Voters Ignored Again

Tagged:  

Once again the voters voice has been ignored and trampled on. The Supreme Court has overturned the gay marriage ban, even though the citizens made clear they wanted it banned. Yet, another example of unconstitutional legislation from the bench. Its clear, when immorality has an agenda....the will of the majority means nothing.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080515174435.xgo31cvp&show_artic...

No votes yet

Thats how our governent works.

Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.
-James Madison, Federalist No. 10, November 23, 1787

Get over it Kooz. Read the opinion first before saying this is legislating from the bench. This was a statute. The state already granted many rights so why the distinction between two groups via different statutory schemes? That was the issue decided in this case. Again, the constitution is our guiding document for our democracy; not your bible. Leave your bible at home and don't use it to discriminate against people.

Remember, it only because some "activist judge" that blacks and whites can marry.

Why do you care if gay people can get married or not? How does it even affect you? Lets get out of the stone age and into the 21st century.

Can you explain to me how it is effecting you personally that right at this very moment there are gay couples, living with and loving each other. What exactally is the effect that it is having on your life?
Is the fact that somewhere right this moment in NW Ohio there are gay couples doing what ever it is that couples do making it impossible for you to accomplish something? Does worrying about what the guy (or gal) down the block is doing or going to be doing in thier bedroom tonight keep you awake and unable to enjoy the same sort of thing?

Why is it your business?
Why do you care?

Are you worried gays being married will some how make your own marriage somehow less? If so why?

Even if gay Americans die and find out that your version of God is true and they are going to your version of hell what effect does that have on you?

homosexuality is some new age open minded lifestyle...and that anything they think comes from The Bible is stone age. Actually, the Bible addresses homosexuality...it calls it an abomination, two cities were destroyed by God because of the rampant homosexuality. So actually, homosexuality is stone age...it was wrong then...and its wrong now.

How does gays getting married affect me? Because those of us with a sense between right and wrong have to explain to our kids that there are absolute rights and wrongs...regardless of how easily this lacking for brains world has accepted relativism. I stil have to explain to my kids why people are so vile and go against nature and God...and that no matter how many people fall for this gay crap....they still need to believe in what's right. I have to explain to my kids why Steve and Steve are kissing and how they have kids even though they can't have kids.

Then, I have to explain why gays take part in a lifestyle that makes them 10 times more likely than anyone else to get a disease that will kill them...but, still ask the rest of us for funding (tax dollars) to find a cure.

The Bible says that these people will not inherit the kingdom of God, adulterers, murderers, homosexuals, thieves, and liars. How is it that our society just picked one (homosexuality) out of the list and determined God was wrong on this? If I use the logic of the gay agenda....I guess I can go kill someone, steal from them, and lie to them and not only call it right...but celebrate...hell, let's have a parade.

...if homosexuality is good...then so is murder and stealing...afterr all...using your logic....who is God or The Bible to determine whats right? Who has authority to call good good and evil evil? Using your relative truth...how can you say murder is wrong? After all...there must be no moral authority because you say so.

Hunkytown says who cares.. Thats the problem with this country...nobody cares about anything accept what affects them personally. Lazy ass.

Let me get this straight....so the next time you guys go vote about any issue....and your issue is the majority...its then o.k. with you to have seven people sitting on a bench to overturn what you voted for? O.K. ...I'll remember that next time you guys cry and whine about some stupid issue you voted for.

I think the funniest thing in all of this....is those who support gay marriage think they are so intelligent, open-minded, and enlightened. Now thats funny.

And before as well as after the supposed act, the destruction of the cities probably more through geological upheavel, naughty happenings occurred and still occur.

How do we square this.

Before the words were put to paper, people were engaged in acts, some consider improper.

During the times of the words, people were having a bit of a touch and nibble of the naughty bits.

After the times of the writing and spreading of the words, the same naughty behavior is with us.

If God was intent on showing us the lessons, Las Vegas would be a hole in the ground.

"Let me get this straight....so the next time you guys go vote about any issue....and your issue is the majority...its then o.k. with you to have seven people sitting on a bench to overturn what you voted for?"

There is no such thing as "majority rule" in the United States. If the majority or the legislature vote for a law, a court could find that law unconstitutional.

And under our constitutions, discrimination like anti-gay-marriage laws is clearly incompatible with our legal structure.

That's why we're a Republic, not a Democracy.

Now, you can change those constitutions, Kooz. True, it generally requires a supermajority to accomplish. But you can do it. So, why aren't you doing it? Could it be that you are ignorant about that, as you post suggests? Or is your failing more complicated, like with Liberals trying to ban guns? Could it be the latter, where you well know the structure of law in the nation, but you just want to defy it?

There's a reason why democracy is called a "tyranny of the majority", Kooz. You're emphasizing right now how that works and how terrible it is.

as a religious zealot, you're doing a fine job.

I, on the other hand, do not subscribe to your religious perspective.

It's crystal clear that genetics are involved with the delegation of sexual proclivities. As with any other "abomination" your God has instilled within us, seeing we're "made in His image", the gene that provides you "God-fearing" folk the urge to seek women is the same gene that gives others urges to seek out same sex, children, animals, dead people and inanimate objects.

It's just not in our species alone that homosexuality has been displayed.

Sorry you're not willing to wrap your head around the science, but it's apparent some of us that "God created in His image" are able to think without judging our fellow man.

Condemn a person for how he was born? Rather condemn a man that isn't able to embrace all.

