Your great grandmother’s problem with getting married bedause she was Jewish, was similar to a practice in this country in another way.
In colonial Virginia–perhaps elsewhere as well–good Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Presbyterians could not get legally married either. All legal marriages had to be performed by an Anglican priest or Anglican Christians.
Interesting that many protesting same-sex marriage today could not have been leagally married then in Virginia.

Rev’d. Haffner, you can add to your list Norway, Belgium and South Africa.
Whatever did happen to the right to the pursuit of happiness in America, anyway?
Likewise to the right to liberty (as in the freedom to marry, since so many think marriage is not a “right”)?
Or to equal treatment before the law? (Whither the Equal Protections Clause?)
Or to the Full Faith & Credit Clause? (Why doesn’t it apply to gay American citizens?)

Marriage should be allowed for all adults, no matter what the gender combination…M/F, M/M, F/F. As mentioned above, “where there is love, the sacred is in our midst.”

“I believe in marriage equality because I believe that sexual and gender diversity is part of God’s blessing to us — because I believe we are all God’s children — because I believe in the inherent dignity and worth of all people, and that all of us should have the same civil rights.”
What you believe is not important. What God believes is. Can you show us from the Bible where God grants His blessing on homosexual behavior? Under pain of death/damnation of our eternal souls, should we follow 7000 years of historical and Biblical tradition? Or should we go with your current feelings of how you think God ought believe? Until you can show me differently, I think I’ll err on the side of accepting God’s word at face value.

While you may be right that same sex marriage is moral, and that it SHOULD be legally recognized by the state, you offer no reason why the California court should overturn the decision of the people.
Further, while the decision of the California people may have been wrong, it was legally legitimate. In America, the people have a right to be wrong provided they follow the proper procedures in being wrong.
Courts don’t decide on the morality or holiness of a law or constitutional ammendment, only whether it violates the constitution (and Prop 8 doesn’t), contradicts other laws, was decided via illegal procedure, etc. The grounds are limited. You don’t offer any reason why the judges should overturn Prop 8.
Don’t ask these California judges to be the Roy Moores of the left: moral busybodies who don’t understand their role.

What you believe is not important. What God believes is.
No, what God believes is completely unimportant, where the law is concerned. The First Amendment makes it quite clear that no religion will be established by law; to make law based on what one sect of one religion thinks God wants is a rather clear violation of this principle. From a legal standpoint, the denial to LGBT citizens of their equal rights under the law is absolutely indefensible.
Oh, and God isn’t as clear on this as you like to think. Our understandings of homosexuality and sexual orientation are completely different from those found in ancient Israel or first-century Palestine.
Can you show us from the Bible where God grants His blessing on homosexual behavior?
Can you show us from the Bible where God grants God’s blessing on the airplane? If you’re restricting the category of “things that aren’t sinful” only to those things explicitly approved in the Bible, you’re going to have to make a lot of changes in your life… for starters, you’re not going to be able to type a reply, since the Bible doesn’t mention keyboards or computers.
Until you can show me differently, I think I’ll err on the side of accepting God’s word at face value.
Until you show me where in the U.S. or California Constitution the input of God’s word is sought, I think I’ll err on the side of supporting the Constitutional disestablishment of religion.

you offer no reason why the California court should overturn the decision of the people.
The “decision of the people” isn’t sacrosanct in a Constitutional republic; it is limited by an absolute respect for the rights of others. A majority shouldn’t be allowed to vote to strip rights away from a minority.
Further, while the decision of the California people may have been wrong, it was legally legitimate.
That’s actually being debated. There are serious questions as to whether a slim 4% majority can actually make a major change to the state’s Constitution, such that the equal rights clauses in that document are rendered moot.
In America, the people have a right to be wrong provided they follow the proper procedures in being wrong.
Sometimes they do; other times, they don’t. When the Supreme Court decided to strike down interracial marriage bans in Loving v Virginia, the will of the people was very clearly against them. Most white people then thought people of different ethnicities should be legally barred from marrying one another. But the principle of equal rights under the law trumped “the people’s right to be wrong” in this case, and thank goodness it did.
Quite frankly, I’d rather LGBT marriage never come up for a vote. I think the courts should impose it nationwide, because it’s a crystal-clear matter of equal rights. To put LGBT marriage up for a vote is to suggest that the rights of LGBT individuals are not rights at all, but privileges granted by the majority which can be taken away by the majority at any time. Our Constitution, our principles, and our consciences demand that LGBT individuals be granted equal rights simply on the basis of their being human beings–not that they should have to convince a majority of the people that they deserve them.

