California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

[ChristopherHall]

Get ready.

California ban on same-sex marriage struck downWASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a much-anticipated ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html

As gays are rewarded the civil right to marry we as Christians must re-affirm our commitment to biblical marriage between a man and a woman within our ranks.

How do you feel we should respond? Should we go "political" or should we engage through teaching? Or both? Will our political efforts undermine our message? Will it boost our message?

Now the issue is...will they try to "force" Churches who believe in traditional marriage to perform these unions?

[Jack Shephard]

Get ready.



As gays are rewarded the civil right to marry we as Christians must re-affirm our commitment to biblical marriage between a man and a woman within our ranks.

How do you feel we should respond? Should we go "political" or should we engage through teaching? Or both? Will our political efforts undermine our message? Will it boost our message?

Now the issue is...will they try to "force" Churches who believe in traditional marriage to perform these unions?

First of all I do not care if gays can or can't marry. I think it is a sin like anything else. The fact is it will be made legal whether it is today or a year down the road. I do not agree that gays do not have rights, they do because they are human. I do not think they SHOULD be able to be married, but I am not going to lose sleep over it. If we are to combat this like we do other sinful things then we need to keep doing what we are doing now. Speak out against it. No matter what we say people already have their minds made up. Either you are for it or against it. I am against drug usage, but I would not mind if the legalized it if they tax it out the wazoo. It would take the stigma away and you might find drug usage decline instead of increase. Look at the countries where it is legal drug related problems in those places are minimal compared to here.

I don't think that the government will 'make' the church do the unions. I think they will leave it as our choice. Which is fine with me. As long as the seperation between church and state stays the way it is then they can not make us. I am a different conservative. I think the seperation of church and state is needed. Just think if you have enough people that got a big enough push the government COULD MAKE us do things that are against our beliefs and morals. It would not be a good day if the non-christian side or the chrisitan side won out. There is NO way the country would be a better place if the non-christian side won and I do not think the country would be all that better if our side won out.

[DividedThigh]

homosexuals are just people with a sexual preferance they dont deserve any special treatment for that part of who they are, none, they are people just like all of us, the law should be blind in that area, in my humble opinion, they are not unique or special just different in there own way, i dont agree with there behavior and my bible teaches it is abominable, but legally they dont deserve any special treatment or minority status of any kind, dt

[ChristopherHall]

First of all I do not care if gays can or can't marry. I think it is a sin like anything else. The fact is it will be made legal whether it is today or a year down the road. I do not agree that gays do not have rights, they do because they are human. I do not think they SHOULD be able to be married, but I am not going to lose sleep over it. If we are to combat this like we do other sinful things then we need to keep doing what we are doing now. Speak out against it. No matter what we say people already have their minds made up. Either you are for it or against it. I am against drug usage, but I would not mind if the legalized it if they tax it out the wazoo. It would take the stigma away and you might find drug usage decline instead of increase. Look at the countries where it is legal drug related problems in those places are minimal compared to here.

I don't think that the government will 'make' the church do the unions. I think they will leave it as our choice. Which is fine with me. As long as the seperation between church and state stays the way it is then they can not make us. I am a different conservative. I think the seperation of church and state is needed. Just think if you have enough people that got a big enough push the government COULD MAKE us do things that are against our beliefs and morals. It would not be a good day if the non-christian side or the chrisitan side won out. There is NO way the country would be a better place if the non-christian side won and I do not think the country would be all that better if our side won out.

That was a very balanced answer. I feel very much the same. I believe our focus should be how we are to live as Christians…not so much controlling what others do. Why? Because no matter how hard we try we will never be able to control what others do or how others want to live. I believe our quiet, humble, clean living, will attract more people than loud rancor and public diatribe ever will. It goes back to, “as for me and my house…we will serve the Lord.” Sometimes our political crusades are distractions even if we mean well. We should praise God that we live in a free country…even if in our opinion it’s too free.

Freedom is sacred…even when free men are not.

We maintain the freedom to preach.

[Baron1710]

Get ready.



As gays are rewarded the civil right to marry we as Christians must re-affirm our commitment to biblical marriage between a man and a woman within our ranks.

How do you feel we should respond? Should we go "political" or should we engage through teaching? Or both? Will our political efforts undermine our message? Will it boost our message?

Now the issue is...will they try to "force" Churches who believe in traditional marriage to perform these unions?

They haven't been given the right to marry...they had the right all along just like everyone else, they were required to marry someone of the opposite sex. They were receiving equal treatment under the law, they had the same rights to marry as everyone else. So now I guess polygamy laws should be struck down so that polygamist have the right to marry. Wonder how long before we are allowed to "marry" our pets? If we throw out what marriage has meant all along it has no meaning at all.

