PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Gay Marriages in CA



pinksparkleez
May 15th 2008, 11:25 PM
I am not surprised by the news today about the supreme court overturned allowing for Gay Marriages in CALIFORNIA.

I only wonder if this IS another sign of the End times... with everything else that is happening:(

Jesus Hurry!:pray:

wombat
May 16th 2008, 01:49 AM
I am not surprised by the news today about the supreme court overturned allowing for Gay Marriages in CALIFORNIA. I only wonder if this IS another sign of the End times... with everything else that is happening:(Jesus Hurry!:pray:
Hi, Pinksparkleez! I agree with you that this is a sign of the times. In II Timothy 3:2 the Bible says that people in the end times will consider nothing sacred. Marriage is a sacred covenant before God, established by God for a man and a woman. Also, II Peter 3:3 says that people in the end times will do every evil thing they desire. Certainly God holds homosexuality as an evil thing in His sight, and I feel that modern churches that "okay" the gay lifestyle among their members are fulfilling II Timothy 3:5 which says people in the end times will appear to be religious but at the same time will deny the power that could make them godly, as well as II Timothy 4:3-4 which says church members won't endure sound doctrine, but will want to "have their ears tickled" and listen only to teachers who will say what they want them to say. They will turn away from truth.

I believe that the other characteristics of people in the last days which Peter lists in Chapter 3 are also prevalent today. These include people loving only themselves and their money, being boastful, proud, scoffing at God, being disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unloving, unforgiving, slandering others, having no self-control, being cruel, having no interest in what is good, betraying friends, being reckless, loving pleasure rather than God, and laughing at the truth. Now, I'm sure that all of these characteristics have been found in past times as well as current times (people have always been sinners since Adam and Eve fell), but the current situation, at least so far as I've seen in the United States, certainly appears to me to be one of deteriorating morality and an ever increasing trend towards the characteristics described by Peter. I'm not a youngster--I've seen a lot of years--and I have to say that within the last ten years things have changed so much moralitywise that I can hardly believe my eyes and ears. I do believe these are signs that Jesus' return is right around the bend.

HisLeast
May 16th 2008, 02:16 AM
I am not surprised by the news today about the supreme court overturned allowing for Gay Marriages in CALIFORNIA.

I only wonder if this IS another sign of the End times... with everything else that is happening:(

Jesus Hurry!:pray:

The men of Soddom & Gomorah surrounded Lot's house, kicked and pounded at the doors demanding Lot send his guests out so the town could rape them.

We have a long way to go yet.

moonglow
May 16th 2008, 02:29 AM
The men of Soddom & Gomorah surrounded Lot's house, kicked and pounded at the doors demanding Lot send his guests out so the town could rape them.

We have a long way to go yet.

Agreed. Plus in Paul's day gay marriage was common, even the Roman leader had two gay marriages...one to a slave boy..:( (though that isn't really considered gay marriage but something all together different). We think things are bad until we look at history...

God bless

Gary Rake
May 16th 2008, 02:33 AM
Dear His Least:

You said in your last post, " We have a long way to go yet."...better check again. Last gay pride parade in San Francisco had live nude homosexual sex acts in the street and the police did nothing to stop it.

Wish it weren't so...time to pray like never before.
gr

moonglow
May 16th 2008, 02:53 AM
Dear His Least:

You said in your last post, " We have a long way to go yet."...better check again. Last gay pride parade in San Francisco had live nude homosexual sex acts in the street and the police did nothing to stop it.

Wish it weren't so...time to pray like never before.
gr

Got a link for that...I can't image the police not doing something ...a straight couple couldn't do that and not be arrested..

If its true, that is bad...but its still not trying to bang on someone's door to rape the men inside...not having a nations leader openly marrying a boy...or another man.

HisLeast
May 16th 2008, 03:11 AM
Dear His Least:

You said in your last post, " We have a long way to go yet."...better check again. Last gay pride parade in San Francisco had live nude homosexual sex acts in the street and the police did nothing to stop it.

Wish it weren't so...time to pray like never before.

All that means is that there were live nude homosexual acts occuring. It DOESN'T mean we're smack in the middle of the end times. And since I have to "check again", lets both look WAAAAY back to Soddom, where the whole town showed up to gang rape Lot's male guests. Or research why Isreal had a civil war with the tribe of Benjamin in the book of Judges. Or more recently, look at the Roman empire... when at the height of its Imperial power, aristocrats were expected to attend the orgies of the ruling class or be put to death.

So... I'm sorry but looking at the state of California, "THE END IS NIGH" is not my first thought.

HisLeast
May 16th 2008, 03:13 AM
Got a link for that...I can't image the police not doing something ...a straight couple couldn't do that and not be arrested..

Its probably true, but it is no more a sign of the end times than La Senza marketing a line of lingere for tween girls, or the fact that modern man has forgotten the sabbath, or that nearly every monetary system in the world is based off of usery.

danield
May 16th 2008, 03:26 AM
I feel certain it is a sign of the times we live in. It is a falling away from God, and it is just one more thing that is being adopted as acceptable behavior in our society. I am not a scholar on how history has respected gay unions nor do I want to become one, but what little I do know is that we consider a marriage a holy union between a man and a woman. It is suppose to be a sacred relationship, obviously not always respected as one, but never the less it is. This is a direct conflict with how God created us. I feel it is just one more huge step in disrespecting the lord.

As far as Sodom and Gomorrah, if an angel walked into some parts of San Francisco I am not sure they would not be raped by some Gay men. It is a big City and some bad things have happened there just as many bad things happen in other cities. Also, I want to add that if those angels were of the female gender, I am sure there are places in San Francisco that would not be safe for them. I will also mention that all of Sodom was not Gay because Lot’s daughters were engaged to be married to two men. And Lot tried to get them out of the City but they refused to listen.

Genesis 19:14 4 So Lot rushed out to tell his daughters' fiancés, "Quick, get out of the city! The LORD is about to destroy it." But the young men thought he was only joking.

Roelof
May 16th 2008, 09:50 AM
I believe that the other characteristics of people in the last days which Peter lists in Chapter 3 are also prevalent today. These include people loving only themselves and their money, being boastful, proud, scoffing at God, being disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unloving, unforgiving, slandering others, having no self-control, being cruel, having no interest in what is good, betraying friends, being reckless, loving pleasure rather than God, and laughing at the truth. Now, I'm sure that all of these characteristics have been found in past times as well as current times (people have always been sinners since Adam and Eve fell), but the current situation, at least so far as I've seen in the United States, certainly appears to me to be one of deteriorating morality and an ever increasing trend towards the characteristics described by Peter. I'm not a youngster--I've seen a lot of years--and I have to say that within the last ten years things have changed so much moralitywise that I can hardly believe my eyes and ears. I do believe these are signs that Jesus' return is right around the bend.

