QUICK LINKS
New Jersey Supreme Court Rules on Marriage
New Jersey’s Supreme Court, in their ruling on marriage yesterday, not only mandated the state legislature to redefine marriage in that state, but set a dangerous and telling precedent by encouraging and instructing the plaintiffs.
In their 4-3 ruling, the majority said, “The legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure, which will provide for, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples.” And they told the lawmakers they have 180 days in which to complete the task and re-write the state marriage laws.
The four justices who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage or its equivalent, civil unions, said, “The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage.” But it is.
New Jersey lawmakers have already voted to allow domestic partnerships in 2004. Under these laws gay couples have inheritance rights if there is no will and health care coverage for state employees.
Those dissenting stated correctly that,” there is no fundamental due process right to same-sex marriage encompassed within the concept of ‘liberty’ guaranteed by the general protection clause.”
The Court said they would not seek to presume the constitutionality of a legal construct separate from existing marriage statutes.
In other words, there is no provision for gay marriage in the Constitution, but we think there should be and we are mandating that the laws be rewritten to accommodate this belief.
They did not rule according to what the laws “are,” but rather what they “think” they should be.
This is very troubling. It is judicial activism.
Even more troubling is the advice, counsel and encouragement given to the plaintiffs by the Court majority. The justices wrote that they can ensure some kind of marriage arrangement for the seven gay couples (the plaintiffs) but, it “can’t guarantee social acceptance, which must come through the evolving ethos of a maturing society.” They said that the, “plaintiff’s quest does not end here. They must now appeal to their fellow citizens.”
Cases similar to this one are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa, and Maryland. Clearly, gay activists and judicial activists will be invigorated by this decision.
Once again, activist judges are enabling gay rights activists to further their agenda, without the benefit of any legal basis. This practice is problematic and destructive to our culture and again confirms the urgency with which we must replace activist secularist judges.
The most alarming part of the ruling was the counsel the majority justices gave the plaintiffs. They said the gay couples who filed the suit “must do more than fight their battle in court, but they must change social mores.”
And “change social mores” is the agenda of the gay rights folks. After a number of defeats in attempting to enshrine gay marriage into law, the gay rights people have vowed publicly to introduce new laws in the 2007 legislative sessions, including Ed Murray in Washington State and Governor Ted Kulongoski in Oregon, and to take a longer view of re-educating the public in regards to gay marriage.
When I or others take a position against gay-marriage, because we sincerely believe that it is not productive for our culture, we are inevitably tagged as bigoted, prejudicial, intolerant, hateful and practicing discrimination.
They are wrong. Discrimination means that because of prejudices we do not allow a person of a particular race, religion or sexual orientation to participate in our existing institutions or enjoy the same activities others do.
Homosexuals have the same access to marriage as everyone else. Any homosexual man or woman is free to marry. It’s just that marriage, as an institution, is biblically and historically defined as between a man and a woman. This is not only true in America, but is historically true with all major religions and cultures.
The gay rights activists and their enablers sermonize that denying gays marriage, deprives them of equal protection. That argument is false because when we allow people of differing religion, race, gender or sexual orientation to participate and share in categories defined equally for all, discrimination does not exist.
Prejudice is not at the root of our position of wanting to preserve the integrity of marriage. Those opposed to gay marriage do not advocate for homosexuals being denied voting, housing, employment, etc. The issue revolves around a “definition” and not the people involved or their sexual practices.
All things are not the same, yet through the unanswered assertions of moral relativism, all things are deemed the same and thus meaningless.
The problem that gay marriage and it’s siblings bring to society is that the public is asked to tolerate and accept modes of conduct that have been unacceptable The people engaged in those activities demand that society redefine it’s institutions and overturn the historical wisdom in order to not only accommodate, but to affirm their activities as equally legitimate and desirable.
These redefinitions result in the degradation of the previously accepted standards and practices. Then language is reconfigured so that husbands are partners, wives are spouses and sex-education is forced to teach our children that homosexual marriage is valid and viable and the power of the government comes down on those families and individuals who will not accept this as the norm. As the redefinition continues, the next generation expresses scorn on their peers who do not accept this as the norm.
This is moral relativism. Or progressive secularism.
We keep hearing about homosexual rights, yet not realizing that what ultimately will be taken from most everyone else will be freedom of speech in our churches and our public discourse, freedom of religious expression regarding certain teachings on homosexuality and finally our privacy itself.
Our tolerance for the unconventional will result in federal intolerance for the conventional and traditional, and for the necessary components of a successful society.
This truly is a time to vote your values.
______________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
64 Comments:
We the people who believe in traditional values need to throw these activist judges off the bench. They just won't do their jobs, they feel this need to focus national attention on themselves by legidlating from thr bench.
Still distorting the facts.
The New Jersey Constitution guarantees equal ability to achieve happiness for all citizens. Because of that they are not allowed to give some citizens special rights and must allow reasonable access to all laws and statutes by all citizens. On this topic court was unanimous.
And so all the court said is that all citizens must have equal access to government however the legislature manages it. It is funny how Gary always tries to spin courts rejecting special rights for citizens with opposite gender spouses into 'judicial activism'. There's nothing 'activist' or 'legislating' about recognizing equal rights already guaranteed in the state's consititution.
And I do need to correct gabriel - the problem isn't about 'people with traditional values' but ones who want to force others to follow their personal 'traditional values' even if they aren't their own.
No harm will come from marriage equality as has been seen everywhere its been allowed, foreign and domestic, it's special rights for just some citizens that will cause real harm.
I'm still curious why people who oppose gay marriage keep trotting out the tired and inaccurate catch phrase of "redefining marriage". Maybe it redefines it for you, if you felt it was "one man - one woman". But many people define marriage as "two people in love committing their lives together". And the real point is - marriage has been redefined MANY times. Polygamy, bigamy, interracial, age requirements, non-relative requirements, citizenship, property ownership, etc. - the "definition of marriage" in America alone has been redefined dozens of times. I'm not for gay marriage, but I wish those who also weren't for it would come up with a better reasoning that this, because this one doesn't work.
