proposition 8 upheld by high court

100% right. You have cut to the whole point of the matter-Those who would force us to believe"their"version of mariage and family. This matter also brings up our freedoms as free Americans---are we a country of we the people-or not?? good post.

and true. What will win the day is this very real "culture war" is so many non-Bible believers fully back marraige being a man and a woman. All to often the pro-lib media protrays Christians as stupid Bible thumpers--not so.

is about equal rights. And if it was about freedom, California would not be prohibiting gays from getting married in same sex marriages.

It is odd that you say it is about the right to believe. Because you praise a ruling that restricts others from acting on their right to believe.

Thanks! There are many-religious and non -relogious who hold the marriage veiw as one man-one woman. In the 1800 there was another battle about marrage-poligamy, Thamkfully that was solved.

culture war is right-not only on this frount but look at the economics battle!

A loving God created this earth,marriage and us. The view of marriage the good people of California voted on is the difiniton of marrage by its creator. Anything else would be false -would it not???

You are forgetting that in a free society, no one is obligated to share your religious view of marriage. The Church and its members are, but not those in society. And the question becomes, what is the best way to share our view of marriage? Is it through the law or through sharing the Gospel?

Prop 8 is all about imposing a religious view of marriage on all. It isn't the Gay community that is trying to force straights to either marry someone of the same sex or stay single, but it is the Straight community that is using the law to prohibit Gays from marrying whom they choose and thus requiring that they stay single.

So Prop 8, in a free society, is about equality, and freedom, choice, and tolerance. Only prop 8 is against these practices.

I am an ex-mormon.(I am now Church of Christ) In the 1800s the mormon church's position on poligamy kept the region of Utah from becoming a state. The history is fasinating.

Good post. I'm glad California resisted the masses and held true to the definition of marriage.

Great blog, Snow! I agree with everything you have written. Another thing to consider is the recognition of gay marriage would open the door to bigamy, poligamy and maybe child marriages. It is great this happened in California! And the tax revolt, too!

when you brought up the buzzword 'tolerance' in your post, you pushed one of my buttons.

In a way, you're right about the issue being one of tolerance...thing is, the word doesn't necessarily mean what you think. The only non-political definition of the word is its medical meaning, which refers to the amount of a toxic substance an individual (or nonhuman creature) can take in before undergoing a reaction. By this definition, Killer T blood cells (the main line of defense in the immune system) are one of the most intolerant substances on earth. Personally, I'm grateful for that.

It is an issue of tolerance; I'll agree. The real question, though, is this: how much more of these toxic ideas the body politic can handle before it gets fatally ill?

So to tolerate people of different races is toxic for our country? To tolerate people of different religions is toxic for our country? To tolerate people of different political views is toxic for our country?

You live in a free country where people have the right to choose to be different. This implies the need for "toxic" tolerance. You could rewrite the 27 amendments so it gives just one right. Then the Bill of Rights would say we have the right to conform. What countries does that remind you of?

you are forgetting that this view I got came from from God who created marriage. His word changes for no one. At one time whole world did not share the views of a man who said it was going to flood---who was right?

Hey-I have studied Mormon history--it is indeed fasinating!!

Thanx-we have surly have not seen the end of this debate in Cal-yet!!

Yes, This can open a pandoras box that this world has seldom seen in a long time--just study the history of different socities and see how they went downhill---fast!

YOU said it!! "toxic ideas". People can claim that smoking is well and good and march in the streets for their "rights" but does that make it true? NO. thanks for stopping by-do not be a stranger!

Yes but it is not our responsibility to make the law of God the law of the land. You will not see any examples making the law of the Church the law of the land in the NT. In fact, quite the opposite view is explicitly expressed by Paul.

See, our difference is not in disagreeing about same sex marriage. Our difference is regarding should be the rules for our free society where we have religious freedom.

The people of California have equal rights. They are all allowed to marry whoever they wish as long as:
1) both parties are mentally capable of making such a decision
2) neither party is currently married
3) both parties are of legal age
4) the parties are not blood relatives 2nd cousin or closer
5) the parties are both human
6) the parties are of opposite sexes

If the rules are in place for all, and none of the conditions rule out conditions that the parties are born with (exception of mental capability), then there is no discrimination.

Gays made the CHOICE to be that way, so they CHOSE to break the conditions.

It is that last item on the list that destroys equality for homosexuals. If you want an idea how it promotes inequality, then reverse the role. Write the marriage law so that you can only marry someone of the same gender. Would that be fair and equal?

First: Relative to your comment on Crawfish's point - If that were the natural order of things, then yes, it would be fair to limit it to that. It's not, however, and those clinging to 'equality' for that are advocating a special emphasis for themselves.

As to your comments toward me, I can only say that if you see those things (race, religious viewpoint, and political belief) as being, of themselves, requiring of tolerance, I pity you - it implies that you do admit them as at least potentially toxic. Of those, political belief is the only one I would even begin to broach the issue of tolerance on.

