Why do Chrisitans hate the constitution? The 14th amendment makes it abundantly clear that the California law is unconstitutional. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Only two witnesses were provided because outside of misquoting the Bible, there are no rational arguments.

@ucphd63: "The 14th amendment makes it abundantly clear that the California law is unconstitutional." I really don't think the writers of said amendment ever intended to give constitutional protection to a perversion.

@ucphd63 -- so, does the 14th Amendment protect group marriages or polygamy? What about "marriage" between two brothers?

Can we be honest here? It really doesn't matter which Christian group tried to defend Prop 8. The judge is the guy in charge, and this particular judge was a gay activist (and that's the charitable interpretation).

Wow. Your responses make my point much better than I ever could. There are no rational arguments to invalidate same-sex unions or gay parenting. The overwhelming consensus in the literature supports it. That's why there were no counter-arguments in the trial and why all you can get in response are vitriolic responses based in prejudice like you see posted here.

@ucphd63 "...no rational arguments to invalidate same-sex unions or gay parenting." More like no rational answers from the homosexuals. Here's the only answer homosexuals give to these basic questions posed by people like Vincent Pinson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

@ucphd63 -- Answer the questions.

The fact remains that the Bible delcares no practicing homosexual or lesbian will enter heaven. God will have the final word and no amount of court action can make acceptable what God declares to be sin. A literal Hell is as reasl as a literal Heaven. And God makes it clear that whan people do not want to hear the truth, HE will send them a strong delusion so that they will believe a lie. We are seeing this happening today.

Richard Mummau

Allowing legal same-sex marriages does not prevent anyone from following their own religious beliefs and/or moral compass in regards to the issue. If you do not believe such unions are religiously or morally acceptable, do not marry a person of the same sex.

You can't complain that the judge ruled the way he did because he is gay. If you make that argument, you are also saying that a heterosexual judge could not be trusted enough to make the same decision because presumably he or she would be prejudiced the other way. You then have to look for a judge who is asexual or a robot to decide.

American law doesn't care about heaven or hell. That's up to religion to teach and parents to indoctrinate into their children. Teaching your beliefs and prejudices is something we should be doing for ourselves within our families and churches, not asking the government to do. Conservative politics says it is all about smaller, less intrusive government. Get government out of religion and out of the bedroom, don't expand big government into the privacy of the family.

@Dan - you asked "@ucphd63 -- so, does the 14th Amendment protect group marriages or polygamy? What about "marriage" between two brothers?"

Welcome to the land of the slippery slope fallacy. Same-sex marriage is not the same as incest, polygamy, etc. Because you have one does not mean that automatically the others come into action.

One can plausibly argue that there is a rational basis for states to ban polygamous and polyamorous marriages in which there has been historical evidence of an imbalance of power, coercion (particularly of young girls), and an enormous financial burden placed on the state. None of these arguments can be made against gay marriage.

One can likewise make rational arguments that incestuous marriages in which children are a possibility create possible harm due to increased likelihood of birth defects. William Saletan argues "Birth defects could be prevented by extending to sibling marriage the rule that five states already apply to cousin marriage: You can do it if you furnish proof of infertility or are presumptively too old to procreate. If you're in one of those categories, why should the state prohibit you from marrying your sibling?"

What it gets down to here is that some people are freaked out at the idea of queers, period. You can't come up with any argument against the practice that conforms to the requirements of American law, so you resort to the hysteria of the slippery-slope argument.

Really, your beliefs are your own. Act according to your morals and conscience, and all will be well.

C.L.Ward says, "Your beliefs are your own. Act according to your morals and conscience, and all will be well." Well, unfortunately, that's obviously not true. People who act on their own morals and conscience wreck the lives of others every day.

Let's get specific: Catholic Charities was the largest adoption agency in Mass, until the Mass govt said they could not "discriminate" against giving babies to homosexual couples. That goes against the conscience and morals of Catholic Charities, so they lost their license. The point is, the gay rights crowd is not content with "live and let live". They are not content allowing the *private* Catholic Charities to live with its policy and go find a gay-friendly adoption agency to compete. I spoke with a self-described Libertarian private equity manager who said he thought it was good that Catholic Charities had to go out of biz - so how "Libertarian" was he, really? No free market there.

