Prop. 8 Did Not Ban Gay 'Marriage'

Comments  33

• Victor 05 Aug

  As a Canadian, I had my chance to speak up against same-sex-marriages in person cause an old prime minister who am sure is a good Chretien came to our city years ago with his minister to discuss whether same-sex-marriages should be allowed. To make a long story short if I would have spent half the time I spent non violently fighting an APEC party in the pass which I no longer hear mentioned any more, then maybe Canadians would not have been taken in by these same-sex-lobyist who are financially very powerful indeed. There's still not a doubt in my mind and heart that The Marriage Sacrament as we know it in reality was ever intended for same-sex and two or more wrongs will never make same-sex-marriage right in His Eyes and we don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that. I honestly believed at the time that the letters I wrote would help put a stop to what had been started here in  Canada but I guess people were too busy working at the time and besides, they had a vote in parliament just a few years before and it was not even close and same sex lost by a land slide.
  
  I'm not going to start preaching Armageddon cause I believe that God is all Love and would never bring "IT" on in that way but I, me and myself can't speak for all His Angels where ever they may be. I'll just say that what will be, will be and wish our American cousins all good luck and as for me here in Canada if same-sex- so called angels win the hearts of men and women then I will simply wear my ring around my neck as respect for The Sacrament of Marriage until God tells me what else I should do.
  
  I could go on and on but most people know where I stand on this issue and this email should be as good as my signature.
  
  God Bless,
  
  Peace

• Rev. Dr. Rudolph G. Babcock 06 Aug

  I read the Judge's decision and I have several concerns that this decision seems to open toe door to
  1.  it would allow for any and all marriage including multiple partners
  2.  it would allow for a marriage license to be granted for a person who wishes to marry an animal
  3. any request for a marriage license would be protected
  4. he not only redefines marriage
  5. he redefined sexual intercourse
  6. sodomy is not sexual intercourse
  7. according to President Bill Clinton oral -- whatever --  is not sex either so that is as well not intercourse
  8 he redefines the condition, the act, the behavior of heterosexual marriage in order for it to fit within the scope of condition, act, behavior of homosexuality.
   9 he just made a pig a bird
  
  Rev. Dr. Rudolph G. Babcock

• Lisa 06 Aug

  Excellent article - can you please fix the typo at the bottom? "riding" should be "ridding"
  
  Thank you!

• Ian 06 Aug

  "Whether these marriages become legalized or not does not mean they have any validity within the Church or within a legal system of ethics and reason."
  
  Amen!   I think we as Christians need not get discouraged by the outcome, our beliefs and our mission still remain the same. We must remember God is in control; something I find very hard to do until I remember to humble myself sometimes. It will be our job to stand up for what is right know matter how hard the fight may be.

• elm 06 Aug

  You cannot use same-sex as an adjective in front of the word marriage. Its like saying water metal. It makes no sense and the sooner the groups for marriage between one man, one woman, cease to use these word together in the same sentence, the sooner we can make sense of this whole debacle. Just because someone "feels" that they have a right, doesn't give them that right. I found the following on Catholic Online.
  • Marrying an already-married person is illegal. If marriage were a right, then this restriction would be unjust and should be illegal.
  • All states restrict certain persons from marrying (to some degree or another): aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, children and parents, even in-laws (who aren't related by blood). These restrictions would constitute another breach of a "right" to marry whomever one chose.
  • Marriage has an age of consent; there's no "age of consent" for our rights to speech and religion.
  • One must pay the government a fee in order to marry. But rights are free and automatic, not available for purchase.

• DCM 06 Aug

  Would you care to comment on the widespread report that the judge in this case actually self-defines as gay?  If that is so, should he not have recused himself from this case as he very well may have a dog in this fight, wanting a same sex "marriage" himself, for example?
  
  Also, it would seem that the only way to really and properly defend traditional marriage is through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  Given the current political reality across the country, how likely might this be to come about, particularly as at least one party could be expected to back such an effort.

• April Polley 06 Aug

  I believe that homosexuality and "same sex marriage" is a counterfeit from Satan.   All through the Bible, God defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and uses it as a picture of His relationship to His people, the Bridegroom(Christ) and the Bride (those who name the name of Christ), the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, etc.  Satan, the great liar, is trying to get humans to believe his lie, which attacks the very core of God's Word.   