[DividedThigh]

They haven't been given the right to marry...they had the right all along just like everyone else, they were required to marry someone of the opposite sex. They were receiving equal treatment under the law, they had the same rights to marry as everyone else. So now I guess polygamy laws should be struck down so that polygamist have the right to marry. Wonder how long before we are allowed to "marry" our pets? If we throw out what marriage has meant all along it has no meaning at all.

well said baron, that was my point, dt:blah:boxing

[Jack Shephard]

That was a very balanced answer. I feel very much the same. I believe our focus should be how we are to live as Christians…not so much controlling what others do. Why? Because no matter how hard we try we will never be able to control what others do or how others want to live. I believe our quiet, humble, clean living, will attract more people than loud rancor and public diatribe ever will. It goes back to, “as for me and my house…we will serve the Lord.” Sometimes our political crusades are distractions even if we mean well. We should praise God that we live in a free country…even if in our opinion it’s too free.

Freedom is sacred…even when free men are not.

We maintain the freedom to preach.

Thanks. I think that in the long run we will do more harm than help if we start screaming at the issues. What good does it do in a dissagreement when you start yelling people get more mad. Often times domestic disputes start off with a small arguement that excalte to other things. In witnessing is it affective to tear down the doctrine to person believes in order to lead them to truth? NOm infact it is counter productive. I had a fairly good acquaintace in college that was gay. She was actually batting for both teams. She knew that I did not agree with her lifestyle and she respected that I cared enough about her to pray for her. I never made it a confrontation and it never became one. But I assure you if I made it an issue then it would have been bad.

I agree with DT that there is no difference between them and us but the sin.

[ChristopherHall]

They haven't been given the right to marry...they had the right all along just like everyone else, they were required to marry someone of the opposite sex. They were receiving equal treatment under the law, they had the same rights to marry as everyone else.

I understand your logic, but it doesn’t cut the Constitutional mustard. For example let’s say that the government ruled that everyone had to be baptized Catholic if they wanted to become Christian. Well, you and I would cry that we want the right to be the kind of Christian we want to be and that our right to be a Christian was being violated. According to the above logic the government could say that we have equal rights, everyone is treated equally in the sense that everyone has to be Catholic. Funny thing is…this was done for centuries down through history. They saw it as being perfectly fair and just.

The issue with this particular subject is that you have two citizens arguing that they want to have the right to marry “whoever” they like period. Now the question becomes; does civil government have the right to tell people who they can or cannot marry? This was already visited in the Supreme Court, I believe it was in 1969 (Lovings vs. Virginia?). Here’s a little background. In America marriage had always been a “private” social contract. In a court of law all it took were creditable witnesses to affirm that a couple was “married”. The government had nothing on record nor did it issue licenses to get married. Often family Bibles were admissible in court because family marriage records were often recorded in the covers. Marriage was a private contract. But things changed in the 1920’s. States began to pass laws requiring marriage licenses in effort to prohibit mixed marriages. So we then see a wave of states passing laws requiring the state’s permission to marry by forcing people to get marriage licenses. So in a sense our marriage license system is the remnant of institutionalized racism. Anyway this was challenged (I think it was Lovings vs Virginia in 1969). Of course, there was the argument that the law wasn’t discriminatory because they were free to marry “within the limits of the law”, meaning they were free to marry, but only among their own race. The court ruled that constitutionally the government couldn't prohibit two citizens of different races from entering marriage.

So now the question is citizen A wants to marry citizen B. Does the government have the legal right to discriminate against them based on gender? We’ll affirmative action legislation and court rulings clearly state that the government cannot decimate based on race, religion, gender, etc. That there word, “gender”, becomes problematic. The government is only allowed to see them as citizen A and citizen B. Not as “man and woman” when it comes to civil rights.

So as you can see…it’s a complex issue. Like many things in our world, it’s sinful. The question is…do we do we place it under legal prohibition or criminalize it?

So now I guess polygamy laws should be struck down so that polygamist have the right to marry.

That may be next…but interestingly in early America polygamy wasn’t prohibited, it was just not recognized in a court of one’s peers where culturally it was rejected. So polygamists traveled west were they could found a culture that allowed for it.

Wonder how long before we are allowed to "marry" our pets?

I think that’s a leap…but if someone did request legal rights to marry their pet…they have deeper issues than “marrying their pet”. LOL

If we throw out what marriage has meant all along it has no meaning at all.

Yep, that’s what I told my wife. If they legalize gay marriage in Ohio my wife and I might as well get a divorce because our marriage doesn’t mean anything at all anymore. :lol

I can’t help it…the world will be the world. As a Christian I just live above the fray. ;)

[Baron1710]

I understand your logic, but it doesn’t cut the Constitutional mustard...

The issue with this particular subject is that you have two citizens arguing that they want to have the right to marry “whoever” they like period. Now the question becomes; does civil government have the right to tell people who they can or cannot marry? This was already visited in the Supreme Court, I believe it was in 1969 (Lovings vs. Virginia?).



First of all, California did not strike this down based on the US Constitution, but on the California Constitution. Your analogy being a religious one obviously crosses up with the First Amendment. The problem that you fail to see is they already had the right to a civil union in CA, the term marriage was reserved for unions between people of the opposite sex. This is an attempt to force other states that have DOMA to be forced into accepting same-sex marriages through full faith and credit.