Most Christians would be content decriminalizing gay activity, as with the Lawrence case in Texas, but then they get forced into "not discriminating", which is in direct conflict with the First Amendment right of "free association". Most Christians would even "tolerate" government agencies' non-discriminatin policies, but that's not enough for the gay rights crowd, who wants to criminalize any moral point of view that says their choices are wrong. Look at the recent Supreme Court decision against the Christian Legal Society at Hastings School of Law, which was forced off-campus if they didn't allow gay leadership. The gay rights crowd is definitely not content with "live and let live".

I see the most important issue not being gay mariage. I see it as changing the meaning of words to suit a desired outcome, and this approach should be condemned. Marriage has for centuries meant the marriage of one man and one woman. If a judge can change the meaning of marriage because he feels that it is unfair, then what other words can have their legal meaning changed by "well-intentioned" judges? Should polygamists advocate that marriage is discriminatory if it doesn't include multiple partners? I love my dogs - can I marry them so that I can get them medical benefits from my insurance? To oppose that would be specisism. Suppose some tree hugger convinced a liberal activist judge that murder should also include killing trees and plants? Or if a well-intentioned PETA activist convinced a judge that murder laws should also apply to people who kill animals, and that people who eat meat are accessories to a crime? All well-intentioned, and can make logical sense if a person changes the meaning of a word from its customary meaning to fit what they want it to fit.
A better approach than judicial activism is through the legislative process. Advocates should be able to lobby (usually done through bribing with campaign contributions) their legislators to pass a law making their issue legal. Opponents can lobby (bribe) legislators to oppose a change in the law. A law being changed through the legislative process is more proper than a judge finding a new meaning to a word.

This is a moral issue.One thing that really concerns me is that the founding Father when they wrote this definitely didn't have homosexuals in mind.What must be done is to view the real intent of the Founding Fathers.We can look at the US Constitution and say that homosexuals have the right to marry. We can say why should a few or majority be able to discriminate against them? We can say shouldn't they have freedom of choice like every other group of people? Many today have the freedom of choice to do as they please if not all of us. The problem comes in when our choice violates the rights and freedoms of others.I have to ask this is sodomy a crime? Is sleeping with a man wife a crime? What about sleeping with a woman husband? These used to be crime. They also be punishable by law.I really think that choice really isn't the issue here.In this country and others these things go on, but you don't see people with signs saying let's make this legal. No one is saying that homosexual can't do what they want to do. The issue is marriage? If homosexual want to practice what they can and have practice for many years.It doesn't appear that no one is stopping homosexual from doing there own thing. But,why marry? There is a hidden agenda behind this. If they are married then they will be given the right and benefits of a man and female married couples. This is the real issue. There is another thing here that must be considered here. Are people trying to discriminate against a lifestyle or a people? For male couples that would want to have sex will this mean that anti-sodomy laws would have to change or made legal? In some states "consensual sex" between two males is not against the law. As a mater of fact in 46-50 states it is considered legal.In 36-50 states all sodomy laws have been repealed.In some states sodomy is only an illegal offense if it is forced or with a minor. I really don't think that this what the founder of the US Constitution had in mind when they wrote the 14 amendment. The last thing to consider is what kind of effect will homosexual marriages have on the US in the end.If we look at homosexual marriage in Babylon,Medo-Persia, Greece, Pagan and then Papal Rome what kind of an effect did it have on the culture and society? I think that we need to really take a deeper look at thing think, even from a non-biblical perspective.