• Leslie 06 Aug

  I accept your beliefs. It's important for each person to live their lives according to the guidance they find in scripture and also the communion they have with the Lord. I, however, do not understand how a good Christian could ever be filled with so much hate. Hate can blind us to the path the Lord calls for us to walk. I know you feel that this is your path, that you must stand up to those who would destroy your beliefs of family. But are they really? I think our culture, more than any other thing, is doing a good enough job of destroying the family on its own. People work more, spend less time at home, divorce is higher than ever, and people enter almost unconcernedly into marriage. Aren't these things more worrisome to the value of our families than two men or two women wanting to start a life together? There is so much suffering in this world that as Christians we are obligated to heal. The Lord calls for us to show the way and to preach his words. It does not call for us to judge. And it most surely does not call for us to condemn.
  
  I do like how you said that, "permanent love (that) is only expressed when two people are complimentary in both body and soul." But after saying that how can you deny the love of others who are different? Yes, homosexual love cannot produce children, but there are many heterosexual couples who also cannot bear children. Does that mean that the children of God who are barren are less than those who are not? I hold that it does not matter. That God is more concerned with how we lead our lives and that we share the joy of living with God to those we meet. I've always found that the word of God is enough on its own. We don't need to arm ourselves to fight. We need to live the lives God wants and to spread goodwill to all. That's the real kicker though. We have to love all mankind. Jesus loved without reservation. We must learn to do the same.
  
  And as for the children, there has been no evidence that homosexual parents are less fit. Actually, a study was published several months ago that showed lesbian parents raise better adjusted, more motivated, and more intelligent children than straight families. I take this as commentary on how many heterosexual parents are more concerned with procreation than with raising children.
  
  At the end of the day, all you're doing is reacting to the perceived 'evils' of the world. Instead of chasing shadows, would it not be more productive to work in you community to help the less fortunate and offer guidance to those who seek it. Be the change you want to see. Be the example that as Christians we are supposed to be. Talk is rather cheap when you look past it to see that the failings of family are also within the church.
  
  Also, I was curious as to what Papal Edict you were referring to in the Preamble of your Declaration. I don't remember any anti-slavery declaration in the Papal Bull.

• W. B. Allen 06 Aug

  The reaction to Judge Walker's ruling appears in some respects to be characterized by a voluntary donning of blinders, as though it is imagined that one can navigate equine fashion through the blazing timbers around us if one only keeps focused on the immediate goal.
  
  The statement by the Manhattan Declaration organizers summons the community to renewed efforts to move public opinion, on the authority of the claim that a pronounced public opinion will sway the Supreme Court to reverse this ruling.  This seems to me both to ignore precedent ("Reitman v. Mulkey") and the clearly enunciated signal by Justice Kennedy in "Lawrence v. Texas."
  
  The truth is that this very calculated decision by Judge Walker has been specifically formulated to decrease maximally the likelihood of Justice Kennedy changing course from his Lawrence opinion, and that in a context where overturning propositions from California (not to mention Colorado's proposition concerning so-called gay rights) is by now almost a tradition on the Court.
  
  While I would never counsel turning back from the greatest exertions in favor of providing witness to Christ's teachings, I can not avoid a developing concern that we are not deliberating broadly enough concerning the likely course of development in our society, whose secular trend is not just a recent or casual development.  To reiterate the impossibility of same-sex marriage, as the instant blog entry does, simply fails to acknowledge the irreducible tension between civilly sanctioned and divinely sanctioned marriage.
  
  When we consider that tension in a sober and prayerful state of mind, we must certainly recognize the growing burden of being forced to make fundamental choices about how we shall live and how the communities we embrace must be characterized.  We, no less than the primitive Christians, may (I am tempted to say, "certainly will") soon find ourselves forced to live our faith in the teeth of public disparagement.  To the extent that such an eventuality is likely, it is of great importance that voices of leadership provide direction as to how one might safely undergo such trial.
  
  For that reason, I consider the promise of relief but palely to reflect the obligations of Christian stewardship.

• Dieter Fischer 07 Aug

  Can someone explain to me why straight people care less and less about marriage, and are happy to just live together, whilst gay and lesbian couples protest more and more for the right to be married? I wished my son and his girl of ten years were half as keen to be married as the gay community is.
  