YES!!! The state does have the right to restrict who you marry...

They have age restrictions.
You can't marry your kids, grandparents, cousins, etc.
You can't marry if you are already married.

[Baron1710]

CH - I don't have time to address your mistaken history of marriage in the United States tonight, but maybe this weekend I can help dispose you of those revisionist notions.

[ChristopherHall]

First of all, California did not strike this down based on the US Constitution, but on the California Constitution.

True, but this will go to the Supreme Court one day. So previous rulings are something to consider if you want a sense of what the SCOTUS might rule.

Your analogy being a religious one obviously crosses up with the First Amendment.

First Amendment or not, the logic was exemplified and even practiced under the Holy Roman Empire.

The problem that you fail to see is they already had the right to a civil union in CA, the term marriage was reserved for unions between people of the opposite sex.

I fail, you fail, she fails, he fails. Bro…I don’t “fail” to see. The issue between civil unions and all out marriage is similar to the “separate but not equal” issues we had decades ago. They don’t want to have a separate institution. They want to be “married”. The question becomes does the state have the right to mandate who we can or cannot marry? I don’t like it…but I think it’s obvious that in a free country like America the courts are going to rule in favor of individual liberties as opposed to restricting individual liberties.

This is an attempt to force other states that have DOMA to be forced into accepting same-sex marriages through full faith and credit.

The states will accept it anyway…besides, they already accept what they like. For me I’m only really concerned if they try to force religious bodies to modify our morals and/or practices. On a moral note…states recognize the remarriage of people who divorced through “no fault” divorce all the time. Biblically this is state sanctioned adultery…yet nobody says a thing.

YES!!! The state does have the right to restrict who you marry…

They have age restrictions.
You can't marry your kids, grandparents, cousins, etc.
You can't marry if you are already married.

I understand that. But these people will argue that they’re free citizens who are of age, unrelated, and unmarried.

I don’t know…I can’t control them and don’t care to waste the emotional energy trying. I can only preach and teach what the Bible says. God only recognizes the marriage between a man and a woman, regardless of what the state may say. In addition God only allows for divorce and remarriage in the event of adultery.

[ChristopherHall]

CH - I don't have time to address your mistaken history of marriage in the United States tonight, but maybe this weekend I can help dispose you of those revisionist notions.

Please do. I'll see if my Lexis ID still works. LOL

[DividedThigh]

CH - I don't have time to address your mistaken history of marriage in the United States tonight, but maybe this weekend I can help dispose you of those revisionist notions.

good luck baron, it is like talking to my 22 yr old son, he knows all, and we dont know nothing, till he needs something, bless you brother, my dad used to say it is like a preacher who preaches the word with no prayer, empty words, dt:blah

[ChristopherHall]

good luck baron, it is like talking to my 22 yr old son, he knows all, and we dont know nothing, till he needs something, bless you brother, my dad used to say it is like a preacher who preaches the word with no prayer, empty words, dt:blah

You'd say this about a brother who simply questions your political opinion. Jeesh bro.

I'm just being realistic. I don't see keeping these people and churches restricted from this too much longer. I'm not for it. I just don't see this as being something we can really address politically without a Marriage Amendment in the Constitution of every state or the United States Constitution. To make matters more complicated no one running for President would support such an amendment right now and the American people don't show much support for it either.

I think the only answer is preaching the gospel. No court, judge, or politician can hinder that. Politics can't address sin unless it endangers life, liberty, or property. And then there are stablished limits in those areas.

And I feel that we allow these things to disturb our peace. We'll never be able to control everyone. So I often pray....

The Serenity Prayer

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pat-hway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.

--Reinhold Niebuhr

[ChristopherHall]

The Republicans just want to use what we believe about abortion and gay marriage to get us to give them more money so they can do their best to keep power and protecting the interests of the corporate elite.

I just don't trust or believe them any more.

[Baron1710]

The Republicans just want to use what we believe about abortion and gay marriage to get us to give them more money so they can do their best to keep power and protecting the interests of the corporate elite.

I just don't trust or believe them any more.

Because Democrats who tell you they will kill they babies are so much better. Oh, wait they just give womean a "choice" they don't kill anyone.

[ChristopherHall]

Because Democrats who tell you they will kill they babies are so much better. Oh, wait they just give womean a "choice" they don't kill anyone.

I come from a pretty Democratic extended family. None of my relatives has ever had an abortion. None of my relatives has ever indicated that they would have an abortion. In fact most in my family, though they are Democrats, believe that life is sacred and that women should choose life. They break with Republicans because at the end of the day they believe that the government isn’t qualified to essentially seize a woman’s body and force her to give birth, so they feel “choice” is the best policy. Everyone of my relatives support measures to reduce the abortion rate by relieving women caught in poverty, abuse, and in the need of health insurance. Since I know these people and love these people I find it VERY insulting and small minded to claim that Democrats “kill babies”.

