It has and still is my belief that the act of marriage is The First Covenant between God,man and woman. For human hands to try and bend that union to any other form is in direct contrast to God’s will and by allowing such to be done is un-God like and makes that first Covenant of God null and void and places the rules of marriage in the hands of man. Man indeed is incapable of guiding his own path. To allow such as is so called “Gay rights” to continue in our court system is a slap in the face of our creator.
I fear if we continue on this path of unrighteousness, we pull further and further away from God and with the knowledge that God is the same yesterday today and forever we must look at how He dealt with His people in the past when they pulled away from His concepts.
Finally, isn’t it clear to most people that the act of marriage is a privilege and not a right? Those who call themselves “gay” should study the three kinds of love laid out in the Bible. That being “Love if”, the story of Samson and the tragic result,”Love because” the story of King David and again the tragic results and “love regardless” the story of our Lord Jesus and the wonderful results it is still producing. It is true that not all men are to become married but that is not justification for abomination but rather dedication!

It has and still is my belief that the act of marriage is The First Covenant between God,man and woman.
That’s nice. The wonderful thing about America is that you’re free to live out your beliefs and engage in what you think is the first covenant with God and a woman. What this does not entitle you to do, however, is enforce your beliefs about what marriage is and is not on the rest of society.
For human hands to try and bend that union to any other form is in direct contrast to God’s will and by allowing such to be done is un-God like and makes that first Covenant of God null and void and places the rules of marriage in the hands of man. Man indeed is incapable of guiding his own path.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” -U.S. Constitution, Amendment I
“The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” -California Constitution, Article I
Where in those two statements do you find any space whatsoever for legally imposing your beliefs about marriage on others?
To allow such as is so called “Gay rights” to continue in our court system is a slap in the face of our creator.
Then the U.S. Constitution is a slap in the face of our creator, as it does not permit the establishment of religion. If our court system and legislatures were consistent on this, LGBT individuals would have equal marriage rights.
I fear if we continue on this path of unrighteousness, we pull further and further away from God and with the knowledge that God is the same yesterday today and forever we must look at how He dealt with His people in the past when they pulled away from His concepts.
Yep. God’s relationship with God’s people is exactly the same as it was five thousand years ago. That’s why God has punished America for not putting in place a theocratic system wherein the priesthood is fully supported by the state apparatus.
Finally, isn’t it clear to most people that the act of marriage is a privilege and not a right?
It doesn’t seem to be clear to the Supreme Court of the United States. From their decision in Loving v Virginia (where the Court “overruled the will of the people” in striking down laws prohibiting interracial marriage): “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
Those who call themselves “gay” should study the three kinds of love laid out in the Bible. That being “Love if”, the story of Samson and the tragic result,”Love because” the story of King David and again the tragic results and “love regardless” the story of our Lord Jesus and the wonderful results it is still producing.
I’m not 100% sure what you’re getting at here, or what relevance your interpretation of a religious text has on a matter of civil law in a secular state.
It is true that not all men are to become married but that is not justification for abomination but rather dedication!
First, please be gender-inclusive in your language. Using “men” as a catch-all term for “people” linguistically denigrates 52% of the human population, and is inappropriate in the contemporary setting.
Second, as with your other statement above, I’m not entirely sure what relevance your interpretation of a sectarian religious concept (“abomination”) has for what is primarily a question of secular civil law.

“Using “men” as a catch-all term for “people” linguistically denigrates 52% of the human population”
Maybe he’s only turned off by the idea of men hooking up You assume too much!

California voters voted for Prop 8 by 52%. This is the same percentage as those who voted for Obama across the nation, 52%. If you feel that the Supreme Court has the obligation to violate the will of the people in one matter, shouldn’t they also violate the will of the people in the other?
This is not something that the courts should take up. The people have spoken and every time the courts violate their voice, we lose one more liberty that we fought for over and over again. And if the Supreme court should rule against the people (again) maybe we should recall them. They are not to make law, but uphold it. I for one would have accepted the will of the people if it had gone the other way.
And to those who voted against prop 8, I say: Get over it! It is just a word. You still have all the rights of a heterosexual couple under California Law.