  Sodom and Gomorrah has well and truly returned. But God's light shines brighter, his ways are fairer. One day all will see and bow down to acknowledge HE IS LORD to the glory of God the Father.
  
  Dieter Fischer
  Adelaide, Australia

• Gary K 07 Aug

  Check this out a Documentary Film by Janet Parshall  titled Speachless silencing christian's   You should be able to find it on youtube.

• Kirby J. Killman 09 Aug

  I'm really getting fed up with all the commentary on Christian blogs, web sites, and forums when we should be doing what Christ told us to do.  That would be the Great Commission he handed over to us to spread his Word, teachings, salvation, and defending God's position as our Creator in public, and that would be in local newspapers and national news magazines.
  
  We can sit here and whine all we want, but it won't change a thing until we do like Chuck Colson suggests and start speaking to our neigbors, co-workers, friends, extended family and so forth.  THAT is the commission Christ gave us.
  
  If we can't be bothered with defending the principles that Christ used through our founding fathers to produce this nation, then we are going to lose "this" nation.  A a matter of fact, we are well on the way towards that right now.
  
  The Liberals have already accomplished quite a bit towards shredding, disobeyiny, and changing the law.  How much longer are Christians going to support the good life with both spouses working towards pushing their careers far more passionately than the Lord Jesus Christ?  
  
  Retirement, ivy league educations for the kids, back to back Christian conferences, and endless vacationing and RV'ing all over the planet are consuming much more of our time, energy, money, and other resources than  anything else.
  
  K.P. Yohannon who is a powerful Indian missionary in India says that only %5 of western  Christian resources go to the vast majority of this planet's unreached populations.  While churches build multi-million dollar basketball courts to strain out a few dozen local conversions, millions of children are turned away from Bible clubs offered by Mission India simply for the lack of one lousy buck per kid.  They claim the very high percentage of about %33 conversions in these clubs.  Many of those kids go home to convert their families without ever having seen a Bible or having gone to a western Christian conference where we typically spend hundrds of dollars "per" to stuff ever more Bible trivia into our minds.
  
  Is there something wrong here?  Yuh.  weak-kneed western Christians keep looking for the magic bullet that will enable them to witness when Christ just said to "do it", and be joyful over the scorn and derision of our peers.  This is the nature of persecution in western nations, but extremely few of us will risk reputation with the "good ol' boys" or career advancement by pushing the Gospel anywhere but the safe confines of inner chuch Bible studies.
  

• Kate 10 Aug

  Thank you for your comment, Leslie. Very well thought out and expressed!!

• Alison 11 Aug

  I am Jewish (reform) and I believe that marriage should be defined as one man + one woman.  My biggest concern about the legalization of gay marriage, centers around what children will be taught in school (particulary public schools.)  The powerful "GLBT" lobby has already distributed their propaganda to many schools, day cares, and after-school centers.  My background is in education, and I know firsthand how schools have been impacted.  From picture books about gay penguins for preschoolers (I'm not kidding,) to posters in elementary after-school programs that equate basic religious beliefs with hate speech, the "GLBT" lobby is committed to 'de-programming' America's children.  If gay marriage is upheld by the Supreme Court, we can expect school teachers across the country to be informing our little ones that 'when they grow up they can marry a man or a woman.'   This is particularly destructive to girls, whose sexuality is more malleable; (look at how the pornography culture/entertainment industry has made lesbianism "cool," and how this has affected the behavior of young women.)
  
  I hope that those who are publicly fighting gay marriage will emphasize this particular issue.  If ordinary Americans knew what the radical gay lobby wanted to teach their children, there would be even more support for our side than there is now. 
  
  God bless!

• Chas 12 Aug

  IN DEFENSE OF THE MEANING OF WORDS.
  I see the legal point thus.  Marriage exists as a word that has for hundreds of years named a relationship between a man and a woman (or in some cases a man and several women).  It existed as a relationship so named, long before the legal system gained a foothold in regulating it.  No where does the US Constitution bestow a right to redefine words.  If it did, then (to use an inanimate illustration) a group could decide that society should have Green STOP signs and demand equal rights with red STOP signs.  Would society be better off then?  Words have a particular meaning.  That meaning may change over time ("gay", for example) but it does so gradually as it gains popular usage.  If the majority of people are not agreeable to altering STOP signs to include green as well as red because the color red has traditionally been a defining characteristic of a STOP sign, by what right does someone impose green STOP signs? When a majority of the population expresses a desire NOT to change the meaning of a word, then for the judicial system to rule otherwise or a legislative body to enact laws otherwise, is clearly imposing meaning in a tyrannical fashion.   If a corporation can create a logo and have legal protection regarding how it may be used, or a writer can have their work copyrighted so as to have some control over their words, why should the legislative and judicial systems not protect the meanings of words that the majority of society does not want changed?   A term other than marriage should be used to name a relationship between two adults of the same sex.  Otherwise, why not be all inclusive and just call all human adults women!