We also experienced these signs in an intensified way the last 20 years.

daughter
May 16th 2008, 09:59 AM
Got a link for that...I can't image the police not doing something ...a straight couple couldn't do that and not be arrested..

If its true, that is bad...but its still not trying to bang on someone's door to rape the men inside...not having a nations leader openly marrying a boy...or another man.
I've seen a homosexual man on a gay parade, dressed in a fake nun costume, with the skirt a mini dress, showing suspenders. The top half of the "habit" was torn to expose the breasts that this man had added surgically. He was still a "man" because every now and then he'd lift his skirt higher so the guy with him could grope his "package", which was quite obvious in the thong he was wearing. These two were simulating sex acts on a float parading through Manchester town centre, in broad daylight. The police did nothing to stop it... if they had tried it would have started a riot.

These were just two of the "acts" - there was a naked man riding a bycicle making provocative "humping" gestures, and there were plenty of people in all manner of clothing and undress engaged in foreplay and groping.

This is what I've seen in the UK. I don't have a video link to it, you'll just have to take my word.

HisLeast
May 16th 2008, 12:00 PM
When I went to university, usually the 2nd or 3rd week after commencement, they'd set up the student center (basically a small mall) with kiosks for every club and society at the school you could join. My first year the "Out" club (gay & lesbian society) had a poster probably 8 feet high by 4 feet wide of a guy performing a certain act on another. It was graphic, and not subtle in the least. When people complained about it, the school took it down. There was no riot, but there were marches and demonstrations for a while, and we eared a reputation as being an "oppressive" school that year.

So I'm not doubting the stories' veracity. What I'm not feeling is a causal link between the state of California and the end times.

daughter
May 16th 2008, 12:07 PM
We are in the End Times, and have been ever since Christ rose from the dead, defeating the devil.

Basically, the old serpent has had his head crushed, but the news that he's dead hasn't filtered down to his body yet... what we're seeing now is his death throws, he's thrashing about in anger to take out as many as he can - while simultaneously the earth groans with the birth pains of the Kingdom coming in.

I don't know when the Kingdom will be fulfilled on this earth... but it will be, and it will come soon. Whenever soon is in God's plan.

My husband's grandmother prayed for him to be saved from the day he s born until the day she died, and it never happened. Then, fortynine years after her first prayer, it "happened swiftly." God did just as He had always purposed.

When the end comes, it will be tremendous, a great and terrible day, and we'll all rejoice in it. I personally hope, and live so far as I can, as though it will happen in my life time. It may not though... whatever happens, He is coming, and when He comes all things will be put right.

moonglow
May 16th 2008, 04:14 PM
All that means is that there were live nude homosexual acts occuring. It DOESN'T mean we're smack in the middle of the end times. And since I have to "check again", lets both look WAAAAY back to Soddom, where the whole town showed up to gang rape Lot's male guests. Or research why Isreal had a civil war with the tribe of Benjamin in the book of Judges. Or more recently, look at the Roman empire... when at the height of its Imperial power, aristocrats were expected to attend the orgies of the ruling class or be put to death.

So... I'm sorry but looking at the state of California, "THE END IS NIGH" is not my first thought.

Ok thank you for that post...I have never seen a gay parade nor do I want too.

It all just reminds me of this verse:

Revelation 22
11 Let the one who is doing harm continue to do harm; let the one who is vile continue to be vile; let the one who is righteous continue to live righteously; let the one who is holy continue to be holy.”

God bless

Ecumaniac
May 16th 2008, 04:41 PM
I think that it's important to note that this decision was made by carefully considering legal precedent with regards to the interpretation of California's state constitution, and not judicial activism. The ruling is available online (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF) — though I warn readers that it is a 172 page PDF document of terse legal discourse, certainly not for the faint-hearted!

redeemedbyhim
May 17th 2008, 12:52 AM
I think that it's important to note that this decision was made by carefully considering legal precedent with regards to the interpretation of California's state constitution, and not judicial activism. The ruling is available online (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF) — though I warn readers that it is a 172 page PDF document of terse legal discourse, certainly not for the faint-hearted!

Well, three judges disagreed with the outcome, so there was some level of "activisim".
But, in any case, it's an abomination in the site of a Holy God.

redeemedbyhim
May 17th 2008, 12:58 AM
I've seen a homosexual man on a gay parade, dressed in a fake nun costume, with the skirt a mini dress, showing suspenders. The top half of the "habit" was torn to expose the breasts that this man had added surgically. He was still a "man" because every now and then he'd lift his skirt higher so the guy with him could grope his "package", which was quite obvious in the thong he was wearing. These two were simulating sex acts on a float parading through Manchester town centre, in broad daylight. The police did nothing to stop it... if they had tried it would have started a riot.

These were just two of the "acts" - there was a naked man riding a bycicle making provocative "humping" gestures, and there were plenty of people in all manner of clothing and undress engaged in foreplay and groping.

This is what I've seen in the UK. I don't have a video link to it, you'll just have to take my word.

I believe you, Daughter.
I saw on TV, with my own eyes, parts of the gay pride parade in San Francisco. If the immoral behavior of the sex acts wasn't bad enough, there were men barely dressed pararding around with their arms tied to Crosses in obvious mockery of the Cross of Calvery.

The police don't stop this kind of behavior, it may be considered hate speech to do so and definiatley not PC.

I never thought I'd live to see the day. :(

redeemedbyhim
May 17th 2008, 01:05 AM
I am not surprised by the news today about the supreme court overturned allowing for Gay Marriages in CALIFORNIA.

I only wonder if this IS another sign of the End times... with everything else that is happening:(

Jesus Hurry!:pray:

I believe it is. This was a nation founded on Judeo/Christian principles, we've fallen a long way in a very short time.

It's one thing to know homosexual behavior has existed since who knows when, it's an entirely different thing when our society puts it's "seal of approval" on what our Holy God considers an abomination!

Ecumaniac
May 17th 2008, 02:34 AM
Well, three judges disagreed with the outcome, so there was some level of "activisim".

Personally, I think that it is more "activist" to presume that one is qualified to pass comment on the legal expertise of the judiciary without attempting a proper understanding of the relevant precedents, and how they directed the constitutional interpretation of "the right to marry." The question, simply, put, is: can California make a verbal distinction between the relationship of a same-sex couple and an opposite-sex couple without violating the state constitution?


