I think that it is a good news, after democrats won last electons.
Californians Pass Gay Marriage Ban
By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
After weeks of prayer and intense campaigning on both sides, Californians passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
The measure overturns the state Supreme Court decision in May that legalized gay marriage.
Supporters of Proposition 8 had claimed victory Tuesday night as numbers played out in their favor. But opponents said it was too soon to make the call as many votes remained uncounted.
As of Wednesday morning, however, Prop 8 passed 52 percent to 47.9 percent. Although with nearly 96 percent of the votes tallied, there are absentee and provisional ballots still uncounted, reports indicate the 5 percent margin will be difficult to overcome, according to The Mercury News.
"Just over a month ago, we were behind in the polls, and things did not look good for traditional marriage," said Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church in San Diego. "Then we began our 40 days of prayer and fasting, and began hosting rallies that were simulcast to churches all over the state, and we began to see the tide turn. Tonight, we are just grateful for this result, not just as evidence of the people’s decision on marriage, but as evidence of God’s will and plan for marriage and families."
Leading into the polls on Tuesday, a CBS News poll had shown the "Yes on 8" campaign leading only by a 48-45 percent margin and opponents had out-raised the amendment supporters in a last-minute fundraising blitz in Hollywood.
Christians and traditional marriage supporters, however, collected their spiritual strength and organized massive prayer rallies and 40-day campaigns in an effort to defend marriage as between one man and one woman. They also raised an impressive $40 million and the support of over 100,000 volunteers to the traditional marriage cause.
According to Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, the "Yes on 8" campaign was the "single largest, most powerful grassroots movement in the history of American ballot initiative campaigns."
"This is a great day for marriage," said Prentice. "The people of California stood up for traditional marriage and reclaimed this great institution. We are gratified that voters chose to protect traditional marriage and to enshrine its importance in the state constitution. We trust that this decision will be respected by all Californians."
Thousands of same-sex couples married since the May ruling. Whether their unions are still valid will be resolved in court, legal experts say.
One lesbian couple, who was the first to be married in Los Angeles County, plans to announce a lawsuit arguing that the proposition is unconstitutional, according to The Mercury News.
While similar marriage amendments were being voted on in Arizona and Florida, California drew wide attention as many believed it would set a precedent for other states.
With Tuesday's win, Christians are optimistic.
"We were able to draw a line in the sand on this issue, and we hope this helps to protect the definition of marriage across the nation," said Garlow. "Personal and religious freedoms were at stake, as well as our children’s education, and we are grateful for all the prayers, volunteers and financial support from those who stood with us from outside the state of California."
http://www.christianpost.com/article...rriage-ban.htm
I think that it is a good news, after democrats won last electons.
Can people who support same sex marriage just suggest a new proposition (or whatever it's called) and oppose this one, going back to making sex marriage legal in Cali?
I'm sure the homosexual lobby will appeal this to the state supreme court and then possibly to the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California is very liberal and likely to try to overturn the will of the people in this case. That will send it to the Supreme Court.format_quote Originally Posted by crayon
I hope that Obama won't involve in cultural war, and won't press on establishing liberal laws on family in USA.
They wanted a vote in California on this issue didn't they? now when they've had a state plebiscite and the people roundly rejected it, all of a sudden they're not so "effeminate".
Is this just symbolic in that it simply stops a legal gay partnership from being called "marriage"? Or does it do away with the whole gay partnership thing (which arranges stuff like inheritance and whatnot?)
Largely symbolic, although the gay community sees it as more than that. They wish to be recognized as being "married". Civil partnerships that contain most if not all legal rights still exist. I could be mistaken, but I believe the proposition was simply about the definition of marriage.format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Obama is against gay marriage. So I think it is unlikely he will try to press for liberal family laws, at least in this case.format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
This won't go anywhere towards the goal of those who voted for it - to keep gays from marrying or to stop them from being openly couples. It may even backfire, it may cause gays to want to be more in your face about it, feeling oppressed etc.
To me this whole gay marriage issue highlights a far more important issue - separation of church and state. The state should have no business telling the church/mosque/temple who they must recognize as entering a sacred spiritual union. And the church has no business telling the state who it must give certain civil rights to (such as tax breaks, visitation, powers of personal care, etc).
The solution is simple but no politician seems to endorse it - get the state out of marriage altogether. Leave "marriage" as something churches/mosques declare people to be in. Different churches/mosques can then recognize a particular union or not and differ on it with other churches/mosques. And the state could afford completely non-spiritual "civil union" upon anybody who requests it.