• Michael Stegman 12 Aug

  @ April Polley "All through the Bible, God defines marriage as between one man and one woman."
  
  No, that's not true, in fact, this type of comment borders on being a lie, because the evidence to the contrary is impossible to miss.
  
  Jacob had 2 wives and 2 concubines, and all 12 children were given a share of Canaan. 
  
  Exodus 21: 10 gives a commandment about how a man has to act after taking extra wives: "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights."
  
  Deuteronomy 21:15-17 add some helpful details: "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.  He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him."
  
  David had 6 wives, and 2 Samuel 12:18 includes these memorable lines, "I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more."  (NIV) Solomon had hundreds of wives, though that is probably a reflection of political alliances rather than marriage in the modern sense of the word.
  
  There's more, but those are the most important.
  
  You can make the argument that the New Testament changed all that, and that would be fine.  But don't lie about or try to cover up what's actually in the Bible.  It's a disturbing, bad habit.

• Ahab 12 Aug

  If any church or religious organization insists on attempting to use its money or influence to promote the destruction of civil rights in this country my suggestion is you hand over your tax exempt status.
  No one has a right to vote on the civil rights of other human beings as was done shamefully in the case of Prop 8.
  The depth of your ignorance of the law and the US Constitution is astounding.
  The ignorance and bigotry you promote will not win.

• JRL 12 Aug

  Inigo Montoya said it well, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-b7RmmMJeo">"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."</a>
  
  Consider using the word "homogamy".

• Kathleen 13 Aug

  Can someone answer a question for me?  If this was rule unconstitutional then why were the people of CA allowed to vote on this issue twice?   Seems kind of strange that you can get something on a state wide ballot and then to have this outcome.  Please advise
  thanks
  

• Rachel 13 Aug

  I have a couple of questions for Leslie.
  1.  When you said, "How a good Christian ever be filled with so much hate," what comments did you read that caused you to say that?  I didn't see any hate-filled commentary on any of the preceding comments.  Also, what is your definition of a "good Christian"?  A good Christian by definition is a follower of Christ who loves others to the point of helping them see their need for Christ b/c without Him they are separated from God because of SIN.  If you want a list of what God considers sin, you can find them all throughout scripture, both the old (see the 10 commandments for a start Exodus 20:1-17) and new testament (see, for just a few examples, Ephesians 4:2-3, 17-32, Colossians 3:12-14, and 1 Peter 5:5-9.  Christ did not want us to continue in sin.  He not only loved everyone, but also showed his love by calling them away from a life of sin.
  
  2. When you said, "God is more concerned with how we lead our lives," you are right on.  Which is the point I saw related to my first question above.  He wants us to lead a life devoted to pleasing Him and glorifying Him, which we cannot do apart from Him.  I guess my question here is, how long have you been a Christian and what is your life like now that you have asked Jesus to be your Savior?
  
  I pray for the "remnant" of true believers in our country.  We must continue to trust God and to show His love to others in our community.  A reminder of one biblical definition of love: "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." 1 John 4:10

• Christina B 13 Aug

  This is not a country under your church, it was started and is maintained by accepting and respecting all people and citizens. The "arguments" proposed here are ridiculous, purely personal assumption, and totally unbased in any constitutional grounding.
  @ Rev Babcock your "concerns" 1, 2, and 3 are 100% incorrect. Marriage is still defined between two consenting adults. I suggest you read the ruling before speaking on this subject. "Concern" #4 isn't a full idea/sentence. #5 & 6 are not related to this case or proposition. #s 7, 8, 9 are complete trash and only confirm your lack of education, ability to read and put together a real intelligent discourse.

