"The Voters have Spoken!"

[FaithLikeARock]

I asked this question in another thread. Now I'm going to ask it to everyone.

Say a proposition was put on the ballot stating that a change to the Constitution was going to be made that Christians can not be legally married. Voters decide that Christians can not be legally married by 51% majority.

Should that vote stand since the voters have made it clear what they want, or should the Supreme Court overturn it because it's deciding on the rights of people?

This is a yes or no question. Answer yes or no before you start off on excuses.

 

[SughaNSpice]

You won’t get much response form those championing Prop 8.

Those justifying discrimination usually only want what they champion to apply to people they don’t like - not to themselves

 

[FaithLikeARock]

I feel it's worth a shot. If they don't answer, it shows how much they actually care about voter rights.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

No, the vote should not stand. Without basic human rights, a democratic republic will degenerate into lawless mob rule.

 

[Chesterton]

Should that vote stand since the voters have made it clear what they want, or should the Supreme Court overturn it because it's deciding on the rights of people?

Of course the Supreme Court should overturn it because Judges are imbued with divine right, right? How dare any group of people assume that any group of people could know what's right. (In other words, how could democracy have any value?)

 

[SughaNSpice]

Of course the Supreme Court should overturn it because Judges are imbued with divine right, right? How dare any group of people assume that any group of people could know what's right. (In other words, how could democracy have any value?)

The justices are charged with interpreting the constitution and evaluating lawsuits brought before it in light of the constitution.

And remember the constitution says that every one (including gays) have equal rights and equal protections under the law

 

[FaithLikeARock]

The justices are charged with interpreting the constitution and evaluating lawsuits brought before it in light of the constitution.

And remember the constitution says that every one (including gays) have equal rights and equal protections under the law

Gays? What does that have to do with anything? ()

 

[allhart]

Gays? What does that have to do with anything? ()

Turning everything upside down or up on your head! Plainly, inside out!

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Turning everything upside down or up on your head! Plainly, inside out!

Gonna answer the original post, or what?

 

[allhart]

Gonna answer the original post, or what?

Passage 2 Timothy 2:23-26:
23Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant(A) controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. 24And(B) the Lord’s servant[a] must not be quarrelsome but(C) kind to everyone,(D) able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25correcting his opponents(E) with gentleness. God(F) may perhaps grant them repentance(G) leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26and they may come to their senses and escape from(H) the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will

 

[Joachim]

It actually wouldn't stand because it was a law made with respect to religion and the establishment or disestablishment thereof and therefore would violate the 1st amendment firsthand.


In other words.....try for a better example next time.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Passage 2 Timothy 2:23-26:
23Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant(A) controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. 24And(B) the Lord’s servant[a] must not be quarrelsome but(C) kind to everyone,(D) able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25correcting his opponents(E) with gentleness. God(F) may perhaps grant them repentance(G) leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26and they may come to their senses and escape from(H) the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will

Passage Job 38:3:

Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.

See, I can take Bible Verses out of context to avoid the question too? If you don't plan on answering, don't bother posting here.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

It actually wouldn't stand because it was a law made with respect to religion and the establishment or disestablishment thereof and therefore would violate the 1st amendment firsthand.


In other words.....try for a better example next time.

But it's the people's vote. Isn't that what matters? Marriage isn't a civil right after all.

 

[Shane Roach]

Passage 2 Timothy 2:23-26:
23Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant(A) controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. 24And(B) the Lord’s servant[a] must not be quarrelsome but(C) kind to everyone,(D) able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25correcting his opponents(E) with gentleness. God(F) may perhaps grant them repentance(G) leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26and they may come to their senses and escape from(H) the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will

Thank you.

Here again, a thread starts and is immediately filled with anti-Christian sentiment before it even gets started.

There is coming a time when Christians will indeed be forced from society. Christians know this, and so the point is rather moot. I would say that the substantive difference here though is that if California attempted anything of this nature regarding religion, it would still not be supported by the US Supreme Court (yet).

The issue of homosexuality is simply one of behavior, and the court interfering in this manner is illegitimate on its face. No behavior should be elevated to the level of a civil right by judicial fiat.

