Prop 8 overturned (Orange, Montclair: teach, gays, children)

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Still waiting for you and the others to tell us why your threshold for allowing certain marriages is more acceptable than the view of the majority of Californians.

The answer to your question lies within the judge's decision: the disallowment of same-sex marriages violates the equal protection clause. The majority cannot enact laws that violate the law, it's that simple. That was, in fact, the very basis for civil rights legislation in the 1960s--had we waited for the popular will of the people to coalesce around the issue, many minorities would still be officially relegated to second-class citizenship status.

Hiding behind the vote of the majority is a cop-out. There have been many times throughout history when the majority has been very, very wrong.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by 14thandYou

Of course you are. Your desire is for the state not to sanction gay marriage--which impacts every single homosexual couple wishing to enter into an officially sanctioned relationship. Your desires are very much forced onto others.

And that is no different from you saying any other form of marriage is wrong because it offends your sensibilities.

Historically, the argument was made that the intermingling of the races was somehow "immoral", and defenders o fthat position pulled out all kinds of scripture which supposedly supported that position. Same with interracial marriage, which was viewed by many as shameful and an affront to the institution of marriage (sound familiar?)

Apples and Oranges.

Denying the two halves of humanity the right to marriage is wrong.

What we are looking at now is the complete redefining of what marriage is.

Not the same in the least.

The statement of the Mormon Church is simply a dressing up of what many churches have said about homosexuals; that is, although we claim to love you, who you are is an affront to God, and you're doomed if you don't deny that aspect of yourselves. They dress it up in lots of language about the beauty and love of all of God's creatures and whatnot, but the core message is the same: as a homosexual, you are a sinner.

Unfortunately, the statement straight from the horse's mouth is what matters and your attempts to interpret it as sinister is really folly.

This is the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on the issue of homosexuality:

You are a son or daughter of God, and our hearts reach out to you in warmth and affection. Notwithstanding your present same-gender attractions, you can be happy during this life, lead a morally clean life, perform meaningful service in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with your fellow Saints, and ultimately receive all the blessings of eternal life.

The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi voiced feelings we all have when he acknowledged that he did not “know the meaning of all things.” But he testified, “I know that [God] loveth his children” (1 Nephi 11:17). God does indeed love all His children. Many questions, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life. But God has revealed simple, unchanging truths to guide us. He loves all His children, and because He loves you, you can trust Him.

You are a precious son or daughter of God. He not only knows your name; He knows you. His love for you is individual. You lived in His presence before you were born on this earth. You cannot remember your premortal relationship with Him, but He does. Although His children may sometimes do things that disappoint Him, He will always love them.

When you know who you are and are comfortable in the assurance that God loves you, you can more easily understand what He wants for you. He wants you to have all of the blessings of eternal life. Eternal life means much more than long or unending life. To obtain eternal life means to become like Heavenly Father, to live like Him, and to receive a fulness of joy. You can receive eternal life if you abide by the same laws as God and do the things He does...

LDS.org - Family Chapter Detail____

And it is quite beautiful.

There's nothing pro-gay about that.

Actually it exudes a greater amount of faith in the capacity of Gays to return to God's presence than anything else I've ever seen from any church.

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

And neither should the desire of one group to force their way into an institution that belongs to others. Anyway this is all water under the bridge.

Listen, I've given this a lot of thought and by now am willing to accept allowing gay marriage.

My biggest concern is that I don't believe for one minute that churches will be protected as far as being able to marry whomever they want.

And if you all thought Prop 8 was expensive, just wait until you try to force your way into churches. Then you will all know once and for all extent to which we are willing to go to protect our interests.

You can believe what you want, but it's baseless. Consider, for example, that it has now been 43 years since the United States Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia (1967). And churches in the United States are free, under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, to marry or refuse to marry who they wish. Have liberalized divorce laws resulted in the Catholic Church losing the right to refuse to marry those who have not had a previous marriage annulled? No. Are churches required to perform interfaith marriages just because civil law permits such marriages? Again, no.