• Warren Caulton 13 Aug

  I read the ruling by Justice Walker, and listened to the commentary of Chuck Colson who spoke of the ‘opportunity’ we have to create a public groundswell in opposition to same-sex marriage such that the Supreme Court will not affirm the Walker conclusion.

   

  I am firmly convinced that such a strategy will fail.  This Supreme Court is not, in character nor in practice, anything like the court of 1997.  As Christians we need to make a secular case for the marriage as the only logical course for the state to enforce.  In developing such a case we can not make appeals to God’s design, scriptural references, or the support of other religions.

   

  First we need to establish that just because the Bible, Koran, or Torah speak of an event, person, or physical process such discussion does not make that object one of a religious nature.  Take for example the mention of Egypt, or Rome, the description of harvest, of the moon and stars.  Each of these places, processes, or object is not religious.  Hence just because sacred texts refer to marriage as the union of a man and a woman, they speak in recognition of a physical fact.

   

  When the spaceships Voyager 1 and 2 were sent into space they carried a gold plated copper disc. One of the 116 images contained on that disc was that of a Man and a Woman with the representation of a fetus growing within her.   If one of the key descriptions of humanity is that of one man and one woman – representing the whole of humanity should not our definition of marriage reflect the same?  (http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/images/image032.gif)

   

  When our opponents speak of ‘fundamental rights’ (to marry), lets appeal to one the most fundamental rights, described in the First Amendment – various exceptions to free speech have been recognized including obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, etc.  So it stands to reason (and within law) that a fundamental right can be limited.

   

  Does the state have an interest in defining marriage in one form over another?  This key question was affirmed by Justice Walker but his conclusions were totally in error.  The state most definitely has a responsibility to define marriage.  But the definition must be one that is far less malleable than that of Justice Walker’s.  His definition citing need for stable relationships denied the very instability he would created by allowing same-sex unions.  If the union of two men provides a stable a nurturing environment for children or conversely a same-sex female house-hold, then by his own logic if two men are good, than two men and a woman would be better, or two-women and a man.  His definition has no foundation for limiting ‘marriage’ two to individuals.
  
  Take for example the ratification of the 19^th Amendment, “Early in 1919, the House of Representatives passed the 19th amendment by a vote of 304 to 90, and the Senate approved it 56 to 25. Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan were the first states to ratify it. On August 18, 1920, it appeared that Tennessee had ratified the amendment--the result of a change of vote by 24 year-old legislator Harry Burn at the insistence of his elderly mother”  (from the website: http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/woman-suffrage/ratification-tn.html)  What if this young representative had no mother? What if his experience in life pointed only to men and the needs of men what would have happened to the 19^th Amendment?  It is precisely the union of men and women, that has led to, though slowly, the march towards woman’s equality.  A man recognizes the limitations placed on his mother, or the effects of the glass ceiling in his daughter’s life.  These experiences with the opposite sex provide the foundation for the continued advancement in the status of women. Had the men in power had no experience with women and were insulated from them through generations (reflect on this? Is this possible?) of same-sex male relationships would they have a woman’s voice in thier ear, or the ability to see the pain thier mothers/wives and sisters felt at being excluded from the vote?

• Q T 14 Aug

  From the beginning, God created Adam and Eve for the purpose of procreation. God's ultimate wisdom has given us the path He wants us to take.  Whatever happened to Sodom & Gommorah should be a lesson for all generations.

• Karl Schneider 15 Aug

  I'm still waiting, after 60 years, for someone to produce a reason for me to believe in supernatural deities, and even more so why I should care what some human tells me it purportedly said about anything.
   

• willie smith 16 Aug

  i think we as christian need to start standing up more for what the bible say! not what the world say! every body have come out and is standing up for what they believe and so should the christian

• Raul 16 Aug

  The most relevant point in this article is the last one in the article:
  
  "Whether these marriages become legalized or not does not mean they have any validity within the Church or within a legal system of ethics and reason."  
  
  The fact of the matter is that gay marriage is going to be legalized whether we like it or not. What we must do is ensure that our kids retain our faith once they leave home. The fact is many to most kids abandon the faith once they live on their own. You can see the toll it has taken today in the advancement of the liberal agenda by a secular and faithless populace, high divorce rates and the increase in co-habitation among other malaises.
  