Actually the distorted facts are that Gay marriage is going to better our society. And That it is going to help our children and families. The number of people it is going to help is very small to the amount of people it is going to harm. The Gay activists are out for one thing -Their issue. Gay Marriage to become normal. Gay marriage to be promoted. To further expand thier Kingdom of Gayness. It is in the schools. It is in the media it is on our streets as a parade of awareness. They use the words discrimination, I use the word domination. It is about power not pride. God above warns of this in Romans 1. They do as they do but we do not have to be apart of it. Private schools should be available to all tax payers. We should have a choice as christians.Our choices are taken. And we need to vote for people who are going to further our kingdom. Not theirs.The judges need to be accountable for this and taken off the bench.
Christians need to realize that even though we must continually fight for what is right (marriage is to be between one man and one woman), we are told in the Bible that things are going to get worse before the Lord's return for his "invisible" church, the one that is not the "physical" church we see.
God is allowing mankind to make their own choices and if those choices are for the worse they will reap the destruction - a destruction that they cannot percieve.
If those who cannot understand the destruction that gay marriage legimitized will bring, they only have to check out what the gay activists themselves are saying! It is not hidden.
As an interesting aside, there is a petition being sent out by a former Clinton aid to impeach a 9th Circiut judge for activism. The judge's name is something like Reinholdt?
It is about time and I am sure there will be more of this to come.
The judges abused their power here.
It is amazing that people can defend the way our Constitutions are being taken and used to promote a world view . That at one time is what the legislature was for . This same reasoning the pro homosexual marriage folks claim for equality under the law would have to be applied to the recent Utah fugitive who was on the FBI's Most Wanted list for multiple wives . There is nothing in the Constitution in NJ about homosexual marriage or mulitiple wives and marriage . .. New Jersey has one of the most , or most liberal courts in the country .
I believe this issue takes commonsense from people and promotes a me gets what I want mentality , without considering the greater whole . I am not talking to the issue of homosexual marriage , but our republic , being a nation of laws , and a system that use to use a ballot box for changes .
Another sad day in Amerika .
Another distortion is that gays have "loving, monogomous and stable" relationships that should be supported.
If you read accounts by ex-gays this is just not so. For example, again and again they say the gay definition of monogomy is different from the heterosexual definition. To gays it means "emotional fidelity" and physical fidelity is understood to be impossible and infidelity is accepted.
And it doesn't help anyone to keep trying to "normalize" homosexuality. Or to try and force this new version of "normal" on me and my children.
"If those who cannot understand the destruction that gay marriage legimitized will bring, they only have to check out what the gay activists themselves are saying! It is not hidden."
Well said. Some want to say that a gay couple is just like a straight couple.
Well, apparently they aren't listening!
I'm not sure that is a helpful path to go down. You're taking the account of people who clearly don't want to be gay anymore to represent that community at large. It's like asking divorced people to talk about the benefits of marriage. I'm not saying some of it's not true - I'm sure it is, just like there are straight people who don't have a good definition of what makes a good relationship (swingers for example).
I do think you hit right on the real force of this issue - the normalization of it. Every time America's society has gotten more and more turned in a certain direction (opposing polygamy, accepting of interracial relationships, etc.) that is exactly when the definition of marriage gets re-defined.
Once again you have spelled out precisely what is going on. Thank You for keeping us informed. America, Wake up and PRAY and VOTE!! God have mercy.
Marriage is and marriage was ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.
Those who beleive in God GET IT.
Those who do not beleive in our creator God try to REDEFINE IT.
Those of you who do not recognize GOD for who he is, and Jesus as our Lord and Savior, take a good long hard look at yourself. Then look at the world around you. It is not here by chance. You are not here by chance. Receive Jesus and when you leave this earth, go to be with him. Accept Jesus before it is too late. Or spend eternity in a burning inferno with the god of this world who is our enemy (satan). Your choice.
Vishanti: Still distorting the facts.
"The New Jersey Constitution guarantees equal ability to achieve happiness for all citizens."
All New Jersey Citizens can equally get married. Any man can marry a woman and vise versa. That sounds equal to me. You just don't like the rule of who you can marry (men->women, women-> men). Sorry you don't like it, but that's what marriage is. Guess what, there's other rules on marriage. Let's say a couple 13 year olds want to get married. Can they? Aren't we denying them happiness if we don't let them? On what basis would you deny them if we define marriage as "whatever works for you".
"It is funny how Gary always tries to spin courts rejecting special rights for citizens with opposite gender spouses into 'judicial activism'."
Marriage is currently a union of one man and one woman. For judges to NOT be engaging in judicial activism would be for them to rule BASED ON CURRENT LAW. Now what they think the law should be. That's the whole point of having different branches of government, so if the judges said "currently, marriage is one man and one woman, we hope you'll continue to try to change those laws if you don't like them, but we have to rule against you, based on current laws," then that would be fair and reasonable. But if judges are giving virtual ultimates that say "the laws need to be changes by date X", then that's activism.
Like-wise, IF a state had a marriage or civil union law that said it was okay for homosexuals to marry same sex partners, and some homosexuals went to the courthouse to get married, and they were denied it, and took it to court, then it would be judicial activism for the judge to say "sorry, you can't get married because I think the law is wrong." You's probably complain to high heaven about that wouldn't you, but as long as things are going your way, "it's not judicial activism."
"And I do need to correct gabriel - the problem isn't about 'people with traditional values' but ones who want to force others to follow their personal 'traditional values' even if they aren't their own."