California voters voted for Prop 8 by 52%. This is the same percentage as those who voted for Obama across the nation, 52%. If you feel that the Supreme Court has the obligation to violate the will of the people in one matter, shouldn’t they also violate the will of the people in the other?
Those apples don’t look much like these oranges, do they.
One is an issue of a free and fair election held to determine a political leader. The other is an issue of human rights.
The Supreme Court overruled the will of a much larger majority when they overturned laws preventing interracial marriage in Loving v Virginia. Are you suggesting they shouldn’t have done so, and that to this day interracial marriage should be illegal in any state in which over 50% of citizens think interracial marriage is wrong?
This is not something that the courts should take up. The people have spoken and every time the courts violate their voice, we lose one more liberty that we fought for over and over again.
Who loses the liberty here? What “liberty” does anyone lose if the God-given equal rights of LGBT individuals are acknowledged by government? Neither you nor the rest of the antigay bigots have answered that question. Demonstrate, using actual and material evidence, that anyone will be harmed by acknowledging LGBT individuals’ civil rights.
And if the Supreme court should rule against the people (again) maybe we should recall them. They are not to make law, but uphold it.
You’re right. They shouldn’t make law, and they didn’t make law. What they did was apply one law passed by the people as a higher law – in this case, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted throughout the years by the various court systems – to another, lower law. Unless, of course, you’re suggesting that the 14th Amendment isn’t valid law…
And to those who voted against prop 8, I say: Get over it! It is just a word. You still have all the rights of a heterosexual couple under California Law.
Get over it??? Really? That is completely insensitive and offensive. 18,000 couples – couples who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together – are heartbroken because 52% of their fellow citizens have said, in no unequivocal terms, that they are not worthy of human rights, that they are subhuman. You and your fellow bigots have told the LGBT citizens of this country – citizens who pay taxes, who work hard every day, and who would fight and die for their country if the military wasn’t just as bigoted as many conservative “Christians” – that they do not deserve to be treated as equals under the law. And you have the unmitigated gall, after supporting so un-American and un-Christian a thing as removing a population’s civil rights, to tell them to “get over it”?
You need to repent immediately of your attitude. You need to turn around and start working to right the wrong you and your fellow bigots have supported.
“Separate but equal” is just as unacceptable for LGBT citizens as it was for African-American citizens. LGBT individuals are entitled as human beings to equality under the law. Anything less is un-American.

Dan Baumgardner,
You claim that “the act of marriage is The First Covenant between God,man and woman”. Notice how “government” isn’t mentioned in that sentence. That’s the point; in the Adam and Eve story, their marriage is between them and God. Their union is not sanctioned by any government, nor did it take place in a church, nor was it performed by a minister. In fact, there is no mention of the government sanctioning a marriage anywhere in the Bible.
Having the government sanction ANY marriage (gay or straight) is contrary to the original intent of marriage. The marriage is supposed to be between the two people involved and God (if they believe in God) and NO ONE ELSE. That’s why I believe that government-sanctioned marriage should be done away with. Government shouldn’t sanction same-sex or opposite-sex marriages. Instead, the government should grant civil unions to gay and straight couples alike. If these couples want to get “married”, they should go to the church/synagogue/mosque/temple of their choice to do so. Churches and other houses of worship, of course, should have the right to turn down any couple they don’t wish to join in marriage. The state should issue civil unions, the houses of worship should issue marriages. Ministers, pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams are NOT government officials.
This past July, my cousin married her longtime boyfriend at Lake Tahoe. It was a beautiful ceremony, and it was between the bride, the groom, the couple’s family and friends, and God (for all the believers). It is beyond me why Uncle Sam had to be there as well.

It seems the State has an interest in defining what marriage is. If it does not have to be limited to a man and a woman, there seems no logical end to the variations. Being gay is not the same as being black, hispanic, asian etc. One’s sexual preference does not equal one’s ethnic identity. Hopefully true minorities will see that gay rights are attacking their civil rights. I take particular offense to that analogy, as my daughter is Asian American, and someone’s homosexuality activity is not same as her racial make up.
Prop 8 was a defensive action against an attack on traditional marriage. To see the hate coming from the gay rights community after Californian’s had passed yet another affirmation of traditional marriage, is quite troubling.

Who has the power to define society anyway? Who has the right to mandate what is traditional? The answer is NO ONE. It’s been prescribed, designed as unalterable.
The definition of a family comes to us from the beginning of time: There is the in-laws( “mother and father”). There is the husband and wife. The two flesh (husband and wife) blend and make one flesh(offspring).
“A man shall leave his mother and father and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh.” Genesis 2:24
You may have the “right” to live in opposition to this definition. But your right to alter it has not been negotiable for the past thousands of years. Check with the “Lawmaker” if He’s open to amendments.