For race, I simply hew to the idea that it is the character, not the color, of a person which is important. Should someone wish to harm me or mine, I would not tolerate them; I would seek to defend against them. And should they not wish such harm, I would not tolerate them, but welcome them with open arms.

For religious belief, I recognize that people will have viewpoints other than my own...the critical issue here is not necessarily my viewpoint, however. Remember, I follow the Way, who defined Himself as the only means by which salvation could be obtained. I will acknowledge the viewpoints of others; I will respect them insofar as they are not dedicated to the destruction of me or mine, but I will not honor them - and I, out of respect and concern for the people who hold them, will not give up in speaking out for the truth! Which is more loving, Caday? To let someone run off a cliff, or to stop them and haul them back, even if they berate you for it? Now, which of those options is more tolerant?

And finally, on political beliefs - I have no problem respecting political beliefs, even those to which I am ideologically opposed, if they could bring about a better state for the inhabitants of the nation. My problem is with ideas which have, historically, -always- failed. And I will oppose them, with little respect if any, for as long as they continue to do so - pretty much a given, since most of those political beliefs I oppose begin with a false idea of human nature.

Am I intolerant? Only in this, Caday: I refuse to tolerate willful ignorance.

Godspeed.

But some would reply to your natural order that we see homosexuality in the animal kingdom. So for many, that is an indication that homosexuality is natural rather than unnatural.

But the other problem is that our reference for what is natural here is influenced by our religion. Since we live in a country that stresses freedom of religion, why should some be bound by our religious based view of what is natural.

My problem with the generally accepted view here is why? Why do we want to compel people to follow our way and have or endure our viewpoint? Why not allow for homosexual marriage in society? What are we afraid of?

Finally, what is the NT example of how we should react to immorality in society? Are we called to force people through the law or to let them be? And if it is more loving to legally obligate them to follow our way, why not make other religions illegal since those religions will only seal their doom because they are not following Christ?

Historically speaking, Christians who force their religious views on society have exhibited some of the worst and most unloving behaviors. Take Luther's latter reaction to the Jews or Calvin's burning people at the stake as examples.

And what are we doing with homosexuals here. For those who will only involve themselves with same sex partners, we are encouraging promiscuity because of the lack of future for such couples and this spreads disease. We also create bitterness and more obstacles for such people to listen to the Gospel.

SO the question remains, what are we afraid of if same sex marriages became legal in society?

I agree totally with you're points. The people of California could of rejected proposition 8--but they did not. They voted-and accepted the view of marriage as one man and one woman. The example Snow Knight used is perfect-the whole world at the time of Noah had freedom to choose what they would believe--one man Noah believed one way as the rest of the world at that time believed another--who was right?? well- we all know the answer to that question--good comments Ender and Crawfish.

according to your logic, condition 2 discriminates against bigamists and those who want 3-way marriages, condition 3 discriminates against those who like pedophilia, condition 5 discriminates against those who like their animals, condition 1 discriminates against most of Hollyweird, and condition 4 discriminates against anyone who moved to California from West Virginia.

If you allow one extreme minority group change the definition of marriage to suit THEM, then you must let every perverted extreme minority change the definition to suit THEIR purposes.

Great Words!!

Now, if will only be kept that way in this ever changing, suit vs counter suit society. This battle will never end, like other right vs wrong issues. It is very encouraging that we can make a difference in numbers.

Great Post!!

There is no discrimination against any other group. Marriage is a contract between two adults that binds them together. With any form of polygamy, you are talking about a totally different situation. If a man has a wife and marries another person, do the possessions of the first wife then also belong to the second wife? What if one of the spouses divorce? Do the other spouses in the polygamous relationship?

And with regards to pedophilia, that just doesn't occur in same sex relationships, it can occur in heterosexual relationships. If the acceptance of same sex marriage means that we must accept pedophilia, why doesn't heterosexual relationtionships do the same?

forgot to complete a sentence there. Do all of the spouses in a polygamous marriage pay alimony when one of the spouses divorces?

I understand that you feel that all of the rules could be changed if we change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. That was a Santorum argument that he sincerely believed. Certainly it is legitimate to ask the questions posed by his fears. But how much of the definition of marriage is changing when we redefine it to include same sex couples? So far, I do not see that the drastic changes some are afraid of are necessary if society recognizes same sex marriage along side of heterosexual marriage.

And the harm I see when the Christian Church insists that society bans same sex marriage is that it sees its members assuming a parental, and therefore non-equal, role over the rest of society. This results in greater resistance to the Gospel and the message of repentance that the Gospel issues to everyone.

You as a "fundamentalist christian" are in agreement with a view of marriage that is totally agenst the word of God??

Thanx!! your insightful comments are a breath of freash air!!God Bless!!

I am just saying that a society that is based on religious freedom should not be bound to hold the Christian definition of marriage. The Church should hold to the Christian definition and oppose gay marriage. But that opposition should be expressed by evangelism, not by laws that govern those outside of the Church.

Point me to a species that can continue to provide for the generation of new young through a homosexual interrelationship specifically (not a parti-flavored relationship, nor the auto-transgender kind held by those frogs [and some fish apparently] who were given the blame in the movie Jurassic Park), by the secularist's doctrine of evolution, and I'll pay a bit more attention to the idea it might be 'natural'.