If we were going use the Bible for an excuse to NOT give all American citizens equal marriage rights, then we’d still have slavery in this country as well as laws saying those of different races couldn’t marry. EQUAL RIGHTS apply to American citizens INCLUDES same gender marriages. Those who don’t want same gender marriages….don’t have to marry somone of the same gender! How simple is that??

>Can you show us from the Bible where God grants His blessing on
>homosexual behavior?
Try this URL for starters.
There’s plenty of evidence in the Bible of clearly same sex relationships that have survived all attempts by biased translators to eradicate them.

Many thanks to Rev. Haffner for this beautiful and inspiring post. If your religion prohibits gay marriage, don’t have one. The Constitutional protections for freedom of religion will never interfere in the right of any religion to prohibit marriage on whatever basis they wish. But there are more than 100 legal rights that only attach through marriage from the right to make medical decisions to the right to health and pension benefits. The Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection should give anyone the right to marry whomever God has inspired them to love.
Opponents of gay marriage are on the wrong side of history and their names will be as shameful in history as that of Lester Maddox and George Lincoln Rockwell are today. As Rev. Haffner said, the GLBT community is part of God’s blessing. They are our brothers and sisters and their love and devotion should be celebrated.

The posters above who argue for the repeal of Prop 8 have made some beautiful and moving statements supporting Rev Haffners essay. Thank you so much. I’m pleased to see so many intelligent posters here on Beliefnet.

What disgusting and sac-religious article. God only blesses those nations that honor Him and His laws. The Bible clearly teaches that homosexual acts are a sin, and marriage is for a man and a woman.

While many of the Judeo/X-tian faiths will point out Sodom & Gomorrah’s fate because of it’s multitude of sins, people seem to think that homosexuality was the main sin. I think it was the pedophilia and other non-consensual activities which was the last straw for their demise. I don’t think the whole citizenry were perverts. I kinda suspect that corruption and other ethically-challenged people were there, which made the whole townships punishable. However, one must ask why didn’t God think the children were worth saving? All the sex would’ve made a few of them. Was that his mercy in action?
My real question to the Gay X-tian is this, how can you be christian when the Bible says “let not men lie with men for unnatural purposes…”? Is that blackened out with a magic marker so no one can see it?
In all actuality I don’t have anything against any form of homosexuality. Really. In fact, I actually feel that God allows it now. We’re in a transition to when God puts an end to wars, allow man’s sciences to conquer diseases, and live longer lives, there must be some population control mechanisms. As long as there is man’s existence in flesh, there will be lust and sex drive and the need to have children for our legacy, or that simple expression of love. Homosexuality could be that means. It’s lust redirected, and less desire to produce children.
But of course Gays should think about this: if God’s new prophet continue with the message that homosexuality is still bad, you’re screwed. Because the next prophet’s coming could come at a time when mankind is ready to control lust, greed and violence, and a new philosophy will come with those personal abstinences and we have a more civilized world.

I am a Christian minister. I believe marriage is holy and sacred. Prop 8 is disgraceful. Not because I endorse same sex marriage, but because there never should have been a need for it to begin with. Marriage should be between a man and a women. It never should have been allowed any other way. God bless!