“Our intent is not to disturb churchgoers,”? They may need to disturb and upset some churchgoers, who seem to be plenty happy denying all these “others” their civil rights.
Mending fences and building bridges isn’t accomplished when there’s no perceived need for such labor.

It seems the State has an interest in defining what marriage is. If it does not have to be limited to a man and a woman, there seems no logical end to the variations.
Ahh, the old slippery-slope argument. How I missed you.
Being gay is not the same as being black, hispanic, asian etc. One’s sexual preference does not equal one’s ethnic identity.
That’s true. Nobody tells Hispanics or African-Americans to change their ethnicity or go to Hell. While white Christians have historically oppressed every ethnic group you name there, they’ve ended that to a greater or lesser extent (though they haven’t done much to address socioeconomic injustices and disparities caused by their engaging in said oppression). Yet supposed Christians still engage in hate toward LGBT individuals and try to use the coercive force of law to impose their religious beliefs on LGBT individuals. It is utterly shameful, and you need to repent immediately.
Hopefully true minorities will see that gay rights are attacking their civil rights.
Which civil rights are being attacked? Name one legally recognized civil right that “true minorities” (or really anyone) currently has that would be taken away by acknowledging the equal God-given rights of LGBT individuals. Just one. Put up or shut up.
Prop 8 was a defensive action against an attack on traditional marriage.
“Traditional” marriage? In the real “tradition” of marriage, women are nothing but property, to be bought and sold by men. In the real “tradition” of marriage, men can have multiple wives. Both of these practices are sanctioned by the Bible.
Moreover, if “traditional” marriage is a religiously-discriminatory practice, it should be under attack. Slavery was traditional, as was the ban on interracial marriage; I don’t see you clamoring that those be defended from “attack.”
To see the hate coming from the gay rights community after Californian’s had passed yet another affirmation of traditional marriage, is quite troubling.
The irony of this statement is utterly astounding. You support an amendment that is nothing but pure, undistilled hate for your fellow human beings – a declaration that they are not worthy of human rights, that they are subhuman – and then call the people whose rights you just stripped away “hateful” for complaining that you took away their rights?
You need to repent immediately of your attitude and start working to right the wrong you and your fellow bigots have done.

Who has the power to define society anyway?
Those who are a part of it. In this case, those who are a part of society decided that the Constitution of the United States, which has as one of its amendments a prohibition on the establishment of religion, and as another the requirement that all be treated equally under the law, as the highest law in the land, to which all other laws would be subject. Those who are a part of society also put in that Constitution the notion that the judicial system would have the power to decide how to interpret that Constitution.
Who has the right to mandate what is traditional?
Does it matter? Are we to give “tradition” veto power over what is right? If we had done so in the past, we would still have bans on interracial marriage, women wouldn’t have suffrage, we’d still have slavery, and we’d still be subjects of the English monarch. Thank goodness our ancestors had more courage than you apparently do in subjecting “tradition” to the notion of proper government.
The answer is NO ONE. It’s been prescribed, designed as unalterable.
If the definition of society is “designed as unalterable” and found in the Bible, then you must have an issue with the American Constitution as a whole, as the notion of a non-theocratic state without slavery and in which women have equal rights – to say nothing of all the other BCE norms that go unchallenged in the Bible – is not found there.
If the definition of marriage is “designed as unalterable” and found in the Bible, then you’re in favor of women as chattel, polygamy, and the taking of concubines, right? Those norms are all found in the Bible, with no apparent disapproval from God.
The definition of a family comes to us from the beginning of time: There is the in-laws( “mother and father”). There is the husband and wife. The two flesh (husband and wife) blend and make one flesh(offspring).
“A man shall leave his mother and father and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh.” Genesis 2:24
And in which section of the U.S. or California Constitution is that found? We’re talking about civil law here, not the Bible; in order to justify the stripping of rights from people, you’re going to have to present a compelling interest that is accessible to people of all religions, as both the U.S. and California Constitutions prohibit the establishment of religion.
You may have the “right” to live in opposition to this definition. But your right to alter it has not been negotiable for the past thousands of years. Check with the “Lawmaker” if He’s open to amendments.
So we should base our entire government on Biblical law? Tell me – are you currently wearing clothes made of multiple fabrics? Have you eaten shellfish recently? How about bacon? A cheeseburger? If you’re suggesting that all of our social rules should be based on the Bible, all those things and more should be banned.