Again, your bible doesn't rule the US or any states. Get that through your thick skull. You can teach your kids your twisted point of view and whatever else you want. They will soon have gay friends and learn that this is the way they were born and can't change. The funniest thing in all of this is how misinformed you are. Well it's kinda sad actually.

Dave Schulz said:

"Again, your bible doesn't rule the US or any states. Get that through your thick skull. You can teach your kids your twisted point of view and whatever else you want. They will soon have gay friends and learn that this is the way they were born and can't change. The funniest thing in all of this is how misinformed you are. Well it's kinda sad actually."

My response to Dave:

David, you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. I personally believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I believe that every Word of God is true.

The Bible speaks against homosexuality. Why would God create a person as a homosexual if He doesn’t approve of that lifestyle? According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, and sin is anything that seperates us from God.

The U.S. is based on constitutional laws not the bible. That is the truth….they may have “In God We Trust” on the money…

But yet they have taken prayer out of schools, the Ten Commandments out of courthouses and much more…

Perhaps this is what the Rev. Jeremiah Wright meant when he said, “GOD DAMN AMERICA!”

Whether the people like it or not, whether they reject the message or not…the truth of God’s Word will stand forever.

With a righteous mind you will have a righteous judgment, and with a righteous judgment you will have the foundation of a righteous government.

Isaiah 9:6 “Unto Us a Child Is Born, Unto Us a Son Is Given, and the Government Shall Be upon His Shoulder, and He Shall Be Called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace.”

God rules everything...whether you acknowledge or not.

Romans Says,(about homosexuality)

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
Rom 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
Rom 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Rom 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; {they are} gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
Rom 1:32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 1
Prior Book Prior Chapter Next Chapter Next Book

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright Information

New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

Please visit their website at www.lockman.org.

Return to Bible Text

Your God dosen't rule me, sir.

And this is the problem with zealots, they'd rather drive their beliefs into your head instead of embracing the differences in our societies.

America ain't about Christians anymore, Kooz, we've diversified now.

Who gives a fuck what Romans says?

Pink Slip

Let's use just one example of what Romans states:

disobedient to parents

and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death

That would mean children who disobey their parents are worthy of death.

That disobeyng your parents, or greed or being a gossip or any of the other items on the list are similar to homosexuality on God's scale of justice according to Romans. If you are going to selectively use the one part, you have to use it all. That's the problem many of us have with the theory that homosexuality alone is an issue when you look at the context of what else the Bible states.

We don't remember days only moments...

Great point Lisa. Kooz are your kids scheduled for death if they talk back to you? hehe

Don't kill the kids....they don't mean no harm.

Pink Slip

From Kooze: I have to explain to my kids why Steve and Steve are kissing and how they have kids even though they can't have kids.

Which is a small part of what you agreed to do when you and your wife decided to have children. Your advantage is that you have an entire Church to help you along, and we may assume that a few of those Church members are elders, and have experience raising children. They'll give you some good advice. You're a parent. Put your shoulder to that wheel and start pushing. Lazy ass.

From Kooze: The Bible says that these people will not inherit the kingdom of God, adulterers, murderers, homosexuals, thieves, and liars.

Not so fast, Kooze. There are people in this world and the next that have done all those things and more, and yet they will inherit the kingdom of Heaven. And that, my friend, is fact.

You see, in the Lord's eyes one sin is every bit as bad as any other. This isn't true for me, by the way. I can't group the various sins together like that. It's also not true for most people. But it is true for the Lord, and we, that is to say humanity in its entirety, are very fortunate that the Lord provided us with someone who will gladly take the rap for all the sins we have committed and will ever commit, individually: Jesus. He did the time for the sins I committed, and will commit. That means that I, a rotten sinner if there ever was one, get to go along to Heaven.

The thing about legislation is that you won't prevent crime by making it illegal. For instance, see how well the war on drugs is working. Then there's gun control laws that have completely reduced the violent crime in Chicago to, ah, well... moving right along, there used to be laws against homosexuality, but somehow the law didn't work. People still did things they shouldn't have, and I believe this behavior can be traced back a few years.

I can just hear the howling now. "Legalize murder then, why don't you, Mad Jack! It's Ok according to you!!!"

To which I respond: Don't be daft. I already told you I don't hold all sin to be equal, and I don't. Given the authority, I'd remove over half of the criminal law on the books today, and I'd probably begin with resisting arrest, a law I've never agreed with. What do the police expect from a violent criminal? Might as well condemn the scorpion for stinging someone.

In conclusion I'd like anyone who objects to someone else's behavior to ask themselves just exactly why they are objecting. Is it because you, personally, find the behavior offensive, or is it because the behavior is going to cause irreparable harm to that person and others around him. Here I point wordlessly to your objections to homosexuality. You don't want to see it, you don't want to have to explain it to your children. It's against everything you believe in.

You do not say that, as evidenced by their behavior, you believe that those people have not accepted the Lord Jesus into their heart, and because of that they will certainly be sad and miserable in life, and will have eternal torment at the end of their life.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

I appreciate your response. I agree with you that we have all done those things (sins) and more and will inherit the Kingdom of God/Heaven. If....we recognize our sin and ask for forgivenss..then repent...and as Jesus said to the woman adulterer...."Your sins are forgiven you, go and sin no more."

I don't think homosexuality is any worse a sin than another sin. I guess my point is that homosexuality is the only sin in which we as a society are saying, "well, maybe this isnt a sin" or "who cares what the bible says" etc. If someone committs adultery...we don't say things like, "what do you care its not affecting you." If someone kills somebody, we don't say, "Your a bigot for not supporting murderers." Isn't that essentially what we're doing with homosexuality?