Is that not what you hope to do? To force me to legally accept that anyone can marry anyone? If I own a small business, don't you want me to also cover homosexual spouses for medical insurance, even if I don't believe in it? Don't you want my kids taught in public school that homosexual marriage, and the homosexual lifestyle in general, is a perfectly normal and viable alternative to traditional marriage? Sorry, those aren't my values, but you're trying to force that on me, my children, and society as a whole. If I don't agree with you, is it not reasonable for me to say so? Then why do you call people bigots for stating what they believe and trying to perserve what they believe is correct and good for society? I suppose you answer, even if you wouldn't say it, would be "because it fits my agenda," or courese you'll say "I don't have an agenda, I'm just trying to do what's right," but that's exactly what I'm trying to do. Might I ask you what is your basis for knowing what's right and what's wrong? Is it just what makes sense? Just what makes you feel good? Just what makes you happy? Is it just whatever makes you not feel like an outcast? Maybe whatever supports the lifestyel you want to live? This is, I'm sure, where we differ. If yours is based on any of those things, then I don't know what to tell you, because if that's the case, then my opinion is just as valid as yours and there is no basis for ANYTHING being right. If kids want to get married? Cool. If 15 adults to be married as a group? Sure, whatever. I believe that God determines what is right and what is wrong. He has stated that homosexuality is a sin. Just like any other sin, it should be avoided. This would preclude me from making a law that endorced it as an institution, just as it would preclude me from making a law that says stealing is okay. It is a moral issue. So, going back to where we differ, it would seme to come down to one thing. Either God exists or He doens't. If He does, then I have his backing on my side of the issue and therefore I'm "more right," if you will. If He does NOT exist, then you and I just have differing opinions and yours is no more right or wrong than mine and we'll just have to fight it out, but that doesn't give you any right to refer to me as being bigotted. I'm not asking for homosexuals to be cast out of society, denied jobs (unless it might be a conflict of interest like a homosexual man getting a job in a male locker room giving out towels, i.e. a job where a woman would be denied the job because of sexual privacy issues), or denied the right to engage in homosexual acts behind closed doors, but I would ask that they keep their practices out of my face and quit trying to force their views upon me and calling me a bigot if I don't agree.
So, if it's all about "two people in love committing their lives together", then wouldn't Polygamy be wrong? Shouldn't you open YOUR definition up to "Some number of non-plant living entities in love committing their lives together and/or not in love, but mutually accepting a bond of marriage with the motive of gaining the legal benefits of being married?"
"And the real point is - marriage has been redefined MANY times. Polygamy, bigamy, interracial, age requirements, non-relative requirements..."
So why not allow Pologamy? On what basis would you deny marriage benefits to 3, 4, or 5 people who are in love? If they're in love, then it's love, right? I can't believe you'd deny them their happiness based on "that's just not right."
Why should be have age requirements? If too people are in love, should they not be able to get married, regardless of age? In fact, why do we need laws for drinking ages? Driving ages? Isn't it discrimination when an auto-insurance company charges a 22 year old male a higher premium for driving the same care I drive at age 37? Shouldn't the State get rid of age laws and have common auto-insurance with the same premium for everyone?
Why should there be a requirement that people are not closely related to get married? If a brother and sister are in love, why can't they get married? Maybe they'll have weird, disfigured, or mentally handicapped kids, but isn't that up to them to take the chance on? Maybe they won't even have kids? On what basis would you deny 1st cousins or siblings or even father/daughter or mother/son, of legal age (there's that dang age requirement again) to get married. If they love each other, it's all good, right?
Please explain...
I think you've misunderstood me. I am against gay marriage - I just don't think the line about "don't let them re-define marriage" is a good line to lead the cause with because marriage has been re-defined many times. Yes, in general it has been for good reasons, but the precedent is not that marriage can't be redefined because it never has been redefined - it's been redefined LOTS. Heck, how many times in the Old Testament is there polygamy - which we would never have now. I think there are better ways to go about fighting against gay marriage than the "redefinition" line - that's all I was saying.
To Gurufrisby, who said
[quote]
I'm sure it is, just like there are straight people who don't have a good definition of what makes a good relationship (swingers for example).
[/quote]
When I was younger, I engaged in some swinging life-style and enjoyed pornography and it was "fun" at the time (even though I felt it wasn't right, but did it anyway for the sexual thrill of it), but it nearly tore my marriage apart. Though I would have been an advocate of it at the time, it was unhealthy and fortunately I broke free from that life-style as I began to learn about Christ. My wife and I who've been married for about 10 years now, have a very strong marriage that's based on the REAL love that comes from knowing Christ. I see homosexuality pretty much the same way. You can enjoy it, give in to it, embrace it, and even promote is as a good thing because it's what you've derived pleasure from, but it's not healthy and not what's best for you, even if you don't realize it.
EricC
Gary Randall says:
"
We keep hearing about homosexual rights, yet not realizing that what ultimately will be taken from most everyone else will be freedom of speech in our churches and our public discourse, freedom of religious expression regarding certain teachings on homosexuality and finally our privacy itself.
"Our tolerance for the unconventional will result in federal intolerance for the conventional and traditional, and for the necessary components of a successful society."
This is one of the biggest lies surrounding the same-sex marriage issue. No church would be required to accept homosexuality, or to marry homosexuals. No organization would be stopped from speaking out against homosexuality.
Mr. Randall is at best mischaracterizing those points. The bill of rights prohibits such restrictions on speech. I think he knows that these things are not true; but he continues to utter them. If that is true he is lying.
The Constitution secures the right of Americans to hold and express any opinion they want. Allowing homosexuals the right to form legal unions (marriges) does not take that away nor could it.
But Randall has no other defense for his support of discrimination and denial of equal protection under the law.
Which is why he would need to lie in the first place.
Sorry Guru, I think I did understand what you were saying, but I guess I just jumped and to state a few things that were on my mind. Not trying to attack you or your views or anything.
This is what I'm thinking on the "redefining marriage" thing. I think there is only one person who truly defines marriage: God. We have our own legal definitions that's we've created and the changes you speak of above are not, in my opinion, "redefining" marriage, they are more closely "assigning" marriage with God's definition (which in my opinion is a good thing). This is where the current homosexual marriage agenda breaks down with previous "redefinitions" or "reallignments". For example, when marriage was "realligned" to allow for inter-racial marriages, it was being more cloesely alligned with God's will, as he doesn't say it is a sin to be a different race or a sin to marry other races. That's a good reallignment. God does, however, say that homosexual desires and acts are sinful and there for it would a misallignment for marriage to be realligned in the way the homosexual marriage advocates are pushing for. Allowing homosexual marriage would be roughly morally equivelent to going back to denying interracial marriage. It's against God's moral law.