JG,
You can dissect it any way you want but the core remains the same. The Creator, the Designer, the Author of the human body, is the one we appeal to. We cannot appeal to voters, California government, supreme court, etc. for the way the Creator created. You’re barking up the wrong tree. Even if you get all the laws passed your way and every right you could ever wish for was given to you by man, the reality is, the only sanction remains true and still stands: “..the Lord God made woman and brought her to the man.” Genesis 2:22
(This is not just for white Christian America. And it goes beyond the US constitution.)
Before you bring the shellfish argument to the table, read the textbook and get to know the Author first.

You can dissect it any way you want but the core remains the same. The Creator, the Designer, the Author of the human body, is the one we appeal to. We cannot appeal to voters, California government, supreme court, etc. for the way the Creator created. You’re barking up the wrong tree. Even if you get all the laws passed your way and every right you could ever wish for was given to you by man, the reality is, the only sanction remains true and still stands: “..the Lord God made woman and brought her to the man.” Genesis 2:22
Those are your opinions and your beliefs – not objective facts. Many people in this country believe differently than you. Why should you be able to impose your opinions and beliefs on everyone else? Where in the civil legal documents of this country do you find any justification for enshrining your sectarian view of the world into coercive law, and denying civil rights to those who believe differently from you?
(This is not just for white Christian America. And it goes beyond the US constitution.)
So you are suggesting that your interpretation of divine law trumps civil law. That’s fine; you’re free to your opinion. But don’t pretend that your opinion is compatible with American government, which at its highest level holds that you cannot establish your religion as the law of the land.
Before you bring the shellfish argument to the table, read the textbook and get to know the Author first.
There are several problems with this statement:
First, you presume that I am unfamiliar with Scripture or with God. I can assure you that as a Christian with a seminary degree, I am quite familiar with them. That I come to different conclusions from you on issues of legality and morality does not mean that I’m somehow less Christian than you, and for you to even insinuate to the contrary is incredibly inappropriate and offensive.
Second, you describe the Bible as a “textbook” – as if it is simply a book of objective propositional statements to be gleaned. The wonderful thing about the Bible is that it isn’t a textbook – it’s full of stories and narratives, often comes to ambivalent if not entirely contradictory conclusions, and presents an incredibly nuanced and complex story of God’s relationship with humans in a continually changing and incredibly complicated world. My tenth-grade Chemistry textbook doesn’t sit on my bookshelf here in my office, because I’m never going to need it again – I’ve learned all I can learn from it. But I continually refer back to the Bible because it teaches new things, it brings new ways of thinking, and sometimes it tells me exactly the opposite from what it told me even a few years ago. That’s its appeal. To reduce such a book to a mere “textbook” – as if it is to be gleaned for objective, absolute, knowable Truth and then discarded once everything has been learned – is a travesty of language.

JG,__First, I have enjoyed this thought-provoking dialogue. I am not offended. It’s unfortunate and clear that you feel offended. I only hope we are both benefiting from it somehow.__The word “textbook” was intentional as a direct response to the way you have mishandled Scripture. To say “polygamy and women are nothing but property, are practices sanctioned by the Bible,” is a total abandonment of Biblical teachings. Read the Pauline epistles for starters. To ask rhetorical questions on eating bacon/shellfish neglects the total picture of these abomination laws in the Levitical period in the history of the Hebrew culture. I acknowledge your strong background in the Old and New Testament, but where is the slightest sense of hermeneutics and biblical exegesis? You are, no question, on a higher level of standard/scrutiny for handling Scripture with caution. However, what is portrayed in your thoughts, simply put, are outrageous conclusions and irresponsible interpretation. __The Bible is, yes, anyone would agree with you, “complex.” But more importantly, and I would daresy, foremost, it is a book that was written to communicate specific truths that were meant to be clearly understood by the human heart/mind. __But obviously, this understanding doesn’t come easily, without rolling up the sleeves and digging. And my presumption is, you already know that. __

@JG,
Only problem is homosexuality is a sin specifically identified the Old and New Testaments. There is nothing hateful about calling someone is sin to repent, and that is what Christains are called to do, preach the Gospel. If we follow your logic then preaching the Gospel becomes an act of hate and violated the Politically Correct Dogma of tolerance at the expense of truth.