Finally, I just get tired of Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc...being called intolerant and bigots because they believe (in their faith) that the lifestyle is wrong. However, the gay community is doing precisely what they blame us for by not wanting us to have freedom of speech as well....(i.e. the UT-Dixon case).

And what of the people of faith of what ever stripe, that are gay, lesbian, etc., and attend and worship and are accepted for what they are.

They are faithful to their chosen religion and still have a life style that differs from others.

"Finally, I just get tired of Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc...being called intolerant and bigots because they believe (in their faith) that the lifestyle is wrong."

No one is saying that you should embrace homosexuals or invite them into your home but just because you believe that its wrong doesn't mean that everyone does nor does it mean that it is actually wrong.

Can't you just live your life, teach your children what ever doctrine you want to teach them and be done with it?
Why do you insist that your religious belifes need to be the law of the land?

There are many things that good God fearing people believed that we've now come to view quite differently, you might want to keep that in mind also.

(cross-posted from a tangentially-related post at Glass City Jungle)

There are also Biblical prohibitions against the following behaviors; do you equally condemn these as well as homosexuality?

Leviticus 11:4 - Prohibition against eating animals that “bring up cud” and which have a cloven hoof;

Leviticus 14:9 - Prohibition against eating seafood without fins and scales (i.e., shellfish, shark, catfish);

Exodus 22:25 - Prohibition against those who charge interest on loans to the poor;

Leviticus 15:13-32 A man who has a seminal discharge is unclean until ceremonially washed, as is a menstruating woman, and such people are not permitted in the Lord’s dwelling-place;

1 Timothy 2:12 - Women are prohibited from teaching or having authority over men.

Kooz: do you ascribe to all Biblical text as the direct Word of God, or do you just cherry-pick through the Bible to find passages to support your views?

Personally, I try not to stray too far from the words of Christ, who admonished us to remember two things:

Mark 12:30-31 - (the words of Christ) ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.

HistoryMike,
Your post really points out the great divide between the Christian religious in the United States and the secularists. The secularists, I believe, feel they are far more enlightened and thoughtful than the religious. Part of the manifestation of this "enlightenment" is seen when secularists point out supposed inconsistencies in Christian faith. However, your effort to point out inconsistencies in Christian doctrine is itself inaccurate in its assumptions about the Christian faith.

A very rudimentary understanding of Christian doctrine says that the Old Testament commands to Israel do not apply to Christians. The Old Testament was the Jewish law, while the New Testament is the Christian law. In other words, the reason that Christians don't follow the commands in Leviticus or Deuteronomy is because Christians were never commanded to follow them.

I don't point this out to become argumentative or petty. I'm pointing this out to illustrate the misunderstandings between secularists and conservative Christians. There are also numerous misunderstandings held by conservative Christians, and I try to point those out when I see them as well. What I see happening when these misunderstandings and assumptions persist that these two "cultures" in the United States become more and more distrustful of each other and the tension builds between everyone.

A very rudimentary understanding of Christian doctrine says that the Old Testament commands to Israel do not apply to Christians. The Old Testament was the Jewish law, while the New Testament is the Christian law. In other words, the reason that Christians don't follow the commands in Leviticus or Deuteronomy is because Christians were never commanded to follow them.

Just a minor technical correction, the issue is between Law and Gospel, not between O.T. Law and N.T. Law. This understanding of how these relate, could be regarded as the primary guiding principle of interpretation i.e. interpreting the O.T. in light of the N.T., not the reverse. Authorial intent would be the second. Grammatical, syntactical, historical contexts third etc..

The New Testament is the fullfillment of the Old Testament. Jesus claimed, "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." Mt. 5

John the Baptist said Jesus was the lamb of the Passover, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." Jn. 1:29; Acts 8:32 cf. Isaiah 53; Gen 22:7

Jesus claimed to be the, "I am" who spoke to Moses in Exodus 3. And the Jews who heard him make that claim picked up stones to stone him for blasphemy. They understood he was claiming to be the eternal God. John 8

To see more examples of this, all one has to do is to search the New Testament for the word "fulfill" or the phrase "as it is written" and lookup the Old Testament passages that the New Testament claims to have fulfilled.

Christians are not under O.T. law as a means of salvation since it is impossible for anyone to keep all 613 of them. see Galatians 3 for what the purpose of the law was.

The writer of the letter to the Hebrews wrote that "the law was a foreshadow of the good things that were to come." Heb. 10

As much as I hate slogans, I think this one pretty much sums up the issues about the relationship between the N.T. and the O.T.:

"The new is in the old concealed, the old is in the new revealed."

the center of the universe. The church has made many, many mistakes, and has since ignored what it used to believe is true. The church used to believe the earth was the center of the universe. The church even excommunicated people who believed that the earth was not even the center of the solar system. Yet, the church grew and acknowledged that the earth is not in fact the center of the universe. Does that mean that all the scientists who "sinned" before the church acknowledged this fact are condemned to hell? What was a sin then is not a sin now. Maybe it's time for the church to evolve once again into realizing homosexuality is not a sin.

Oh, I forgot...the church doesn't believe in evolution.

If you truly believe in the Bible as it is in it's current translation (which I believe to be incorrect), than you must believe that incest is okay. In the beginning, there was only adam and eve, so who did their children reproduce with? Wouldn't that make all of us products of incestual behavior, and since incestual behavior is proven to cause mental health defects, wouldn't all of us be considered mentally handicapped when compared to Adam and Eve? How intelligent would Adam and Eve need to be for us to still have the intelligence to create the technology we have, if this is the case?