  Rather than spending money in courts and making the legal system rich, lets invest in our future and redirect those funds to give scholarships to any Christian family that needs it to send their kids to parochial or Christian Grade/High Schools. Influencing and setting curriculums at public schools is one of the key ways the liberal elite intends to rot our children's morals and warp their perception.
  
  We also need to recruit more people into the faith. If we can all bring someone new to church thats 500K new people in pews this year. Surely some will convert. 
  
  We need to stop dwelling on the eventualities and change the conversation to what we are going to do keep and grow the faith.
  
  
  

• GL Carpenter 17 Aug

   I am not articulate. I am just a very concerned mother, grandmother, Christian woman. I was born in El Central, California and raised mostly in N. California. I witnessed the murder of a 17 yo boy at the hands of a practicing homosexual attempting to rape him, while on the way to a church event. I spoke out about this murder later when California tried to pass added protections to homosexual teachers. They came after me and my family...they hurt me in ways I still cant wrap my mind around and still are hurting people in the manner as they hurt me. You can read my story at www.hope7.highpowersites.com For years after they attacked me I was silent about what they did and this murder, but not anymore! What I find as disturbing as the dark powers that seemingly hang over California is that Christian men, some pastors, and men of the church...I call infiltrates, they are condoning homosexuality. Now I think that a homosexual person is living a greivous sinful life, but its their choice, its wrong when the church condons this lifestyle and bends over backward to silence those who call it for what it is..SIN.. and its devasting to lives and to churches and to communites...and this is what is happening to America..America in my opinion is being seperated from God due to SIN and the complacency of main stream churches to not get politically involved is a serious crime against humanity, almost as devastating as what California perverts are doing. If you condon perversion then you are guilty of perversion...I for one will not be silent and I wont stop telling my story. I dont plan on having a website forever, but I do plan on speaking out every chance the Lord provides me. Im hoping against all odds that Israel, Jewish Godly men, will rise up and rebuke this dark spirit of homosexuality destroying lives, destroying families, destroying our country from the inside out. Im not sorry that I spoke out, Id do it again, evidence by doing so now, and no matter what these jerks do to silence us, they know the truth and they know that what they are doing is wrong and nothing, NOTHING, will work to absolve them from this gross oversight on their part. In other words they cant knowingly sin and hope that God will pardon it over and over again....wrong...The Bible warns that if a public charge is made about a injustice and men ignore it then they will be held accountable for every life lost due to their silence. Its a choice that once made is like sowing a seed and God will not be mocked that person will most assuredly reap what they have sown!

• Lisa 18 Aug

  @Karl: please check out some of the debates on youtube by William Lane Craig. As well, Lee Strobel's books are pretty well thought-out. There have been some incredible minds in our history, too, that had firm belief in the God of the Bible.
  God exists necessarily and is the great uncaused First Cause. Check out the cosmological argument, the argument from contingency, and the moral argument. I pray that you find the enlightenment and answers you're looking for and come to a saving faith before you die. It is never ever EVER too late, not even if it's your dying breath, to accept Jesus as your savior and believe He came and died for your sins.

• Charles Sproull 18 Aug

  What is so sad about homosexuals and their sympathizers is they don't realize how wonderful God's grace is. They look at the lists of human emotions and acts listed in the Bible (for example Rom 1:18-32 and 1 Cor 6:9-10)  that God hates and won't allow to pollute His pure realm of heaven, and they feel fear, hatred, anger and condemnation towards God and towards preachers (Some preachers may deserve hatred because they are ministers of hatred and condemnation, and not ministers of God's grace - Eph 4:15,26,29). And they hate moral laws that limit what they feel like doing, so they change definitions of words to legalize their sins. In their Bible studies they don't seem to notice the Scriptures that describe how much God loves to cleanse human hearts from those emotions so they can experience "life more abundantly" (longer, healthier, happier John 10:10b) on earth, and prepare to live with Him in eternity. 
  
  If we experience physical pain in our body and worry about it, a doctor can comfort us by saying he can heal it. Likewise, if something in the Bible is called "sin," and we happen to have that sin in our hearts and lives, we should rejoice because that is something God loves to deliver us from. 
  
  Homosexuality is a sin, and when they have courage and honesty to believe the gospel and trust God's new birth procedure outlined in John 3:5 and preached beginning on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38-42, they can be born again normal, and then they can enjoy a normal marriage relationships.
   
