Proposition 8 overturned in California

Zaac said:

I don't know why.

A lot of gay people and those who support them in their anti-Biblical everything are CONSTANTLY going on about how the Christian belief system should not be forced upon them by Christians or the law because this is not a theocracy.

But now, lo and behold a supposedly gay judge comes along and starts legislating his belief system and all the gays and their supporters cheer?

I find this incredibly interesting.

Click to expand...

How did he legislate his belief system Zaac? No Federal Judge in this country would have come to a different conclusion based on the evidence. If your side didn't want this issue overturned, maybe they should have done a better job defending it. Oh wait, they couldn't - because there is no logical defense.

salida said:

The judge is 100% incorrect because he is ignoring the majority rule.

Click to expand...

We don't live in a Democracy. Do you really want majority rule?

T

Archer93 said:

Being gay isn't a belief system.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was. Being Christian isn't a belief system either, but we have one. Likewise gay people have a belief system that shapes their thinking on issues.

Jase said:

How did he legislate his belief system Zaac?

Click to expand...

How did he not legislate his belief system Jase?

Zaac said:

I didn't say it was. Being Christian isn't a belief system either, but we have one. Likewise gay people have a belief system that shapes their thinking on issues.

Click to expand...

The Nicean Creed would disagree with you.

Archer93 said:

The Nicean Creed would disagree with you.

Click to expand...

The Nicene Creed doesn't dictate what a follower of Christ is. And the most important words are FOLLOWER OF CHRIST.

We follow Christ, not a belief system set up by the Nicene Creed. That Creed just echoes the word.

Zaac said:

How did he not legislate his belief system Jase?

Click to expand...

Because he based his judgement on the rationale provided. If the anti-gay lobby could provide a secular reason for why it's in California's interest to prohibit the legal recognition of a civic marriage for same-sex couples, then I daresay the Judge would concur. But they didn't.

Skaloop said:

If the judge legislated his belief system at all, that belief system would be proper application of the Constitution. Not anything to do with being gay.

Click to expand...

Proper application of the Constitution would have to show the Constitution as granting a right to everyone to marry. It doesn't.

But frankly, the whole subject is old. On to the Supreme Court.

Zaac said:

The Nicene Creed doesn't dictate what a follower of Christ is. And the most important words are FOLLOWER OF CHRIST.

We follow Christ, not a belief system set up by the Nicene Creed. That Creed just echoes the word.

Click to expand...

The Nicene Creed DEFINES the beliefs of Christianity! It sets them out, clearly! (well, apart from the filiosque controversy, but still...)

We may be talking at cross purposes here.
What do you mean by a 'belief system'?

Zaac said:

Proper application of the Constitution would have to show the Constitution as granting a right to everyone to marry. It doesn't.

Click to expand...

It's fascinating that the group calling for tolerance shows no tolerance for proper marriage. And no tolerance for any dissent really.

But frankly, the whole subject is old. On to the Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

Abortion for convenience came from that horrid place. The slaughter of the innocent. We can expect nothing more than further darkness. Especialy with the new additions to the place. This is basically the court that decided the Eminent Domain debacle that is wreaking horror on decent people.

Ultimately it is not our concern. The lost can choose any style of behavior they desire to continue in. This is the story of Gospel reality.

We did not invite this thing, it was fostered onto us. We'll have to do what we've always done and show the way to truth and preach the Gospel and offer salvation to those that are otherwise perishing. The most amazing thing about this issue, is how similar the voices against the Christians are now that existed from the time Jesus talked with Pilate.

We did not bring this on society. It is our cause to reject it with every effort a Christian should. As it comes at us and our children, we will have to defend the faith. Let us prepare for that time as it is upon us now and like Lot, it is at our door pounding ever louder.

PM me if you want to know how several of the Churches in town are going to handle the gay agenda as it gains the power and authority that some are going to use against us. It is going to most ferocious in our children's schools. Even more than it is now.

Archer93 said:

The Nicene Creed DEFINES the beliefs of Christianity! It sets them out, clearly! (well, apart from the filiosque controversy, but still...)

Click to expand...

The Bible is the only appropriate measure for defining the beliefs of the followers of Christ. The Nicene Creed echoes what the Bible says.