I still believe, even after studying the Bible in college, that had someone gone back in time and swapped the Bible with Aesop's Fable, Christians would be telling us how wrong it is to not worship some beanstalk in the sky.

If you truly believe in the Bible as it is in it's current translation (which I believe to be incorrect

Assuming you have a problem with one of the current English translations and state that it is incorrect, I'd like to know which translation? and how and why it is incorrect? What is your criteria you use to determine a mistranslation?

Because if my modern English translation is incorrect, I certainly would like to know but I'm not going to just take your word for it, I'm going check out what you say..

Could you please translate these two passages so I can at least compare it to my modern English translation to get an idea and an example of what you mean by mistranslation?.

πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν προς Aελεγμον ελεγχον προς επανορθωσιν προς παιδειαν την εν δικαιοσυνη
τινι γαρ ειπεν ποτε των αγγελων υιος μου ει συ εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε και παλιν εγω εσομαι αυτω εις πατερα και αυτος εσται μοι εις υιον
οταν δε παλιν εισαγαγη τον πρωτοτοκον εις την οικουμενην λεγει και προσκυνησατωσαν αυτω παντες αγγελοι θεου

As someone knowledgeable about the issues surrounding translations then perhaps you could explain the problems of those who advocate only the King James Version-- the arguments for and against that position, and what are some of the arguments used by those who advocate the use of modern translations?

because I don't want two elephants on my back. Being racist and homophobic. But a question was asked and I would like to answer it.

First the disclaimer, I am not homophobic as I have gay friends, and relatives, who I love very much.

But the question was, ****Can you explain to me how it is effecting you personally that right at this very moment there are gay couples, living with and loving each other. What exactally is the effect that it is having on your life?****

Let me tell you how a gay marriage would have affected me and my family detrimentally.

I was seeking custody of a family baby and I fought for nine months to get custody of her. Come to find out she was placed with a white gay couple by Lucas County Children Services and because they were gay they had more rights than I did as a family member. They were determined to adopt this baby.

Long story short, after I got custody and after many court dates and a lot of drama I realized that not only was I fighting LCCS, I was fighting the entire gay community. The caseworker was gay, the foster parents were gay (one a policewoman), the minister of the church that the couple belonged to was gay as were other professional people involved in the protracted and contentious custody battle.

My contention was that I was the better suited parent and one reason was because the couple was living together without benefit of marriage and in my experience children do better in homes where people are married. Because marriage cements relationships. It is easier to get in and out of relationships when people are not married (gay or straight). It is easier to live with someone than it is to be married.

Not on that basis alone, although it did figure into the decision, I was able to secure custody of the baby. If gay marriage had been allowed and if this couple was married I would have lost all rights to this child as would have her biological family, including a sibling.

If gay people want children I feel that they should have their own or get a baby from a family member or arrange to openly adopt a baby with the OK of the biological parents. Gay people should not take children from poor families because you either don’t want to be bothered having a baby or it is easier to “get” a baby from poor families.

As far as what people (gay or straight) do in their bedroom is no concern to me but when the fact that you are gay and you have more rights than I do because of your lifestyle then I have a problem. And I say this because LCCS has signs all over inside their building stating that they cannot discriminate against gays when it comes to placing a child but there are no signs or policies that state they cannot discriminate against biological family members when placing children.

Purnhrt you are the first person whos ever even tried to answer that question, with anything other then "Because God says so"

Thank you.

I don't think that gay couples should be given a preference over a biological connection when it comes to fostering or adopting, but I would like to point out that quite possibly the reason the couple was "living together without benefit of marriage " is because the law won't let them.

LCCS shouldn't be discriminating against anyone. period.

There also many children being raised my non married people who are growing up healthy and happy.

I don't think that keeping them (gay couples) from adopting is a valid reason to stop them from getting married.

Civil rights apply to ALL American citizens. None of the definitions I've found exclude someone from them based on sexual orientation.

As someone who is so very vocal on this board, speaking out against discrimination I am surprised to see you coming in on the side of keeping these rights from any members of our society.

Two questions---

How is it that you feel gay couples have MORE rights than you? The only explanation I can see from your posting is the sign stating the the LCCS cannot discriminate against gays. Do you feel that being they felt the need to post this sign, they must also post a sign for everyone else? (i.e. "The LCCS does not discriminate against interracial couples" or "The LCCS does not discriminate against men who sleep with blondes") Do you feel that the absence of these signs means that these people have less rights? I'm sure if there was a huge backlash against men who sleep with blondes and the religious community felt that sleeping with blondes was a sin, then maybe the LCCS would feel compelled to post a sign for them.

Also--you make the comment about married people being better suited to raise a child. But gay couples in Ohio are prevented from marriage, due to voters. So, it would seem that people who feel homosexuality is a sin are actually denying privileges to others based on their religious beliefs. Do you see it this way?

Pink Slip

Whatever my views are about homosexuals, the constitution of the United States and those of the states were established for many reasons. But one tenet seems evident in all and that is to place a check on the legislative and executive branches of a government and to assure that an individual’s rights are protected. This is the responsibility of the judiciary branch.

Simply because a majority of elected representatives believe something is best for all of us does not mean they have the right to trample on individual rights as in this case of the right to form a legal union such as marriage among two consenting adults of the same sex.