I am a Christian minister. I believe marriage is holy and sacred.
I agree with you. However, the words “holy” and “sacred” have absolutely no place in our laws, which respect no holiness or sanctity. The First Amendment to the Constitution as well as the California State Constitution are quite clear on this. The “sanctity” of marriage–which is a bit laughable given the absurdity of Britney Spears being allowed to marry some guy for 50 hours in Vegas–has absolutely no place in our discussion of laws.
Please restrict your arguments against the legality of same-sex marriage to non-religious arguments, as those are the only ones that should have any place in a discussion of laws. American law does not ask for the input of God, nor privilege the input of those who claim to speak for God.
Marriage should be between a man and a women. It never should have been allowed any other way.
Should not have been allowed? On what basis?
Again, allow me to restate what I wrote above: My ideal outcome would be if the Supreme Court required that each and every state and locality recognize same-sex unions as full marriages, regardless of the will of the people. LGBT individuals shouldn’t have to beg for their rights, or convince a majority they’re deserving of them; these rights should simply be recognized on the basis of our common humanity. The objections of religious bigots mourning the all-too-slow decline of the patriarchy should have absolutely no sway in this situation.
It’s a clear choice: Are you for equal rights or against them? If you’re for equal rights, you’ll support full and universal marriage rights for LGBT individuals – not separate-but-equal civil unions, not domestic partnerships, not marriages that are recognized in one state but not in another. Anything less than that is a denial of the dignity and humanity of LGBT individuals.

So some people want to deny others the right to marry. fair enough, each to their own opinion. But to those who do think gays should not be allowed to marry, What about yourselves? what gave you the opinion that your marriage is any more valid than ours, from a religious standpoint? i mean, the case against gay marriage in civil law? there isnt one, neither legal, nor moral. Legal: All are entitled to equal treatment before the law, as defined in the american constition. Any ammendment to block gay marriage would be void as it prevents the equal treatment before the law part. The moral argument? there isn’t anything there either. The anti-gay movement has done nothing but lie through its teeth to get its point across. a few of their leaders have even resorted to slander. Lets get a couple of things straight here. If the anti-gay-marriage folk were really that concerned about “sin”, they would not have got into this argument in the first place, as there is nowhere for them to turn, except for lying (a sin) and slandering (also a sin). Many have gone as far as to blatantly bear false witness (SIN!). If the anti-gay conservatives were so against SIN, why the hell did they let satan into their midst by their own actions? Why follow an anti-gay group when it is so satanic in its own nature?
And just what exactly is wrong with gay marriage anyhow? Surely two people wanting to commit to each other and be there for each other through thick and thin is nothing short of a GOOD thing, reguardless of the genders involved.

I am gay and married and God talks to us every day. He loves us and intended this be our life. Nothing else can trump that, no words, no printed page, no opinion, no attitude. God is here present, daily, in my gay marriage. Sorry. Everything else is false. God loves you too, even if you hate me. Your disapproval only ties you longer to the Earth, and delays your time in freedom. Good luck!

All I have to say is that the supporters of Prop 8 speak of sin and speak of wrong doings. Well, honestly, if they are preaching these things, then they only have to go as far as looking in the mirror to see that they are exactly what they are preaching. They are all the things that they use to describe same sex marriage. Honestly, people, times have changed and same sex marriage will become a reality. Why? Because it is your God’s higher will to have equality for all. This includes same sex couples. Power to the gays!

RB,
“you offer no reason why the California court should overturn the decision of the people.”
The reason is very simple: it’s their job. The court is there to ensure the constitutionality of laws, to protect minorities from the will of the majority.
Tell us, RB, what other rights can be taken away from what other groups of people by the ‘decision of the people”? Please give us the complete list.
If the Lovings were still alive, I bet under your scenario, they’d be scared that their right to marry would be taken away too.
“while the decision of the California people may have been wrong, it was legally legitimate”
Actually, it wasn’t (though I’m glad to see even you admit the ‘decision may have been wrong’ – it was. It takes a 2/3 majority inn the Legislature to change the Constitution, not a mere majority in a voter plebiscite. Even their approach to reversing the CASC decisiion was illegitimate.
“Courts don’t decide on the morality or holiness of a law or constitutional ammendment, only whether it violates the constitution (and Prop 8 doesn’t), contradicts other laws, was decided via illegal procedure, etc. The grounds are limited. You don’t offer any reason why the judges should overturn Prop 8.”
Apparently you do understand the actual role of the court. Too bad you refuse to apply it in this case. But, as I said, you are incorrect; Prop 8 most clearly does violate the Constitution. Please read their decisionn from almost a year ago, particularly the part about “protected classes”, and the part about equal treatment before the law. Repeating your claim about us not offering any reason why the judges should overturn Prop 8 doesn’t make it any closer to the truth. Speaking of “moral busybodies”!

