Do “Civil Unions” = sinful union?

Is this a subtle hint to vote for the Constitution Party of America?

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

The problem is the Constitution also gives powers to the States, and if the States decide this or that (luckily now the majority are pro-family), as long as the courts don't intervene (but they have been), one can move to a conservative State and enjoy the God-blessed benefits! This "the Constitution is a living and changing document" junk that most judges use to validate the evils and nullify the good laws of the day is making me sick.

I don't think the Republicans and definitely not Bush is the answer. The Democrats in my opinion are even worse. However, we are to be salt and light in the world, and that involves preserving, to the best of our knowledge and ability, our values and rights and civilization. Politics is obviously NOT the answer, as we see they say anything to everyone to get anyone's vote. The only way to preserve our society is to win people to the Lord and see "civil obedience" demonstrated from the most fundamental and spiritual level outward.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

Is this a subtle hint to vote for the Constitution Party of America?

Yours, Bluefalcon </font>[/QUOTE]It doesn't look that way to me...although I have been considering it...

 

Right on Bluefalcon.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

We can re-define terms all day, we can even change the rules....

However neither changing the rules or re-defining terms changes the truth!

The truth is that Homosexuality is wrong/sinful in the eyes of God. The truth is that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Calling what is in fact a marriage a "civil union", is merely IMHO an attempt by the ungodly to lend a veneer of credibility to what in the final analysis is sin against God, and to deceive people into believing that there is a difference between the two.

If we as Christians are to be the "salt of the earth", and that "city set on a hill which can not be hidden", then we must (once again IMO) stand firm against such blatant attempts to legitimize what is immorality.

 

Is this a subtle hint to vote for the Constitution Party of America?

Yours, Bluefalcon </font>[/QUOTE]Depends on whether someone is strategic and will work patiently for a trend or if they are willing to lose to "be right" and make their point.

I wish the debate could involve the Constitution Party but realistically it cannot yet. Am I satisfied with the pace the Republicans are enacting the things I voted for (or opposing the things I voted against)? Not completely.

However, I take pleasure in the idea that the debate is now about how much of a strict constructionist or socially conservative a person can be and get through Senate confirmation. This is much to be preferred over whether Lani Guinniere (sp?) will be on the Supreme Court.

Liberals who have primarily been Democrats took over the reigns of government in the early '30's by taking advantage of economic bad times. They built an un-Constitutional behemoth over the next 60+ years. The GOP has been in control of Congress by fairly slim margins for 10 years and controlled the Executive and Legislative for just over 4. It will take several more years before just ideological parity is reached in the Judicial.

I think it is unreasonable to expect 60 years of damage and ingrained government dependency to be undone in 10 years.

The best approach I have heard from anyone is Bush's "ownership society" which would have the effect of reversing the psychology and reality of almost universal government dependency... one of the keystones of this approach is to privatize Social Security. Look at the resistance he is getting from all corners on just the mention of the idea!... and you think there is any hope of installing a libertarian working majority?

 

With all that said, the libertarian approach to homosexual rights would be the most effective.

Let all people be treated equally under the law.

Which not only means full rights for homosexuals, it means that people can associate or not associate with anyone they please based on their own values.

Homosexuals want "partner benefits"? Fine, so long as no employer (property owner) is required to associate with them in any way. This would include school districts which are in effect corporations owned by the people within the community.

They would also have no guarantees regarding housing, business relationships, group memberships, and the like.

 

That's no justification for stealing from societies producers to transfer wealth to its under/non producers. Socialism does only one thing well... it leaves people demanding more whether it worked in the past or not.

Want to reduce medical costs and increase access? Reduce legal and other expenses carried by providers. Change the insurance economics by allowing buying coalitions made up of individuals. Work away from the employer based system and toward a system that we know works well for virtually all other types of insurance.

Would one ever think of tying their auto insurance to their employer? The employer has a perverse incentive in health insurance. They want to strike the balance of benefit vs costs that best serves the company, not the employee.

It is only be introducing "real" market forces that health insurance and costs will come under control.

 

Jim1999 said: "In Canada, it looks like homosexuals will have the right, under our civil rights bill, to marry. All we asked for was a written guarantee that we, as Christian ministers, would not be required by law to perform such "marriages". This has been granted. We can still preach that sin is sin and show our opposition, where it belongs, in the church.....we want to keep the church separate from the state, thank you very much."

What about "Hate Crime" laws and their effect?
A homosexual could accuse a preacher of hate crimes for preaching that homosexuality is a sin, and would win! While both Canadians and citizens of the USA have religious freedom, the Deceiver is working hard in our law-making and law-interpreting agencies to make Christian values illegal. Once it is a crime to state that something (anything) is a sin, WE HAVE LOST THE BATTLE! (I know we are victors in Christ.)

As for the separation of church and state, nobody should have the power to decide if what I believe is wrong -- except God, of course! But now, I cannot lead a prayer at a public school's activity, because "the government" has decided that this action would be "supporting a religion or church". Some local governments have even stopped having prayer to open their meetings for the same reason, even though our national Senate and House of Representatives do it, as does the Supreme Court.

The apparently forgotten thing is that Thomas Jefferson (who first referred to "separation of church and state) was referring to GOVERNMENT control of the church -- which is what we are rapidly approaching in both Canada and the USA. He did not think that there should not be religious thought and activity in the government; he thought there should not be government-controlled religion.

Bill