I believe our founding fathers understood how a majority could trample the rights of those who hold other opinions, beliefs, etc. and how behaviors outside the norm, while affecting no one other than the individual or individuals consenting to such behavior, could be legislated as illegal. As such they established a judicial branch to judge and review laws and rules enacted by the legislative and executive branches of the government. These same thoughts and principles have been embodied in state constitutions.

Being immoral in the eyes of some because of religious beliefs is, in my opinion, not a valid reason for making a behavior involving consenting adults illegal without over riding and compelling reasons as to its harm on the larger community or other individuals. Simply weakening moral values of a society based upon the views of others, religious or otherwise, (and these beliefs could be in contradiction among the teachings of other religions) is not a valid reason for denying others the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Of course, there are means at the federal and state level to over ride the judicial branch of a government through amendment to the constitution and, in the case of California, the ballot box. There is an initiative, as I understand it, on the California ballot in November 2008 to ban same sex marriages. So while courts can strike down laws that violate the applicable constitution and rights granted or guaranteed under such documents (yes I understand that courts frequently must interpret what is meant by such written passages) there is a mechanism by which such interpretations can be clarified and thus create “constitutionality”. This is exactly what the ballot initiative in California will do if the ban on same sex marriages passes. So I think we need to move beyond this rant of “activist judges”.

I do believe we must be very careful as citizens in how we proceed in such circumstances because values are different from religion to religion and culture to culture and the United States is a melting pot of great diversity.

Prior to 1967 interracial marriage was illegal in many states in the US. In 1967 the US Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia struck down all remaining state bans on interracial marriage under the federal constitution. Can you imagine a constitutional amendment banning interracial marriage in the US? While I am certain that some would believe interracial marriage to be abominable and an affront to their beliefs, religious or otherwise, I believe the majority of Americans see it as inappropriate to set marriage laws in the context of race. Frankly, I see very little difference in applying marriage laws in the context of sexual orientation based upon the religious beliefs of some.

Our founding fathers probably never thought that same sex marriages would be a constitutional issue, but I do believe they understood the need for government to not abridge religion or apply the religious tenets of some to all as stated in the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, which has become known as the principle of separation of church and state. In my opinion and as I interpret the meaning of this amendment, religious values can not be applied to all by some and become the basis for laws affecting all.

Values, whether viewed as good or bad, change over time and in America prior to 1967 there were laws banning interracial marriage that today seem inappropriate and discriminatory to a majority of Americans.

Be careful where you take this as someday you may be in the minority opinion and have your beliefs and rights trampled upon!

When I wrote the above last evening, I was wrong that a ban on same sex marriages was on the California ballot. Apparently, enough signatures are on petitions that have been submitted to get the initiative certified for a November vote.

Also, according to the local daily, 26 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage. So much for activist courts.

Regardless of your support or disapproval of such issues as same sex marriages, it appears that the concept of checks and balances as established in federal and state constitutions appears to be working just fine even if it takes some effort to do so. After all, this should not be an easy process for oh so many reasons!

So Kooz, I think we can move beyond "voters being ignored".

Ah!

So I am now a secularist because I - as a self-professed Christian - examine the Bible with an intellectual eye. Not surprising that this word would be tossed out there as an ad hominem attack.

Unfortunately, HeyHey, the Ten Commandments are also in the Old Testament, and I believe that most fundamentalists hold these near and dear to their hearts as a basic understanding of how God wants us to live. After all, they sqawk whenever some crazy secularist wants to remove them from a courthouse.

I do not see any mention of homosexuality in the Ten Commandments, although I suppose one might argue that the word "adultery" is an all-encompassing term to cover all sexual practices beyond sex as procreation between husband and wife.

JayOtt:
No, Greek is not one of my primary languages, and I do not have the time to dig out language dictionaries. Do you speak and write ancient Greek, or did you simply cut-and-paste this from an Internet edition of a Greek translation of the Bible? It appears to be 2 Timothy 3:16:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

Did God "inspire" the church fathers at the Council of Nicaea when they decided upon a standard creed? Was the Easter letter of 367, written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, also an "inspired" moment in the decision-making process of the books that God wanted in the Bible? How about St. Jerome, in his Vulgate translation of the Bible? How about Melito of Sardis?

What about the Gnostic Gospels? By what measure do you determine that these are not "inspired," and therefore not deserving of being read by Christians?

Curious to see how our Biblical scholars above handle these issues. Of course, I'm just one of those pesky "secularists," right, so chances are that Satan "inspired" me to post here and cast doubt upon the right believing folks.

:-}

(that must be a demonic virtual smilie)

Historymike,

I know you know Greek, I read your blog occaisionally. But my question about mistranslation was addressed to Mtchbox since he/she was the one who made the assertion about mistranslation. How has my modern version been mistranslated?

Mormonism also says that the Bible has been mistranslated, thus the need for subsequent revelation, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price. I only mention that because of the answers that have been generated to the LDS.

No, I don't know Greek but I didn't claim to know it either. I simply asked Mtchbox to show how modern versions have been mistranslated to such an extent that nobody can know anything. I'm aware that my two semesters of Greek don't cut it.

As for the Nicean creed, no one has ever made the claim that it is inspired and you must have noticed that the word theopneustos was used--Godbreathed.

So before going any further we need to define what that means in context lest the fallacy of equivocation is committed. What kind of inspiration are we talking about? Or is there only one kind?

As far as the Gnostics go or more accurately, "false gospels", Paul addressed "other gospels" in Galatians, and 2 Cor. 11.