So, where is the evidence for this specter that you conjure of churches being required to perform a sort of marriage just because that sort of marriage is allowed under civil law?

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Apparently you don't know jack about what Mormons have to say about gays so maybe you shouldnt pretend like you do.

Yeah, the always believable "mission statements" and "vision statements". I put as much faith in organized religion's version of those as I do those in the corporate world.

All I know about Mormonism and homosexuality is the pressure I've seen exerted on homosexual family members from within the Mormon family unit. It's a pressure that, in my experience, has extended to ostracizing and all out banishment. Feel free to spin your religion how you like, though.

[elezah1288]

[SIZE=5]GAYS AND LESBIANS.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE][SIZE=4]The constitution supersedes the bible? This is one of those times when you “obey GOD rather than man.” Act 5;29.
All men are not created equal and all men are not equal or treated equal because they made themselves unequal.
GOD did not create gays and lesbians, Satan and his demons. Cain was a murdered but he was not created a murderer. GOD do not create birth defects either. They are cause by imperfections of the sperm or egg. Or something the mother ingested at conception.
GOD created one man and one woman and they were perfect in his image and out of these came all the evil in the world. After they had sinned, they reproduced and they were not all perfect.
Gays and lesbians made themselves gays and lesbians and they are cable of changing if they want to. “That is what some of you [/SIZE][SIZE=4][SIZE=4]were” [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=4]1 Cor 6;11, Rom 1; 24-27.
Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? California ruling was a ruling against GOD and there are dire consequences.
The founding fathers were not perfect men so how could they write a constitution without flaws? If they really believed all men were created equal there would not be a need for the 14th amendment for black men. They entered this country along with white men.
[/SIZE]

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

Yeah, the always believable "mission statements" and "vision statements". I put as much faith in organized religion's version of those as I do those in the corporate world.

Well, to a degree I have to agree.

It would be nice if the love and kindness stated in official statements trickled down and was manifested in how people are treated locally.

I am fortunate that for me, this was the case.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

You can believe what you want, but it's baseless. Consider, for example, that it has now been 43 years since the United States Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia (1967). And churches in the United States are free, under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, to marry or refuse to marry who they wish. Have liberalized divorce laws resulted in the Catholic Church losing the right to refuse to marry those who have not had a previous marriage annulled? No. Are churches required to perform interfaith marriages just because civil law permits such marriages? Again, no.

While I understand your points, I still remain weary of the chance of activists trying to coerce churches into submission.

So, where is the evidence for this specter that you conjure of churches being required to perform a sort of marriage just because that sort of marriage is allowed under civil law?

Well, in countries where same sex marriages have been legalized, there is much evidence that churches have scrutinized for their doctrinal teachings.

Its easily googleable.

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by elezah1288

GAYS AND LESBIANS. gays and lesbians, Satan and his demons bla bla bla bla ad infinitum ad nauseam

Hooray! The fundies have crawled out of their hole!

[DarrettsGirl]

...but seriously folks... WHY even VOTE on a measure if its considered unconstitutional at the start? I mean, we could have saved beaucoup bucks for our wasting state if they would have just NOT put it to a vote to start with, and just putting it into law. When I ask "why even vote", I'm not asking that in a negative way. I'm seriously just wondering why we went through the whole mess.

I'll finish my tea now.

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Well, in countries where same sex marriages have been legalized, there is much evidence that churches have scrutinized for their doctrinal teachings.

Its easily googleable.

Churches being scrutinized? Um... that's not what I asked about, nor what you previously raised as an ominous possibility, which was the idea that legalizing same-sex marriages would lead to churches being required to perform them.

Furthermore, the fact that other countries are not bound by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States makes pointing to the laws in other countries irrelevant.

Churches in the United States are private entities and have never been required to perform any specific kind of marriage permitted under civil law.