We may be talking at cross purposes here.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

What do you mean by a 'belief system'?

Click to expand...

A persons ideologies;his stance on life; his world view;his philosophies;his religious beliefs or lack thereof.

They all make up belief systems.

But as I said before, it's difficult to tell if his belief system influenced his ruling any more than you could tell with a straight person.

I do tend to think that he would have been better off recusing himself because if anyone digs up any pro-gay rants , it spells trouble. But the same could be said for a straight judge.

So again. On to the SCOTUS.

onemorequestion said:

Abortion for convenience came from that horrid place. The slaughter of the innocent. We can expect nothing more than further darkness. Especially with the new additions to the place. This is basically the court that decided the Eminent Domain debacle that is wreaking horror on decent people.

Ultimately it is not our concern. The lost can choose any style of behavior they desire to continue in. This is the story of Gospel reality.

Click to expand...

Precisely. I fully expect the United States to continue in its Sodom and Gomorah-ish downward spiral, socially, economically and morally.

Come Jesus Come.

We did not invite this thing, it was fostered onto us. We'll have to do what we've always done and show the way to truth and preach the Gospel and offer salvation to those that are otherwise perishing. The most amazing thing about this issue, is how similar the voices against the Christians are now that existed from the time Jesus talked with Pilate.

Click to expand...

Precisely.

We did not bring this on society. It is our cause to reject it with every effort a Christian should. As it comes at us and our children, we will have to defend the faith. Let us prepare for that time as it is upon us now and like Lot, it is at our door pounding ever louder.

PM me if you want to know how several of the Churches in town are going to handle the gay agenda as it gains the power and authority that some are going to use against us. It is going to most ferocious in our children's schools. Even more than it is now.

Click to expand...

You know I have been telling Christians for years to take a stand and stop giving up ground that God has given you. Now this cancer of liberalism has taken over and there may not be any getting that ground back.

But if it ushers us into the return of our Lord and Savior, then shall it be as it is. Just keep on preaching the truth. Those who want the truth, will be saved. The rest shall go the way of the Lake of Fire.

Zaac said:

The Bible is the only appropriate measure for defining the beliefs of the followers of Christ. The Nicene Creed echoes what the Bible says.



Indeed.




A persons ideologies;his stance on life; his world view;his philosophies;his religious beliefs or lack thereof.

They all make up belief systems.

Click to expand...

That's a workable description, thanks!

HAve to say, given the amount of people who post things based purely on their religion, I was reading it as 'beliefs = belief system'. It's how I tend to use the phrase.

But as I said before, it's difficult to tell if his belief system influenced his ruling any more than you could tell with a straight person.

I do tend to think that he would have been better off recusing himself because if anyone digs up any pro-gay rants , it spells trouble. But the same could be said for a straight judge.

So again. On to the SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

I don't think there will be any pro-gay rants from Judge Walker, given his professional history. His work for the US Olympic Committee barring the use of the word 'Olympics' for the San Francisco Gay Olympics lead to him be accused of being anti-gay! Which nearly got in the way of him being appointed a judge.
Apparently he's still not very popular with some over that matter.

onemorequestion said:

Was I writing to you?

No, I wasn't.

Look, a gay guy found himslelf in the position of power and authority over every person in California and took his shot.

Click to expand...

So truelies, to whom he was replying, is one of your socks?

The judge's decision was based on the law not on a personal desire to annoy as many heterosexuals as possible.

onemorequestion said:

It's fascinating that the group calling for tolerance shows no tolerance for proper marriage. And no tolerance for any dissent really.



Abortion for convenience came from that horrid place. The slaughter of the innocent. We can expect nothing more than further darkness. Especialy with the new additions to the place. This is basically the court that decided the Eminent Domain debacle that is wreaking horror on decent people.

Ultimately it is not our concern. The lost can choose any style of behavior they desire to continue in. This is the story of Gospel reality.

We did not invite this thing, it was fostered onto us. We'll have to do what we've always done and show the way to truth and preach the Gospel and offer salvation to those that are otherwise perishing. The most amazing thing about this issue, is how similar the voices against the Christians are now that existed from the time Jesus talked with Pilate.