To say “polygamy and women are nothing but property, are practices sanctioned by the Bible,” is a total abandonment of Biblical teachings.
No it isn’t. What punishment did God issue Jacob for having two wives and two concubines? Where do you find any indication that God disapproved of that arrangement? In addition, given that the Bible references bride-prices on numerous occasions, particularly in the Torah which is given from God, how could you with a straight face claim that the Bible doesn’t approve of the notion of women as property (the bride-price isn’t paid to the bride but to her father)?
Let me propose an alternative reading: Those things, which we (rightly) find problematic today, represented God reacting to the contextual norms of the time by trying to make them a little more just – just as the extreme sexism of the Pauline Epistles, when read in terms of the more extreme sexism of the society of the time, is actually progressive in context. If we accept this as a hypothesis, must we also not admit the possibility that we are to react similarly to our own culture’s norms – to be on the leading edge of progress rather than the trailing one?
But all that is neither here nor there. One does not have to approve of LGBT individuals’ biological tendency to be attracted to persons of their own sex to recognize that in a pluralistic society in which no religious sect has a right to impose its beliefs on others, LGBT individuals deserve the right to marry any consenting adult they choose, regardless of gender.
Only problem is homosexuality is a sin specifically identified the Old and New Testaments. There is nothing hateful about calling someone is sin to repent, and that is what Christains are called to do, preach the Gospel.
The problem with that statement is that Prop 8 isn’t just “calling someone in sin to repent” – it’s codifying one interpretation of Christianity’s definition of acceptable romantic relationships into law. You have the right to free speech in calling on LGBT individuals to repent – though I’d problematize your characterizing it as “nothing hateful,” given the number of LGBT friends I have who feel hated by Christians and not without reason – but you don’t have the right to use the coercive force of law to pressure them to repent, and you don’t have the right to deny their equal civil right to marry. Your right to “call someone in sin to repent” does not extend to your being able to use the civil law of a secular state to do so.

JG,__-from one Christian to another-__I will try to cut to the chase by going back to the initial article above. “It’s very unfortunate and embarrassing that the (Christian religion) is in large part responsible for the act of bigotry,”.. the Reverend Ed Bacon.____Since when, Reverend, have Christians been expected to stand on the sidelines and allow society to be infiltrated with untruth under the guise of “equal civil right”? It can happen if Christians take the easy way out and fold like a cheap suit, choose to go into denial, or unknowingly stay ignorant of the true foundation of their faith. To be salt of the earth requires not losing the flavor salt was intended to have. To be the light of the earth is likened to a city on a hill that cannot be hid. When you light a candle, you set it up on a platform so that it can give light to all who are in the house. __It is in this context that compels a Christian to speak out in a given situation, even/especially when the situation is within the context of “civil law of a secular state.” This has nothing to do with hateful.__You are correct to say the Christian has no right to “pressure anyone to repent.” We need to keep in mind that we should not “think lightly of the riches of God’s kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance.” (Romans 2:4) It is on this that we all depend on, to bring any one of us to repentance. ____Just because polygamy is mentioned and described in the Bible, the reader cannot presume it is sanctioned and approved. The Christian must not fail to consider the historical context, genre, of a given word, phrase, sentence, book in Scripture. We would be utterly unfair to the text and unfortunately mistaken to succumb to understanding Scripture through the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than allowing the true meaning to stand. ____ ______