To others who might say "but I don't believe in God, so don't force your opinion on me, then as Anon 1:06PM alluded to, even if there is no God, then my opinion is just as valid as yours.
Okay, I understand. And I agree - most of the re-defining of marriage through the years has been likely to come more into line with what God would define marriage as, where as homosexual marriage would not. But I do still think there are better positions to take to be against homosexual marriage than simply "you're redefining marriage and you can't do that"
Andrew it is already happening in Canada.
Gary knows what he is talking about.
ps--there is something called "hate speech" that is not protected by the first. Gary got it right.
I for one am gald to see more people standing up for God on this site. I think in the past many blogs have been bombarded by negativity. And few positive comments and dialog. This nights read is much less hostile and well more truth shining through. Praise God.And we all know who wins!
First of all Canada, being country all its own, is not covered by the Constitution of the United States. But just for kicks can anyone cite an example of people in Canada being forced to not speak out against homosexuality?
Second hate speech is only legally considered so if it incites people to commit acts of violence.
I may disagree vigorously with folks like Gary Randall, but I will defend his right to say what he likes. The hated ACLU would also jump to his defense if anyone would try to stop him from spreading his homophobic beliefs.
That isn't what this fight is about. It is about denying people an equal footing in society based on behavior that isn't anyones business but their own.
You said it well. It is "a behavior that isnt anyones business but their own" ---It is a behavior. It is a choice and to get a "equal footing for a behavior "or choice would be a open can of worms. I have a behavior of eating too much- there for I want equall footing. I want to ride an airplane and not be charged twice. I want to ride horses on the beach like everyone else. Please. It is their business.It is my business. It is my action that gets that results. No one is telling them to stop and it is illegal. Just dont try to get high priority for your behavior above everyone elses.Or because I weigh more maybe I should get to buy a first class seat at regular air fare price.
Religion is a behaviour as well, I guess we should allow discrimnation based on it.
-JC
PS Anon @7:08, gluttony is a sin.
JC
We do allow discrimination on religion ... The state not only Constitutionally calls for discrimination in tax payer buildings , people's First Amendment Rights are also limited .
"It is about denying people an equal footing in society based on behavior that isn't anyones business but their own. "
You're right it's not our business, but it sure is being made our business and shoved in our faces. It wouldn't surprise me if the next big this is: "We have a problem with growing population, so gay marriage will now be the only valid and recognized marriage. ;-)
E. Jensen
PS BTW, they have an equal footing: Any gay man that wan't to marry a gay woman can do so, just like anybody else.
Very well said: 'Please. It is their business.It is my business. It is my action that gets that results. No one is telling them to stop and it is illegal.'
If you don't like same-sex marriage then don't get one.
Otherwise the ranting about same sex marriage being the end of society, etc., is getting both stale and meaningless. Mass. hasn't become a land of pagans with people marrying their pets.
"First of all Canada, being country all its own, is not covered by the Constitution of the United States. But just for kicks can anyone cite an example of people in Canada being forced to not speak out against homosexuality?"
Canada:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31080
USA:
http://xbip.com/?p=604
Canada (note entirely related, but it does have some interesting info on the Canadian government rethinking polygamy for the same reasons as gay marriage)
http://vickigunn.web.aplus.net/pblog/index.php?d=05&m=10&y=06&category=7
Canada:
http://www.contenderministries.org/articles/christianliving/homosexuality.php
http://www.pccmonroe.org/Homosexuality/Truth.htm
In some of these, you might want to search for "canada" in the page to more quickly find references to canada among other topics discussed in each.
Regarding:
----------
Otherwise the ranting about same sex marriage being the end of society, etc., is getting both stale and meaningless. Mass. hasn't become a land of pagans with people marrying their pets.
----------
Not instantly, of course; these things take time...
As others have said, if you can't define marriage based on what is moral or even what is better for society in general, then on what possible basis should you deny polygamy, incestual marriage, etc? Sure, it would take time for those issues to be pushed forward, but if homosexual marriage paves the way for a "whatever works for you" mentality in America, then the others will eventually be brought to a head.
Mick,
What the hell are you talking about? Discrimination based on the Behaviour of religion is prohibited on both the federal and state level. Radical religious groups like Fred Hutchinson's church use taxpayer buildlings to meet. Which is quite revealing since religious groups are freed from paying any taxes!
As for your claims about religious people's Frist Amendment rights being limited, poppycock. The only limitation I am aware of is the prohibition against directly endorsing candidates for public office, a prohibition that applies equally to all tax-exempt organizations, be they religious or not.
In fact, the number of special considerations and exemptions carved into non-discrimination and other laws for religious groups in the past decade are so numerous that it amazes me that you could be unaware of them. This leads to the logical conclusion that you are either woefully uninformed, or willfully misrepresenting this issue.
-JC
re 10:09...
homosexuality isn't immoral. same-sex marriage is better for society - there are plenty of studies saying so if you want to look.
And how much time? The claim that "these things take time" is just sort of "wishful" thinking. Is it so hard to say, "I was wrong, it isn't causing the end to society, but I still don't support it."? Christian values include humility and honesty.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
P.S
Fred hutchinson's church PAYS to use the public schools .
At my school , the gay alliance gets their room for free.
And the ACLU has at times prevented the Boy Scouts from using public facilities .
Its easier to understand the laws , if you look at all groups as having equal access .. That is why a special law was passed by Congress just for that reason and Presdent Clinton signed it ..
There is nothing in the Constituion that says religious organizions should be treated as second class citizens , if the pTA, Gay Alliance , political parties , or whomever have access to a public building , a religious organization has equal access .
Again I am not sure how old you are , but there was a time till Congress did come back with the Equal Access Law that religious groups mainly were being kicked out. A couple of years ago a gay organization in Utah I believe it was Utah , sued the state using the same equal access because the area being domininately Mormon and homosexuality being a sin was denied access at a school for a gay club . What I believe the school district did was stop all the other organizations from using the public facilities in order to prevent the gay alliance , but the principle is the same , the state can not discriminate to public favility use , but they can in regards to a teacher or any individual talking about their religion , and again a teacher can legally say he see nothing wrong with gay rights etc , but he can als say he has aproblem with it , but I bet he would be reprimanded , and THE SCHOOL DISTRICT certainly could be sued if he told his class it was a sin .