What are your views on this solution?
Isn't Schwarzenegger still the California governor?this comes as a shock to me though I always imagined CA to be ...liberal.
I dont think that it is about separation of state and church. It is about telling that family is something between one man and one woman. Just like it was during the last thousands of years in the western world. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans didnt see family in different way, although that they sometimes practiced homosexuality.format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
If the state wants to recognize civil unions between two men or two women, it doesnt have right to prevent same rights to 3 men and 2 woman or one man and 4 women or one adult man and lets say 14 year old girl(who agrees to be in such civil union). If not, this is discrimination.
When we break the taboo of traditional family, we also open the possibilities of various bad and dangerous things, that we dont even aware.
And the children of nowadays gay activists just wait to liberate in future another discriminated minorities, with the same tendention to accuse their enemies as those who suffer from some "phobias".
It is really a war between good and evil, light and darkness, civilization od death and life. Guess on which side the gay activists are?
Last edited by Amadeus85; 11-22-2008 at 07:15 PM.
The institution of marriage is directly tied to the state and the federal government. I don't see how you can separate that and leave marriage to religious institutions. Obviously there are tax reasons, but also the issue of legitimacy. If any religious institution could simply "marry" any combination of gender, number, etc, it creates a serious problem.format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Separation of church and state is not even found in the Constitution. It is found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson and a statement from John Adams, which really meant there would never be a "Church of the United States", meaning, for example, that no Protestant church supported and adopted as the official religion of the country could persecute minority faiths.
It was not about limiting the ability of religious peoples to voice their opinion and vote in representatives that reflect their worldview.
that's good...ban the gay marriage....cause in islam, gay marriage is Bi'dah...!
and is prohibited.
Jalla Allahu Fi 'oulah, Ma lana rabbun siwah.
I'm trying to imagine Governor Arnie saying 'God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve'.
How. Very. Silly.
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
Get it away from the religious context and look at if marriage has indeed always been between one man and one woman throughout human cultures (it hasn't) and examine why. Often it was because women were considered the weaker sex, in need of protection of a man. They were not permitted to do certain things in society so they needed the man as provider and protector. In other cultures women were even considered chattel, property, to be sold from father to husband. These ideas are out dated in western culture today.
I can see no reason outside of religious conviction, that is no secular reason, why homosexuals shouldn't be afforded the same bonding rights in society as heterosexuals. I respect peoples' religions and I respect that Marriage has a lot of religious baggage, so I'm quite happy to give up the label to the church. The church can decide who to see as married and you religious people can have your church recognized union, while us heathens can simply sign a contract for the same civil benefits (visitation rights, powers of property and personal care, etc)
Why? Marriage would carry with it no legal rights or implications. It would be purely a spiritual and reiligious thing, leaving the freedom for one church to recognize a given "marriage" and another not to. One church may recognize homosexual marriage, another not. One may recognize inter racial marriage, another not. There would be no legal implications and therefore nobody forcing their way on the others.format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
So? Its still a fundamentally good idea. I for one don't want to live under a theocracy, and I don't think you do either - at least once you realize that it isn't your particular brand of your particular religion being forced upon all of us.Separation of church and state is not even found in the Constitution.
America, and indeed most of the west, has grown to embrace diversity and to value freedom of independent thought, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc. You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from the other guy's religion.
I'm not saying that religious people shouldn't have a right to express their views in public, even if those views are hateful or bigotted. I am very much against hate speech laws. Let the people put their ideas into the marketplace of ideas. Just don't give them a government enforced monopoly.
I think it is sad that a State, in the Land of the Free, would amend there constitution to deprive one group of people equal rights.
Let's grant necrophiles, pederasts, exhibitionists, Coprophiliacs etc etc the rights to marry the object of their adoration.. after all it is the 21st century?
freedom of doesn't denote freedom from (morals/ or respect to majority rule)
that is in fact what democracy is--the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group-- most of the world are heteros and I'd dare say even staunch evolutionists are yet to find a way to fit homosexuality in the scheme of their dissertation..
Marriage is a union between man and woman.. that is the unit that is recognized by nature, by religion and by society at large!.. homos can do their thing on their private time.. a minority that goes to define itself by a sodomizing sexual act doesn't get to define the norm for the whole!
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks