When I woke up this morning and I was reminded from a news report that the California Supreme Court would be ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 to day. The ruling came down about 10 AM, PST. I just read the results at the Huffington Post and SF Gate. Basically, the Court is going to let the Proposition stand as is. I was surprised. Considering that this was the same court that legalized Marriage between people of the same gender, I was surprised that they would go on and uphold the proposition that went against its earlier ruling because the majority of us Californians voted for it. I'm not going to get into the reason why I supported Prop 8 last year here because I argued in favor of it else where on this blog. What I do want to point out that this snuck up on me. I did not hear anyone talk about this event today or bring it up. I knew it was coming. I even heard that opponents of Proposition 8 are discussing whether to get their thoughts on the ballot either for the next general election in 2010 or the next Presidential election in 2012. Here is a quote from the final ruling made by the California Supreme Court today.
"Proposition 8 does not by any means "repeal" or "strip" gay individuals or same-sex couples of the very significant substantive protections afforded by the state equal protection clause either with regard to the fundamental rights of privacy and due process or in any other area, again with the sole exception of access to the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationship."
So to summarize, Proposition 8 stands, but the Same-Sex Marriages that have already taken place in California wiull still stand.
My sister-in-law sent me an e-mail today that really hit home for me today. I'm the father of two now and my children will be entering into California public schools soon and I have now heard of a SB 572 which is a law that may possibly pass in California. Here is the contents of the e-mail.
For those we don't like the read all the info. The main issue in this:
California parents don't want and children don't need "Harvey Milk Day." There's a big difference between a movie and school "exercises." People voluntarily go to a movie, perhaps even to see "Milk" starring Sean Penn. Yet under SB 572, children CANNOT be excused and it will be MANDATORY for them to participate in pro-homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality "exercises" under SB 572. For there is no explicit parental opt-out in the bill. For this reason alone , SB 572 should be defeated.
SB 572 by homosexual activist state senator Mark Leno of San Francisco, a Democrat, would create an official "gay day" called Harvey Milk Day. It would be pushed on every California government school, affecting children as young as kindergarten. TAKE ACTION NOW
1. EMAIL: Use SaveCalifornia.com's Email Lobbying System right now to send a pre-written message opposing SB 572 to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and your California state legislators.
2. PHONE: All day Tuesday, call the 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans on the Senate Education Committee to urge them to oppose SB 572. The committee will hear and vote on SB 572 this Wednesday, May 6 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 4203 of the State Capitol in Sacramento.
Six Democrats who all support the homosexual agenda Gloria Romero of East Los Angeles (916) 651-4024 Elaine Alquist of San Jose / Gilroy (916) 651-4013 Loni Hancock of Alameda County (916) 651-4009 Carol Liu of Pasadena / Glendale / San Gabriel Valley (916) 651-4021 Alex Padilla of L.A.'s San Fernando Valley (916) 651-4020 Joe Simitian of Palo Alto / Santa Cruz (916) 651-4011
Three Republicans who generally vote pro-family Bob Huff of Glendora / Yorba Linda (916) 651-4029 Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria / San Jose (916) 651-4015 Mark Wyland of20Carlsbad / San Juan Capistrano (916) 651-4038
California's liberal "Republican" Governor Call Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to urge him to veto SB 572 if it reaches his desk. Tell him, "I want you to oppose Harvey Milk Gay Day in public schools like you did last year. This bill takes away from academics, parents don't want it, and children don't need it. Veto SB 572." Call the Governor to leave a message at (916) 445-2841.
ABOUT SB 572
SB 572 pressures public schools -- from kindergarten on up -- to perform "suitable commemorative exercises" promoting what homosexual activist Harvey Milk believed in: the entire homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual agenda and anti-religious values.
Unfortunately, there is no definition or limit to the "exercises" the bill would make students do every May 22, which SB 572 would label "Harvey Milk Day."
If SB 572 becomes law, schoolchildren would have positively portrayed to them homosexual experimentation, homosexual "marriages," sex-change operations, and anything else that's "in the closet." Like he did last year, Governor Schwarzenegger should veto this very inappropriate bill, which has nothing to do with academic excellence.
The text of20SB 572 states that "On Harvey Milk Day, exercises remembering the life of Harvey Milk and recognizing his accomplishments as well as the contributions he made to this state" should be conducted; specifically, "all public schools and educational institutions are encouraged to observe...and to conduct suitable commemorative exercises."