So please do't tell me we do not discriminate against religion , most of us agree its a good idea that the state does , me included . But I do not like the idea of the way we have such a non traditional culture using the public facilities to promote their issues , and the principle of chuch and state was not to use the tax payer supplied facilities as a means to promote dogma that was different then others , that belief sysyems are to be respected , I find it starange that so many people don't mind promoting their own values on others , while cheering for separatrion of church and state .
How dishonest they are with themselves .
P.S
Fred hutchinson's church PAYS to use the public schools .
At my school , the gay alliance gets their room for free.
And the ACLU has at times prevented the Boy Scouts from using public facilities .
Its easier to understand the laws , if you look at all groups as having equal access .. That is why a special law was passed by Congress just for that reason and Presdent Clinton signed it ..And praised it also .. You see , the state is not suppose to say the gay alliance is better the Fred Hutchinson's church , they are suppose to make fred pay a certain amount and then the gay alliance or whoever pay the same scale .
The Constitution had been so perverted by liberal judges Congress actually acted on it ..
Did not get much fanfare because to say churches are being discriminated against is something the mainstream media fails to consider a story i guess.
There is nothing in the Constituion that says religious organizions should be treated as second class citizens , if the pTA, Gay Alliance , political parties , or whomever have access to a public building , a religious organization has equal access .
Again I am not sure how old you are ? We changed quite a bit the past 40 or so years .
A couple of years ago a gay organization in Utah I believe it was Utah , sued the state using the same equal access law because the area being domininately Mormon and homosexuality being a sin by that group was denied access at a school for a gay club . What I believe the school district did was stop all the other organizations from using the public facilities in order to prevent the gay alliance , but the principle is the same , the state can not discriminate to public facility use , but they can in regards to a teacher or any individual talking about their religion , and again a teacher can legally say he sees nothing wrong with gay rights etc , and he can not discriminate against gays or religious people ,
apro
, but I bet he would be reprimanded , and THE SCHOOL DISTRICT certainly could be sued if he told his class that cheating against your mate living was a sin befoer god and read the Ten Commandments .
So please do't tell me we do not discriminate against religion , most of us agree its a good idea that the state does , me included . Are you so unaware that very religious people are discriminated in public places all the time ? Its normal , pershaps its why the discrimination debate gets so old to the right .. Religious examples almost always negative JC , yours all are , and I would say you are a liberal kind of thinker . Don't most liberals agree with that ? I mean religion caused slavery , the Salem Witch Hunts , caused people to be tortured etc etc . Its like I always yikes , last century millions were murdered , gassed, just disappeared because of godless regimes , but somehow all examples of evil come from religion . And of course now our public school have police officers when school is in , and we just take that for granted ..
But I do not like the idea of the way we have such a non traditional culture using the public facilities to promote their issues , and the principle of chuch and state was not to use the tax payer supplied facilities as a means to promote dogma that was different then others , that belief sysyems are to be respected , I find it strange that so many people don't mind promoting their own values on others , while cheering for separatrion of church and state .
How dishonest they are with themselves . I guess I ticked you off , but its how I see it , I have avery little say in my school district , its controled by people who have more respect for your views then mine . I am aware of that , in fact I know they just assume people like myself , who take the Bible as the word of God stay out of their hair . I know that , I wish we had school choice , but I do know my tax money they want ... Discrimination , we all see it in our lives , How we deal with it I guess makes the difference .
"But I do not like the idea of the way we have such a non traditional culture using the public facilities to promote their issues , and the principle of chuch and state was not to use the tax payer supplied facilities as a means to promote dogma that was different then others , that belief sysyems are to be respected , I find it starange that so many people don't mind promoting their own values on others , while cheering for separatrion of church and state .
"
I agree. I think we should all push for a separation of Gay and State. ;-)
It might go something like "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of gayness or the homosexual lifestyle..." Then we could all cry "separation of gayness and state!!!" LOL
Or, maybe another idea might be for me to say "Uh, yeah, I like, uh, don't believe in God anymore, so now my opinion can be considered valid. I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. That's just my opinion. Nothing to do with sin or God or anything, so you should value my opinion now. Yeah, yeah, that's it. Just my opinion..." ;-)
Calm down Mick, no need to get so worked up.
Yes, Hutchinson PAYS to use the school, just as every other outside group does.
Yes, the gay/straight alliance gets their room for free, just like every other school-related student group, including the bible study club.
The ACLU has NOT prevent the Boys Scouts from using public facilities, they have sued to prevent them from getting special considerations such a free use of facilities that other groups don't get. Also, some municipalities with laws that prevent the rental of public facilities to groups, which discriminate, have stopped making said facilities available to the BSA.
You are wrong about the law, it applies to SCHOOL SPONSORED clubs only. The irony is it was pushed through by the right to keep bible clubs in school, but its primary impact has been to force school districts to allow gay/straight alliance clubs. The gay alliance doesn't pay, just like every other school sponsored club, Hutch's church pays just like every other outside group.
Religious organizations are not treated as second class citizens. They have all the same right as non-religious organizations plus special considerations like tax-exemption to boot!
Of course teachers shouldn't be pushing thier religious beliefs on students. I'm sure the second an atheist or Muslim teacher started doing so in your school, you'd understand the reasoning behind it. Until then, I suppose you'll have to be content with the phony "vicitm" act you're putting on.
As for you Assumptions about my beliefs, you're dead wrong. Religion is neither all good or all bad. Take slavery for instance, both the leading supporters of it and the leading abolitionists used religious arguments to make their case. I bet you don't complain when charlatans like Gary claim ending slavery as something religion is responisble for.
This discussion would be much easier if you'd calm down and try to be more coherent.
-JC
fyi, the reason the Boy Scouts have been removed from free access to facilities is because they practicing religious discrimination - you aren't allowed to join if you are an atheist.