Let’s compare this to gun rights. Do gun companies kill people? Does the NRA kill people? Should we blame the RNC, IRA, or gun companies for the deaths of those killed by guns? No. People kill people. You can support the right to own a gun and not support using that weapon irresponsibly. Same with abortion, many Democrats support the idea that abortion should be strictly a woman’s choice…but they don’t support the idea of using that choice irresponsibly. For example I believe that abortion is ALWAYS wrong, even if a woman’s life is in danger. I personally believe that the woman should trust God and that she’s unjustified to kill a baby to merely to preserve her own life. A Godly woman will die before killing her baby. But while I believe that, I’d never advocate that the government should force women to have their babies even if their lives are in danger; that choice should belong to the woman after counsel from her husband, family, and pastor.

I saw a pastor “wimp out” while preaching about Christian worldview. He spent half his sermon blasting liberal worldviews and assailing on the sanctity of life. It really was a very passionate and powerful sermon that brought strong conviction. He called the political liberals of our nation “murderers” who will face the “wrath of God”. BUT he then he stopped and said, “I want to stop here. I want to tell any woman in this sanctuary who may have had an abortion that, in this place, you can have that sin forgiven and God can make all things new.” Um….hello?! If you or I had just mercilessly chose to KILL our children I highly doubt that pastor would soft peddle the issue! Here’s the deal, many women pay tithes. He’ll call political liberals murderers who deserve the wrath of God…but then pet and coddle a woman who may have chosen to MURDER her unborn child and suck it down a drain! I was disgusted!

Women who choose abortion are far more abominable in God’s eyes than any politician. I don’t believe women who have procured an abortion should serve in church leadership positions. I wouldn’t support ordaining a man who was divorced nor would I support granting a license to any woman who had procured an abortion. Here’s the issue I have with political “Christian Conservatives”…our love of life is too often restricted to the POLITICAL SPHERE and we’re too wimpy and limp wristed to enforce our life ethics IN THE CHURCH. I’ll be honest, I’m not even sure if a woman who has procured an abortion can be saved. Jesus said,

Matthew 18:1-6
{18:1} At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus,
saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
{18:2} And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him
in the midst of them, {18:3} And said, Verily I say unto
you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children,
ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. {18:4}
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little
child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. {18:5}
And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name
receiveth me. {18:6} But whoso shall offend one of these
little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a
millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were
drowned in the depth of the sea.

Friend, that makes abortion sound like a pretty SERIOUS sin. Even if a woman can receive forgiveness after an abortion I’m confident that she shouldn’t be permitted to serve in leadership nor should she ever be licensed. She’s a murderer. And I believe that though she might go to Heaven she will face STRONG judgment and rebuke before the Judgment Seat of Christ…. and she may even loose a significant measure of her eternal reward.

I once had a woman talk to me about her abortion. I was sickened. She cried and I prayed with her. But friend, I told her point blank that she has blood on her hands and that even if God forgives her she will face unbelievable sorrow for the sin she had committed.

Now tell me…would you agree with this? Or would you “soft ball” and wimp out with a woman who committed this sin and only use this as some cheap political ploy like most Republicans?!

[Baron1710]

I come from a pretty Democratic extended family. None of my relatives has ever had an abortion. None of my relatives has ever indicated that they would have an abortion. In fact most in my family, though they are Democrats, believe that life is sacred and that women should choose life. They break with Republicans because at the end of the day they believe that the government isn’t qualified to essentially seize a woman’s body and force her to give birth, so they feel “choice” is the best policy. Everyone of my relatives support measures to reduce the abortion rate by relieving women caught in poverty, abuse, and in the need of health insurance. Since I know these people and love these people I find it VERY insulting and small minded to claim that Democrats “kill babies”.

You call abortion murder and apparently see no place for a woman to be forgiven for having one yet you say that the government isn't qualified to force a woman to give birth. This doesn't even make sense. If that is your position than murder of any kind is beyond the governments qualifications to punish or prevent.

I saw a pastor “wimp out” while preaching about Christian worldview. He spent half his sermon blasting liberal worldviews and assailing on the sanctity of life. It really was a very passionate and powerful sermon that brought strong conviction. He called the political liberals of our nation “murderers” who will face the “wrath of God”. BUT he then he stopped and said, “I want to stop here. I want to tell any woman in this sanctuary who may have had an abortion that, in this place, you can have that sin forgiven and God can make all things new.” Um….hello?! If you or I had just mercilessly chose to KILL our children I highly doubt that pastor would soft peddle the issue! Here’s the deal, many women pay tithes. He’ll call political liberals murderers who deserve the wrath of God…but then pet and coddle a woman who may have chosen to MURDER her unborn child and suck it down a drain! I was disgusted!

Women who choose abortion are far more abominable in God’s eyes than any politician.


