The ruling from CA's judges creates law from the bench and circumvents decades of the clearly identified wishes of the majority of the people. I do not believe we should put people in jail for choosing this lifestyle, nor should they be harrassed or face violence by others who disagree with them. But our right to openly disagree with this choice should not be abridged either and that is where this is headed. Schools are now teaching children as young as five that homosexuality is acceptable. There have been several articles but here is one. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63978 CO has spent tens of thousands of dollars to build special bathrooms for a seven year old transgender student. Our schools have struggled to teach children to read or to be able to keep up when entering college. They fight our rights to homeschool. They are passing out birth control to eleven year olds without notifying parents. I think they need to focus on teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic rather than sex ed or undermining parental rights.

Congress is trying to sneak a bill through that will give homosexuals special treatment rather than equal treatment and the bill will make it a hate crime to say you are against homosexuality. Our freedoms of religion and speech are under attack. http://www.afa.net/activism/aa050802.asp The bill would force people who own businesses to do business in ways that may violate their religious beliefs. (For instance, a photographer could not refuse to photograph a gay wedding ceremony or a dating service would be forced to provide matches for gay couples even if they believe it is wrong.) http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU08D10 There have also been discussions that allowing gay marriages would open up numerous cans of worms such as polygamy and would then allow social security benefits for gay partners and for any other non-traditional partnerships.

When I try to play the devil's advocate and say it doesn't hurt anyone to allow gay marriage - I am reminded daily by reports of how it is hurting others. Unfortunately, a liberal agenda is pushing the choice of a small minority onto the majority who disagrees with that choice. This agenda gives preferential treatment to that minority at the expense of the majority and strips rights from the majority. Congress is not supposed to make laws that take away our rights to free speech or that prohibit the free exercise of religion.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1151




If homosexual marriage is accepted, why not polygamous marriage? Human-animal marriage? etc.... I am not being facetious. This is the path to anarchy because there is no underlying moral foundation. Once you open this door, what can you say is wrong? If you do, you are just being judgmental and imposing your morality on others.

Beyond that, traditional marriage is in the best interest of society as David said.

_________________
Ken

http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000627.cfm
by Glenn T. Stanton

--Marriage is a common good, not a special interest.
--Every society needs natural marriage -- as many men as possible each finding a woman, caring for and committing himself exclusively to her -- working together to create and raise the next generation.
--No society needs homosexual coupling. In fact, too much of it would be harmful to society and that is why natural marriage and same-sex coupling cannot be considered socially equal.

Marriage Is Always About the Next Generation

A loving and compassionate society always comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families.
A loving and compassionate society never intentionally creates motherless or fatherless families, which is exactly what every same-sex home does.
The same-sex family is not driven by the needs of children, but rather by the radical wishes of a small group of adults.
No child development theory says children need two parents of the same gender, but rather that children need their mothers and fathers.

A Vast Social Experiment Inflicted on Children

No society, at any time, has ever raised a generation of children in same-sex families.
Same-sex “marriage” will subject generations of children to the status of lab rats in (name of debate opponent’s) vast, untested social experiment.
But we know how the experiment will turn out:
America has raised millions of children in fatherless families for three decades and that experiment was a stunning failure by every measure! We know how damaging it is to raise children in intentionally fatherless families. Let’s not create more child-suffering to satisfy adult desire.
Thousands of published social science, psychological and medical studies show that children living in fatherless families, on average, suffer dramatically in every important measure of well-being. These children suffer from much higher levels of physical and mental illness, educational failure, poverty, substance abuse, criminal behavior, loneliness, as well as physical and sexual abuse.1 Children living apart from both biological parents are eight times more likely to die of maltreatment than children living with their mother and father.2

Lessons From the World's Most Famous Lesbian Mom--
Rosie O’Donnell shared this story in an ABC Primetime Live interview with Diane Sawyer:
Six-year-old Parker asks his mother, Rosie: “Mommy, why can’t I have a daddy?” Rosie answers: “Because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy."
The two most dangerous words for a parent to utter together: “I” and “want.”
Parker has never asked, “Momma, why can’t we have all the rights and protections of marriage?” You see, such things only matter to adults. But he has said, “Momma, why can’t I have a daddy?”
What matters for children in marriage is whether their mothers are married to their fathers.

How Your Same-sex Family Will Harm My Family

If this were just about your family, there would be no real danger. But same-sex “marriage” advocates are not seeking marriage for you alone, but rather demanding me — and all of us — to radically change our understanding of family. And that will do great damage.
Your same-sex family will teach my little boys and girls that husband/wife and mother/father are merely optional for the family and therefore, meaningless.
And I will never allow my (grand) children to be taught that their gender doesn’t matter for the family. Their masculinity and femininity matter far too much, as does everyone’s in this auditorium.

