Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Jailminister, Sep 16, 2003.
One of the supporters of this is Reverend Lou Sheldon (Head of the Traditional Values Coalition). I live near Rev Sheldon. Rev Sheldon is a wolf in sheep's clothing. His views are so extreme, he makes the most conservative Christian look like an ultra liberal. He has successfully misled thousands of well meaning mainline Christians in my area. He is one of the reasons that the word "Christian" has been stained and stigmatized. I categorically will not put my name on, or urge my church to put their name on, any agenda that is proud to be associated with him.
That figures Johnv. Never thought you would.
In California, marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.
So you're wrong. My state has done something about it, and so have I, by voting for the ballot measure that made it so.
No Johnv what happened in Alabama proved that just because your state says something does not mean that the feds will allow it. You better support this national movement.
I don't quite understand the whole legal marriage thing for homosexuals. Why do they want to get married? Last time I checked there were worse tax advantages and not much else.
For that matter, who cares if they do get married? They are having sex either way, which is a sin. Is it a general consensus that if we allow them to take on the same legal contract as afforded to men and women, that homosexuality will become more acceptable and therefor there will be more homosexuals?
Pete the problem is one of acceptablity. Perversion once ACCEPTED is hard to turn around.
Currently, there's no federal law defining marriage as being between male and female. If there's a bill introduced that, I would support it. I simply choose to pass on the link you provided because they align themselves Lou Sheldon, a wolf in sheeps clothing.
As far as Alabama, what Judge Moore did was wrong.
As far as a federal codification on marriage, we need to ask ourselves the same question that was brought up in regard to Alabama: Would a federal mandate on the marriage definition violate the states' rights to do so?
That is what this is about. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because you don't like Sheldon, don't disinfranchise your self from supporting it. Example. Everyone knows that the Pope is a wolf in sheep's clothing, buthe is prolife. Does that mean I can't be pro life also? NO.
Let's don't start this again. let's just say you are wrong and I am right
This is what I am saying. The liberal federal judges can do what they want to do based on their political views, not on truth.
I don't know that (I guess the "let's not start this argmuent" line doesn't go both ways). But regardless, I'm pro-marriage, but refuse to align myself with a movement sponsored by Lou Sheldon. If he simply endorsed it, that would be one thing. But he's a co-sponsor, which is why I must respectfully decline.
The federal judges in the Alabama case were conservative, btw. But that doesn't answer my qestion. Would a federal mandate on the marriage definition violate the states' rights to do so?
The federal Judge(Myron Thompson) is a liberal democratic Judge appointed by Jimmy Carter.
this is the problem. If we don't have it on the natio0nal level then a liberal federal judge could easily interpret it that way.
JohnV, herew is what I am saying. The state law in Alabama and the people of Alabama said they wanted the monument there. They also have in their Constitution that Elected officials must recognize God. What Judge Myron Thompson did was to say that he, representing the federal government, did not care what the people of Alabama said.
Now if you apply that to the California law that marriage is between a man and a woman, and some liberal federal judge says that the california law is wrong, then he can overrule your state law with a movement of his pen. That is why we need the a National law on the protection of Marriage.
And I offer the same question in reverse. If folks are asserting that the feds forcing Alabama to remove the 10C monument is a violation of States' rights, why are those same folks not saying that a Federal marriage bill would violate States' rights to decide the issue?
The very same folks who have been telling the Feds to keep off the states in one case are being hypicritical and selective.
BTW - Judge Moore may acknowlege God, but he may not respect an establishment of religion, which is what he did. in this case, it was protestant Christianity. The 10C monument depicts the Protestant 10C's. Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish 10C's are different. Additionally, Judge Moore, when taking office as Judge, swore to also uphold the US Constitution, which it was determined that he violated.
God help us all if the government proceeds to legislate morality.......
BIR, Every law has moral guidelines in it. That is a lame excuse for not endorsing this legislation.
God help us for not keeping morals in our laws.
Lame excuse indeed.
Perhaps you and I differ, as I don't need the government telling me what is right and wrong. Moreover, I don't need the government legislating the acceptable definition of marriage.
BIR, You may not need the law, but God said we do.
1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1Ti 1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust
You see God knew we need rules and laws to live by, which we as Christians should do anyway, but the law is for the whole of society and God planned it that way.
Yes, but that refers to the OT law, not the la of the US
Yours in Christ
Well then, here's a quote from Edmund Burke, a British statesman.
"Men qualify for freedom in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power is put somewhere on the will and appetite, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
Unfortunately, men need laws. God gave us His perfect law. When men pervert, or worse, ignore His law, society decays into anarchy. Look around you.