Prop 8 overruled by gay judge!

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I disagree this is the power of the States to regulate not the federal government.

Agreed. Like Ron Paul, less government involvement the better anyway.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

I say make a constitional amendment to permantly ban gay marriage.

Several states (Ohio is one of them) define marriage as one man and one woman.

An amendment to the U.S. constitution has been proposed with similar wording. It did not pass our federal legislature based on the premise that individual states should define marriage, not the federal government.

[geekette]

Originally Posted by Sam

Several states (Ohio is one of them) define marriage as one man and one woman.

An amendment to the U.S. constitution has been proposed with similar wording. It did not pass our federal legislature based on the premise that individual states should define marriage, not the federal government.

Yes, and it is for this reason that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was recently struck down as an unconstitutional infringement on states' rights.

[Hoovie]

This case brings yet more fodder for a Nov. Revolution!

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

This case brings yet more fodder for a Nov. Revolution!

I believe you are speaking of a revolution at the ballot box?

It is one thing for a State to say they want to sanction gay marriage it is another thing for a lone judge to declare that Gays have a constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex. The reality is they are free to marry, they just can't marry someone of the same sex.

When do judges get to toss the age of consent for marriage? They have already done this in some states with abortion, by giving a judge the right to sign off on a minor receiving an abortion without the consent of the parents.

[mfblume]

One thing is for sure, the enemy of our souls is wise and cunning and has a way of getting God's people to indirectly condone sodomy and bring the wrath of God on a nation.

Jud 1:7 KJV Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Just saying.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mfblume

One thing is for sure, the enemy of our souls is wise and cunning and has a way of getting God's people to indirectly condone sodomy and bring the wrath of God on a nation.

Jud 1:7 KJV Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Just saying.

I don't think anyone on this thread has "condoned" sodomy on a faith level.

I just find it interesting when we demand godly behaviors of unbelievers. Lot's instructions to save the city weren't "make 10 men quit having gay sex." It was "find me 10 righteous men" or men that were serving the Lord.

Some believers have a personal opinion that we must seek to legislate as few morals as possible, and usually it is only those that harms or exploits another without consent. As a Libertarian, I'd also lean that way. In this instance, finding legal liberty for someone to live a life of sodomy is not the same as condone the sin.

Just sayin.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Socialite

I don't think anyone on this thread has "condoned" sodomy on a faith level.

I just find it interesting when we demand godly behaviors of unbelievers. Lot's instructions to save the city weren't "make 10 men quit having gay sex." It was "find me 10 righteous men" or men that were serving the Lord.

Some believers have a personal opinion that we must seek to legislate as few morals as possible, and usually it is only those that harms or exploits another without consent. As a Libertarian, I'd also lean that way. In this instance, finding legal liberty for someone to live a life of sodomy is not the same as condone the sin.

Just sayin.

So it is wrong on a faith level, but we should not vote against it as Christians? We should not use our rights to vote and vote NO to gay marriage? The only conclusion is to vote YES for gay marriage. See where this leads?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mfblume

So it is wrong on a faith level, but we should not vote against it as Christians? We should not use our rights to vote and vote NO to gay marriage? The only conclusion is to vote YES for gay marriage. See where this leads?

Let's see, should we vote for modesty and come up with a way to define that? Vote for no indecent programming on the internet or television? Vote for outlawing fornication? Vote for making adultery a capital offense? Vote for the stoning of alcoholics and drug addicts? How far should we go with this?

I'm saying, not all brothers and sisters view the role of government the same. Marriage belonging to the State was our first problem. Some brothers and sisters see government in a way that should be limited, less infringing on personal liberties, etc. Some like the idea of more government. Some brothers and sisters have a socialist utopia in their vision for the ideal government.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Let's see, should we vote for modesty and come up with a way to define that?

Hmm... I never considered modesty on the level with non-homosexuality before. Sorta think there's a vast difference in degree of evil, don't you think? I mean, did God ever destroy a nation due to immodesty?

Vote for no indecent programming on the internet or television? Vote for outlawing fornication? Vote for making adultery a capital offense? Vote for the stoning of alcoholics and drug addicts? How far should we go with this?

That is not the reasoning to take. The reasoning is that, of all things, homosexuality brought a judgment on a kingdom.

And you never answered my question. Are we to vote YES to homosexuality?

The fact is that sometimes Christians ought to use their rights to influence a kingdom. Paul had to minister for the Lord, and was in danger of being hindered. He relied on his Roman citizenhsip to avoid that.

Act 22:24-29 KJV The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him. (25) And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? (26) When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman. (27) Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. (28) And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. (29) Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.

We have rights, and we ought to use them for the sake of God's kingdom.

Banning homosexual marriage is not the same as banning immodesty. People can do what they want without having a law passed to marry homosexuals.