  Proof and objective evidence is in the Bible (Rom 1:16-17, 1 Cor 6:11) and in the transformed lives of people today who have trusted God's word. About 34 years ago God delivered me from those vile profane lusts that could have lead me into homosexuality, and filled my heart with His pure agape' love, joy, and holiness; and enabled me to become the faithful husband of one wife and father of 5 normal children (3 boys and 2 girls).

• Mya Benson 19 Aug

  In this day in age, everyone has a "right" but no one IS right. The very words "Gay" and "Marriage" doesn't even sound right together because they mean two drastically different things. It's almost like saying "I want to be both Christian and Muslim. And the Christians better accept my Muslim beliefs and vice versa." It's also like one has a certain set of standards while the other does not, but the other wants to force the one with a set of standards and beliefs to fit and accomodate his beliefs. I feel like our values and beliefs about marriage are being stolen or highjacked and being made into something it is not or wasn't meant to be. It's like a bratty child being given a pretty robe because she wants it, but since it's too big, she cuts it, ruining it in the process, so that she can wear it.
  
  

  It is also said in the bible that the devil is the author of confusion. In this day in age, if we can't even decide whether marriage is between a man or a woman, or whether illegals should be allowed into this country, then satan has certainly made a dent in our society. I am simply underlining the raw confusion here. I don't know why we are seeking to open a pandora's box when we can avoid it all together. And because of the nature of America, people will never be satisfied and will move on to the next so-called "right" they feel they're entitled too. I mean what's next, polygamy? America has changed so much, so fast, but not in a positive way morally or economically, which is why this once great nation continues to decline.
  
  @Raul: While I'm tempted to just give up and resort to our homes, kids, and churches, I think that we oughta be fighting on the legal, political, and cultural levels while at the same time keep up the faith with our kids and churches. 
  
  I fear that if we allow liberals to keep pushing and pushing at us, until we're in our own little corners of society, then we'll no doubt end up like Britain, where they're forcing priests now to marry homosexuals and before long the liberals will throw out Christmas in America.
  
  I think that if they're not giving up the fight then why should we give up the fight (even if "gay marriage" does become legalized.)  On the political level, one thing we need to do is clean house in California and other places.  We have a bunch of wealthy tyrants out here and across the nation.  We need to get most of these people out of positions of power and vote in more conservatives, moderates, and Christian democrats and republicans.
  
  But I get your point.  We're definately in the last days and with the last shred of morality we have left in this country-that being marriage as union of one man & one woman-being ripped from the fabric of this nation, the rights of both non-Christians and Christians slowly eroding, and with the love and obsession of demonic stuff such as wizards and vampires, satan is definately in the house.  And we see who he's targeting... Christians.  Nevertheless, the fight must continue.

• peter lambert 30 Aug

  I agree with several of the posters about the hate expressed on this site. I am a Christian and a minister. Other posters have commented using the old Sodom and Gomorrah bone, s&g was never about sexual practice it was judged for idolatry.
  You say on this site that you are interested in protecting the weak? Wow years of discrimination and persecution against the gay community doesn't lead to the definition of a persecuted and reviled minority? Think again.
  At the end of the day Christianity defines heterosexual marriage as the norm, because the bible says so, because it doesnt say gay marriage is ok you condemn it based on omission. Looking back through history many injustices have been perpetuated the same way.
  Jesus teaches us to love unconditionally and look to God for judgement, maybe we should spend more time letting God be God and less time trying to do his job for him. If you really look at the bible and read what it says re homosexuality and not read it to confirm your prejudices you will find that every instance where homosexuality is alluded to is in conjunction with idolatry, the homosexual act was a perversion because hetrosexuals performed the act. The bible says this is wrong it does not mention that homsexuality itself is wrong or sinful. Read Romans and Corinthians again which are the main proof texts against it.
  Also being an Australian prop 8 has no bearing on us here thank God, but I do think that the right wing christians whom you appear to represent would have used a favourable outcome on prop 8 to have gay union deemed illegal.
  Anyway thats it for me, God Bless you and teach you what mercy and justice really mean.

• nmsgfesl 31 Aug

  nmsgfesl

• someone hurt by this non-doctor 29 Oct

  dr. rudy babcock is not and never has been a doctor.  he currently resides in conneat ohio where the american psychological association has forbidden him to use the title of doctor