educate me on the origin of the notion of civil rights. There are rights defined in the declaration of independence, but it seems that they are linked directly to religion. As for civil rights deriving from the US constitution and then trumping portions of it, I am ignorant of how this is done.

    At the same time, if I go back to ancient Democracies (Athens), Constitutional Monarchies (Sparta), Republics (Rome), they all asserted a right for society to regulate what was or was not acceptable behavior, didn't they?

    Our local school board meetings are regularly attended by the local UCC congregation and the ACLU, so that any action that is in agreement with Christian principles has the school board officials acting with the utmost caution to avoid a lawsuit. At the same time, the UCC belief is that religion compels us to honor LGBT (yes, B and T also) relationships, so it seems to me the question isn't religion vs. secularism, rather religion A vs religion B. Any thoughts on that?

  12. Looney, I would first say that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution serve two different political ideals and purposes. Further, I would contend that religious philosophy played more of a part in than religion itself.

    Further, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was granted by the Creator, but the Government is instituted to secure those rights. Further, unlike Romans 13, the DecInd states that it is the people's ability to choose the Government.

    Civil Rights comes from the idea that the rights of the individual must be preserved.

    Democracies existed for a while, until minorities took revenge upon majorities and voted away the Rule of Law. Whether or not they regulated behavior is another thing – because in doing so, it was always according to the will of the people and not to the Rule of Law.

    The UCC is a wee bit off on a whole host of things, I believe. I think you are right in that in many areas of the country, we are seeing more of a Religion A vs. Religion B, which is why I am adamant about the Rule of Law. If judges obeyed the Rule of Law then there be boundaries which would prevent Religion B from taking over, which is generally nothing more than secularism in a collar.

  13. Joel, the very real possibility of being sued for NOT doing a ceremony is enough for me to realize how this is far more than a civil rights issue.

    And, it is not just about economic benefits. It could be legislated that civil unions could carry the same economic benefits as married unions.

    Should it come to a minister being sued, or prosecuted, for not doing a homosexual ceremony, that clearly signals this is not about civil rights. It is about the redefining of marriage as a whole and that redefining brings a restructuring of society, which, in my opinion, is destructive. Now, it could happen and that's the way it goes. That doesn't mean I think it's any less destructive.

    How is it right at all for me, as a minister, to be dictated to by the state as to which ceremonies I am obligated to do? That means my civil rights would be violated, and at that point no one really cares.

    Again, as to civil rights, I advocate for gay partners to have visiting rights in hospitals, have beneficiary rights, etc. But it need not be called marriage. To redefine that word will have a major impact on our society.

  14. I'm not sure if gay rights is that monolithic, but I do believe you have a valid issue. I do believe that the Law will have to go back to some form of libertarian view on individual freedoms, such as the freedom to render non-emergency service.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.