Wow….I didn’t vote for Prop 8, but you really seem to be pounding down the cool aid on the campaign retoretic here. For the gay community to declare their position a civil rights issue, and then start scratching their heads when everyone didn’t jump on board really screams that they did a poor job selling their cause. I’ve read commentary from gay writers acknowleding that the organic defination of marriage tend to lend itself toward being that between a man and a woman. Now, if calmer heads had prevailed the simple solution would be to establish a base defination of marriage at the civil level, and take ministers out of the equation all together. That would then free up couple to choose to have a sipititual union at their house of worship of choice. Instead, we end up with windbags on both sides of the arguement pounding their chests and defending undefendable positions. How is this progress?
Phil

Phil suggested, “Now, if calmer heads had prevailed the simple solution would be to establish a base defination [sp]of marriage at the civil level, and take ministers out of the equation all together.”
I could not agree more. Living in San Diego, I saw the ads, the street corner signs, and had people knock on my door telling me that unless Prop 8 passed, churches could lose their tax status for not marrying same-sex couples. This huge lie makes me want to scream. How could people claiming to be religious put out such non-sense. But the route of fear and terror was the road chosen by the Yes on 8 campaign; unfortunately it still works.
California said that same-sex couples should be treated fairly and equally in access to marriage. But some churches have imposed their religious perspective on the rest of us by deceiving voters into thinking they were protecting children and churches. No church was REQUIRED to perform any marriage ceremony, but that is not what the Yes on 8 campaign said. Churches were free to restrict marriage to their members, or only male-female couples, or any other way they choose. But now that Prop 8 passed, my church, which performed same-sex couple marriages, can no longer do so. That is the loss of our religious freedom.
If a church has $40,000,000 (approximately the amount of money spent to take away the right of marriage by the Yes on 8 campaign) then spend it on families suffering from this economic downturn, fund spouse abuse programs, teach money management skills, care for orphans or the people who have lost their homes. These are the things Jesus called on us to do. Jesus did not call upon us to impose our religious beliefs on others by writing them into law. After all, you can’t legislate morality but you can inspire others to live it by being an example for them to follow.
Please remember that one of the temptations Satan offered Jesus in the wilderness was an earthly kingdom – Resist temptation!

Both sides were more then willing to tell lies in the campaign. My son, who goes to public schools, is already being programmed that orientation is as much a civil rights issue as skin color. I have friends and family members of color, and to a person, they all tend to take exception to this position. It’s not much of a stretch to see that because these texts already discuss interracial marriage that gay marriage isn’t to far behind.
I can completely understand why Christian reacted the way they (we, I guess, as I am one as well) did. I turn on the TV, and see Mayor Newsom sneering into the camera, “we’re coming like it or not”, or Senator Feinstein lecturing the ignorant masses was almost enough to make me change my mind. Gays are the first to admit that individuals can choose to engage in same sex sex, and not be gay, just horny. They are not being denied the vote, the right to assemble, to live together. They have the same problems that non-married hetero couples have, in that the state does not recognize common law arrangements. Choosing to ram this through the courts, as opposed to engaging the negative image, was a huge public relations mistake, in my opinion.
My marriage does not lose value if gays gain the right to marry, and they will. Likewise, my relationship with God is between him and me. Everyone is accountable to him for their own actions, and no other. If I cannot pray a non-believer into heaven, I cannot expect to call the wrath of God down on someone, either. I can personally accept that my faith teaches that homosexuality is a sin, but still recognize that under the law they should have equal representation. Both sides need to recognize that the points of views of each side need to be respected, even if they don’t agree. Once that happens the issue can be resolved, but the rhetoric really needs to be set aside as a positive first step.
Phil

Phil, I wish it were as simple as you make it out. We do not live in isolation and we forget what we are passing on to our children. Within a generation, our young people may barely remember what heterosexual marriage even looks like. Check out these articles about a Canadian court ruling that has allowed 3 parents to be listed on a child’s birth certificate.
http://www.canadianjusticereviewboard.ca/article-Ontario_court_strokes_same_sex_debate.htm

==My marriage does not lose value if gays gain the right to marry…==
They already may.
Any man, heterosexual, or those claiming to be homosexual, may marry women, those who are heterosexual, or those claiming to be homosexual. The definition of “marriage” says that a man may marry a woman. They may be heterosexual, or one, or both, may claim to be homosexual.

==…my relationship with God is between him and me.==
Christians know that this is true, in part.
Those who are born again know that it is the brotherly love business of the entire body of Christ to help others in Christ. When a brother backslides, it is the brotherly love business of others who are born again to help the LORD bring him back through counseling in the Word.

bonnie, i’m not sure what a marriage is supposed to “look” like?? however, your concern should be your marriage, mine should be mine and someone who is gay, or not, that should be their concern, not yours, not the churches and not the government. for the life of me i can’t understand where people get the nerve to think they have the right to enforce their morals/values/practices/beliefs on everyone else, unless of course they are christians, then i understand because that is part of their dna. if it weren’t for christians, none of us would know how to go to the bathroom. additionally, what i pass on to my children is my business, not yours or your fantasy god. my children are being raised with love, kindness, values, morals and being taught good health, how to be good to all people, including gay, all colors, and all religions. though i am an atheist, they attend church every weekend and bible school all year (and worship in church, where it belongs, not school). i can’t imagine any theist having a mind open enough to do what i do with my children because they simply cannot let people think for themselves.