But, in any case, it's an abomination in the site of a Holy God.The judges were not asked to establish if same-sex marriage is "tbewt" (a word which, according to one Jewish friend, is better translated as "incorrect" than "abomination"), but to determine its constitutionality. As you will note from reading the judgement, the judges take pains to point out that they are not trying to "decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy," that gay marriage should be legally permissible in California, but to determine whether or not calling it something else "violates the California Constitution." [pp. 4–5]

Reading through the decision, a key issue is whether or not homosexuality counts as a "suspect classification" for the purposes of California's equal protection clause. [p. 95] One general condition for any classification to be described as "suspect" is that it "be associated with a 'stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship[.]'" [pp. 96–97] To this effect, it is observed that "Outside of racial and religious minorities, we can think of no group which has suffered such 'pernicious and sustained hostility,' and such 'immediate and severe opprobrium,' as homosexuals." Reading the comments here, and knowing that most gay people do not perform sex acts in public any more than most Christians picket soldiers' funerals, it does not seem hard to discern how this precondition was so easily met.

Insofar as I've read the document, I can see no reason to criticise the judges from a legal perspective. Whether or not same-sex marriage should be specifically exempted by amending the California Constitution is a policy matter, and thus irrelevant to the integrity of the judiciary.

Joyfilled
May 17th 2008, 04:24 AM
I am not surprised by the news today about the supreme court overturned allowing for Gay Marriages in CALIFORNIA.

I only wonder if this IS another sign of the End times... with everything else that is happening:(

Jesus Hurry!:pray:

Absolutely. In fact, homosexual marriage is a landmark in history because it's a turning point that no society has ever even contemplated. So it marks a moral downfall never before surpassed in human history. Not even people in Sodom and Gomorrah resorted to that kind of depravity.

Ecumaniac
May 17th 2008, 04:54 AM
Not even people in Sodom and Gomorrah resorted to that kind of depravity.

If we are comparing depravity, I think that gang rape en masse is far nastier than two people of the same sex consenting to marry! :confused

Ecumaniac
May 17th 2008, 04:55 AM
I've read through the entire judgement now, so if anyone would like I can try to summarise the key points when I'm a little more awake.

redeemedbyhim
May 17th 2008, 06:37 AM
If we are comparing depravity, I think that gang rape en masse is far nastier than two people of the same sex consenting to marry! :confused

They are both sin, both will seperate a man or woman from their God and salvation.
That should be the primary concern for every Christian and not whether earthly law was followed to the letter or not, imo. Nor which one is "nastier".

The bottom line of concern should be how many souls will be lost because the law now says their lifestyle has been approved. How will God judge this decision is what matters, not what the law has said or will say.

God bless.

Joyfilled
May 17th 2008, 01:21 PM
They are both sin, both will seperate a man or woman from their God and salvation.
That should be the primary concern for every Christian and not whether earthly law was followed to the letter or not, imo. Nor which one is "nastier".

The bottom line of concern should be how many souls will be lost because the law now says their lifestyle has been approved. How will God judge this decision is what matters, not what the law has said or will say.

God bless.

Actually, some churches are now approving their actions. While the ELCA hasn't yet condoned gay marriages, they refuse to say that homosexuality is a sin. They simply announced that they have to take into account what scientists say about homosexuality. :o And the Presbyrtarian churches are ordaining homosexual priests. So it's those who claim to be Christians who endorse homosexuality who will have to give the biggest account on judgment day.

Seeker of truth
May 17th 2008, 01:48 PM
Marriage is a blood covenant between a man and a woman. How can two men or two women possibly be married?

They may call it a marriage. The bottom line is it is not.

Any legalized gay "marriage" is most definitly a sign of the times. Nothing is sacred to the majority of people in this world. They turn away from God. They mock Christianity. They are completely blinded by the enemy :(

redeemedbyhim
May 17th 2008, 02:00 PM
Actually, some churches are now approving their actions. While the ELCA hasn't yet condoned gay marriages, they refuse to say that homosexuality is a sin. They simply announced that they have to take into account what scientists say about homosexuality. :o And the Presbyrtarian churches are ordaining homosexual priests. So it's those who claim to be Christians who endorse homosexuality who will have to give the biggest account on judgment day.

Judgement starts in the house of God. My heart breaks for the souls that will be lost because man has put his own will and ways above God's. In Isaiah it says, woe to those who call evil good and good evil.

The Word says in the last days there would be a great falling away, so I don't know how we don't look at this as part of the end times.

In the California school district it is no longer alowed to use the words, "mom", "dad", "wife", "husband". How can this be, but a sign of the times we are living in.

God help those who have bought a lie from satan and may they turn to the God of mercy, no matter the sin they are cought up in, seeing how we are all sinners who have fallen short of the glory of God.

HisLeast
May 17th 2008, 02:30 PM
The Word says in the last days there would be a great falling away, so I don't know how we don't look at this as part of the end times.

I guess I don't look at it that way because reading through the old testament I see times where people had rebelled just as thoroughly or even further. Judges especially demonstrates this. Then looking back over history I see times when man demonstrated a clear separation from God in great and destructive ways (Pol Pot & Stalin's murderous communist regimes, the Jewish Holocaust, the selling of Papal indulgences, etc). Lastly, who's falling away? Were these people obedient to God's ways before the marriage legislation? There's no falling away here.


In the California school district it is no longer alowed to use the words, "mom", "dad", "wife", "husband". How can this be, but a sign of the times we are living in.

A blatant and outright lie spread by WorldNetDaily. Anyone who reads bill SB777 can see that ban simply does not exist. But is anyone going to point at WorldNetDaily and show how lies and truth twisting are a sign of the end times? I doubt it.


God help those who have bought a lie from satan and may they turn to the God of mercy, no matter the sin they are cought up in, seeing how we are all sinners who have fallen short of the glory of God.

Couldn't agree more on this.

Ecumaniac
May 17th 2008, 02:56 PM
They are both sin, both will seperate a man or woman from their God and salvation.
That should be the primary concern for every Christian and not whether earthly law was followed to the letter or not, imo. Nor which one is "nastier".

I was simply responding to Joyfilled's assertion that having a monogamous homosexual relationship ratified by law is more depraved than gang rape.


The bottom line of concern should be how many souls will be lost because the law now says their lifestyle has been approved. How will God judge this decision is what matters, not what the law has said or will say.