Scub,
“What you believe is not important. What God believes is.”
Not according to the Constitution it isn’t. Beside, what your “God” believes is, apparently, different than what otheres’ God believes. Why should your religious beleifs trump theirs?
“Can you show us from the Bible where God grants His blessing on homosexual behavior?”
God didn’t have much to say about Jonathan and David’s dalliances. Jesus said not one recorded word about the topic. Why should you?
“Under pain of death/damnation of our eternal souls, should we follow 7000 years of historical and Biblical tradition?”
Well, according to most RRR “Christian” “Biblical tradition”, the world is only 6,000 years old, so your sense of imposed ‘history’ is wanting.
“Until you can show me differently, I think I’ll err on the side of accepting God’s word at face value.”
You are free to do so. But I beleive in freedom of religion, so I’m hard pressed to understand why I should be forced to abide by the tenets ofyour religion.

BabaSai,
“My real question to the Gay X-tian is this, how can you be christian when the Bible says “let not men lie with men for unnatural purposes…”? Is that blackened out with a magic marker so no one can see it?”
I’d like to know which version of the Bible says that.
Besides, for homosexuals, homosexual sex is ntural. Perhaps you were ‘tinking’ (and I use that term loosely) about not lieing with mankind as with a woman. But again, homosexual men do not lie with woman in any fashion. Perhaps that warning was to heterosexual men who get their kicks having gay sex because the wife won’t … After all, heterosexual men are the ones who actually do lie with women.
And of course, you post misses the subsequent admonition that eating shellfish is likewise “an abomination”. It’s called selective Biblical literalism, and we’ve had way too much of it from fundigelicals.

I don’t believe in same sex marriage. I just feel like if God wanted two men together he would have put Adam and Steve on the Earth in the beginning. I won’t discriminate against any gays. God says Love thy Brother and thats what I intend to do.
But who really knows what God wants. I hold no hatred I just don’t think Gay marriage is right. I cannot support it. I beleive that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Real: “But who really knows what God wants.”
Exactly….and if your god created all things, and humans, who’s to say that those homosexuals he/she created aren’t supposed to do just what heterosexuals do…commit to another person for life? That act really doesn’t have any effect on any heterosexuals lives.

What kind of people are you in here? Robert Van Antwerp is the best example of what Homosexual America is dealing with. This douchecommet professes to be a man of god and love, yet points out that he is a man of a god, proves he is an idoit BIGOT then defends it with a “god bless,” as if he actually thinks that saying he believes in a god gives him the ability to tell anyone else how to live their life! Unbelieveable!! I have a question for all adults who believe in a magical sky man who flys and looks like some white guy’s grandfather:
Because your religion says you will only be able to reach the zenith of your existence on the proviso of your death, if I can guarantee there is a fast track for you to get to this heaven in the sky you speak of-WILL YOU PLEASE EXERCISE YOUR “GOD GIVEN FREE WILL” AND TAKE THAT OPTION ASAP SO THE PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET WHO ARE INTERESTED IN TEH PROGRESS OF HUMANITY’S FUTURE CAN REMOVE A HUGE HUMAN IMPEDIMENT?