California is now basically openly attacking religious freedom, because to make homosexuality a civil right is to effectively attack a fundamental Christian tenet, making it discriminatory by law.

It's essentially the same thing as why we have freedom of religion, but no religion would be allowed that required human sacrifice.

These homosexuality threads are all the same. Why you all feel the need to create multiples of the same thread is beyond me.

Our most basic freedoms are set to be reversed in California now. Folks better wake up.

 

[Shane Roach]

Passage Job 38:3:

Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.

See, I can take Bible Verses out of context to avoid the question too? If you don't plan on answering, don't bother posting here.

It's not out of context. You are a professing Christian repeatedly creating controversy about a fundamental Christian teaching. He is free to post where he wants.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Thank you.

Here again, a thread starts and is immediately filled with anti-Christian sentiment before it even gets started.

There is coming a time when Christians will indeed be forced from society. Christians know this, and so the point is rather moot. I would say that the substantive difference here though is that if California attempted anything of this nature regarding religion, it would still not be supported by the US Supreme Court (yet).

The issue of homosexuality is simply one of behavior, and the court interfering in this manner is illegitimate on its face. No behavior should be elevated to the level of a civil right by judicial fiat.

California is now basically openly attacking religious freedom, because to make homosexuality a civil right is to effectively attack a fundamental Christian tenet, making it discriminatory by law.

It's essentially the same thing as why we have freedom of religion, but no religion would be allowed that required human sacrifice.

These homosexuality threads are all the same. Why you all feel the need to create multiples of the same thread is beyond me.

Our most basic freedoms are set to be reversed in California now. Folks better wake up.

In other words: religous freedom only applies to Christianity.

Homosexuals want LEGAL marriage. They can get religious marriage as there are plenty of pastors willing to marry them, and because you don't need a pastor to marry you. You can see you and your partner as married in the eyes of God without the ceremony. They just want the legal rights.

I believe you're limiting marriage to a very shallow and useless ceremony.

Again, answer. Why do you not want to answer the question? What's so scary? If you're so right, you shouldn't have any problem with answering such a simple question.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

It's not out of context. You are a professing Christian repeatedly creating controversy about a fundamental Christian teaching. He is free to post where he wants.

Homosexuality is a fundamental Christian teaching? Then why is there so much argument and curiosity about it?

Of course he is. I just hope he knows he is creating controversy as well by coming into a thread and not responding the issue of the OP and instead criticizing me and others. I asked a simple question, because I want to know the motivation.

 

[Shane Roach]

In other words: religous freedom only applies to Christianity.

Homosexuals want LEGAL marriage. They can get religious marriage as there are plenty of pastors willing to marry them, and because you don't need a pastor to marry you. You can see you and your partner as married in the eyes of God without the ceremony. They just want the legal rights.

I believe you're limiting marriage to a very shallow and useless ceremony.

Again, answer. Why do you not want to answer the question? What's so scary? If you're so right, you shouldn't have any problem with answering such a simple question.

I did. I said I believe the day is coming when something similar is going to occur, and that your question is rhetorical because homosexuality is a behavior, and religion is a protected right.

Thus, I distinguish between homosexuality and religion, and answer no, I nor anyone else of good conscience should support a law removing freedom of religion. However, there is no such moral compunction to enshrine a sexual perversion into the existing marriage legislation.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

I did. I said I believe the day is coming when something similar is going to occur, and that your question is rhetorical because homosexuality is a behavior, and religion is a protected right.

Thus, I distinguish between homosexuality and religion, and answer no, I nor anyone else of good conscience should support a law removing freedom of religion. However, there is no such moral compunction to enshrine a sexual perversion into the existing marriage legislation.

Heterosexuality is a behavior too in that case. Should opposite-sex couples not be allowed to be married.

Homosexual men and women believe heterosexuality is perverted too. What's your point?

 

[Shane Roach]

Heterosexuality is a behavior too in that case. Should opposite-sex couples not be allowed to be married.

I have seen a lot of gay activists who claim there should simply be no such thing as marriage. If you can get the law passed, be my guest.

Homosexual men and women believe heterosexuality is perverted too.

Do they? News to me.