How will children in government schools be taught and how will children's minds be "exercised" under SB 572? The answer is children will be taught to remember, recognize and commemorate whatever Harvey Milk believed or is said to have believed, such as:
Religion is DANGEROUS: "More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, my friends, that is true perversion." (Harvey Milk, speaking at a homosexual rally in 1978.)
All doors of sexual experimentation MUST be opened: "If a bullet should go through my head let that bullet go through every closet door." (Harvey Milk quote)
If you think you might be homosexual, you MUST declare yourself gay or lesbian: "Milk believed strongly that coming out was the responsibility of every gay man and woman." (Source)
Gay and lesbian "marriages" are good and natural: "So much of the spirit represented with the Supreme Court's decision last week is the spirit of Harvey Milk and his legacy manifesting today in real change." (San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom on the unveiling of a bust of Harvey Milk at city hall, May 28, 2008. (Source)
Harvey Milk may be popular in San Francisco and West Hollywood, but he is not popular or admired by most California parents who want healthy sexual boundaries for their children and don't want the tearing down of every sexual boundary and standard like Harvey Milk did. Children belong to their parents, not to the state!
California parents don't want and children don't need "Harvey Milk Day." There's a big difference between a movie and school "exercises." People voluntarily go to a movie, perhaps even to see "Milk" starring Sean Penn. Yet under SB 572, children CANNOT be excused and it will be MANDATORY for them to participate in pro-homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality "exercises" under SB 572. For there is no explicit parental opt-out in the bill. For this reason alone , SB 572 should be defeated.
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.Matthew 18:6 NIV
Okay, in light of how I am sure that it's politically incorrect to criticize the pro-homosexual agenda rampant in our culture today without offending people, let me be clear: I don't care. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. I admit that on anatomical and Biblical grounds, I disagree with Homosexuality as a life-style and I am offended at this transparent attempt to socialize my children to think that homosexuality is a viable life-style. For that is what SB 572 is: a blatant attempt to force acceptance of homosexuality. Get the children, and you can turn all pf society. Telling me that my children have to learn about the homosexual lifestyle is not right. Why does a child need to learn about that? Mine don't. As their father, I should have a say of when they learn about sex. Forcing that on my family and Californian families is wrong and we can't let that happen. We are not even being given the option to VOTE on this. They are going to try to force it down our throats. I urge everyone to send e-mails and make phone calls our representatives to tell them we do not want this.
Just when people say that Christians don't practice what they preach, God raises someone up to prove the critics wrong. Although it cost her winning Miss America 2009, Carrie Prejean chose to honor God and tell the truth rather than compromise her stand for God. I admire that. May we all do the same when our time comes. She was interviewed on Fox News and I'd bet she surprised a lot of people. What did she do that was so amazing? She really obeyed Jesus.
What happened to being able to express your own opinion? I'm certain that this affected her chance to win the pagent. When I saw the same video (poorly done) from another YouTube channel, she was made to seem stupid but she just stated her opinion but did not condemn Same-Sex marriage. Perez Hilton was visibly unhappy. Proponents don't want people to just allow Same-Sex marriage, they want us to agree with them that there is nothing wrong with it. Unfortunately, God said different. I'll have to side with Him.
I have seen a video from Perez Hilton commenting on Miss California's answer to his question that is posted above. The problem is that his comments shows just what I thought. She lost the pagent because she disagrees with the "gay" agenda to redefine what "marriage". Her comment forced her to loose. She came in second. Listen to Hilton's comments. You can hear his hate and disgust.
Fortunately, some heavy hitters have weighed in and commented on what all this means. Listen to what Dr. James White comments on Carrie Prejean's comments.
Jimmy Kimmel's show aired a mock Public Service Announcement where Portia De Rossi apologizes for selfishly marrying Ellen.They make it sound as if gay marriage really does not not hurt anyone and unfortunately that is a lie. Here is the PSA.
Here is a good video framing what is at stake with redefining "marriage". It is good to watch. It's poignant for me in light of what my own marriage means to me and my parents' 51st anniversary which is today.