“Husband”,
So you believe that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Okay, fair enough. I suspect the court will disagree (while not invalidating the SS marriages performed so far), but my main point was that the initial post doesn’t present any arguments whatsoever. Holocaust stories are not arguments, as sad as they are.
So you think i’m a moral busybody. Because I disagree with you on the scope of the judiciary’s proper powers in this particular case? I’m pro-gay marriage! I just think ‘cases’ for gay marriage like the original post are embarrassing in their emotional distracters and reasoning.
While i think all state governments SHOULD redefine marriage to include same sex couples, I don’t think it’s constitutionally required. Formally, under the traditional definition, any man can marry any woman. The legal category of marriage (distinct from the spiritual or moral) is not about love or attraction. Legally, no one is disallowed from marrying (provided you’re an adult not married to someone else). Gay and lesbian people are disinclined to marry someone of the opposite sex, but they are not barred from doing so. Changing marriage to include same sex couples is ideal in my mind, but not constitutionally required, as in this case the long-standing legal definition – especially when equivalent civil union options exist – does not violate any specific part of the California constitution, including those barring discrimination.
The commenters on this thread seem wont to name-call instead of reason. Fine, but you’re not doing your side any favours. (The anti SSM commenter are the worst, but the pro SSM folk calling people bigots for having any reticence about SSM aren’t much better).
Saying ‘read the previous court decision’ is a nice deferral, but that decision was an embarrassment. Legal scholars for and against gay marriage are embarrassed at it’s reasoning. I hope the court lets the change in marriage definition happen naturally and democratically. Judicial fiat isn’t the proper way to do this.

“real”,
MI>”I don’t believe in same sex marriage.”
Then don’t have one.
“I just feel like if God wanted two men together he would have put Adam and Steve on the Earth in the beginning.”
Actually, in the beginning it was Adam and Lillith, but that didn’t work out so well. (Interesting that even the ‘first’ opposite-sex marriage didn’t work out, eh?) And, if God didn’t put “Steve” on earth, who did?
“I won’t discriminate against any gays.”
Except for treating them equally before the law, obviously.
“God says Love thy Brother and thats what I intend to do.”
Sorry but denying some citizens equal treatment before the law is not ‘loving’.
“But who really knows what God wants.”
Your ‘Adam and Steve’ rant gives the impression that you seem to ‘really know’.
“I hold no hatred”
Bearing false witness is a perfect example of hate.
” I just don’t think Gay marriage is right.”
Again, you are perfectly free not to have one.
“I cannot support it.”
Then avoid it.
“I beleive that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
You are welcome to your beliefs, but they do not trump the beliefs of others who believe otherwise.
Thanx 4 playing.

Wow. The universal ‘No on Prop 8′ crowd’s presumption that HATE is the motivation behind people trying to adhere to their moral constructs or religious mandates is, in a nutshell, close-minded bigotry. It works both ways, people. Lot of supposedly open-minded people ranting for tolerance that won’t grant any, wouldn’t you say?
Pastors and clergy that are No on 8…are we reading the same good book? Mine says homosexuality is a sin. Does yours not say that? I didn’t write the book, God did – through men, an inerrant, God inspired holy book of absolutes. Dividing line in the sand kind of absolutes. Clear as day. Can’t miss ‘em. I may not like or agree with all of them, but then again, I am not the creator of the universe and the Father of every living person, am I? To love God is to obey God. Period. He knows what is best, not you, not me.
We need to have outreach to help people struggling with SSA leave the lifestyle, not endorse and uphold that which God clearly states is against His mandates. I love my gay friends, and I feel bad that they are blind and cannot see, but I am more concerned about pleasing God than pleasing man, and so should you. I am not angry with any gay person that is angry with me for what I say. That’s the same as getting mad at a blind man for stepping on my toe. They have scales on their eyes and can’t see. God said we ARE the salt (preserve the world from decay) and the light (shine in the darkness so that all may see). You do a great disservice to endorse that which God condemns, not only to the lost stuck in SSA, but as a representative of the Lord in your church and community. I pray the scales are removed from YOUR eyes, and instead of endorsement, you plan some outreach (like Love Won Out and others).