As far as inspiration, it would be necessary to discuss the criterion the early church used to determine which were Godbreathed and which were not.--which were to be included in the canon and which were not. see Geisler & Nix, General Introduction to the Bible

One recent book that responds in detail to Dan Brown's novel, the DaVinci Code, Bart Ehrman, Elaine Paigels, et. al. whose arguments you seem to be familiar with, I wonder if you are familiar with how they have been answered by those who've debated them --in person--namely: Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, Reinventing Jesus

BTW, I appreciate you raising these points.

Mike,
You miss the point of the Ten Commandments. Christians hold 9 out of 10 of them near and dear to their hearts. That's because 9 out of 10 of them are found in the New Testament. The one exception is obviously the lack of a Sabbath Day for New Testament Christians. Technically speaking Christians don't live under the Ten Commandments, but the overarching themes seen in the Ten Commandments are found in the New Testament which we do live under.

The Ten Commandments (unfortunately in my opinion) have been used as a political tool because of the bullet point style that fits easily on yard placards.

What I was trying to say and did not say it very well is that had there been a law then that gay couples could get married, I am sure that this couple would have been married. That would have given LCCS more ammunition to keep this baby from her family, since the argument I was using was that gay couples have many relationships because they could not marry and that this baby needed to be in a stable family, which I had.

LCCS will place a child with a gay couple instead of biological family. They do it all of the time and families have no laws to protect them that would keep a baby in a biological family situation.

since the argument I was using was that gay couples have many relationships because they could not marry and that this baby needed to be in a stable family

This argument is flawed, as gay couples are just as committed to relationships as straight couples are.

Pink Slip

homosexuality is a sin or not, I simply told my story about gay marriage and how it could have affected my life and the life of a family baby.

I am not vocal on discrimination, I am vocal on disparity of treatment, racial issues and defending my love for my people.

This is what I mean:

Ok so in one post you make a statement that because gays can't marry they have "many relationships" but then you post a photo showing a couple who've been together eight years?

There are many straight people who've had more then a few relationships but that seems to be ok?

If that picture showed them kissing a white baby would it be ok with you? Are you just upset that its a black baby with what appears to be two white parents? I say appears because the one is darker and could possible be a light skinned black man could he not? If he is would that make it ok? Would you feel the same way if it was a white man and woman?

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

And you my friends....are the ANY OTHER

Oooooh...burn!

Pink Slip

Which religion Kooz? Or which particular version? The constitution was intended to protect religious freedom and not support one view over another - thus the statement in the first amendment that has become known as the separation of church and state doctrine. I certainly could go out and find quotes taken out of context to the original message to support another view.

I don't see this quote as supporting your original post.

Nice picture Pink Slip...are you the one on the right or the left....you act like the one in the middle.

---------

"Show me a man who lives alone and has a perpetually dirty kitchen, and
five times out of nine I'll show you an exceptional man." -Charles
Bukowski

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

I do keep myself in pretty good shape, but actually koozy it was purnhrt that posted that picture. They look like a happy family. And that just fills you with rage, doesn't it?

Pink Slip

*********This argument is flawed, as gay couples are just as committed to relationships as straight couples are.*************

That is exactly what I mean. Marriage is a commitment, just being a couple is not. The point I was making is going right over your head. And it could be that I am not explaining myself right so that you can understand.

I know gay people who have been together for 20 years and I know other gay couples who are in and out of relationships. I don't know any "married" gay couples. I do know straight couples who have been married for 30-40 years and I know married couples who don't make it past the first year.

My point was had this couple been "married," LCCS and the judge and the guardian ad litem would have ignored my argument that this baby needed a stable environment because traditionally marriage creates a stable environment..

I don't know any "married" gay couples.

That's because they're not legally able to get married. You know that, right? So according to you, gay couples will never have a "stable environment", even though you agree they're just as committed in their relationships. Do you see what I'm saying?

Pink Slip

From Prnhrt: The point I was making is going right over your head.

No it didn't. He understands you perfectly well, as does anyone else who read your post. They're trying to get under your skin and needle you a little. Ignore them.

While I'm at it, thank you for walking that extra five miles to get custody of this child. That's a good thing you did. I can't imagine how much tenacity and effort went into your battle for custody, but I'm glad you have the child.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

No it didn't. He understands you perfectly well, as does anyone else who read your post. They're trying to get under your skin and needle you a little. Ignore them

No, if I understood her perfectly well I wouldn't have asked her to clarify her circular logic.

Pink Slip

Do you consider Deists to be righteous, Kooz? The reason I ask is that many of the Founding Fathers you and many other people admire did not identify themselves as Christians (though John Adams certainly did).

I am aware our Founding Fathers were not all Chrisitans....but, I think they knew between right and wrong regardless...and I'm convinced none of them would approve of gay marriage. If so, why didn't they allow it then.

Oh one more Bible quote

Leviticus 20
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

IF there is no moral authority then why stop at gay marriage. If there is no moral authority then liberals should not speak against....polygamists. If there are no rules for marriage...we should be able to marry as many people as we like....we should be able to marry pets....children....

....I mean...where do we draw the line?

Well, "consenting adults" is a legal standard that helps eliminate this hypothetical murkiness. Neither children nor pets (nor sheep, elephants, or picnic tables) fall into that category.

and since there are no rules, those Polygamests are right too, they can have many girls. All relationships are equal nowadays . Perhaps you heard that guy on the www.lauraingraham.com radio show. He wants very much to marry his robot girl friend.
We are passing on to the next generation a world with no rights and wrongs.