Over the past several weeks morality has been debated over and over. Same-sex marriage has been defended by saying that we can't legislate morality. They say we can't have moral absolutes. They say that no one has the right to tell another that what they do or say is right or wrong. I saw a video today that made me wonder why then we can judge Islamic culture the way we do if these arguments are correct. I mean we chastise Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and many other so-called third-world countries based on their human rights abuses including against women. Why is what they doing is wrong? Without an absolute moral standard, what can we use to judge societies where it's okay to beat one's wife? Why is it wrong to beat your wife? If she makes you angry or disobeys you as her husband, why can't you beat her until she submits...as long you don't hit her in the face. According to Muhammad Al-'Arifi this is acceptable. Watch him in his own words:
Now, the God of the Bible says this behavior is wrong. He says that wife and husband are equal. He gives the husband charge and authority in a household. It's not "lordship". He has the authority so he can serve not dictate. I plan to write more about this in the future. The problem I want to focus in on now is the issue what moral authority you will submit yourself to: The God of the Bible or someone/something else. Muhammad Al-'Arifi uses a different authority. His tells him and other Muslim men that they should beat their wives so that they submit and Muslim women that it is okay to be violently abused by their husbands, fathers, and brothers. The God of the Bible tells us, men, to protects our mothers, wives, and sisters. And tells women that when they submit to their God-fearing husbands it is because they are trusting in God and obeying God.
I'm not trying to equate the moral question of wife-beating to endorsing homosexuality. They are clearly not the same in many important ways. But from the point of view of what God says, they are both clearly sinful attitudes and actions in His sight. I've blogged many of the scriptures that show what God says about homosexuality. Many try to use the argument that homosexuality is condoned by God (no where in the Bible can we find that) because the people love one another. This is not a good enough reason to ignore scripture (no reason is good enough). If you ask the Muslim man who beats his wife if he loves her, of course he will say he does. If you ask Muslim women being beat by her husbands if they love her, I'm sure many of those women will answer "yes". By what authority can you say that they are wrong? I have the word of God. What do you have?
Here are some scriptures showing husbands how to treat their wives:
Ephesians 5:25-33
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
1 Peter 3:7
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
In the context of 1 Peter 3:7, "weaker partner" only means that the woman does not carry the same level of accountability as the man of a household. God holds him accountable.
Here is the issue. If I use the Bible to condemn wife-beating, then I must condemn everything God condemns. Including those sins I find myself committing. You can't pick out only those things that ruffle your own sensibilities. Because no one stands innocent in God's sight. Romans 3: 19-26 says:
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
As Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, the only way we can be found righteous in the sight of God is through Jesus. We trust in Him and God consider our debts to Him canceled. That is the good news. Do you wanna pay for your sins? Or do you want Jesus to have paid for them? Personally, I'd rather accept the payment that Jesus made for us rather than try to pay for my sins on my own - through eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire described in the book of Revelation. But that's me. Each to their own.
No where in the Bible does it say that you receive Christ and all your problems disappear. It really is like being released from "The Matrix" as seen in the movie. Like, Neo you get to see reality as it truly is and you are free. You are a work in progress. God constantly refined and improves us so that we are more like Jesus Christ. Here are some scriptures that tell us so much and give me much encouragement.
Romans 8:28-30 says:
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Ephesians 2:10 says:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Philippians 1:4-6 says:
In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
I've always liked Wanda Sykes. I think she is funny and intelligent. I am amazed about how little you can no about a person just by watching them on television or in a movie. You can't tell what is really inside a person until they show you. I had no idea that she is gay or holds the views she does. When I heard her talk I heard, "I will live the way I want and I don't care about what God has purposed for me." I have the question: if you truly love someone, wouldn't you want the best for them no matter what you think was best for them? Can't we agree if there is a God that made all of us and everything that God would know what our purpose is? If that God is the God of the Bible we know that our purpose is not homosexuality. The only way to say to challenge this truth is to prove that the Bible is wrong about what God wants for us. And that is impossible. Take a look at what she said.
Gay Marriage supporters accuse those who supported Proposition 8 as being intolerant of anyone who disgrees with their own position. They say that we are being insensitive and unkind. These accusations seem baseless in light of the following video!
Keith Olbermann gives his opinion on Proposition 8 and he was against it. Here is what he said.