==i can’t imagine any theist having a mind open enough to do what i do with my children because they simply cannot let people think for themselves. ==
That’s the easiest PR, anyway.

CORRECTION
That’s the easiest PR, anyway >>> That’s the atheist PR, anyway

From Merriam-Webster:
(1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as
husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship
recognized by law.
(2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a
relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
Once again Mr. Uncredible is proved to be wrong. this guy is wrong about everything, lies about everything and doesn’t seem to really know anything. He’s as easy to refute as a lying eight year old. In fact I think he may be one.

Phil,
“Gays are the first to admit that individuals can choose to engage in same sex sex, and not be gay”
That is a fallacy. Gay people are attracted to the same sex whether or not they act on the attraction. They are still gay.
And as for your race comparison, both orientation and race are innate, immutable characteristics, whether your black friends like it or not. Perhaps they’be been taught differently (often by their Church), but that still doesn’t make it true.
“in that the state does not recognize common law arrangements”
Actually, Phil, the State of California does recognize them. They’re called “domestic partnerships” in that State, and they’re not limited to gay couples. Nice try though.
“my faith teaches that homosexuality is a sin”
So? My faith teaches otherwise. Why do your tenets trump mine in a land that ‘promises’ freedom of religion.
Besides, stealing, adultery, bearing false witness (ahem!), and heck, even murder – they are all “sins”, but since when is “sin” a barrier to marriage? Thieves, adulterers, liars, even murderers are ‘allowed’ to marry. Why pick out this one particular “sin”?
Now you’ve got me very curious.
You say we should respect each others opinions and beliefs and POVs but I see no respect for God’s gay and lesbian children or our POVs in much of the dialogue here.

To Husband:
==Besides, stealing, adultery, bearing false witness (ahem!), and heck, even murder – they are all “sins”, but since when is “sin” a barrier to marriage? Thieves, adulterers, liars, even murderers are ‘allowed’ to marry. Why pick out this one particular “sin”?==
People with homosexual orientation ARE allowed to marry. They still need to respect the rules, not being close relatives, having a certaing age, and of course, that marriage is between a man and a woman. At least according to the California State Constitution.

Mr. Lynn,
If marriage is to be considered a natural right as you say, then why do we even need government permission to engage in it? A license is required to be married, right? Is a license nothing more than permission by the government to do something which you would ordinarily have no right to do?

Husband,
“And as for your race comparison, both orientation and race are innate, immutable characteristics, whether your black friends like it or not. Perhaps they’be been taught differently (often by their Church), but that still doesn’t make it true.”
There is an inherent fallacy in your argument here. Whether or not one accepts the premise that people who are gay were born that way, homosexuality is a behavior. A person who is born black has no choice about the blackness of their skin. There is no choice involved as to being black. A person who IS homosexual and does not act upon their homosexuality is not necessarily known as a homosexual. A black person need not “act” upon their blackness in order to be seen as black.
This is all aside from the mere fact that homosexual behavior (notice my wording there) is a sin according God’s word. It is no different than any other sin, mind you. But it IS sin. The very fact that we are ALL born into the Adamic nature (the sin nature), doesn’t make one person’s expression of that sin nature any more or any less sinful than the next person. That sin needs to be dealt with the same way as any other sin.
As for the notion that since other sinners are not restricted from marrying, that homosexuals should not be either. Well, that’s just ludicrous. You want the sin to be dealt with by allowing that person unfettering access to committing that sin? OMG, are you serious?

TomWins,
You are absolutely ignorant about law if you think that morality cannot and is not legislated. If our legislatures did not create laws concerning morality than things like suicide, drug abuse, prostitution and pedophilia would all be legal; the government would never pass a law telling you or me or the fellow down the street that its a crime to drive a motorcycle without a helmet or what speed we can drive our cars; nor would they ever be capable of establishing ethics rules or regulate any number of behaviors.
You also have little clue about what Jesus would want us to do. The very Lord whom you correctly indicate wants us to care for the widows and orphans (in the book of James) also said that those who do such wondrous things would still be cast away from His kingdom…why? because He never knew them (Matt. 25). You see, as much as Jesus cares about helping the sick and feeding the hungry, He is more concerned about the eternal souls of people. And a person living in unrepentant sin is in dire straits with or without a full stomach or nice warm clothes on their back.

John Manuola,
Amen Brother!!

“You’re a group of Christian-based, conservative organizations with several million dollars to spend. Do you: feed the hungry? Clothe the poor? Don’t be so naive! You blow the millions on a series of slickly- worded, logic-bending ads espousing a widely-discredited theory that one can be “cured” of homosexuality through counseling and prayer.” – Mad Magazine, a 1995 issue.

It is far-fetched, to say the least, to propose that Chuck Colson and Pastor Warren’s Biblically correct view against homosexual marriage “led others to acts of violence”. The hearts of the malefactors of these ruthless murders were sick. No one got inside their bodies and orchestrated these despicable acts. It was their OWN FAULT; so don’t go pointing fingers at the aforementioned folks because they weren’t found guilty anymore than pro-lifers as a whole are guilty in the death of abortion doctor George Tiller (despite what the Dept. of Homeland Security wants you to think).