I don’t believe women who have procured an abortion should serve in church leadership positions. I wouldn’t support ordaining a man who was divorced nor would I support granting a license to any woman who had procured an abortion. Here’s the issue I have with political “Christian Conservatives”…our love of life is too often restricted to the POLITICAL SPHERE and we’re too wimpy and limp wristed to enforce our life ethics IN THE CHURCH. I’ll be honest, I’m not even sure if a woman who has procured an abortion can be saved.?!


Now tell me…would you agree with this? Or would you “soft ball” and wimp out with a woman who committed this sin and only use this as some cheap political ploy like most Republicans?!

What I find disgusting is this no mercy point of view. I guess the fact that Paul was complicit in the murder of Stephen hade him unfit to minister too? I do believe a woman can choose to terminate her pregnancy to preserve her own life. There are times this is necessary or both will die. I wouldn't let my wife and kid die in a fire simply because I could only save one. Sometime we do have to make choices about life and death.

What a weak god you must serve that he cannot forgive sins.

[ChristopherHall]

What I find disgusting is this no mercy point of view. I guess the fact that Paul was complicit in the murder of Stephen hade him unfit to minister too?
Rubbish. I do believe that even Paul faced a measure of great guilt for his murderous sin against the Church. In addition I do believe that Paul will face a measure of answering for his sins in eternity, just as we all will, though he didn’t loose his soul. Yes Paul was used of God. He largely evangelized. I don’t see Paul ever “pastoring” a church. Also abortion is far more heinous than anything Paul had ever done. A sin against a child is greater in moral implication than a sin against an adult. Jesus clearly indicated this with the parable of the millstone.
I do believe in mercy…but I don’t believe in greeaaasy grace. Some of you guys make it sound like all a murderous woman needs to do to be clean from the sin of abortion is vote Republican. Friend, she’s going to bare the guilt of her sin even after God has saved her soul. It’s a spiritual sowing and reaping. I’ve often told women that if they ever chose abortion they would forever regret it…even after God forgave them. This is an unconscionable sin before the throne of God.
My point is that we are using this issue as a political ploy and NOT preaching the spiritual and moral dimensions of it for the individual women who make this choice.
I do believe a woman can choose to terminate her pregnancy to preserve her own life. There are times this is necessary or both will die. I wouldn't let my wife and kid die in a fire simply because I could only save one. Sometime we do have to make choices about life and death.
Suddenly you’re pro-choice. What gives? When my wife was having Noah we talked long and hard about this…she couldn’t imagine living after killing her own baby to preserve her own life. I couldn’t imagine telling her that it would be ok to kill a baby to save her life. But…I did ultimately express to her that the choice is hers and I will love her and pray with her if she is faced with that choice.
We’re talking moral right and wrong in spite of legality. First, I think it demonstrates a weakness of faith and lack of trust in God. Second, I think it’s an issue to be settled by individual women.
But this underscores how complex this issue is. I don’t believe abortion is ever morally right. Though I don’t believe it should be banned or restricted in every sense. The choice to commit such an act is best left in the hands of individual women such as your wife and my wife.
Now, back to what provoked this thought….
You insinuated that Democrats are baby killers.
This illustrates something…we’d berate and insult anyone who dares to feel it best to vote Democratic, calling the Democrats “baby killers” and such…but then we go gooey and talk mercy, mercy, mercy, toward the very women who have chosen to have an abortion. I can have much sympathy for a woman who chose an abortion to save her life…even though I still feel it was a moral wrong. But I have a hard time having sympathy for a woman who abused her right to choose by having an elective abortion for birth control purposes.
Why does the sanctity of life only matter in the voting booth? Why doesn’t it matter when dealing with the murderers who actually choose abortion? Could it be because we’re too weak kneed to confront potential tithers with the truth about their sin?
I don’t know why abortion matters more in our politics than it does in our pews. That’s one reason why I think that many Republicans only want to use the issue to get votes….they really don’t value life. Not to mention that once elected the Republicans do virtually NOTHING about it.
So if a Democrat will address poverty and the issues that cause women to choose abortion to reduce the abortion rate, why not support them? Both Democratic candidates voiced the need to reduce the abortion rate in our nation. Belgium has the lowest abortion rate in the world…yet abortion is legal in Belgium. Republicans only offer to make abortion illegal…they don’t care a bit about the abortion rate itself. Only Democrats have a plan to reduce abortion like they have in Belgium. Of course since their policies are not steeped in pro-life and religious language most have no idea about these policies. For example the “95-10 Initiative”, it’s a DEMOCRATIC initiative to reduce the abortion America’s rate 95% in 10 years…but virtually no Pro-Life Republican voter has even heard of it. In fact, Republicans in Congress have resisted the various efforts to pass elements of this legislation.
If abortion is murder in the voting both…it’s murder in the pews.