I must admit that I am amazed by the arguments spewing from his mouth. His main points seem to be that what homosexuals do and whom they "love" is of no concern anyone but themselves. And that they must be seen as living just as valid lives as people who live traditional lives. He also seems to think that standing against gay people means that you hate gay people. He also said that the legal definition of marriage has changed over the years to first exclude slaves and interracial marriages and now that has changed to include us. The problem is that as a Christian, I'm not just trying to uphold a "legality" but the definition of "marriage" passed down to us from God. Since He invented it, don't you think we should use his definition. Giving black people and discriminated minorities equal rights under the law and legally recognizing their marriages did not change the definition of "marriage" but only restored it to what it has always been intended by God: union of one man and one woman.
By definition, a Christian believes that every human being is sinful and in need of Jesus for salvation from Hell and reconciliation with God. Biblically, homosexuality is no greater sin than lying, stealing, murder, adultery, or any other sin. Any of these mean you deserve to go to Hell. It is way more loving and not hate to point out to people when they sin against God so that they can choose to repent and submit themselves to God's standards, thereby accepting the gift of salvation.If I hated someone I would shield this knowledge from them so that they will be lost. But because Jesus has put love in my heart for everyone, including homosexuals, of course I can't let them go on about their business to redefine "marriage" without pointing out the error.
One thing I agree with Olbermann about is that us voting on same-sex marriage in California will indeed affect the rest of the country. If it makes it here it will be all over the nation eventually.
The reason why people are concerned that ministers can be sued for not supporting gay marriage is because such things have happened before. You have stated that the Mormon allowed Blacks and outlawed polygamy. These are examples of faith and practice being changed due to government interference. The federal government said to the Mormons that we will jail you if you continue polygamy because you are breaking the laws of the United States. I've studied some history of the Mormon church by looking at apologetic debates and this is a hot topic as to how valid some of the claims of the Mormons (which I will not get into here). For more see the work of Dr.Walter Martin who was excellent at witnessing and talking to Mormons with gentleness and respect. The point is that Mormons did not get rid of polygamy on their own. The top leader at the time "heard" from God and due to that "revelation" they got rid of polygamy after the government made an issue of it. Please research this if you don't believe me.
On top of that black people were barred from the Mormons because they were not considered human or worthy of salvation since the days of their Founder, Joseph Smith. They only started to allow Black people because of the weight of the civil rights movement in the 1960's.
Each translation says the same thing but not in the same English words. In the Greek the offending word is "aresenokotes" (Strong's number: 733) and the lexicon I own is "one engaging in homosexual acts, sexual deviant". As far as I know when the 1st Century readers read "aresenokotes" the understood Paul was writing about Homosexuals....what they do as being offensive not who they are or something that God cannot deliver them from. Here is the whole passage,verses 9 and 10 (NIV):
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
As you probably know Proposition 8, banning gay marriage, squeaked by in California. I voted for it because I see no reason for re-defining marriage. I thought that homosexuals had almost the same rights as heterosexual married couples, so there was no reason to change what "marriage" means. I found out that I was wrong. In California, homosexual couples in "domestic partnerships" have the same rights as traditional married couples. Look at Domestic Partnerships in California. Here is some information from that article:
A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple.
As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). Among these:
Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
Sick care and similar family leave
Stepparent adoption procedures
Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
The right for either partner to take the other partner's surname after registration
Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses
The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage
Eligibility
Currently, a couple that wishes to register must meet the following requirements:
Both persons have a common residence.
Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.
The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married to each other in California.
Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
Either of the following:
Both persons are members of the same sex.
The partners are of the opposite sex, one or both of whom is above the age of 62, and one or both of whom meet specified eligibility requirements under the Social Security Act.
Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic partnership.
I am a resident of California. When I vote November 4, 2008 I will not only be voting for the next President of the United States, I will be voting on state propositions. I don't know if our proposition to uphold the traditional definition of Marriage (Proposition 8) is being reported on in other parts of the nation but it is a big deal here. I have been given it a lot of thought so I thought that I would post something about it. Let's first look at what the Proposition 8 actually says:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. • Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. • Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: • Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. • In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
In California, we can get all the initiatives and propositions summarized for the voters. Here is a link so that you can see it yourself: CA General Elections Propositions . Here is how the document gives the background on Proposition 8:
BACKGROUND In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state.