Full Acceptance Will Be Mandatory

My civil rights to object to homosexuality as an idea will be gone.
Same-sex relationships and homes are tolerated in society today. Our nation has no existing problem where same-sex couples are evicted from their neighborhoods because of how they live. Americans tolerate such relationships.
But this is not about mere tolerance. Instead it is about forcing everyone to fully accept these unnatural families.
Only months after legalizing same-sex “marriage” in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison! Say the wrong thing; go to jail. The same will happen here.
Every public school in the nation would be forced to teach that same-sex “marriage” and homosexuality are perfectly normal –- Heather has Two Mommies in K-12. Pictures in text books will be changed to show same-sex couples as normal.
Your church will be legally pressured to perform same-sex weddings. When courts — as happened in Massachusetts — find same-sex “marriage” to be a constitutional and fundamental human right, the ACLU will successfully argue that the government is underwriting discrimination by offering tax exemptions to churches and synagogues that only honor natural marriage.
Gay and lesbian people have a right to form meaningful relationships. They don’t have a right to redefine marriage for all of us.


Where Does It Stop...?

If “the right to marry whomever you want is a fundamental civil right,” how do we say “no” to a woman who wants to become the third wife of a polygamist…?
How do we say no to grooms Jonathan Yarbrough (a bisexual) and Cody Rogahn (a homosexual) –- the first same-sex couple in Provincetown, MA to receive a marriage application –- who explained to the press “…it’s possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner… In our case… we have an open marriage…”
When posed with the question “Why draw the line at two people?,” same-sex marriage advocate Cheryl Jacques of the Human Rights Campaign said, ”Because I don't approve of that.”…well, that brings an important question to mind:
How come your “because I don’t approve of that” objection to polygamy is more reasonable than my “I don’t approve of that” objection to same-sex “marriage”?

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Help defend marriage in California, and the rest of the nation.
[url]
http://www.ProtectMarrriage.com[/url], a Project of California Renewal, 2150 River Plaza Drive #150, Sacramento, CA 95833.

_________________
“The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we’re going to do that.” --Mike Huckabee

http://www.huckpac.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=1648:

I cannot bring my self to call them gay because that word means something totally different to me. When I was in school they were called "queer;" which fit better back then. Unfortunately, it's not all that odd anymore. I wish more preachers would care more about being biblically correct than they do about being politically correct. I blame a lot of our country's moral decay on sissy preachers. Ill informed people say there is nothing in the New Testament against homosexuality. It could be because they are using the version that a lesbian was reportedly one of the translators of. I can't remember which of the newer versions was changed to be "homosexual friendly." I am not homophobic. I have friends and relatives that are homosexuals. I still love them; it is the sin I disagree with. (much like my recovering alcoholic Dad) I will not judge them; but I will let them know the truth about what God says.

This is the reference in Romans that Obama thought was unclear and hard to understand. Looks pretty clear to me in the good old KJV.






I don't usually use anything other than the Authorized King James Bible but the New KJV uses a word more common in today's language than the AKJV reference above:

Jesus said:
Mark 10:6-9 (KJV) "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." [/quote]

_________________
Psalms 144:1 "Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"

Granny T. I have sought explanations for this before, but to no avail. Why is the distaste for homosexuality so much stronger than all others? For adultery, for drunkards? Why is their 'sin' so much less? Why has a wonderful and profound religion, which was founded by a man known to associate with societies undesirables, reverted to fearing that which is different?

God made man for women, so are bachelors violating God's law? Do they need to be re-educated as well? If homosexuality is an abomination, so is eating pork. Do you eat pork?

I say this because I have spoken to ordained priests who take the Bible seriously, and they cannot defend for me the anti-homosexuality streak which has developed in Christianity. Granted these priests are not the most conservative of the bunch, I am sure, I've never found a explanation that is not self-contradicting.

From what you have put forth, I find nothing convincing. Natural use? That could easily imply non-procreation sex. In the epic tones of the Bible, I don't find 'unseemly' to be much of a condemnation. Abusers of self with mankind? One can 'abuse' other men in many ways that are not sexual.

I do not shy from disagreement. I merely hope people are willing to take seriously their own opinions. I constantly seek to understand opposition, especially the opposition which I cannot comprehend, such as the Christian vendetta against homosexuality. For instance, I could not understand the contradiction between evolution and creationism, until the theological points were explained to me. While I continue to disagree, I can appreciate the difference of opinion. I welcome challenging of my opinions, as I hope to challenge yours.

Ultimately I look myself in the mirror and ask myself if I could ever choose to be sexually attracted to a man, and I can not in honesty say I could. This is the ultimate trump card for me to all those who claim its a 'choice.' As I believe God is benevolent, I do not believe him would genetically engineer sin.

"MacGyver",
I would not stand by without fighting if they tried to pass laws trying to make us accept adultery or drunkenness as normal behavior either. We are still fighting for the unborn that activist judges say it is okay for the mother to choose to murder. America's government was set up in a way that "we the people" are supposed to have a say in what laws are Constitutional by amending our state and federal Constitutions when needed. It is obvious "we the people" need to decide rather than leaving it up to a few. I believe we are each accountable to God for everything we do. No matter what sin someone commits it does not just affect them. It affects those around them. My family was hurt deeply when my cousin died from AIDS because of the consequences of his lifestyle choice. I still loved him, went to the funeral, and mourned his death. A family friend was recently arrested for a criminal sexual offense. His choice not only hurt the victim; but is hurting his family and many others around him. Many liberals don't see anything wrong with sexual promiscuity among children. They are giving out condoms without parental permission to kids in grade and middle schools. How long will it be before sex with children is considered normal?