[Baron1710]

Rubbish. I do believe that even Paul faced a measure of great guilt for his murderous sin against the Church. In addition I do believe that Paul will face a measure of answering for his sins in eternity, just as we all will, though he didn’t loose his soul. Yes Paul was used of God. He largely evangelized. I don’t see Paul ever “pastoring” a church. Also abortion is far more heinous than anything Paul had ever done. A sin against a child is greater in moral implication than a sin against an adult. Jesus clearly indicated this with the parable of the millstone.
I do believe in mercy…but I don’t believe in greeaaasy grace. Some of you guys make it sound like all a murderous woman needs to do to be clean from the sin of abortion is vote Republican. Friend, she’s going to bare the guilt of her sin even after God has saved her soul. It’s a spiritual sowing and reaping. I’ve often told women that if they ever chose abortion they would forever regret it…even after God forgave them. This is an unconscionable sin before the throne of God.
My point is that we are using this issue as a political ploy and NOT preaching the spiritual and moral dimensions of it for the individual women who make this choice.

You know nothing about forgiveness. The fact that people regret their past mistakes has nothing to do with God punishing them after they have repented. So Paul the church planter never pastored?

[ChristopherHall]

You know nothing about forgiveness. The fact that people regret their past mistakes has nothing to do with God punishing them after they have repented. So Paul the church planter never pastored?

Bro...you'd call Democrats baby killers and say nothing about women who actually choose to kill. In other words you're life ethics sound merely political. Your life ethics seem like they are only a ploy to garner Republican votes it has nothing to do with "orthopraxy" or right practice in the church. If you can so easily forgive women who actually choose to murder their babies...why heap guilt and call Democrats, who never chose to abort, baby killers? Is that forgiving?

For the record, most who vote Democratic do so based on economy, jobs, and health care. Very few vote Democratic because they support abortion.

You and I both believe in forgiveness. I differ from you in that I believe there is a hefty price to pay for sins committed even after forgiven.

I do not see Paul settling and pastoring a church. He evanglized and planted churches and kept moving.

[SOUNWORTHY]

For the record, most who vote Democratic do so based on economy, jobs, and health care. Very few vote Democratic because they support abortion.

Sorry to say, too many Americans are a selfish, self centered lot. They will vote anything into office if they think it will benefit them personally and the government will provide more benefits to make them comfortable regardless of the immorality that may abound. I for one am concerned and even afraid for the direction we are headed. Some will even vote for an unknown just because he promises change. The Jew's wanted change in the old testament and they got it and so did the Germans. Change is not always good.

The government may not force our churches to perform a marriage ceremony for two gays but what is going to happen if these gays start suing our pastors because they refuse, can our churches afford that ? The ACLU would be more than happy to see every God fearing church in our nation closed. As far as the church becoming political(it has always been,) if we don't do all we can to defend our rights who will, not the ACLU ?

The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing ...

[Baron1710]

Bro...you'd call Democrats baby killers and say nothing about women who actually choose to kill. In other words you're life ethics sound merely political. Your life ethics seem like they are only a ploy to garner Republican votes it has nothing to do with "orthopraxy" or right practice in the church. If you can so easily forgive women who actually choose to murder their babies...why heap guilt and call Democrats, who never chose to abort, baby killers? Is that forgiving?

For the record, most who vote Democratic do so based on economy, jobs, and health care. Very few vote Democratic because they support abortion.

You and I both believe in forgiveness. I differ from you in that I believe there is a hefty price to pay for sins committed even after forgiven.

I do not see Paul settling and pastoring a church. He evanglized and planted churches and kept moving.

I too believe there is a hefty price for sin, and Jesus paid with His blood and He wrote Paid in Full.

[Antipas]

Sorry to say, too many Americans are a selfish, self centered lot. They will vote anything into office if they think it will benefit them personally and the government will provide more benefits to make them comfortable regardless of the immorality that may abound. I for one am concerned and even afraid for the direction we are headed. Some will even vote for an unknown just because he promises change. The Jew's wanted change in the old testament and they got it and so did the Germans. Change is not always good.

The government may not force our churches to perform a marriage ceremony for two gays but what is going to happen if these gays start suing our pastors because they refuse, can our churches afford that ? The ACLU would be more than happy to see every God fearing church in our nation closed. As far as the church becoming political(it has always been,) if we don't do all we can to defend our rights who will, not the ACLU ?

The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing ...

Men fail to realize that God will triumph regardless of what good or bad men do.

[Antipas]

The more I thought about the post below the more I felt it necessary to address some of the points made. God bless all.

Sorry to say, too many Americans are a selfish, self centered lot. They will vote anything into office if they think it will benefit them personally and the government will provide more benefits to make them comfortable regardless of the immorality that may abound.

I think it’s inappropriate to call Americans “selfish” and “self centered”. So far the primary concern among Americans domestically are jobs and health insurance. It’s not “selfish” or “self centered” to want a job that can sustain you and your family. Nor is it “selfish” or “self centered” to want your family covered with affordable health insurance. In today’s world medical expenses are so great any respectable husband and/or father would feel it their responsibility to have health insurance. I wouldn’t think much of a man who didn’t care if he had a job to earn a living to care for his family or didn’t care if his family was covered with health insurance should one of them become ill. So I think your first statement is an outrageous and accusatory distortion.