GSA's aren't there to promote their issues, but instead to try develop a non-violent, non-prejudiced environment for straight and gay students alike.
"homosexuality isn't immoral."
According to who? You? You're the foremost authority on what's moral? Is murder moral? Is stealing moral? Is lying moral? If so, according to who and why?
"same-sex marriage is better for society - there are plenty of studies saying so if you want to look."
That reminds me of a little card game I've seen played. Perhaps if you've seen the movie "How to Lose a Guy in 10 days," you might be familiar with the game of which I speak...
Might I ask who did those studies? Who funded those studies? How the studies were done? How about we look up the REAL story behind how the APA manual was changed such that homosexuality was no longer considered a mental disorder? Of the people who did those "studies", guess who eventually came out of the closet? Conflict of intererest, perhaps? Dig a little deeper into your so-called studies, my friend.
"And how much time? The claim that "these things take time" is just sort of "wishful" thinking."
That's your opinion, but not mine. Anyone with a wit of intelligence can take the logic to its logical extreme. Here's a couple basic facts:
-There are some people who live a polygamous life style.
-There are some people who would try to have sexual relations with their kids (it's called abuse) and with enough mind-warping might want to marry their even marry their child.
-There are people who set out to set world records in areas like "largest gang bang", "most blow jobs in an hour", or "biggest circle of women performing cuningulus on each other at the same time" and other such perversions.
-There are people who have sex with horses, dogs, goats, etc.
So don't tell me there's a limit to what people will try, do, or even make a lifestyle of doing.
If you think that gay couples want to get the benefits of marriage and that laws should be changed to suppor that, on what basis? Now, after thinking about and answer that question (waiting for you to actually think about it........................), then PLEASE answer this question: When (not IF) someone comes along and says "I want to marry my these three women" or "I want to marry my sister" or "I want to marry my son" or "We, five bi-sexual swinging couples, all want to be married to each other," THEN ON WHAT POSSIBLE BASIS WILL YOU DENY THEM THE "RIGHT" TO MARRY WHOEVER THEY WANT?
"Is it so hard to say, 'I was wrong, it isn't causing the end to society, but I still don't support it.'"
If I come to understand that I AM wrong, then, yes, I would say that. How about you? If for some strange reason, things go the way you want them to and society DOES fall into a pit of "anything goes" moral depravity (as it seems to be slipping towards these days), will you be willing to say "I'm wrong, let's change things back?" If you do come to that point, do you think you'll be able to change things back, or will we have lost the right to speak against things we're opposed to? You wouldn't want to be called an intollerant bigot, would you?
"Christian values include humility and honesty."
Hey, now there's something we agree on! Seriously, I can honestly say I agree with you on that statement and humbly acknowledge the wisdom of your observation. :-)
Andrew I am afraid you are mistaken about hate speach. No time to debate it now but I am a lawyer and well educated in constitutional law.
I hope you will use a little more caution before calling Gary a liar again.
JC ,
I will Try to calm down . But it is good that you do understand Hutchinson group pays ,and the fact it would be illegal for the school district to stop it if they allow other groups to pay also . They originally tried to , but backed down .. Their lawyers must likely went whoops ... You made it sound like special priviledges .
Interesting article on NAMBLA , the ACLU defends them but attacks the boyscouts . I guess I just come from another generation where the Boy Scouts honoring God and Country was a good thing .. Heck, it is non denominational and 97 percent of the athesist I know would not care less ... In fact I know a couple who have no belief and just wanted their kids to learn about putting the camp site back how they found it , and respect and stuff . Big deal .. But there is always one ... And they are attracted to blogs .
And saying you honor God in a pledge is just as discriminatory as leaving it out . I believe this is where the left looses out in an exchange of ideas.
They just don't get it , they believe one is tolerant and one is not . They both are discriminating .. Leaving God out issues is not toleraqnt to a person who puts Him in all their issues .
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp
The ACLU and other leftist organizations have a real problem with what they consider worth fighting for .
I think we both understand the law , you need to listen without sterotyping , and I need to be better with the English language .
I think I totally misunderstood your comments on Hutchinson group , and you totally misunderstand my use of the word discrimination . The First Amendment is discriminatory to religion . It was meant to stop a promotion of religion by the state . Leftist think discrimination is a dirty word , I think thats where you missed out JC . You discriminate on what you eat , where you shop , who your friends are , discrimination is not always bad . The First Amendment is discriminatory , Marriage between a man and a women is discriminatory to others who wish they could marry same sex partners .
I am talking about religious persons feel like and are often treated as 2nd class citizens .
Just talking about it makes people like you flip out .. Its no big deal , we have an Ace in the hole as to speak .. . But you deny it ? Wow you must not know any folks in academia ?
Its like me saying homosexuals are not discriminated against , made fun of in Movies. Good grief , most of the characters in movies have very strange characteristics who are gay , Christians , we just are evil , narrow and hypocritical .
So one day the Boy Scouts is an organization that promotes values , fun things to do and learn , and the next day because of folks like you they are a right wing hate group .. Come on , that appears quite hateful if you just liked scouting and helping kids , see nothing wrong with saying Honor God and country .. Calm down yourself my friend .
Talk about in coherent ... No the Boyscouts are just as good as they were 40 years ago , still do good things for kids . Hopefully always will . Just people now are so tolerant they hate the scouts now .
I know a little kid that was told not to wear a cross at public school after he attended a rock Christian Concert the night before . He was told not to wear a shirt that said God is Love on a small portion of it also . ...
The teacher may or may not have been a believer , schools are intimidated of crossin the line ,because of course in this instance , to stop any kind of expression of faith is always better then being on the wrong side of the First Amendment ..
The cooties people get from exposure to religion must be so harsh that even a flavored condom can't protect you from it .
The intimidation not to wear things or speak about ones faith is just as intimidating , in fact more so in certain areas . To you that is good , obviously , am I a victim , heck no , are Christians vctims , heck no ... We be blessed .
Plus JC I was supporting the fact that a teacher does not promote their paticular religion , or non religion .. my phony victim act , shheesh , what a hateful little bugger you be . I totally support not promoting religion by a teacher , your stereotype views must keep you in a rut .