The judges were asked to interpret the statutory necessity of same-sex marriage with reference to the California Constitution, not work out how to bring more souls to God. After reading the judgement, I am reassured that those representatives are above reproach. I just want to make sure that we are clear on the facts: this is a legitimate interpretation of prior case law as it relates to the California Constitution, and has nothing to do with the judges' political or religious inclinations.

Hopefully, the issue will be decided one way or another by the voters of California. If they wish to prevent gay marriage, whatever their prerogatives, then the California Constitution will be amended to reflect this. In light of your comments, would you support a further amendment to the effect that all laws should be evaluated to ensure that they align with mainstream Protestant doctrine? I realise that this sounds sarcastic, but it honestly sounds like the only way you could be sure that the souls will not be lost due to legal endorsement of sinful lifestyles.

redeemedbyhim
May 17th 2008, 03:10 PM
[quote]I guess I don't look at it that way because reading through the old testament I see times where people had rebelled just as thoroughly or even further. Judges especially demonstrates this. Then looking back over history I see times when man demonstrated a clear separation from God in great and destructive ways (Pol Pot & Stalin's murderous communist regimes, the Jewish Holocaust, the selling of Papal indulgences, etc). Lastly, who's falling away? Were these people obedient to God's ways before the marriage legislation? There's no falling away here.

Then what would point in the direction of end times, in your view?
History is replete with savory characters who have done horrible things, but were these men/movements church leaders?
In the history of the church have homosexuals been ordained as ministers of the Gospel? I would presume that the church leaders who are now offering and approving ministry to homosexuals were in the beginning bible believing men and women.
The Presbyrtarian and other established churches who now sanction homosexual behavior did not do so in the beginnig.


A blatant and outright lie spread by WorldNetDaily. Anyone who reads bill SB777 can see that ban simply does not exist. But is anyone going to point at WorldNetDaily and show how lies and truth twisting are a sign of the end times? I doubt it.

If I've believed an "outright lie", I would hope you would explain this to me so I can understand.
This is from a link to the bill:
Existing law prohibits a teacher from giving instruction, and a
school district from sponsoring any activity, that reflects adversely
upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap,
national origin, or ancestry.
This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of
discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction and activities
and, instead, would refer to disability, gender, nationality, race or
ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic
contained in the definition of hate crimes that is contained in the
Penal Code. The bill would define disability, gender, nationality,
race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation for this purpose



Is it not true that transgendered people will be allowed to use the locker rooms and restrooms of their choosing?
How far can this bill reach into defining what the school districts can use for instruction into the homosexual lifestyle?

I've heard many things and would like to be corrected, if I've mis-understood.

Perhaps time will tell how far this bill will go in instructing our children on the homosexual lifestyle. There were enough assemblyment in opposition to give me pause.

redeemedbyhim
May 17th 2008, 03:16 PM
In light of your comments, would you support a further amendment to the effect that all laws should be evaluated to ensure that they align with mainstream Protestant doctrine? I realise that this sounds sarcastic, but it honestly sounds like the only way you could be sure that the souls will not be lost due to legal endorsement of sinful lifestyles.

There isn't any reason to be sarcastic and take this to mean anything further then what I've said on this issue.

If you want to parse words and dance around the subject of what God deems sin, then that's your right.

Ecumaniac
May 17th 2008, 04:01 PM
There isn't any reason to be sarcastic and take this to mean anything further then what I've said on this issue.

I tried to explain that I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, I was simply making a point. You expressed concern that "souls will be lost" because the law permits same-sex marriages, and my response was to point out that either you believe that saving souls in general is a legitimate concern for the legislature, or you are making a special case for homosexuality.


If you want to parse words and dance around the subject of what God deems sin, then that's your right.Dance? :confused I'm not dancing around anything! The law of the land isn't meant to save souls, but ultimately to protect the rights of individuals with respect to autonomy, property, the pursuit of happiness etc. The judges were tasked with interpreting it, and they did so legitimately and in good faith.

Nor do I see what's unreasonable about "pars[ing] words." How else are we meant to have a discussion, especially about the law?

danield
May 24th 2008, 12:00 AM
The judges were asked to interpret the statutory necessity of same-sex marriage with reference to the California Constitution, not work out how to bring more souls to God. After reading the judgement, I am reassured that those representatives are above reproach. I just want to make sure that we are clear on the facts: this is a legitimate interpretation of prior case law as it relates to the California Constitution, and has nothing to do with the judges' political or religious inclinations.

I want to make a comment about this if I may. I hope I do not take this topic to off course because it is an important topic, but what strikes me funny is how many men today do not stand up for what they believe in and just go along with what they feel is correct in their interpretation of a situation.

Case in point, there was a story on 60 Minutes a while back about men who have served time in prison for crimes that they did not commit. And the team at 60 Minutes had found two attorneys who discovered the innocence of a man through the information of another client. And because of attorney client laws they were not allowed to divulge this information to the courts. It would violate state laws and they could be held in contempt and loose their licenses to practice if they leaked this information.

So they sat on this truth for 20 some odd years while this man served hard time for a crime that he did not commit. Those attorneys stayed in touch with that client that brought to light his involvement in the original crime because I think he was in jail for another crime, and it was on his death bed that he allowed his attorneys to come forward with this new evidence to clear the original innocent guy. 20+ years had passed while they knew this and they did not come forward. And I just sat in awe looking at two men who took another persons life away just to save their career.

I have seen the bar association in several state reinstate attorneys licenses to attorneys who have committed felony crimes so it is not like they would have lost their licenses forever. And it could have been just a fine that those attorneys had to pay if they would have come clean with the information. What I am trying to say is that people are not standing up in what is right in today’s world. I do not care if someone was going to put me in jail, I still would not send a man to prison wrongfully. God puts these men in positions to make judgment over what is right and what is wrong. Is it possible that we have lost sight of this simple fact?

Just as the above poster clearly stated that these 3 judges made a ruling that was in compliance with the California constitution, what happened to doing what is right? I have heard many commentaries on fox news from attorneys that state that those judges stepped over the bounds of their interpretation of these rules, but beyond that they interpreted rules of nature wrongly and imposed it on society. Why are so many people who find themselves in a position of authority making such horrible decisions? I know life is not fair, but are we just sinking to new depths of deceit? All I can say is God help them!

God Bless.

Matthew 5:6 6 God blesses those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they will be satisfied.

Gary Rake
May 24th 2008, 02:50 AM
Dear Ecumaniac:

You stated above,

"would you support a further amendment to the effect that all laws should be evaluated to ensure that they align with mainstream Protestant doctrine? I realise that this sounds sarcastic, but it honestly sounds like the only way you could be sure that the souls will not be lost due to legal endorsement of sinful lifestyles."