Immorality is an issue of the human heart and soul. Mankind is a fallen creature….even those who appear most righteous are brazenly immoral before a Holy God. Your statement also assumes that it is government’s role to neglect economic and social stability to police morality. I find that problematic. Government is entirely incapable of governing morality. That’s why our founders stated that our constitution is incapable of governing an immoral people and stressed the importance of private and individual Christian faith as a necessity for a civil society.

I for one am concerned and even afraid for the direction we are headed. Some will even vote for an unknown just because he promises change. The Jew's wanted change in the old testament and they got it and so did the Germans. Change is not always good.

True, change is not always good. However, this underscores the degree of desire for change. A black man named Obama may actually become President of the US. That means the American people must be sincerely fed up with Republican arrogance and corruption. I wouldn’t blame the American people…I blame the Republicans who have abused their offices so badly that the American people will vote for anything promising change. Put the responsibility where it belongs.

The government may not force our churches to perform a marriage ceremony for two gays but what is going to happen if these gays start suing our pastors because they refuse, can our churches afford that ? The ACLU would be more than happy to see every God fearing church in our nation closed. As far as the church becoming political(it has always been,) if we don't do all we can to defend our rights who will, not the ACLU ?

I see a problem with this line of logic. You’re stating that we should restrict the liberty of another to live as they choose and to have equal rights to marry whosoever they choose because you don’t want to take a stand? Don’t you understand that if our liberties are attacked we have an authentic case to fight for those liberties? Right now we’re rallying to try to restrict the liberties of others. We are a free nation. America has nearly always granted more freedom as opposed to restricting freedoms. So let’s face it, they will get the right to marry. We have to be prepared to defend our rights if they challenge those. That is a legitimate battle. There is a good chance that nothing will come of it. Never has a church been forced to perform a wedding because churches set their private standards of sacrament. Some churches require counseling and a couple has to meet the requirements for that counseling. A requirement that we’ll have to be sure to continue is that the couple be comprised of one man and one woman. And we dig in and stand for that truth. Right now we’re seen as standing against the liberties of others.

The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing ...

And we must preach the truth and live according to the Gospel. We cannot make it our mission to politically force others to live as we would like them to live.

[SOUNWORTHY]

A true Apostolic can not vote for Obama, not because he is black but because he is an ultra liberal. I didn't say all Americans are selfish and self centered, I said too many are. They think of themselves above the morality of the nation. Some of them have had the government supporting them for generations.

[SOUNWORTHY]

[QUOTE=Antipas;468025]



Never has a church been forced to perform a wedding because churches set their private standards of sacrament. Some churches require counseling and a couple has to meet the requirements for that counseling. A requirement that we’ll have to be sure to continue is that the couple be comprised of one man and one woman. And we dig in and stand for that truth. Right now we’re seen as standing against the liberties of others.



QUOTE]

Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches
h/t Transfigurations

Simply changing the definition of marriage opens the door to a flood of lawsuits against dissenting religious institutions based on state public accommodation and employment laws that prohibit marital status and sexual orientation discrimination.

Additionally, religious institutions that refuse to recognize a new state-imposed definition could be stripped of access to government programs, have their tax exemption denied and even lose the ability to solemnize civil marriages.

We need only look at Massachusetts for a preview of what to expect. There, in 2004, justices of the peace who refused to solemnize same-sex unions due to religious objections were summarily fired.

It did not matter that other justices of the peace were available to do the job because, by Massachusetts law, same-sex unions were now entitled to equal treatment. A religious belief became a firing offense.

It is but a small step for the state to impose this rationale on churches and other houses of worship and end legal recognition of religious marriage ceremonies that do not comply with the state’s expanded definition of marriage.

This is not the only example of what is to come. Massachusetts, like many other states, strictly regulates private adoption agencies through licensing.

Historically, this has not posed any difficulties for religious institutions, but Massachusetts now demands that all licensed adoption agencies be willing to place children with legally married same-sex couples.

AnglicanXn: The “but clergy have a right to refuse to marry anyone they don’t want to marry” line is a very thin line of defence. Point of comparison: in an “employment at will” state, the employer has the right to terminate anyone without any reason. But, despite that, the employer does NOT have the right to terminate all African-American employees.

So, just as clergy have the right not to marry anyone they choose not to, they will NOT have the right to make a blanket decision not to marry homosexual couples without risking the charge of discrimination.

For those who are dubious, just look to the example in Canada. Connect the dots:
1) Homosexuals are entitled to be married.
2) Clergy derive their right to marry from the state, and are state actors in solemnizing marriage.
3) Anti-discrimination laws prohobit discrimination based on “sexual orientation.”

Right there, you have clergy exposed to legal charges for refusing to marry homosexual couples. But most governments will, for now, carve out a religious conscience clause (as was supposedly done in Canada). Even the liberals did not dispute that, absent a conscience clause, clergy would be liable for not performing homosexual marriages. But how long will that religious conscience clause last?