1) It is illegal to ask a person their "sexual orientation" on a health insurance enrollment form, however you can ask if the persons being insured are smokers, sky-divers, auto racers, hang gliders, jet ski operators or bungee jumpers
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0416.htm
http://www.hrhero.com/employersforum/DCForumID16/1237.html

2) According to HIPAA, a person with a pre-existing condition MUST be covered under health insurance
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fshipaa.html

3) According to the CDC, "At the end of 2003, an estimated 1,039,000 to 1,185,000 persons in the United States were living with HIV/AIDS, with 24-27% undiagnosed and unaware of their HIV infection.1 " with the LARGEST risk group being homosexual males.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure

4) According to the U.S. FDA, the cost of AIDS treatment drugs can top $25,000/year and the average lifespan of an AIDS infected person is 15 years.
http://www.aids.org/atn/a-389-03.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080514121333AARxdUM

Therefore, the TOTAL COST of one person with AIDS that you will have to pay for through your health insurance at work, can approach $375,000 per person and there is NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT except pay more for your own health insurance.

So the total ADDITIONAL cost that you will pay for through higher insurance payments could approach
$389,625,000,000

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

After the above argument, I decided to add a few other facts. Please note: The title is purely sarcastic in response to the post above.

"Women of color account for 79 percent of all new infections among women 13 to 19 years of age, and 75 percent among women 20 to 24 years of age."
"Among all HIV cases in people 13 to 19 years of age, women of color account for 50 percent of them."
"In 2002, AIDS was the leading cause of death among black women 25 to 34 years old."

http://aids.\about.com/od/womensresources/a/womenimpact.htm

I also did not know that GAY MARRIAGE causes HIV. I was under the impression it was unprotected sex, shared needles, etc. One could argue that marriage could actually decrease the risk of HIV, because the level of committment is increased as well. Although "the sanctity of marriage" sure is doing well in the heterosexual political arena, not to even mention the church.

The financial reasons why YOU should be against women:

1. Women comprise over 99 percent of all cases of breast cancer. Source.

2. Breast cancer costs the nation’s health care system an estimated $5 billion a year. Source.

3. Breast cancer accounts for one-fourth of all costs associated with cancer treatment. Source

Therefore, given the fact that women are almost entirely the sole source of this costly scourge, and the fact that they are too busy taking up space in the nation's hospitals, while not fixing us our goddamned pot roast while they whine about being cancer survivors, it seems imperative that men rise up and take a stand against women.

Boo-yah!

BTW -

I couldn't help but notice the possible latent homoeroticism in the screen name "Libs Can Blow Me." Would that be ALL liberals, Libs Can Blow Me, or just female liberals?

You see, members of the EVIL CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY FAMILIES AND MAKE CHILDREN GAY might misinterpret your screen name as an invitation for sexual activity in the nearest public restroom of your choice.

I discovered this picture in October 2005 edition of Times magazine. The scenario that I gave with Lucas County Children Services took place in 1996-1997.

You are either trying to confuse the issue or just do not understand what I was saying. It was clearly stated that if the couple who had this baby were married (which they couldn't have been at the time because there was no gay marriage then) I would have lost rights to this family baby because a part of my argument to LCCS and the court was that this baby needed a stable environment and people just living together (gay or straight) tend to be in and out of relationships. Follow me this far? This was in answer to the question posed "of how a gay couple being married could affect an individual."

As far as the picture is concerned, the guy on the right is black and the guy on the left is white. The picture is kind of grainy. The baby is black. When I saw the picture I was appalled. I began thinking of different parenting scenarios for this baby that would take into consideration her growth to becoming a healthy black woman. To me this scenario of a white male and a black male in a homosexual relationship mothering/ fathering a little black girl was a form of genocide for this little black girl. So I set about providing different parenting scenarios that needed to be explored before this little black girl would wind up with a white -black male homosexual couple.

Here are my parenting scenarios in order of preference to me.
1.Original family (with services)

2.Family in city

3.Family in U.S.

4.Friends of family

5.Black married male and female

6.straight single black female

7.gay black female couple

8.gay black female

9.white male- black female married couple

10.black male-white female married couple

11.white straight single female

12.gay white female couple

13.straight black male

14.gay black male

15.white male-white female straight unmarried couple

16.Single white male

17.black male- white male gay couple

So don't fling your racist accusing arrow this way and feel free to make up your own list.

white married male and female?

Where do you place this situation in your list?

It was clearly stated that if the couple who had this baby were married (which they couldn't have been at the time because there was no gay marriage then) I would have lost rights to this family baby because a part of my argument to LCCS and the court was that this baby needed a stable environment and people just living together (gay or straight) tend to be in and out of relationships. Follow me this far?

Are you married?

---------

"Show me a man who lives alone and has a perpetually dirty kitchen, and
five times out of nine I'll show you an exceptional man." -Charles
Bukowski

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

To me this scenario of a white male and a black male in a homosexual relationship mothering/ fathering a little black girl was a form of genocide for this little black girl

That's a sick bigoted statement.

Pink Slip

Sorry to hear about your experience, purnhrt. I've been a foster and adoptive parent with LCCS for 13 years, and - while I have great respect for the difficult work the agency does - decisions that they make are not always perfect.

I do not know the specifics of your case, so I can't really evaluate whether you were treated fairly or not. I do know that reunification with the birth parents is the top priority, and that family members are preferred over outsiders when the birth parents are determined to be unable to provide for a child's needs.

