We knew it! 7 same-sex couples filed suit for marriage

So David... You having a rush of gays & lesbians requesting you to perform their marriages?

I think people are getting mixed up as to what marriage is...

There is a church-recognized marriage covanent...a religious commitment if you will...AND a state-sponsored marriage contract. You can have one without the other.

Giving homosexuals the legal, contractural rights to inheritance, visitation in the hospital, etc. does not mean any church has to recognize the relationship as a marriage. The state can recognize the contract and call it whatever they want. Doesn't change the church's position at all.

 

Well, if you mean the rights of the state to revoke a fundamental right, the states never had that right in the first place. Otherwise, you're wrongly interpreting 1) the ruling and 2) the Constitution.

 

Just out of curiousity, if seven couples tried to get married after the SCOTUS ruling, how many tried to get married before the ruling?

 

Good point, SheEagle9/11. We are going to be much better off making our point about this ruling, to the general population, as a violation of our federal-state system rather than making it into a huge morality debate. Let's face it, it is rather ridiculous for the government to attempt to regulate what consenting adults do in their bedroom, unless we are going to place a policeman in every bedroom in America, including yours, mine, and everyone else's. Please see my thread in the "Politics" forum about how the U.S. Supreme Court should have kept their hands off this case, even if they arrived at the correct conclusion regarding regulation of bedrooms of consenting adults - www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000608;p=1#000000

 

Sister Kelly,
It isn't the idea that I do not recognize "straight" marriages---I do! But we are standing in the middle of the path of a moral avalanche that I feel will cascade itself right into the middle of the church at large.

Keep in mind, I'm not a "Gay hater"--I do not hate gays! Rather, I love the Lord Jesus Christ with all of my heart, soul, and body! And I must obey His word! My church must obey His word! You, my sister, must obey His word.

His word says that God created male and female and that the two will link themselves by marriage to make one flesh. Man and woman coming together in relationship through the sanctity of marriage is God honoring! It is God obeying! Anything less than a man and a woman uniting in holy marriage is a reproach to Almighty God! I'll thumb my nose at the Supreme Court as the Apostle Peter said, "We must obey God rather than man!"

But I feel the avalanche of gay rights are making itself at home in the church--and that it won't be long before if I or one of these fine Conservative pastors on the board refuses to perform a ceremony between two gay couples--there will be retribution beyond comprehension dished out against the pastor who refuses and his church---but here's one pastor who is willing to find out what its like to live on the "inside of steel bars" instead of cowin' down to an immoral, atheistic, God denying society!

Brother David

 

God Bless you Brother David. One thing that you might want to consider also, is rescinding of your 501c-3 status and if you are incorporated, get rid of it. Before you write this suggestion off, please study this issue. If the "authorities" can make judges and JP's marry sodomites, then the incorporated church will not be far behind. You will either have to follow their guidelines or loss your status anyway. I suggest rescind it before they force it.

 

JailMinister,
I'll look into it!

Now, Sister Kelly! You know I love you but there is where I take a stand and I cannot, will not, must not back up!

Brother David

 

AMEN, Brother blackbird, AMEN

The time WILL come, should the Lord delay His coming, that EVERY TRUE BELIEVER will be forced to decide whether to "render unto Caesar" his affections, or face persecution for his reliance on God!

Decisions such as this by the SC are simply paving the way for the inevitable.

I've thought long & hard about this, and I ernestly pray that if/when that time comes for me, I'll be strong and show no reluctance to cast my lot with Christ!

I really find it very disturbing that so many that claim Christ as their Lord, are so totally comfortable with the hellish trends in our society as long as "it's legal"!

MARANATHA!!!!!!!!!!

 

Quite a leap there...

There is quite a difference between legal recognition of a gay marriage and the forcing of a private church to solemnize and recognize such a union. This ain't gonna happen! They don't jail Catholic priests for refusing to marry divorced people, yet the state recognizes their right to marry. Legal marriage & church-recognized marriage are two separate things.

 

How in the world could gays and lesbians really threaten the institution of marriage?

BY BOB BARR

The fact of the matter is that gays and lesbians themselves do not threaten the institution of marriage. They should not be blamed or made scapegoats for the weakening of thefundamental institution of marriage.

Men and women, husbands and wives by the millions, who care more for Mercedes-Benzes and four-car garages than for teaching their children values and helping with their homework, have done a fine job of that, thank you. Live-in heterosexual lovers who want the benefits of marriage without the responsibility or the costs, and who have no more regard for the well-being of children of a former marriage than they do for their boyfriend or girlfriend's Weimaraner, have done more to destroy this vital institution than all the gays and lesbians could ever hope to do even if they tried.

However, the institution of marriage is in danger, and if it goes under, one of the fundamental underpinnings of Western civilization crumbles. How our society responds to demands by gay and lesbian groups that individual homosexual couples be recognized as lawfully married will in fact largely determine whether Western civilization continues to employ the family as one of its fundamental building blocks. Insofar as laws define -- or should define -- all institutions in our society, it ought to be, then, a question of lawful definition we consider.

I believe the issue must be looked at in this light, and from this narrow perspective because we are a nation of laws. Laws are based -- should be based, must be based -- on reason and common sense. Posing the debate in this manner also detaches -- or should detach -- us from the emotion necessarily appended to any discussion of homosexuality or heterosexuality.

If in fact, as it has been so defined since time immemorial, "marriage" as a legal term and concept (which it is) means the "legal union of one man and one woman." If we then were to suddenly decide, because of political pressure, let's say, to "redefine" it to mean the "legal union of any one person with any other person," which is necessarily the manner in which advocates of same-sex marriage would have to do, then we have "redefined" marriage out of existence. It would mean nothing.

It is this slippery slope of open-ended, and therefore necessarily pointless redefining of terms that is the real danger to the legal institution of marriage, if we allow it to mean something other than what it always has meant -- the lawful union of one man and one woman. It would be like all of a sudden deciding to redefine an "automobile" to mean something other than a self-propelled vehicle on four wheels, for example. You could do it -- after all, it's just words -- but obviously the newly defined "thing" wouldn't be an automobile as everyone has always understood it.

If, in fact, it is the goal of homosexual rights advocates to obtain rights and privileges similar to those afforded by our society to men and women seeking a lawfully recognized union, then let's have a debate over that, and let society make its decisions at the state or local government level. But let's not, in the process of addressing one issue, create a monumentally larger one that would necessarily befall us if, in trying to fit a homosexual relationship into a long recognized and historically sound heterosexual relationship. Let's not define "marriage" out of existence in an effort to define whatever parameters society may or may not decide it wants or needs for same-sex relationships. Remember, this is not a zero-sum game.

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Smyrna, was chief sponsor of the "Defense of Marriage Act," which allows states not to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

--from www.atlanta.creativeloafing.com/cover2.html