If America doesn't stop our moral decline; how much longer can we count on God's mercy? I agree with something Thomas Jefferson said,

_________________
Psalms 144:1 "Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"

I believe it's wrong that 4 California Supreme Court justices were able to decide against the will of 61 percent of the California population on this.

The justices are very wrong on this.

This is not an issue that can be related to interracial marriages, but this is an issue about a behavior.

_________________
Chicagoland Voter Strong for Mike's "12 Stops" Vision & HuckPAC

WORLDNETDAILY: Will Judges let People Decide Marrige?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=64483


L to R: Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Ron M. George, Ming W. Chin, Marvin R. Baxter and Carol A. Corrigan of the California Supreme Court

_________________
“The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we’re going to do that.” --Mike Huckabee

World Net Daily
The United States of Fantasyland by Star Parker

_________________
“The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we’re going to do that.” --Mike Huckabee

http://tinyurl.com/5g3hn8
WORLDNETDAILY: Overturning California's Gay Marriage Ban
by Chuck Colson
May 16, 2008

Excerpts:

_________________
“The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we’re going to do that.” --Mike Huckabee

WEEKLY STANDARD: California's "Gift to McCain"?
by John McCormack
05/26/2008

http://tinyurl.com/5j88ez

Excerpt:

_________________
“The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we’re going to do that.” --Mike Huckabee

Californians as citizens without any assistance by the Legislature can change law by the populist vehicles of Initiative and Referendum. Proposition 22 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman was just such a measure submiitted to voters and approved by a 61% majority. While Prop 22 changed the law, it did not change the Constitution. If it had, the California State Supreme Court couldn't have touched it. Because it didn't the Federal Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the State Supreme Court's action.

However, the sky is not currently falling. Citizens who saw this coming have collected 1.1 million signatures on a petition to force the California Legislature to submit a state constitutional amendment to the voters with the same goal of defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

State defense of marriage constitutional amendments, contrary to popular belief, are not set in stone. 78% of South Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment the wording of which not only prevents any but two individuals of opposite sex from marrying, but it also excludes the possibility of civil unions. All it will take is one test case before the Federal Supreme Court to overturn it.

Several companies whose corporate headquarters are in California have divisions in South Carolina. Let's assume a gay spouse of a same sex couple married in California is transferred to South Carolina. If the reason for the transfer is involuntary due to the individual's present job being eliminated or is the only avenue for promotion, the seeds of a Federal Supreme Court case are sown the minute the couple is denied a right in South Carolina they enjoyed in California.

Do not for a moment think a potentially perfect test case is not on the mind of every gay and lesbian rights activist. Courtesy of the incredibly inflexible wording of South Carolina's amendment, it provides an almost textbook venue for denial of civil rights litigation.

According to the Heritage Foundation at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/Marriage50/ 27 states currently have amended their constitution to prohibit same sex marriage. 17 additional states have statutes which define marriage as between one man and one woman. 4 states have no laws regarding same sex marriage and two, Massachusetts and now California appear to allow it.

How will the Supreme Court view same sex marriage cases? Kind of depends who is on it, doesn't it? There is a good possibility McCain just got handed an unintentional gift by some activist California judges.

There is an alternative, even if the Federal Supreme Court rules in favor of same sex marriage. Anyone remember Dred Scott? You all knew I was going to get here eventually, didn't you? Ok,, here goes.. Mea culpa, mea culpa. Mike Huckabee's proposal for a Federal Marriage Amendment might not have been so farfetched after all.

Someone posted this link on HuckPAC.
http://www.citizenlink.org/videofeatures/A000007448.cfm
It is a "Stoplight" video using water to demonstrate how stupid the CA Supreme Court decision is.

_________________
Psalms 144:1 "Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"

http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000003814.cfm
America Votes to Protect Marriage

In 2004, thirteen states passed constitutional amendments that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The measure received more votes than either presidential candidates, George W. Bush or John Kerry, in all but one state. Four other states had previously amended their constitutions, and two more passed marriage amendments in 2005.

In August 2006, Alabama became the twentieth state to protect marriage with a constitutional amendment. Seven additional states passed constitutional amendments on November 7, 2006 (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin). Arizona became the first state in which a marriage amendment did not pass—narrowly losing 49 percent to 51 percent. In an election year marked by victory for Democrats, the passage of seven of eight marriage amendments—27 overall—demonstrates that support for marriage transcends party affiliation.

Clearly, states are eager to protect one-man, one-woman marriage from court-mandated same-sex marriage, as happened in Massachusetts (2004), or the equivalent of same-sex marriage, as was ordered by the State Supreme Court of New Jersey in October 2006.

_________________
“The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we’re going to do that.” --Mike Huckabee