I love the American Civil War , I am a history buff on the subject actually . I even go to those re enactments . Slavery was one aspect , and actually it was the liberal churches mainly up north that were the abolitionists , their belief systems would be considered close to conservative Christianity in as far as they believing in some absolutes like the deity of Christ , , but their politics were liberal for the day .
I don't know Gary , I don't hate him and I don't call people names usually I do realloy have a problem with .. , I consider that incoherent .
I am sure Gary is a descent man , loves God and believes he is doing a service . Just like you JC , just different perspectives and different beliefs .. And I agree with you , keeping religion out of politics makes sense . Also what makes sense to me is keeping your views and values out of public schools also , but because your religion is your politics , you get away with it by semantics , and your humanistic godless value system of tolerance is forced on all of us . Thats the debate and you can't even understand it .
But the things Gary stand for , like your disgust and obvious hatred for a teacher wanting to shove their religion down the throat of someone . You could not even understand I supported your same thinking on that , its a parents job to be in charge of that . I would never do that to another person's children ,..Your child , thats yourr job regardless how I feel or believe about it .
The Judeo Christian ehnic that you assume to know and hate so much promotes a belief such as that . Its what so much of our basic beginning laws were based on and parts of the Constitution . The government does not tell us what to think or believe . That God put the responsibility on parents not teachers to promote their core beliefs for their own children , not me , or you , or some tax payer paid employee who is going to teach someone's kids about flavored condoms . What you seem to promte is your leftist organizations and your liberal beliefs as being accepted because they are godless , big deal , my value systems could be taught without using God , so your view of tolerance is discrimination to mine . . Your supporting a valueless system on the Boyscouts ,
Yet you call it tolerance .. Thats incoherent ..
Now the discussion would be better if you try to act like you have respect for other people and their beliefs . And if Gary here has said something that really ticks you off , try to be coherent about it ..
For someone who is for calmness , you are sure a grump . And make little sense JC , what has Gary done to you ? All his political positions loose in this state , all his issues are usually unimportant to the majority .
We elected Supreme Court Judge who called the support of aman and a women in marriage as biggoted . Seems to me your winning politically ? Whats the problem ..
The victim mentality foisted on to the Evangelicals by their leaders has certainly made us all miserable listening to them. At the same time they are responsible for creating victims of all sorts through their heinous prohibition laws, e.g. alcohol, black men cannot marry white women (all these came from those great Evangelicals with who today's Evangelical's go arm in arm with the so called "war on drugs").
The greatest deception an oppressor will give is to look like a victim.
The reality is that I Cor 5:12 has pulled the true disciple out of the role of oppressing the world - it is God's job to judge them. The moral depravity of the world is left to them - my job is to fully submit to Jesus Christ. In doing so, I am the neither the victim nor the oppressor but the Victor through Him who strengthens me.
Peace,
In Christ,
Human
Those who come as wolves in sheep clothing have left their stain on the church and our culture . Those speaking but not hearing , those who pump themselves up to be seen by the world as the righteous , know no love of one another .
To know Christ is to know love , to love one another , if you know not this you know not Him .
Instead of supporting and strengtening one another , they choose to be of the world and by the world .
The Lord warned us of these days ...And we should all rejoice in them .
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Some one said ...
GSA's aren't there to promote their issues, but instead to try develop a non-violent, non-prejudiced environment for straight and gay students alike.
Dear Anonymous ,
That is a contradiction in logic. You support kicking out an organization out that supports a morality you believe goes against your sense of right and wrong . . You promote an organization that is contradictory to traditional morality but yet consider it more acceptable . So neutral value means non prejudiced . To whom ? You ... and others such as Human , who believe that the fight to prevent drug abuse is equal to preventing blacks and whites to inner marry . When you loose your sense of right and wrong , you end up going to where no man has gone before ... Ability to reason .
.Both groups have different views, One organization promotes youth , and one group , the GSA gives a much smaller group a place to interact with kids who believe they are or are homosexuals .
Would you support an organization such as Human would support that believes in promoting drugs to be legal and easier accessed in a public school ? Or a non religious group that promoted Darwinism social beliefs , that certain races have reached higher levels on the evolutionary scale , thus using science and humanistic perverted logic to support their claims . Under your litmus test , all they had to do was state that all are welcome and be non religious . . T Opening their doors to all like a GSA means they are neutral in your eyes . Or now do you possibly understand , opening doors to all and being non religious has no bearing to how something can be taught to discriminate ?
. Even though the subject matter using science and perverted logic and bigotry as Human just expressed in an earlier post . Non religious and open to all , regardless of the subject matter . as being the litmus test .
I suggest your logic allows groups that promote anti social behavior and views to have access to facilities and denies organizations that have a proven history of public service and promoting community minded citizens as being unacceoptable .
Its one of the reasons why kids are shooting kids in schools now , your logic and Human's allow no structure , basis for right and wrong . You qualify your rights by what is right for you , not what is right for your neighbor .
Mick,
You are mixing a lot of things together. I hope you will be careful especially comments regarding my statements.
My focus is on ending the brutality of the government against peaceful beings beause of the flowers they smoke, etc. 80 years ago I would have fought the same battle for those who would like to knock back a couple brews - peaceful people who were viciously attacked and had their lives damaged. 2000 years I would have fought for the peaceful Christians who were persecuted in the same manner.
HOWEVER, your statement that I am advocating making drugs easier to access at the High School level is not true, and quite honestly, inflammatory. This is why Right Wing Religous people get a bad name. They make careless comments to further their philosphical or political goals. I don't believe that is your goal so I would like to set the record straight and hopefully you will walk straight with me.
I am happy to reason with you on any matter - my focus is the washing and renewing of my mind with the Word of God and trusting the Spirit of God to keep my heart pure before him - to abhor evil and cling to that which is good. When I see evil, I speak out against it. Falsehood is evil. Therefore, I am clarifying.
