California Same-S*x "Marriage"

[Dragoon68]

California's Top Court Overturns Same-S*x Marriage Ban

This is a disgrace to California and to America. It's another sign of our out of control judicial system and another depature from Christian based morality in the laws of our one of our larger states. Shame on them for doing this. I hope the people of California demand a state constitution change to correct this grave error and also regin in their judicial branch.






Edited to try and "trick" google ads

 

[KenH]

Hopefully, the citizens of California will overturn this. If they don't, well, it's their state. They had just better not expect Arkansas to follow suit.

And, hopefully, Christians will attempt to do something about the sorry state of marriage among heterosexuals in this nation.

 

[LeBuick]

Reminds me of a Biblical area? I wonder which it was??? I don't see them on the map anymore.

 

[KenH]

Don't expect to see fire and brimstone raining down on California.

 

[tinytim]

No the Earthquake that is expected in the next 30 yrs to hit San Francisco will take it out first.

I watched a news story this morning on headline news, and it said that there is a 50% chance that a earthquake the size that hit China will hit SF in the next 30 yrs...

I just hope people there will come to know the Lord before it does.

 

[KenH]

The earthquake, if it happens, will have nothing to do with court ruling. It is ludicrous to say it would.

You sure seem to like to judge other folks, tt. I think Jesus talked about such an attitude during the Sermon on the Mount. I encourage you to read it sometime. It might help you to know the Lord better than you do now, brother.

 

[Revmitchell]

The earthquake, if it happens, will have nothing to do with court ruling. It is ludicrous to say it would.

You sure seem to like to judge other folks, tt. I think Jesus talked about such an attitude during the Sermon on the Mount. I encourage you to read it sometime. It might help you to know the Lord better than you do now, brother.

Actually you have a need to learn what Judge means.

 

[KenH]

The citizens of California already have the mechanism in place to overturn this ruling:

" “Pro-family” organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures for an initiative that would amend the state Constitution to outlaw same-s*x marriage. If at least 694,354 signatures are found to be valid, the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-s*x marriage. "

- http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/05/15/pre-gaming-the-california-same-sex-marriage-ruling/?mod=WSJBlog

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

California's Top Court Overturns Same-Sex Marriage Ban

This is a disgrace to California and to America. It's another sign of our out of control judicial system and another depature from Christian based morality in the laws of our one of our larger states. Shame on them for doing this. I hope the people of California demand a state constitution change to correct this grave error and also regin in their judicial branch.

This would be a tough one for those of us who are strict constitutionalists. The basis here has to be overriding the will of the people. Until the US Constitution is amended it is hard to stand on the Constitution and say this kind of "marriage" is illegal.

We desperately need marriage legally defined on a national level. The only way to do that is for an amendment to be passed.

It is already clear that when push comes to shove state laws are of little consequence when Washington gets involved.

I hope the amendment to the CA constituion passes - it would be a good start.

 

[Crabtownboy]

This would be a tough one for those of us who are strict constitutionalists. The basis here has to be overriding the will of the people. Until the US Constitution is amended it is hard to stand on the Constitution and say this kind of "marriage" is illegal.

We desperately need marriage legally defined on a national level. The only way to do that is for an amendment to be passed.

It is already clear that when push comes to shove state laws are of little consequence when Washington gets involved.

I hope the amendment to the CA constituion passes - it would be a good start.

You are right. It will take a Constitutiolnal amendment and they are very difficult to bring about ... just as the founding fathers meant it to be.

Interestingly according to CNN International a majority of the California judges are Republican appointed. I have not seen a synopsis of their reasoning. It should be interesting reading even if I do not agree with it.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

This would be a tough one for those of us who are strict constitutionalists. The basis here has to be overriding the will of the people. Until the US Constitution is amended it is hard to stand on the Constitution and say this kind of "marriage" is illegal.

That's it. If you accept the judges decision here, then you have to accept it when judges allegedly override the people's will in other areas, as well, like say, electing a president, or something like that.

We desperately need marriage legally defined on a national level. The only way to do that is for an amendment to be passed.

It is already clear that when push comes to shove state laws are of little consequence when Washington gets involved.

I hope the amendment to the CA constituion passes - it would be a good start.

If the people of California do not want g*y marriage legalized, their will should be respected. But we should also realize as the world slides towards judgement day, that perhaps in twenty years California will vote to abolish any ammendment that stands in the way.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You sure seem to like to judge other folks, tt. I think Jesus talked about such an attitude during the Sermon on the Mount. I encourage you to read it sometime. It might help you to know the Lord better than you do now, brother.

Pretty judgmental of you to say something like this. How can you get on TT while you are doing exactly the same thing?

 

[Pastor Larry]

This would be a tough one for those of us who are strict constitutionalists. The basis here has to be overriding the will of the people. Until the US Constitution is amended it is hard to stand on the Constitution and say this kind of "marriage" is illegal.

As a strict constitutionalist, the state law banning it should have been upheld. The constitution does not address the issue, and therefore, there is no constitutional basis either way. In the absence of a constitutional directive, the law should stand.

 

[Ps104_33]

I guess "we the people" doesnt mean much anymore.

 

[StefanM]

As a strict constitutionalist, the state law banning it should have been upheld. The constitution does not address the issue, and therefore, there is no constitutional basis either way. In the absence of a constitutional directive, the law should stand.

Agreed. Our current constitutional system is working against us and against the original intent.

The constitutional process is designed to be difficult as to require a major consensus before any changes can occur. Unfortunately, activist judges are inventing constitutional rights, and even if the majority opinion is against these innovations, there is nothing they can do because any permanent solution would require an unattainable level of consensus.

If CA desired g*y marriage, then they should have had a referendum to revoke the law. The burden should be on the innovators, not the defenders of the status quo.

 

[carpro]

This would be a tough one for those of us who are strict constitutionalists. The basis here has to be overriding the will of the people. Until the US Constitution is amended it is hard to stand on the Constitution and say this kind of "marriage" is illegal.

We desperately need marriage legally defined on a national level. The only way to do that is for an amendment to be passed.

It is already clear that when push comes to shove state laws are of little consequence when Washington gets involved.

I hope the amendment to the CA constituion passes - it would be a good start.

That seems to be the only way to stop this liberal insanity.

 

[rbell]

You sure seem to like to judge other folks, tt. I think Jesus talked about such an attitude during the Sermon on the Mount. I encourage you to read it sometime. It might help you to know the Lord better than you do now, brother.

Wow, Ken. A year ago, you would have never made such a post. How terribly condescending and (if judgemental bothers you)...judgemental. Last time I checked, the Bible was clear on homosexuality.

Sad.

 

[KenH]

Last time I checked, the Bible was clear on homosexuality.

Absolutely. And I agree that such acts are sinful.

 

[donnA]

If God says homos*xuality is wrong,it is sin, then we have the right to judge homos*xuality as being wrong and sinful.
What gospel are we to preach if we do not name as sin what God has named as sin?

 

[just-want-peace]

God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow!

If He judged other nations for their sin, why do you think He will not judge the US?

Yes, He is a God of love, mercy, and grace; BUT, BUT, HE IS ALSO A GOD OF JUDGEMENT!!!!

I would love to see a great big quake just split CA. off the west coast & reposition it 'bout halfway between Hawaii & Guam (maybe real close to Guam). Don't think all the garbage now coming out of there would be a problem anymore.

(Wishful thinking--I know!)