Well while we can't quite do that today, I think I recall reading that Jesus will do that in His reign from Jerusalem...but of course it won't be with Protestant or any other religion's dogma, it will be Heaven's laws.

Just my 2 cents worth.
gr

Ecumaniac
Jun 1st 2008, 01:43 AM
…[W]hat strikes me funny is how many men today do not stand up for what they believe in and just go along with what they feel is correct in their interpretation of a situation.

[…]Just as the above poster clearly stated that these 3 judges made a ruling that was in compliance with the California constitution, what happened to doing what is right?[…]

These judges have a sworn duty to interpret the California Constitution faithfully, and not to subvert this interpretation in accordance to their own personal religious or political beliefs. What you seem to be advocating is that they should forswear this duty, by either resigning from their position or submitting an intentionally dishonest opinion. The latter option, in particular, seems like a particularly egregious outpouring of dishonesty. :sad: If, on the other hand, you are advocating resignation, then I sympathise.


Well while we can't quite do that today, I think I recall reading that Jesus will do that in His reign from Jerusalem...but of course it won't be with Protestant or any other religion's dogma, it will be Heaven's laws.

I agree, and if I'm lucky, this will happen in my lifetime. :) But while we are being led by human beings, I would rather not submit to the edicts of ayatollahs.

Athanasius
Jun 1st 2008, 01:48 AM
These judges have a sworn duty to interpret the California Constitution faithfully, and not to subvert this interpretation in accordance to their own personal religious or political beliefs.

Of the Californians who cared to respond; when the issue of gay marriage was brought up, how many of them were for it?

Ecumaniac
Jun 1st 2008, 02:12 AM
Of the Californians who cared to respond; when the issue of gay marriage was brought up, how many of them were for it?

This is irrelevant. The judges were asked to make a decision based on the California Constitution, not take a guess at what the majority of Californians want. That's a matter for the ballot, not the courts.

Indeed, as explicitly noted in the opinion I linked to, one of the biggest reasons for even having a written Constitution is to protect minorities in the face of an oppressive majoritarian agenda:


In holding today that the right to marry guaranteed by the state Constitution may not be withheld from anyone on the ground of sexual orientation, this court discharges its gravest and most important responsibility under our constitutional form of government. There is a reason why the words “Equal Justice Under Law” are inscribed above the entrance to the courthouse of the United States Supreme Court. Both the federal and the state Constitutions guarantee to all the “equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7), and it is the particular responsibility of the judiciary to enforce those guarantees. The architects of our federal and state Constitutions understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular minority groups, and that the most effective remedy for this form of oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection.

Athanasius
Jun 1st 2008, 02:19 AM
This is irrelevant.

How many Californians voted against gay marriage?

EarlyCall
Jun 1st 2008, 01:56 PM
The men of Soddom & Gomorah surrounded Lot's house, kicked and pounded at the doors demanding Lot send his guests out so the town could rape them.

We have a long way to go yet.

Jesus said it would be like the days of Noah - not like the g(ys in Sodom and Gomorrah. One thing to note from what you mention about that story is that persecution will come from the g*ys and others under the g*y umbrella. It is in fact doing so in England and Canada and other nations and already beginning here in the US.

I think there are going to be some very surprised people and that because they wake up one morning unable to any longer pretend we are not in the end times.

But, things take time. It is not God that moves wicked men to ever greater wickedness, so God tells us what will be and then God waits on man to do it. So how long it takes I do not know, but we are ever more moving in that direction God forewarned us of and things begin to take on a momentum.

EarlyCall
Jun 1st 2008, 02:12 PM
Personally, I think that it is more "activist" to presume that one is qualified to pass comment on the legal expertise of the judiciary without attempting a proper understanding of the relevant precedents, and how they directed the constitutional interpretation of "the right to marry." The question, simply, put, is: can California make a verbal distinction between the relationship of a same-sex couple and an opposite-sex couple without violating the state constitution?

The judges were not asked to establish if same-sex marriage is "tbewt" (a word which, according to one Jewish friend, is better translated as "incorrect" than "abomination"), but to determine its constitutionality. As you will note from reading the judgement, the judges take pains to point out that they are not trying to "decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy," that gay marriage should be legally permissible in California, but to determine whether or not calling it something else "violates the California Constitution." [pp. 4–5]

Reading through the decision, a key issue is whether or not homosexuality counts as a "suspect classification" for the purposes of California's equal protection clause. [p. 95] One general condition for any classification to be described as "suspect" is that it "be associated with a 'stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship[.]'" [pp. 96–97] To this effect, it is observed that "Outside of racial and religious minorities, we can think of no group which has suffered such 'pernicious and sustained hostility,' and such 'immediate and severe opprobrium,' as homosexuals." Reading the comments here, and knowing that most gay people do not perform sex acts in public any more than most Christians picket soldiers' funerals, it does not seem hard to discern how this precondition was so easily met.

Insofar as I've read the document, I can see no reason to criticise the judges from a legal perspective. Whether or not same-sex marriage should be specifically exempted by amending the California Constitution is a policy matter, and thus irrelevant to the integrity of the judiciary.

Hogwash. Tell me the originators of the constitution believed g*y marriage should be legal in the state. Go ahead and try to make a case for that. Good luck with that.

Here's what I'd like to see you attempt: make the case before God as though it were judgment day. Let's see if you can make it fly. You're trying awfully hard here to make a defense for these wicked judges. I'd love to see you do so before God.

Ready? Begin.

EarlyCall
Jun 1st 2008, 02:19 PM
This is irrelevant. The judges were asked to make a decision based on the California Constitution, not take a guess at what the majority of Californians want. That's a matter for the ballot, not the courts.

Indeed, as explicitly noted in the opinion I linked to, one of the biggest reasons for even having a written Constitution is to protect minorities in the face of an oppressive majoritarian agenda:

Oppressive majority agenda? Oh I think you just gave yourself away! Tell you what. After you tell us exactly what that oppressive agenda is, then you can explain why it ought not be so for incest, polygamy and pedophilia. After all, people of this immorality are in the minority and have been long suppressed by the agenda of the majority.

Good luck with that and I'm waiting.

Ecumaniac
Jun 1st 2008, 02:32 PM
How many Californians voted against gay marriage?

Define "voted". Are you referring specifically to the unconstitutional Proposition 22, introduced in 2000? In that instance, 61.4% voted in favour. As of 2008, the number of Californians who are against gay marriage is a decreasing majority—51% for, 42% against. Support is strongest in the 18–29 age group, at 68%, and lowest in the 65+ age group at 36%. I can safely say that within ten years, barring fire or brimstone, a firm majority of Californians will support gay marriage.

