California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Walter]

Soooo, in other words, gay marriage has actually been legal since we ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868, but we’re just now figuring that out.

It would also seem to imply that if gay marriage bans are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, then so are bans on possessing and carrying firearms. Right?

Actually, I think I can answer my own question. The U.S. Constitution means what the liberals say it means - no more and no less. It protects the rights that liberals want to protect, but doesn’t protect rights that liberals don’t like.

 

[mandym]

The most overturned court in history will no doubt once again be overturned.

 

[Walter]

The most overturned court in history will no doubt once again be overturned.

That is a very big 'IF' it makes it to the current Supreme Court.

Maybe I’m wrong….please correct me if I am….but if same sex marriage is upheld, how long before this means that churches have to permit such marriages to take place on their properties, or even to recognize such “marriages?” We see what is being forced on Catholic hospitals in the horrific decision last week that trampled all over religious consciencious objections to contraception/abortion.

My best guess would be that the next five to ten years or so, once same-sex marriage is more entrenched, a firey-eyed liberal gay couple will challenge a church’s refusal to marry them as an agent of the state. They will argue that if the church is acting as an agent for the state, then they cannot discriminate. Expect liberals to also try to rent church properties for same-sex marriage ceremonies and then try to argue that the religious exemption should only apply to individual clergy not choosing to marry someone, and that if churches rent their properties out for marriages, they are engaging in commercial business and that discrimination in such circumstances is not allowed.

I also suspect that much sooner than later, everyone - including churches - will be forced to recognize same-sex “marriages” as real marriages. Thus, suppose that a church hires a male secretary, then the secretary later demands full spousal benefits for his “husband”. The church would have to accept that “marriage” and provide benefits. Again, look to what just happened in the case of Catholic hospitals.

 

[righteousdude2]

The True Tragedy in this Recent Ruling is...

...that a group of liberal judges has overturned the will of the people in California. And if you think about it, there have been several other issues Californians have put up for a vote, won the vote, and seen it crash and burn with the court ruling it unconstitutional.

My wife has gotten to the point where she sees a moral issue on the ballot, and she refuses to vote for it because she knows it will be overturned in court.

If we are to believe that less than ten percent of our population is same gender enticed, then it seems quite strange that a court would overturn the will of more than 50% of the people who voted to keep marriage an institution between one man and one woman. And make no mistakes, marriage is one of our social institutions, and it is being challenged.

See attached link for lists of american institutions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution

I don't hold out too much for the US Supreme Court to do anything differently. It is a sign of the times. As Christians - we may not like it; in fact, we know that the Bible says God doesn't approve it, but we live in a country that is moving in the direction of making sure everything we do is for politically-correct reasons.

Because of the tolerance (for others not like us, or of our same faith and values) being taught in our schools, the next few generations, and this inculdes Christians raised under the liberl teachings within our society, will result in any kind of vote to keep marriage bewteen a man and women soundly defeated.

Our kids, and grandkids are being made socially accustomed to same gender everything, and to them it is not being seen under the guidelines and mandates of the Bible. Like those, in our society that no longer believe in a hell, or that they have to be born-again, we are going to see a more watered down version of the teachings in the Bible.

Paul warned the Roman church of spiritual leniencies and the wrath of God that would turn them over to their broad theological stance when it comes to the Word of God (Romans 1:16-32). These are the premises and reasons I wrote my third book - Final Daze: God's Way or the Highway! The youth of our church, and even some older folks, needed to be warned of the coming wrath for turning away from the teachings of the Word, and following their own understandings.

The mainstream church has become too tolerant; worried about being politically correct in everything they do. And those who have gone down this road (highway) and shunned the narrow path God prepared for them to go down, will be judged accordingly, and I believe the blood of the multitudes who were affected by their open-minded, ear tickling style of teaching and preaching (2 Timothy 4:2), will be on their hands for all eternity.

To take this thought one step further, I find it difficult to believe that those who choose this road (instead of the narrow path) are really saved, because the voice of the Holy Ghost is being ignored in the teaching of the truth, and if they are ignoring His voice in the application of the Word of God in their life and in the church as a whole, it is hard for me to believe that they heard the call to (repent according to Biblical standards), which is seen in their joining the world on the highway to hell!

I just can't see those who are called by Him to be saved, ignoring the very principles. He has put in place to prepare us for eternity.

Please understand that the above is only my opinion and view of what is going on in our world. However, I believe once saved, always saved, and I just can't see a saved person ignoring the truths of the Bible. Eventually, conviction to bring about change, sets in and the old man begins to be put aside in place of His will for our life and the Kingdom! Being tolerant for tolerance sake, and being politically correct in order to keep peace and harmony in the world they live and work in is just not what they were called to do.

Wishy-washy followers are more like those mentioned in the parable of the seed (Matthew 13:1-8. They just never took hold in good ground and grew to bring forth the fruit, stand the Godly pruning, and bring forth produce even better fruit after the pruning.

 

[Squidward]

Wonder if they'll try to over rule nature's ban on same sex reproduction.

 

[TCassidy]

The 9th Circuit acts as if it WANTS to be over turned! (Not surprising as the 9th is the most over turned court in US history.)

Since the inception of America, marriage has been a states rights issue. States are allowed to set laws pertaining to all aspects of marriage.

California undertook a LEGAL process of amending their state constitution to prohibit same sex marriage. This is LEGAL in the state of California and does NOT violate federal law or the US Constitution.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it give power to the federal government to regulate marriage.

If the 9th Circuits ruling is upheld then this would mean states could not set age limits on marriage and they couldnt prohibit polygamy.

I am certain the US Supreme Court will over turn the 9th's ruling because it just simply isnt constitutionally sound.

It is impossible to make an honest and constitutionally sound defense of the 9th's ruling.