Probably not much, though; my own viewpoint is that mankind, having been given stewardship of the world, BROKE EVERYTHING when Adam sinned. Ergo, it's not merely the human condition that is damaged by original sin, but every bit of creation. This includes your (presumbably sodomite) beasts.

Any species can provide such when homosexual engagements are an option and not the only sexual practice. And that is what the issue for society is today. No one is suggesting that homosexual marriage be the only legal marriage. Therefore, heterosexual, that is traditional, marriage is not threatened by also allowing homosexual marriage. And if that is the case, why oppose homosexual marriage in society?

There are many who are suggesting just that. In their view it is time for an alternative marriage to take over. The outcome will,tragically, be the same for those who build their houses on the sand. Also for those who rejected to warnings of Noah--he believed it was going to flood. The whole world around him did not---what was proved true??

Very well put! I agree.

Again, is our best response by preaching the Gospel or using the law to deny equal rights? Heck, those who do not build their lives on the rock of Christ are building their lives on the shifting sands but we don't make that illegal.

all have equal rights--all can get marry in the US---a guy can find the right gal and get married likewise a gal can find the right guy. Who is stopping that?

It is equal rights only if you are heterosexual. Again, reverse the law so that you could only marry someone of the same sex and you would immediately see the inequity. You would protest and they could say: of course there is equality, you can marry any guy you want.

So no, there are no equal rights here between heterosexuals and homosexuals. I believe you are kidding yourself if you believe that the current laws banning same sex marriage promote equality.

you are perfectly happy with reversing/twisting God's created truth??

Where have I reversed God's Truth? Both of us agree that the Bible opposes homosexuality let alone homosexual marriage. Our disagreement is not there but whether society should allow homosexual marriage and why? Should a society that is based on freedom, especially religious freedom ban homosexual marriage?

If you say that it should because God's truth opposes homosexual marriage, then why not say we should outlaw Islam because Jesus is the only way to the God? And if we are going to outlaw Islam because it isn't God's truth, and Jesus said how you treat me is how you treat the Father, then shouldn't we outlaw Judaism because it denies Jesus?

When we look through church history, we will find that Christians provided their most discrediting testimonies when they insisted that society follow Church law. The Puritans of New England, for example, persecuted and even executed the Quakers because of religion. Calvin burned people at the stake. Luther advocated that the Jews be eliminated from Germany because of their unbelief. Luther's reason for such a harsh view? He said that if society did not persecute the Jews for their unbelief, then they dishonored God and condoned their sin.

So the question is, are Christians providing the best testimony for Jesus when they oppose the legalizing of homosexual marriage in a society built on freedom of religion and equality?

the question is what is the truth? If marrage is redifined for any group protesting--where is the line drawn?? what is stopping "other" marrages??If the whole world suddenly believes an apple is an orange-- both christian or non christian people---does it make it so??

We could ask the same question regard who is Jesus or how is one saved. What is truth about Jesus as preached by God's Word does not have to believed by anyone in society let alone everyone in society. In our country where there is freedom of religion, people are allowed to practice religions that are not truth.

Also, marriage is not being redefined for every group. Rather, marriage is defined as being a special union between any two consenting adults. So where is the slippery slope?

are you living in caday? "marrage is defined as a special union between two consenting adults" by whos dictionary did that come out of??

That is marriage. Currently we define those adults to be one male and one female. But if we change it to just two adults, how does that change put us on the slippery slope of having to accept everything under the sun?

and by who?---where did the institution of marriage come from...who designed it and established it?

In a society where there is religious freedom, people get to choose. And that is where we disagree. We both have the same definition of marriage. But where we disagree is who gets to define marriage for a society where there is religious freedom. Should I have the right, as a Christian, to define marriage for a society where there are plenty of non-Christians?

is not unique. Why do you think I pointed out Noah's example?It is a matter of what truth. The truth from the creator of the human race and the designer/creator of marriage. It is not hard to imagine the different "marriages"there were in Noah's day. Noah chose to believe-by faith-in the TRUTH of GOD'S design.In the same way today the truth of true marriage is the way God designed it to be for the human race: a union between a MAN and a WOMAN ---anything else is a conterfit and a lie. THERE is your slippery slope caday.The whole world around Noah believed their different "ways" well....we now know the final outcome of their world..do we not?

Your responce was the best defense of what makes a true marriage Iv'e read in a long time. There are so many still willfully deluted to believe marriage can be other than a man and a woman. Just because a label is slapped on something does it make it so? We were created by God-male and female. Who has the "right" to change what God has designed and created??Well put-keep the faith.

Truth is that Jesus is the only way to the Father. So does that imply that we should make illegal all other religions?

Slippery slope or not, based on freedom of religion and equality, since marriage is a key part of the pursuit of happiness, I don't find just quoting the Scriptures, though I fully agree with the Biblical definition of marriage as a just reason for society to regard heterosexual marriage as the only legitimate marriage in society.