We did not bring this on society. It is our cause to reject it with every effort a Christian should. As it comes at us and our children, we will have to defend the faith. Let us prepare for that time as it is upon us now and like Lot, it is at our door pounding ever louder.

PM me if you want to know how several of the Churches in town are going to handle the gay agenda as it gains the power and authority that some are going to use against us. It is going to most ferocious in our children's schools. Even more than it is now.

Click to expand...

Wait, did they outlaw straight marriage in the decision? Also, on the upside, I'm pretty confident that this will not encourage abortion.

onemorequestion said:

PM me if you want to know how several of the Churches in town are going to handle the gay agenda as it gains the power and authority that some are going to use against us. It is going to most ferocious in our children's schools. Even more than it is now.

Click to expand...

You're disgusting. Classrooms are NOT the proper venue for political action. Taking this to schools is going to do nothing but interfere with student's education. For someone supposedly interested in protecting children, this shows quite clearly how little you actually care about them.

Zaac said:

Proper application of the Constitution would have to show the Constitution as granting a right to everyone to marry. It doesn't.

But frankly, the whole subject is old. On to the Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

You have identified a sort of weak link here. However, remember that constitutional dicta (pl. of dictum) and the cases they arise from don't happen in a vacuum. There has to be a "case or controversy" (the Article III constitutional term) in which there is a dispute over something -- whether Fred the Perp did in fact burglarize the hardware store the last Sunday in May; whether Dapper Dan did indeed get trusting Penelope Pureheart into a compromising situation; whether your deed or mine to that parcel of land we both claim to own is the valid one; whether State Statute Sec. 94(c)(3)(a) does in fact deprive Joe of a right guaranteed to him by the constitution....

In this case, the right to marry is not enumerated in the Federal constitution. However, this gives rise to the possibility that, say, Idaho could in fact ban marriage -- no one would be permitted to legally marry within the state, and it would give no legal recognition to marriages contracted elsewhere. I think everyone would agree this is absurd. So Chief Justice Warren said, in Loving that the right to marry is one of the fundamental rights in a human society. Note that. while the particular case in point simply challenged an anti-miscegenation statute, SCOTUS did not simply rule that blacks and whites may marry -- he was forced to look at the basic idea, and asserted it as an unenumerated right. There are only a few of them spelled out, and none that depend strictly on the Ninth Amendment, which asserts that such rights do exist.

What this decision does, however, is to examine the provision of California's state constitution put in place by Prop. 8 in the light of the Fourteenth Amendment. As you probably are aware, this forbids any state from depriving any U.S. citizen of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying them the equal protection of the law.

Equal protection jurisprudence is fascinating, and complex. But there is a bottom line that says that any law must have a rational basis -- an that rational basis cannot be your or my religious beliefs, no matter how firmly we hold them to be true. It has to be something understood to be true and rational by all people -- the conservative Christian, the liberal atheist, the libertarian humanist, the objectivist Jew....

Back to the 'right to marry' again -- if it means anything, it means the right to marry the person of your choice, presuming she (or he) is agreeable. Saying that your right to marry means you have the right to marry or not marry a particular person or small group of people, regardless of your own wishes, is contrary to American social principles. Arranged marriages have never been common in America, and are effectively defunct these days.

Well, okay, so people have the right to marry the person of their choice. Now, we look at the slippery slope stuff. Chester the Molester does not have the right to marry his 12-year-old girlfriend because the state has a legitimate interest in protecting its youth. The hillbillies have no right to marry their sisters, because the state has an interest in protecting society against the deleterious results of incest. The nutball who wants to marry his car or his blue-tick hound is not trying to marry another person. These are limitations with a rational basis. And there is a presumption of constitutionality of the state law which must be overcome by the person challenging it.

Now, the court said, if some people have the right to marry the person of their choice, and that is limited only by laws with a rational basis, what is the rational basis behind prohibiting two homosexals from marrying each other? And the judge sought testimony with the intent of establishing what rational basis, if any, there was for that prohibition. He wrote a long, thorough opinion carefully reviewing that testimony in search of such a rational basis -- and did not find it. He even quoted Justice Scalia on the subject.