But like I said, this is completely irrelevant to the judges' decision, so I'm rather confused why you're asking me about it! If enough signatures are collected, a motion for a constitutional amendment will be on the ballot come November, which I suspect will be the real decider. :)

Athanasius
Jun 1st 2008, 02:38 PM
Define "voted". Are you referring specifically to the unconstitutional Proposition 22, introduced in 2000? In that instance, 61.4% voted in favour. As of 2008, the number of Californians who are against gay marriage is a decreasing majority—51% for, 42% against. Support is strongest in the 18–29 age group, at 68%, and lowest in the 65+ age group at 36%. I can safely say that within ten years, barring fire or brimstone, a firm majority of Californians will support gay marriage.

But like I said, this is completely irrelevant to the judges' decision, so I'm rather confused why you're asking me about it! If enough signatures are collected, a motion for a constitutional amendment will be on the ballot come November, which I suspect will be the real decider. :)

Do courts serve the people, or do people serve the courts?

Ecumaniac
Jun 1st 2008, 02:44 PM
Hogwash. Tell me the originators of the constitution believed g*y marriage should be legal in the state. Go ahead and try to make a case for that. Good luck with that.



The California Constitution is not the US Constitution, and since the latter document leaves a wide scope for individual states, the former takes precedence.
Constitutions are intended to cover those rights and rule on decisions which the original framers were not aware of; just look at how the "right to bear arms" has evolved.


Here's what I'd like to see you attempt: make the case before God as though it were judgment day. Let's see if you can make it fly. You're trying awfully hard here to make a defense for these wicked judges. I'd love to see you do so before God.

Ready? Begin.

You're being awfully rude, Early, but very well. The judges, in good faith, considered this to be the only constitutionally defensible position. The judges swore an oath that, regardless of their own personal beliefs, they would interpret law in good faith. If the judges said otherwise, they would be breaking their oath and lying, which is manifestly sinful.

I'm also very sad to see that you presume to call the judges "wicked" because they didn't lie when faced with an extremely tough call. Why do you focus so on the mote of dust in your brother's eye? :sad:

Ecumaniac
Jun 1st 2008, 02:49 PM
Oppressive majority agenda? Oh I think you just gave yourself away! Tell you what. After you tell us exactly what that oppressive agenda is, then you can explain why it ought not be so for incest, polygamy and pedophilia. After all, people of this immorality are in the minority and have been long suppressed by the agenda of the majority.

This, like many other questions I've already answered, is addressed in the opinion, which is publicly available on the web through the link I provided above. I invite anyone who wants to have a discussion on this to please read the document. It's not badly written, and will save me a lot of time.

The short explanation is that these would not qualify for "strict scrutiny," nor would they pass it even if they did.

Ecumaniac
Jun 1st 2008, 02:51 PM
Do courts serve the people, or do people serve the courts?

I've already answered this. Read the paragraph I quoted earlier, when you first brought this up.

Athanasius
Jun 1st 2008, 02:55 PM
I've already answered this. Read the paragraph I quoted earlier, when you first brought this up.

Then I'll assume you mean to say people serve the court.

redeemedbyhim
Jun 1st 2008, 03:11 PM
Jesus said it would be like the days of Noah - not like the g(ys in Sodom and Gomorrah. One thing to note from what you mention about that story is that persecution will come from the g*ys and others under the g*y umbrella. It is in fact doing so in England and Canada and other nations and already beginning here in the US.

I think there are going to be some very surprised people and that because they wake up one morning unable to any longer pretend we are not in the end times.

But, things take time. It is not God that moves wicked men to ever greater wickedness, so God tells us what will be and then God waits on man to do it. So how long it takes I do not know, but we are ever more moving in that direction God forewarned us of and things begin to take on a momentum.

You've noticed the "momentum" too? I'm in awe of this, I think it speaks loudest as to the times we are in.
Colorado passed a bill recently making it illegal to bar transgendered school children as well as adults from using the rest room/showers of THEIR choosing. I think this follows suit to California doing the same.

Though supporters of this bill say this is not the intent, you can be sure it is exactly what will happen. There will be nothing to stop the transgendered from using the facilities they wish and it will be a crime to stop them. It started out inch by inch and now it's mile by mile that the behaviors God says are an abomination are becoming not only accepted, but a crime to opppose.

And I'm also in awe of those who defend the rights of these judges to do exactly what they do, claiming earthly laws written by men above God's laws written by God That also is becoming more common place.
Who should we obey, God or man?

EarlyCall
Jun 1st 2008, 07:38 PM
The California Constitution is not the US Constitution, and since the latter document leaves a wide scope for individual states, the former takes precedence.
Constitutions are intended to cover those rights and rule on decisions which the original framers were not aware of; just look at how the "right to bear arms" has evolved.



You're being awfully rude, Early, but very well. The judges, in good faith, considered this to be the only constitutionally defensible position. The judges swore an oath that, regardless of their own personal beliefs, they would interpret law in good faith. If the judges said otherwise, they would be breaking their oath and lying, which is manifestly sinful.

I'm also very sad to see that you presume to call the judges "wicked" because they didn't lie when faced with an extremely tough call. Why do you focus so on the mote of dust in your brother's eye? :sad:

I'm well aware of what constitution we are discussing.

The judges had no foundation by the state constitution to make such a judgment in spite of what you claim. There were three judges that also felt this way. The judge writing the decision is known from past statements to be quite for judicial activism and for the g*y agenda. Make your claim all you like, continue to say they did what they did by obligation according to the state constitution, but don't expect me to buy into such a thing.

If it suits you well to believe such a thing, then believe it. But don't expect me to pretend along with you. It has been understood throughout all of man's history that marriage was between man and woman. Everyone knows this. But we have some now claiming otherwise, reaching way back into our history to claim the writers of the constitution (any one you want to pick from is fine) meant for g*ys to be protected by being entitled to marriage.

That would be funny were it not so wicked. It's utterly stupid on the face of it and anywhere else you might look, but you and others like you wish it to be so and therefore say it is so. And for you and others like you, that is sufficient. Sufficient in fact to change history, meaning and in fact the very order God Himself established.

I noticed you did not make a case before God as I asked you to do. It's an easy thing to defend such things before us, but making a case of it before god would be something else. So do some role playing for me will ya?

EarlyCall
Jun 1st 2008, 07:54 PM
This, like many other questions I've already answered, is addressed in the opinion, which is publicly available on the web through the link I provided above. I invite anyone who wants to have a discussion on this to please read the document. It's not badly written, and will save me a lot of time.