You will note that a primary point by those in the Drug Policy Reform movement is that prohibition actually makes hard drugs, addictive drugs EASIER for young people to acquire. A person who is dealing for a profit is interested in selling and not discriminating to who or what he is selling. The current drug policy creates this evil - that is why it is dangerous and must be eliminated.
Peace,
Human
BTW - the notion that homosexual marriage will open up the door to all kinds of strange things is - well, absurd and irrational.
The keep concept is consensual. The other activities - which people already do but not openly - often involve non-consensuality. So a comparison does not make sense.
My goal is to clean up the church - then those who are not in the church will genuinely see something different and seek after that. This is the best anti-dote to a sinful lifestyle - rather than legislating oppression.
Peace,
Human
Correction:
The "keep" concept s/read "key".
My apologies
Human
Mick,
You really need to get control of your anger and calm down. Your post is such an incoherent mess of rantings and baseless assumptions about my positions, I don't really see much point in making the effort to respond to it.
-JC
Human , The job of cleaning up the Church is that of Jesus Christ .
Sorry but I know Jesus Christ , Jesus has been in my life for twent years , Jesus loves all , knows all , forgives all , Human , you are no Jesus Christ .
Human ,
First you need to accept the fact you will never , and can not take the place of God . Your concept of brutality , stopping drugs from being legal , also have stopped the increase of its use . This is a valid opinion you can dispute , but can not prove false . Your perverted linking of Evangelicals who are against being drug are similiar to Evangelicals that were against multi race marriages is what started the flamantory , if not almot useless ability for you to discuss an issue . The bad name the right wing has is something you rejoice in Human , be honest , yu know having the love and acceptance of the world on these matters is all so much important to you , is it not ..
You would have fought for peaceful Christians 2000 years ago ? You think Peaceful Christians 2000 years ago would be for or gainst a substance , a flower that could reduce or at least limit social growth . Not to mention the physical health of smoke in ones lungs . There have been millions of kids who have had their educational years limited because they have used a culturally acceptable method of makning a mind altering substance the main aspect of their social interactions , their main source of entertainment , and a crutch for most of their important relationships . The fact the legalization of that , and the possibility of increasing the damning effect on youth deserves abetter disucussin then me defending the church that somehow my opinion not wanting drug legalization as being linked to racism //
Yje reason the left wing church is ignored in so many cirlces , and is having their numbers drastically decrease is because they agree with the world , the culture of the day . And do nothing but give the godless another platform to promote their view that the biggest evil , is calling anything evil . I believe legalizing drugs will have a legal effect on children . Your belief that flowers such as pot have not had a harmful effect on this and previous geneartion is just silly . Y
our communication skills , legalize pot , racist disagree with me . . And I am inflamatory . Look at your original post .....
I do not believe you have the ability to reason , your belief of cleaning up the church and your comments have nothing to do with each other . You do not have that calling . You do not have the discernment , the ability or the understanding of what the church is dealing with . Your views of legalizing eveil to stop the greater evil is a good debatable problem . But your world view is that of this world , humanistic , and not Bibical . I would be debating a person who quotes scripture , ridicules the church , and then uses the logic of the present world . Of course the present world is going to clap for you and not the radical religious right Human.. Your reward is of this world .. Whats the matter , not enough for you ?
One more point , our current drug policies have nothing to do with Evangelicals , your comments regaridng them not only bigoted , but incoherent to the discussion .
Mick - With all due respect, I must agree with JC. You have contiuously made comments about statements that I never made - very odd....
If you really know Jesus as you claim, I should see the fruit of the Spirit in your posts. I don't. However, I am willing to work together with you to accomplish that - for both of us.
Peace,
In Christ,
Human
one thing that was misleading in Gary's post was how the justices voted. All 7 expressed that same-sex couples should be treated the same as opposite sex couples. 3 of the 7 though thought that the court should allow marriage immediately while the other 4 wanted the legislature to correct the laws first.
-Tim
Human I see more fruit in Mick's posts than yours.
1 Cor 5:12--is being used out of context.
Tim I do not believe that is correct.
"If you really know Jesus as you claim, I should see the fruit of the Spirit in your posts. I don't. However, I am willing to work together with you to accomplish that - for both of us."
Human the fact that you cannot see how judgemental, proud, and arrogant your statement above is, says it all about you.
I think you need to be looking at your own log in your eye. (that is in the bible)
It doesn't matter what think, anon-prudie, Tim is correct, and those are the facts.
-JC
Anon 4:01
a. re: Fruit - Please point out where making false statements as Mick (perhaps inadvertantly) made of me is fruit.
Please show me where I have not manifested love, peace, etc. If I have not, then I need to be made aware of it - this is the same as I told Mick.
re: ICor5:12
What is the context that makes this text mean anything other than that God judges those outside of the church and the disciples are to judge and reprove those inside of the church. The church is to legislate is morality in the church - not to the world, that is God's job.
Making a statement that it is not in context does not make it so.
Peace,
In Christ,
Human
Anon 4:08
Because I noted that someone does not show the fruit of spirit and point out the specifics is arrogant?? Why?? Will you not let a disciple speak the truth without condeming them? If so, you will be heaping a lot of condemnation on the Apostle Paul...
I am open to seeing any log in my eye - please point it out and I will work with you together to remove it.
Peace,
In Christ,
Human
Gary,
Could you weigh in on Tim's claim that your statements were misleading??
Perhaps Tim can post the relevant section so that we can review together.
Peace,
In Christ,
Human
calling Bush the anti Christ makes one wonder if you are not a plant here on this web .
I know Bush's testimony , seen the fruit in his life , the worse you can say honestly and intellectually is he mis calculated , or his advisors on what he considered a noble mission . Anything elese is pure political conjecture , and nothing you know for sure . The billions spent on HIV and Iids care in Africa , the explosding budget with money spent on education , etc is something I disagree with , but any honest person can only say that your arrigance , lack of civility Huam is apparent , and the good book tells us not even to give the impression of evil , so why do you continue to do so , not apologize when others have found you hurtful , or as John Kerry apologizes , you do so because of our lack of intelligence or knowledge of God in our lives ..
So sad .
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/11/thou-shalt-not-lie-so-obviously.php
Post a Comment
<< Home