I know of one case where a gay couple adopted a child, and in my opinion, they were excellent parents. We kept in touch with them over the years, and it was a successful adoption, as the child is doing much better than in the unbelievably screwed up birth home, where there was sexual abuse, drug addiciton, and severe neglect.

It should come after 10. When I cut and pasted it from my documents, I had trouble adding the numbers and inadvertently eliminated the white married straight male and female. I did not intentionally eliminate your demographic. :=)

but had a stable home as defined by LCCS as I had adopted children from them in 1993 was given custody of a child by the court in 1994 and the child in question was a sister of one of the children.

So whether or not I was married did not enter into the equation because I was not living with a man "out of wedlock." Or woman for that matter which has never been an issue with me as I am a straight as opposed to crooked black woman.

if you have been in fostering and adoption for the last 13 years you should know the dynamics being played out under Dean Sparks. I know of too many cases where children are placed with relatives and then removed from the relative placement and placed with non family members (foster care) which starts the true demise of the child's biological family.

Whether or not that is good for the child remains to be seen. I don't know of a child that does not ever want to see their mother again. There is an African Proverb that states, "A child can no more be separated from it's mother than a zebra from it's stripes."

But that is another story for another day. :=)

We have fostered over 40 children in that time. As a rough estimate, over half were returned to birth parents after they completed the agency requirements, such as going through detox, taking parenting classes, or making problem people leave the home (such as an addictive or abusive boyfriend).

Of the children who were not returned to birth parents (minus children who were moved to other foster homes) I'd estimate the split was about 50-50 between family members and outsiders. Some children had stronger family networks than others.

In one case, though, a child was sent to a family member 2000 miles away, only to be sent back on a plane five months later. The family member in the adoptive situation did not realize how much work was needed with this poor child, who had tons of anger management issues.

The child came back to us, and we fostered for another year, and then the agency placed her in an adoptive setting with outsiders who live four hours away. This was a successful adoption, and the child (now a teenager) is doing quite well ( we still get phone calls from this child).

So, my experiencce has been kind of mixed: some families step up and get approved by LCCS, some families simply don't have stable or willing homes in the extended family, and some families are so completely screwed up that there aren't even family members sober and out of prison.

We've known birth parents who were decent people, but who had made mistakes and would do whatever it took to get their children back. Some of them have been downright likeable people, and I'm glad we could open our doors for a few months until Mom or Dad got their problems straightened out.

We've also had a few birth parents who hated us, the "evil foster parents," and did everyhting they could to sabotage the foster placement. I once had a crack-addicted, abusive birth mom call LCCS on me after his kid whined on the phone that he'd been beaten (we had called the police for this belligerent teenager who threatened other kids in the home, and the kid ended up going to juvenile detention for making DV threats in front of the cops).

And then there are the birth parents whose addiction issues or psychological/criminal/neglect/abuse issues were so extreme that the agency had no choice but to push for permanent custody, or children who were essentially abandoned by their birth parents.

Sad, sad stuff.

In your case, did the gay couple first act as a foster home? One of the overriding criteria that caseworkers use is a desire to minimize moves for the child. Again, I'm not familiar with your case, but I have heard of cases that were decided on the basis of a child beginning to thrive in a non-family foster home and the agency being reluctant to disrupt what appears to be a successful placement where the child is bonding.

Also, was the child old enough to be able to tell caseworkers a preference between the family members and foster/adoptive families? I've been kind of surprised in the past at children who did not want a prospective family member to adopt them, as they had begun bonding in the foster/adoptive home.

Anyways, I hope that the child in question had a better life, even if this child did not wind up with family members. If it's not too much prying on my part, did the family get to keep contact? Do you know how things turned out 10 years later?

Also, I don't have much of an opinion either way about Dean Sparks, who I have met only once. We dealt mostly with the various caseworkers and administrators who handle the foster and adoptive cases.

I'm sure that my perspective is quite different from that of a family member who had to witness the splitting up of a family. I have heard of cases in which caseworkers are too quick to lobby for one party or another, though I have not personally experienced this phenomena. The caseworkers I have known (probably at least three dozenin various capacities) all seem to put the child's needs first. Still, we have known many stellar caseworkers, as well as some who were less dedicated, so perhaps you had to deal with someone who was too quick to push for a particular outcome (the gay adoptive family).

IMHO - taxpayers get a bargain with LCCS, and the agency does an excellent job overall with limited funding. I am of course biased, but there are hundreds and hundreds of foster parents who do hard work for very little financial reward. Just as an FYI - the last time I checked, you couldn't even buy a kid three Happy Meals a day on the pittance that the state provides on the per diem for basic foster care.

Most times we ended up spending more on the children than the state sent us, since you can't in good conscience buy your birth and adoptive children nice things and dress the foster children in rags.

Don't get too excited there, Bruce. I appreciate you taking the time out of your busy hairdressing schedule and ignoring your same-sex partner to come on to me, but LIBSCANBLOWME is only my identity because it would take too long to type:

(admin edit: not needed)

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

to see all your posts swatted back in your puss like a Roger Federer 100-m.p.h. over-head smash.

You add absolutely nothing to this site and at the end have to resort to moronic rants worthy of a 14-year-old caught jacking off in the bathroom.

Chris Myers should ban your ass, not based on language used, but the fact the quality of discussion on here drops like a ton of bricks every time you touch the keyboard and hit POST COMMENT.

From McCaskey: Chris Myers should ban your ass... etc.

Who are you talking about? More than one person qualifies here.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.