The short explanation is that these would not qualify for "strict scrutiny," nor would they pass it even if they did.

The very argument used, the very one used in defense of this position would not have met strict scrutiny until wickedness became the order of the day.

You prove my point by your very argument.

Look, we could go round and round. Mostly what you have done in this thread is defend four wicked judges, defend their wicked decision and defend the wickedness of it all. Oh yes, that is exactly what you have done. You defend against God and His word.

There were three judges that did not find what these four judges did.

Oh but you say the four judges are the majority and therefore right. Well, sorry, but that majority thing didn't work for the people of California and yet now you will try and pretend it makes right for the judges? Oh I don't think you want to go there.

EarlyCall
Jun 1st 2008, 08:31 PM
You've noticed the "momentum" too? I'm in awe of this, I think it speaks loudest as to the times we are in.
Colorado passed a bill recently making it illegal to bar transgendered school children as well as adults from using the rest room/showers of THEIR choosing. I think this follows suit to California doing the same.

Though supporters of this bill say this is not the intent, you can be sure it is exactly what will happen. There will be nothing to stop the transgendered from using the facilities they wish and it will be a crime to stop them. It started out inch by inch and now it's mile by mile that the behaviors God says are an abomination are becoming not only accepted, but a crime to opppose.

And I'm also in awe of those who defend the rights of these judges to do exactly what they do, claiming earthly laws written by men above God's laws written by God That also is becoming more common place.
Who should we obey, God or man?

Indeed. You're calling it exactly as it is and as it will be.

We are going to see it get far worse than it is even now. It takes a liar to make the claim things will not go from bad to worse because we have history to show it is so. I'm talking about the past fifty years of history.

The bottom line to this is that one will stand by God and His word or they will stand against it and claim the judges did the right thing. It doesn't matter what excuse or claim you make to defend these judges. One could defend the three judges that ruled contrary to the four. But it says a lot about a person when they instead choose to side with the four wicked judges.

One cannot claim the ruling to be right because the majority of the judges ruled thus. That would be laying claim based on majority. As we have seen one in this thread already say that the judges were not interested in the majority opinion of the voters in CA. Further, said person laid claim that the judges were protecting the minority from the majority agenda.

Thus, majority cannot then be made the basis for right and wrong here. You cannot pick and choose as you like, though some wish and try to do so.

In the end, it always comes down to right and wrong. It comes down to that on the day of judgment. You are found right in Christ or not. You are judged according to your deeds - be they right or wrong. It is always the bottom line.

How revealing then to see some 'Christians" siding with four wicked judges, making excuses for them, claiming they did right and all the while they stood in defiance of God Himself! We will see more and more of this too with time.

Ecumaniac
Jun 1st 2008, 08:36 PM
Then I'll assume you mean to say people serve the court.

Please don't "assume" what I "mean to say". Please read the quote I gave and try to understand the implications. You asked me to choose from between two simplistic options, neither of which represent the whole truth.

People must obey the law, as decided by the courts. The court must protect the rights of the people, which are guaranteed by the constitution and examined through the lens of judicial precedent. "X serves Y" is a simplification too far.

Ecumaniac
Jun 1st 2008, 08:55 PM
The judges had no foundation by the state constitution to make such a judgment in spite of what you claim.

Your only rebuttal so far has been that three judges voted otherwise, and the fairly indiscriminate use of the adjective "wicked". Please, if you think the opinion is flawed, could you refer to those specific points?


There were three judges that also felt this way.

Correct.


The judge writing the decision is known from past statements to be quite for judicial activism and for the g*y agenda.

Poisoning the well. His history is irrelevant to the correctness of this particular decision.


Make your claim all you like, continue to say they did what they did by obligation according to the state constitution, but don't expect me to buy into such a thing.

You don't need to. If you live in California, you will probably have a chance to vote for a constitutional amendment in November.


If it suits you well to believe such a thing, then believe it. But don't expect me to pretend along with you.

Are you intentionally implying that I am insincere, EarlyCall?


It has been understood throughout all of man's history that marriage was between man and woman. Everyone knows this. But we have some now claiming otherwise, reaching way back into our history to claim the writers of the constitution (any one you want to pick from is fine) meant for g*ys to be protected by being entitled to marriage.

Who claims this? A constitution is meant to protect the rights of the people, not act as a window into the minds of those men who originally framed it. This is law, not psychoanalysis! :)


That would be funny were it not so wicked. It's utterly stupid on the face of it and anywhere else you might look, but you and others like you wish it to be so and therefore say it is so. And for you and others like you, that is sufficient.

Ad hominem. You don't know what I believe beyond that I consider this to be a valid interpretation of the California Constitution with respect to existing case law.


I noticed you did not make a case before God as I asked you to do. It's an easy thing to defend such things before us, but making a case of it before god would be something else. So do some role playing for me will ya?

Didn't you read my earlier post? :confused

EarlyCall
Jun 1st 2008, 11:14 PM
Your only rebuttal so far has been that three judges voted otherwise, and the fairly indiscriminate use of the adjective "wicked". Please, if you think the opinion is flawed, could you refer to those specific points?

It is a simple matter of wickedness concerning these judges. And so far, your only defense for your position is that four judges decided in one manner. And excuse me, but that is hardly any more a defense of your position than you claim I have or make.

Here is how your defense goes. You start with the statement/claim the four judges decided according to the constitution. You say they did so rightly. I counter that three judges decided the constitution does not say what the four claim it says. You counter with: rfer to the decision of the four judges. I counter with: refer the the decision of the three judges. Care to show me the difference here?

Correct.



Poisoning the well. His history is irrelevant to the correctness of this particular decision.

That would be your opinion. But evidence, whether it be past or present is a good indicator in many cases. Is it your argument that judges do not make decisions based on their personal preference? Far too many cases showing otherwise to claim that does not happen. I believe it did happen here.

You don't need to. If you live in California, you will probably have a chance to vote for a constitutional amendment in November.

I wouldn't live in CA. for any amount of money. However, it is my great hope these judges are put in their place come November. I'd call it justice for the people.

Are you intentionally implying that I am insincere, EarlyCall?

Not at all.

Who claims this? A constitution is meant to protect the rights of the people, not act as a window into the minds of those men who originally framed it. This is law, not psychoanalysis! :)

Really? Then why refer to the federalist papers or any personal writings of our founding fathers if not to get a better understanding of their intent? Or do you contend such things do not lend anything to our understanding of documents from long ago? However, you make my argument for me and not well for yourself when you try to insist it is somehow in the CA constitution that g*ys should be permitted marriage. Odd it doesn't say that. So four judges believe that they have found it somehow.