@CLW: "@Dan - you asked "@ucphd63 -- (Read more closely is my advice to you. I didn't ask that; Vincent Pinson did.) so, does the 14th Amendment protect group marriages or polygamy? What about "marriage" between two brothers?" Welcome to the land of the slippery slope fallacy." And for him to ask those questions is not a slippery slope fallacy - they are simply questions. Now your "plausible arguments" against legalization of polygamy or marriage btw siblings bears an odd resemblence made by some against homosexual marriage. Those who advocate for gay marriage often reply with: "Who are you to tell others who they can love and marry?" [Recently a Japanese man married his pillow. Another one married his video game girl friend. Slippery slope fallacy? Really?] Be honest, CLW, your presupposition is that homosexuality is not a perversion and is in fact normal behavior, and, therefore, homosexuals should be able to marry. But what do you base that belief upon? My presuppostion is that homosexuality is a perversion - both biological and morally - and its practice is a sin. It is a biological perversion from the observation of anatomy and physiology, and morally from what the bible says. And why do you think marriage btw siblings is wrong? After all, as our homosexual neighbors constantly remind us, marriage is not purely about procreation. And pregnancy, as you know, can be prevented. So, why not marriage btw siblings: I mean, if they loooovvvve each other who are you or I to interfere? And the same applies to polygamy. Who are you to interfere with the wishes and desires of men and women who love each other and want to form group families? To conclude, CLW: regarding your arguments against polygamy or marriage btw siblings - ever hear of the slippery slope fallacy?

My intention is to defend the dignity of humanity and human sexuality in our society.
Let's not make this a "Religious issue", but instead a "Nature issue". By nature, humans were designed male and female for the purpose of procreation. For this purpose, the male design compliments the female design. Even the animal kingdom understands the design of nature and follows their natural instincts to attract the OPPOSITE sex to create offspring. Given that the intelligence of the human species is greater than that of animals, it is easy to surmise that any combination of sexual intercourse outside of a male-female pairing is a perversion of nature. It takes a male and female union to create an offspring, thus creating a "family". It is not that difficult to understand; egg + sperm = baby. Homosexual couples do not have the complimentary anatomy for procreation, however, they can call themselves a "family" if they chose to do so, but certainly, not "husband and wife".
Just because homosexual activity exists, doesn't make it appropriate to consider such an arrangement to be a marriage.
Those who struggle with their sexual orientation have my sympathy. No disrespect or malice intended, but I would encourage them to courageously, consider medical and professional counseling to determine why and how they came to that conclusion about their sexuality since there is no scientific proof that supports genetic predisposition for homosexuality. My hope would be that they would find the freedom to live heterosexually, as nature intended. Why would you want to live any other way than how you were anatomically designed to function in this world?
Obviously, sex for the pleasure of sex also exists, but that alone, leads some people to an addicted, sexually perverted lifestyle. Unfortunately homosexuals and some heterosexuals take the sexual experience, beyond healthy and respectable boundaries of human dignity, to levels that promote physical, mental or medical harm.
In America we are given many liberties...let's use them wisely.

Some religious conservatives no more respect same sex relationships any more than they respected my "mixed race" friendships in my college days on the edge of the Bible Belt. At least try come up with something I didn't hear forty years ago. One of my security words is mildly pejorative slang...but at least it's legible.

Procreation is quite obviously a secondary, not the primary purpose for human sexuality, otherwise we might as well just be sea turtles; mothers who just lay their eggs in the sand then swim away forever. The bonds of human sexuality creates the cornerstone of human social structures and social constructs in which to raise our young, and support our elderly and our infirm.

The procreation as primary argument diminishes humanity, and those who raise children they didn't bear, educate children who don't share their DNA, who professionally doctor them when they're sick, give them therapy, who run libraries, fire departments, police departments, zoning commissions...the people who keep the streetlights burning and the garbage from accumulating...

It's so ironic that after decades of neglecting marriage and turning a blind eye to premarital sex, extramarital affairs, divorce at the drop of a hat, abortion on demand, and countless other unbiblical trends that the church is trying to support a meaningless law. Why is it meaningless? Because we have made marriage and family meaningless words. Why don't we start getting our act together and restore biblical teachings on marriage, family and the sovereignty of God in our churches. When we do this, maybe God will provide us with some great victories. Don't worry about the silly law, marriage is instituted by God so let's honor it like we really believe what we preach.

I suppose your disagreements really boil down to which organization is the more bigoted.

My 3 data points:
- I've never seen any data that says children raised by gay couples suffer because of it. I've seen arguments, but no data.

- I know probably 5 gay couples with kids, and they seem as good or better parents than the straight couples I know.

- I've been in a few countries where gay marriage is legal, and society hasn't fallen apart there.