You know that the homosexual activists will work to eliminate the clause as soon as they think they will be able to do so. Additionally, churches which accept homosexual marriage work to undermine the religious conscience clause, especially for clergy in that denomination.

Ask yourself this - if the Anglican Church of Canada officially endorses homosexual marriage, how can an individual Anglican priest in a hierarchical denomination, claim a religious conscientious objection to homosexual marriage? You’ve got to know that the human rights tribunals (stacked with those of an intolerant liberal POV) will simply declare that there is no valid relgious objection and that the individual clergy is simply discriminatory.

This is a very real risk, and one that we need to pay very close attention to.

[Grasshopper]

[QUOTE=Antipas;468025]



Never has a church been forced to perform a wedding because churches set their private standards of sacrament. Some churches require counseling and a couple has to meet the requirements for that counseling. A requirement that we’ll have to be sure to continue is that the couple be comprised of one man and one woman. And we dig in and stand for that truth. Right now we’re seen as standing against the liberties of others.



QUOTE]

Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches
h/t Transfigurations

Simply changing the definition of marriage opens the door to a flood of lawsuits against dissenting religious institutions based on state public accommodation and employment laws that prohibit marital status and sexual orientation discrimination.

Additionally, religious institutions that refuse to recognize a new state-imposed definition could be stripped of access to government programs, have their tax exemption denied and even lose the ability to solemnize civil marriages.

We need only look at Massachusetts for a preview of what to expect. There, in 2004, justices of the peace who refused to solemnize same-sex unions due to religious objections were summarily fired.

It did not matter that other justices of the peace were available to do the job because, by Massachusetts law, same-sex unions were now entitled to equal treatment. A religious belief became a firing offense.

It is but a small step for the state to impose this rationale on churches and other houses of worship and end legal recognition of religious marriage ceremonies that do not comply with the state’s expanded definition of marriage.

This is not the only example of what is to come. Massachusetts, like many other states, strictly regulates private adoption agencies through licensing.

Historically, this has not posed any difficulties for religious institutions, but Massachusetts now demands that all licensed adoption agencies be willing to place children with legally married same-sex couples.

AnglicanXn: The “but clergy have a right to refuse to marry anyone they don’t want to marry” line is a very thin line of defence. Point of comparison: in an “employment at will” state, the employer has the right to terminate anyone without any reason. But, despite that, the employer does NOT have the right to terminate all African-American employees.

So, just as clergy have the right not to marry anyone they choose not to, they will NOT have the right to make a blanket decision not to marry homosexual couples without risking the charge of discrimination.

For those who are dubious, just look to the example in Canada. Connect the dots:
1) Homosexuals are entitled to be married.
2) Clergy derive their right to marry from the state, and are state actors in solemnizing marriage.
3) Anti-discrimination laws prohobit discrimination based on “sexual orientation.”

Right there, you have clergy exposed to legal charges for refusing to marry homosexual couples. But most governments will, for now, carve out a religious conscience clause (as was supposedly done in Canada). Even the liberals did not dispute that, absent a conscience clause, clergy would be liable for not performing homosexual marriages. But how long will that religious conscience clause last?

You know that the homosexual activists will work to eliminate the clause as soon as they think they will be able to do so. Additionally, churches which accept homosexual marriage work to undermine the religious conscience clause, especially for clergy in that denomination.

Ask yourself this - if the Anglican Church of Canada officially endorses homosexual marriage, how can an individual Anglican priest in a hierarchical denomination, claim a religious conscientious objection to homosexual marriage? You’ve got to know that the human rights tribunals (stacked with those of an intolerant liberal POV) will simply declare that there is no valid relgious objection and that the individual clergy is simply discriminatory.

This is a very real risk, and one that we need to pay very close attention to.

The individual who wrote this article obviously doesn't know that Canada doesn't have an equivalent to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Therefore there are no protections for free speech or religion in the Canadian legal system like we have in our Constitution. Even courts in Canada have noted this provision of the US Constitution that would even protect "hate speech" according to the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment.

Please review:

Does Canada have an equivalent to the First Amendment?

No. Although many Canadians are aware of the United States First Amendment, the Canadian approach to freedom of expression issues is different.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Jurisprudence of the United States’ courts, including the Supreme Court, severely restricts any state action to suppress free expression, including hate speech or propaganda. For example, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-7675.ZS.html, the Supreme Court of the United States found that a municipal law prohibiting the burning of a cross was an impermissible restriction on the First Amendment.

Gay rights activists would have to fight for an Amendment to the US Constitution to justify suing churches based on their religious convictions.

[SOUNWORTHY]

Think again!!

[Grasshopper]

Think again!!

If gays tried to force anything upon churches...it would be war. And we would wage the greatest civil rights movement for religious liberty this world has ever seen...and that my friend would be a real battle worth fighting and winning as opposed to trying to use government to try to control others. It would be game day and it would finish the issue. I'm no coward, I believe God would show himself victorious (remember we're not in this battle alone). I say bring it on.