FrustratedVoter
If the Bible, as you claim, is the inerrant word of God, how do you cope with the discrepancies and contradictions between passages in the book?
As long as I’m asking – and given your refusal to recognize me as a human, I have no compunctions so doing – there is no specific listing in the Bible of which of those OT passages are no longer valid nor, actually, whether they really only apply to Christians or not.
Any answers?
Waiting with baited breath, a fellow Christian who is also gay.

RB,
“While i think all state governments SHOULD redefine marriage to include same sex couples, I don’t think it’s constitutionally required.”
Could you please explain then why the Equal Protections Clause does not/should not apply to gay citizens?
And not just in California, but federally as well.
Ditto the Full Faith and Credit Clause?
Re: “pro SSM folk calling people bigots for having any reticence about SSM”
I can’t presume to speak for others, but I reserve the “bigot” label for those who (continually, here on B’net) compare our relationships to “marrying a plant” (or “an animal”, or “a rock”, or “a bicycle”) or to necrophilia, or to child-molestation, or to rape, or to incest, or to cannibalism, or as “worse than murder”, or comparing gay citizens as “worse than terrorists”. Some of these things are being said by “Christians”, and by radical, right wing political ‘leaders’ (Governor of Oklahoma).
These folk, Rb, deserve – nay, have earned the label.
“I hope the court lets the change in marriage definition happen naturally and democratically.”
Trouble is, voting to take away some minority’s rights isn’t “democratic”. Who protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority in such a scenario? And if by “naturally” you mean by legislation, did you forget that the CA Legislature voted – TWICE! in favor of equal marriage?
“Judicial fiat isn’t the proper way to do this.”
Seems we disagree on the role of the judiciary then. I’ve always been led to believe it is their very job to protect mninorities from the tyrannic “will of the majority”, to determine the Constitutionality of voter-led plebiscites. It isn’t a “judicial fiat”; it’s doinng their job.
Or was the Loving v. Virginia case mere “judicial fiat” in your opinion?
And while you’re at it, please address why the rights to both liberty (as in the freedom to marry – in a “land of the free” no less) and the pursuit of happiness shouldn’t apply in this case?
“I’m pro-gay marriage!”
Sorry, RB, but it sure doesn’t come across that way. But thanx 4 your ‘support’ anyway.

Frustrated Voter,
“Wow. The universal ‘No on Prop 8′ crowd’s presumption that HATE is the motivation behind people trying to adhere to their moral constructs or religious mandates is, in a nutshell, close-minded bigotry.”
Wow. Nothing in treating gay American citizens equally before the law prevents you from adhering to your “moral constructs” OR your “religious mandates”. But what about OURS? We don’t all share your particular religious beliefs. Don’t you beleive in freedom of religion – for ALL? My church, and many other religious faiths DO believe in same-sex marriage. Plus, what of those Amereicans who are not religious at all? Why must we/they follow the tenets of a religion to which we/they do not beloong? ‘Splain me that, wouldja please?
“Pastors and clergy that are No on 8…are we reading the same good book?”
Why, in a land that ‘promises’ freedom of religion, should we have to be “reading from the same book, “good” or otherwise?
“Mine says homosexuality is a sin.”
I sure would like to know where it says that. What version are you reading? Considering that the term ‘homosexual’ was only coined about 100 years ago, maybe the version you’re relying on is incorrect.
“Does yours not say that?”
Nope. Nor do any that are considered valid by most Biblical scholars. Now, most versions do say that certain homosexual acts are considered an “abomination”, just like the eating of shrimp and lobster are equally considered an “abomination”. But most of those acts are done by hetero- or bi-sexual men (those who lie with men as they lie with women. Gay men don’t ‘lie with women’ in any manner. Perhaps that particular passage is referring to lusty str8 men who turn to other men to get their kicks. (Plus, we have to consider how men did ‘lie with women’ – as objects, as property, as chattel, etc. Hmmm, I wonder if they meant it wasn’t okay to treat other men that way???)
“I didn’t write the book, God did – through men, an inerrant, God inspired holy book of absolutes.”