There are several concerns about I have with Prop 8: 1. I remember the election of 2000 and I did vote to pass Proposition 22. It bothered me when 4 California State Supreme Court Judges decided to overturn the law I helped pass. The voters of California passed that law, Judges are not supposed to overturn law or make new laws. They are supposed to interpret and uphold laws that voters pass. They effectively re-defined what "marriage" is and all Prop 8 is doing putting it back the way it was before May 2008. 2. Under fiscal impact, opponents of the Prop 8, says that we should not pass it and allow California to be a haven for homosexuals who want to marry their partners because they will bring more money to California. 3. One argument against Prop 8 is that it singles out homosexuals and denies them the right to marry - a fundamental right - and could set a precedent for limiting the rights of select groups. I don't buy it because in no way does defining marriage traditionally take away the rights homosexuals already have in California under domestic partnership laws. Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman. Changing the definition means that it is no longer "marriage". Can we call a rectangle a "triangle"? No! A rectangle has 4 sides and cannot be a triangle! Changing the definition means that language has no meaning any more. 4. Another argument against Prop 8 is that it is primarily backed by Mormons in Utah. I have not checked this out, but I don't think that it matters. I don't agree with all of Mormonism, but if they say that same-sex marriage is wrong, at least at that point they agree with the Bible, and if you agree with the Bible then you must agree with them on that. I don't look at voting "yes" on 8 as agreeing with the Mormon church, but I know it is agreeing with God. 5. We should be way more concerned with the slippery slope of what changing the definition of Marriage really means. If we say that marriage is "between consenting adults" then what is keep a man from marrying multiple women? Or vice versa? Why stop there? You could marry your pet. Or why not marry your child? Where do you draw the line? Two generations ago, no one would have ever thought that "marriage" would be open for re-definition. What about in 2 more generations? 6. Another argument against Prop 8 is that we can't use religious sensibilities to dictate government policy. I have 2 problems with this: first it's not completely religious. I mean on one level we are talking about the definition of one of the bedrock of human society: how we think, raise and educate or children, and what it means to be a family. Why do all religions and cultures define marriage as being between a man and woman? It's only been in recent years that this has been challenged. Why? Because its the fundamental definition of what marriage is. Where did we get it from? It could have been any number of other things. Why would it come down to us this way? The only answer that makes sense is the answer the Bible gives: God said so. Second, "separation of church and state" is a facade. It is what we tell ourselves so that we can ease our conscience so we can do what we want to do in public instead of what God wants us to do. Ask yourself: "why are all men created equal"? Why should the weak be protected? Why should I care how I live my life affects people around me? I do not think for a second that anyone would come to these ideas without God. If evolution is correct (I smell another post), then it does not make sense that these ideas would have ever come to mind. "Survival of the fittest". "Only the strong are worthy to thrive and reproduce". These are the ideas that would drive an evolutionary world view and would fully characterize our government if not for the power of God. I maintain that we know that all people are created equal and should be given the same basic rights only because God said so. If that is true...then we should define those rights by what that God says. 7. For me the nail that drives down the reasons I will vote "Yes" on proposition 8 is that the word of God is clear on the subject. As one who says that Jesus is my Lord. My Savior. My Master. I must love what He loves. Hate what He hates. I am trying to follow in my Master's footsteps. God does not hate homosexuals. He loves them like He loves all of us. And like all of us, He calls us to His best. It's just a sin. No worse then any other sin people commit. God does not have some special place in hell for homosexuals worse than where the liars are going. Sometimes what He knows is best is not what we think is best. This is tough. By taking this stand some would call me a bigot at worst, ignorant and misguided at best. And on the surface, people are asking does it really matter? Why is it wrong to love someone even if its someone of the same gender? Aside from the physical and emotional pain that such a lifestyle causes and can sometimes be invisible to the participants and observers, God told us not to do it. End of story. If you don't like it, talk to God about it. As one who claims to belong to God, you must vote for prop 8. If you disagree then you have to prove that God has no problem with homosexuality.
Here are two scriptures that you would have to respond to:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Romans 1:21-27
Sounds familiar? The Bible is not just talking about the Roman Empire of the 1st century but of America in the 21st Century. Here is an example of what the Bible has to say about marriage in 1st Corinthians 7:1-7.
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Unless you wanna argue that the Bible contradicts itself you can't say that a husband should have one wife and a wife should have one husband and then say that same-sex unions glorify God. They don't fit. The only way the 2 scriptures I appealed to can be reconciled is if same-sex unions are not defined as marriage. If society wants to ignore God's law it can do it without adding the insult to injury by re-defining marriage.