Since when, Reverend, have Christians been expected to stand on the sidelines and allow society to be infiltrated with untruth under the guise of “equal civil right”?
Question: Do you believe that Christianity is the only true religion? If so – isn’t the Constitution itself, which enshrines freedom of religion into the very fabric of our nation’s being, “allow[ing] society to be infiltrated with untruth under the guise of ‘equal civil right’”? If you believe other religions are not true, then by your own logic you should be calling for them to be banned in this nation.
It is in this context that compels a Christian to speak out in a given situation, even/especially when the situation is within the context of “civil law of a secular state.”
You’re free to speak out. Speak out until you’re hoarse. What you’re not free to do is to use the “civil law of a secular state” to enforce your viewpoints – which is what Proposition 8 is. Proposition 8 is an attempt to enforce one interpretation of one religion’s viewpoint on what constitutes a permissible romantic relationship onto everyone – whether they’re followers of that interpretation or not.
This has nothing to do with hateful.
Apparently we haven’t been watching the same “Christian” Right. If they’re not hateful toward LGBT individuals, I’d like to see how exactly you define hate.
My LGBT friends feel hated by Christians. This in itself should be a sign that Christians need to make some changes.
You are correct to say the Christian has no right to “pressure anyone to repent.” We need to keep in mind that we should not “think lightly of the riches of God’s kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance.” (Romans 2:4) It is on this that we all depend on, to bring any one of us to repentance.
I’m not sure what exactly you’re getting at here. What I was saying was even stronger than that Christians don’t have the right to pressure anyone to repent; what I was saying is that nobody has the right to codify their religious beliefs and their religious prohibitions into law. Call people to repentance to your heart’s content, but the moment you try to use the law to impose your religion’s values on someone else, you’re going to find me, and hundreds of thousands of other patriots, standing in your way. And we’re done being nice about it. Equal civil rights are not optional, particularly for those who await equality. They are an absolute necessity, and anyone who stands in the way of equal civil rights doesn’t understand what America means.
Just because polygamy is mentioned and described in the Bible, the reader cannot presume it is sanctioned and approved. The Christian must not fail to consider the historical context, genre, of a given word, phrase, sentence, book in Scripture.
Thank you for making my point for me. We must not fail to consider these things – and this is equally true for the New Testament as for the Old. This is equally true for the Epistles. To make the mistake of considering the Torah and the Prophets “contextual,” while not reading the Epistles in the same light, is incredibly problematic.
We would be utterly unfair to the text and unfortunately mistaken to succumb to understanding Scripture through the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than allowing the true meaning to stand.
First, you presume that there is a “true meaning” – that Scripture is meant to mean one thing to all people at all times. This is an error that predates the Enlightenment, but was strengthened significantly by Enlightenment thinking (and particularly the notion of epistemological certainty). You’ve already admitted that some parts of Scripture meant different things in different times, as you’ve successfully (and correctly) put Jacob’s polygamy and the Torah practice of women as chattel into context.
Why can’t the Bible say different things to different people in different times? Why can’t it be a source of stability in one time, and a source of revolution in another – and both be part of God’s plan? Why do you want to imprison your Bible within the logical walls of foundational epistemology?
Moreover, if one were to discern the “true meaning” of the Bible – why keep the book around at all? Why not just live with the fewer propositional statements of “true meaning” and dispense with all those messy narratives? In short – if there is a “true meaning,” wouldn’t that make the “true” systematic theology text more useful than the Scripture?
Second, you pretend that it’s possible to understand Scripture without the interpreter’s ideas or bias – as if there’s such a thing as an objective and absolute viewpoint. There isn’t. There is no person who can read the Bible without his or her own views coming into play. That’s part of being a human being – we cannot leave our experiences, our memories, our ideologies, our biases behind and evaluate anything on a strictly “objective” basis. It simply isn’t possible.

I have come to a conclusion that you deliberately choose to go against your intelligent judgement that one would have the gall to propose that one’s personal bias can be totally laid aside when trying to understand Scripture. Either you play ignorant or you do not take a point to its logical conclusion. I choose the the former because I really do believe you very well know the intricacies of biblical exegesis and the very fine line of distinction that can exist next to eisegesis. You are so privileged to hold a seminary degree. The fact that you are a Christian gives me ample freedom and trust to use scriptural passages in these posts. From your posts, it is now clear that you have no sympathy toward the stance a Christian is to take in matters that are crucial to the heart of the God you know. The defence of anti Prop 8 is fine, in fact, understandable, considering the source of supporters. The second it becomes wrong is when a Christian decides he is ok to support homosexuality through something like prop 8. Therein, lies the problem. A follower of Jesus holds to His claims, one being “the way, the truth, the life,” another being, “the same yesterday, today and forever”….and one who comes to the (miraculous) understanding that there are absolute truths from the beginning of time as set forth by God(and fulfilled through Christ, see Matt 13:35 where even Christ’s parables are directly out of truths that existed before Adam and Eve.)__We Christians also hold to a “right” to uphold God’s truths, and yes, without apology or “emabarrassment” as ironically termed by Rev Bacon.__Choose which camp you’re in. I will hold you to be consistent.

“Only problem is homosexuality is a sin specifically identified the Old and New Testaments.
Why is that a “problem”, Todd? I mean, in the sense that we are all “sinners”, no? If “sin” is a barrier to marriage, no one would be allowed to marry. But somehow, we allow thieves, liars, rapists, murderers, dishonorers of their parents, coveters, etc. to marry.
why are only the queer “sinners” not allowed to marry?
‘Splain me that.
Surely what “the Bible sez” (or doesn’t say) should be irrelevant to a country that “promises” freedom of religion to all of its citizens. My faith does not teach me that committed, loving relationships between consenting adults is a “sin”. Why should your religious tenets trump mine? Or those of any other faith than yours? Or those of people of NO faith?