The church can refuse to marry gay people, or poor people, or anyone who doesn't meet their guidelines. However, the state should not be in the business of enforcing religious policy. When you tell an adult that he or she cannot marry another adult in a civil ceremony, you define them as not equal to other citizens.

Christians would have a lot stronger argument if they did marriage any better than anyone else in our society. But they aren't role models, and therefore have no basis for telling anyone what marriage is and isn't. Your average atheist has just as strong a marriage as your average Christian.

Justice Anthony Scalia warned about the dangers of the courts imposing their will in the "absence of a democratic majority" when it came to changing TX law regarding sodomy in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Since this ruling, the homosexual movement has chipped more and more away at existing statutes and seeking "equal protection." Since they cannot win throughout the populace or electorate in public discourse and persuasion, they rely upon a the non elected federal judges who hold a relative interpretation of the US Constitution to impose their beliefs on us all. If homosexual marriage is legalized, then opponents of Bestiality, Polygamy, Incest, and others will have no legal basis in which to base their opposition. This is not democracy. Check out Scalia's pointed dissenting vote in Lawrence v. TX. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2566149/posts

Just curious - What would darwinists say about homosexuality - especially in light of their inability to reproduce without a assistance from invitro fertilization and the wonders of 21st century reproductive science? Where do homosexuals lie on the continuum of evolution?

Actually, homosexual behavior exists across the animal kingdom at about the same percentage as in humans.
Those who appeal to the Bible for guidance are forgetting that women were considered property and a man could have many wives. Honestly, would you hold David up as a model? If we followed Jesus' example, none of us would marry. And as I recall, divorce was not condoned in the Bible. We seem to be very selective about what part of the Bible to use.
It's a human rights issue.

While the debate rages, it misses the central issue -- jurisdiction. What jurisdiction has the authority to define marriage? To give that jurisdiction to the state (civil government) is to take it away from God (church government).

The issue is not whether same sex couples have the right to marry. The issue is whether the federal (civil) government has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case and define marriage. Regardless of the outcome, if the Supreme Court is allowed to dictate marital definition, it will ignore and deny God's historic and central role in marriage. And that will be a tragedy of biblical proportion.

Marriage is not between one man and one woman, but is between God and one man and one woman -- always has been and always will be. The church has either abrogated its authority in this matter or the state has usurped the authority of the church. But in any case, to have the federal government define marriage will be a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

However, that argument is not likely to get much traction in federal court because the precedent of such violation has already been set through tax law. When churches submit to the 501(c)(3) tax status, they put themselves under the jurisdiction of the state. It's hard to understand how people don't see this, except that it is all terribly threatening.

In 10 years, those who bigotted towards gays are going to be just as embarrassed as those who were bigotted towards blacks a few decades ago. )

(Different Dan)"In 10 years, those who bigotted towards gays are going to be just as embarrassed as those who were bigotted towards blacks a few decades ago." Not likely. You are comparing apples and oranges. The bible declares in Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. There is no biblical prohibition to being dark skinned or light skinned. Skin color is not a behavior. Homosexual practice is a behavior prohibited by God.

"Actually, homosexual behavior exists across the animal kingdom at about the same percentage as in humans." Dr. Doolittle? Is that you commenting incognito under the pseudonym of Gene Hill?

No one should have the right to make assumptions about others, whom they do not know. We live in secular democracies and republics.The endless barrage of hatred towards homosexual persons by conservative Christians under the guise of religious beliefs, has consequences.And those consequences are violence, bloodshed, and murder.Examine the rhetoric used over the past several decades and you will see that most of the time, opposition is based not on stated biblical verses, but on lies, slander, and defamation.An example from current events: a group in Minnesota has been stating over the airwaves that the "average gay man molests about 117 victims before getting caught." This branches over into 'bearing false witness' does it not?You can run your life according to Leviticus if you like.But you cannot run mine according to any personal beliefs that denigrate my state of being. Period.

everyone of us who know jesus and gods word have a responsibility to explain to any homosexual that its wrong and they should stop. its amazing to me a mother father brother son daughter or friend would try to get a drug addict or drunk to stop for thier physical earthly health but would not want to save thier soul and assure them a place in heaven with us all. strange