Regardless, it takes no honest person by surprise that all of man's history has considered marriage to be between a man and a woman. Furthermore, God decided it was so.

Ad hominem. You don't know what I believe beyond that I consider this to be a valid interpretation of the California Constitution with respect to existing case law.

To be sure. But when someone sides with four judges and think they got it right when they say g*ys should be able to marry, then I weigh that in the balance against what God says. You come up short just as the judges do. No, sorry, I don't for a minute buy this garbage that it is in the state's constitution.

What actually happened was the four judges decided to find anything in the constitution on which they could make their case. That is not a difficult thing to do. That is a means by which one can stretch anything to be anything they want. And it is happening more and more in this nation until the constitution of the US and states has become whatever liberal judges want it to be. Thus, they become no constitution at all but rather an excuse and a means for liberalism to inflict immorality upon the rest of us.

That is exactly what has happened here.

Didn't you read my earlier post? :confused

Which one? I think I've read most of your posts and certainly the ones you wrote in reply to my posts.

I think we can wrap this up this way, and you tell me if I am right: you find the four judges to have decided correctly and I find they did not. You claim they did and you back that up with their decision. I claim they did not and I back that up with the decision of the three other judges.

As I said, you cannot claim the high ground here because the majority of judges beats the minority. We all understand that is how it works, but on the level of deciding who is actually right, it does not work that way. Anymore than you allowing the majority of the people to outweigh the four judges. Anymore than you allowing the majority of people to outweigh the minority of g*ys and those that support their agenda.

So we are at the point we cannot go beyond. Thank God He will one day set the four judges straight and the lot of people that were so thrilled with this decision. I'm so looking forward to that day when God puts an end to this wickedness.

Bottom line here is that you ought to be horrified by it all. It is terrible wickedness. But I've not seen that it bothers you in the least. Perhaps it does, but you've had ample opportunity to express that and yet all we've seen from you is defense of this wicked decision.

And no, sorry, I will not refer to it other than the wickedness it is. I will call the judges wicked because they are. They chose to go against God and His word. Can you show me where that is ever the right thing to do? Ever? I don't think you can. And the four judges on the day of judgment will not hide behind any state constitution.

OK, and one final thing. My anger is not with you but with this whole sinful wicked g*y thing of which I have had far more than my fill of. I long for the day God puts an end to it all. Anyone not deeply troubled by such things ought to check themselves and wonder why.

Let me say one more thing. Though I strongly disagree with you, I can still appreciate your style of debate. And, believe it or not, I've enjoyed it. I like everyone enjoy singing with the choir, but I do enjoy discussion with those that do not agree with me. But I am passionate about some things and this is one of them. But again, it is not personal toward you, so don't take ti that way. I hope you'll believe that.

I am passionate because I am watching our nation be destroyed by such tremendous wickedness. And the days for which we will even be able to legally say so are quickly coming to an end. We should all of us be very afraid of what is coming both from the wicked and from the God who will judge this nation and that judgment we will not escape.

Revinius
Jun 2nd 2008, 04:05 PM
I remember reading extracts of your (US) civil war soldiers. I must say i was astounded at the faith of many of those men on both sides. Although sin was still around, most still held to God within the turmoil of war. As a historian i like to look back and place myself in the proverbial boots of those in the past. I see the America of the past and although there is alot of wickedness afoot, there is also a whole lot more faith. God is in everyday life, not just shafted to the outskirts of peoples lives. I see situations like this in government and honestly worry at the worlds future.

I do long for the Lords coming but at the same time i long for more opportunity to be used as a tool taking part in Jesus rescue mission. As Christians we should stand for what is right and good by God alone. The law of man is inconsequential if it opposes Gods law and an inconvenience that must be tolerated if it doesnt.

This world is dying, and we (the wicked) are the ones responsible. God hates us (humanity) for what we do to His creation, ourselves and the world we were meant to steward. Its only through Him that any redemption can come to pass and only through Him that this world can be renewed. For that i am at a loss for anything i can do on my own to make a difference and then i am struck again by the inescapable reality that he IS. Thats it! He IS! The Alpha and the Omega, the light unto the world, He IS! Now....how does that relate to how He looks at the the california supreme court? Shake aside the judicial mumbo jumbo and legalistic clap trap and get to the core....what does God think, both in His word and by the character of His Word, of what happened when those men got up and made their judgement?

I wont write my answer because i want to know all yours... examine the Spirit within you, examine the Word, know God and then you will know Truth.

redeemedbyhim
Jun 2nd 2008, 04:26 PM
I remember reading extracts of your (US) civil war soldiers. I must say i was astounded at the faith of many of those men on both sides. Although sin was still around, most still held to God within the turmoil of war. As a historian i like to look back and place myself in the proverbial boots of those in the past. I see the America of the past and although there is alot of wickedness afoot, there is also a whole lot more faith. God is in everyday life, not just shafted to the outskirts of peoples lives. I see situations like this in government and honestly worry at the worlds future.

I do long for the Lords coming but at the same time i long for more opportunity to be used as a tool taking part in Jesus rescue mission. As Christians we should stand for what is right and good by God alone. The law of man is inconsequential if it opposes Gods law and an inconvenience that must be tolerated if it doesnt.

This world is dying, and we (the wicked) are the ones responsible. God hates us (humanity) for what we do to His creation, ourselves and the world we were meant to steward. Its only through Him that any redemption can come to pass and only through Him that this world can be renewed. For that i am at a loss for anything i can do on my own to make a difference and then i am struck again by the inescapable reality that he IS. Thats it! He IS! The Alpha and the Omega, the light unto the world, He IS! Now....how does that relate to how He looks at the the california supreme court? Shake aside the judicial mumbo jumbo and legalistic clap trap and get to the core....what does God think, both in His word and by the character of His Word, of what happened when those men got up and made their judgement?

I wont write my answer because i want to know all yours... examine the Spirit within you, examine the Word, know God and then you will know Truth.

I've summed it up by saying, do we obey God or man? Do earthly laws and ways trump God's laws and ways?
I think not.
These judges will stand before their Creator and it won't be man's word they will be judged by, but by the very Word of the living God.
We have to filter everything thru His Word. That is the only standard, and it won't matter one bit, on that day, if you're a believer or not, the Word will still be the final Judge.

Revinius
Jun 3rd 2008, 02:27 AM
indeed, judges do not answer men but God. Does not your constitution say 'under God'?