Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages

[DLCreed]

[Sean Fericks]

DLCreed,

The courts are intended to be a check on legislatures and majority rule when those legislatures and majorities violate the civil rights of others.

I do believe that homosexuality should be addressed publicly, but not in the sense of creating laws to try to stop it. I did not point out other sins in order to justify homosexuality. I pointed them out to demonstrate that the fight for the family starts in the home, then the church, and then to a free society. Many Christians seem to want to begin with government, rather than the church and home. We will probably never win this fight for society, but we can win individuals and families to Christ.

As one with a degree in history, I understand how the system works. However, what we have today are courts and jurists who see the Constitution as a document that changes (they would say “grow”) with the times as opposed to providing a foundation for interpretation. Jurists are as likely as not to consider European and World Courts for significant parts of their rulings as they are to use the Constitution (See Ruth B. Ginsburg). There is no suggestion of Civil Rights for sexual behavior anywhere in the Constitution and there is much evidence that if they thought, in their worst nightmares, that the Constitution would be used for the practices of immorality, they would have most likely delineated very clearly that it was not to be used for such,

Your are correct that the Constitution does not grant special civil rights for sexual behavior or marriage. In fact, I don’t recall the Constitution discussing sexuality or marriage at all. Since it does not grant Congress the power to regulate sexual actions or marriage (Article I, Section VIII), Amendment X prohibits Congress from passing laws that regulate sexual actions and marriage. DOMA was a law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton that went beyond Constitutional bounds. SCOTUS was right to strike it down. In the California case, the people of California voted to limit the definition of marriage to heterosexual relationships. The California Supreme Court struck it down because it believed that Prop 8 violated the principle of equal protection under law. When citizens of California pled to SCOTUS to intervene, SCOTUS rightly said that it is a state issue (Amendment X, Bill of Rights).

Your concerns about European and World courts, living document theory, and the supposed actions of our founders are irrelevant to the discussion. SCOTUS strictly adheared to the Constitution. That is their job.

[QUOTE=DLCreed] Indeed, Kennedy and his colleagues, are overthrowing centuries of legal precedent with a re-interpretation.[/QUOTE] Kennedy and his colleagues did not overthrow centuries of legal precedent. They confined their actions to the interpretation of the Constitution (rule of law). That is their duty.

[QUOTE=DLCreed] The Constitutional freedoms we have were always to be tempered with moral self-governance if they were to work at all. Examine the writings of Adams, Jefferson and others if you doubt me.[/QUOTE] I agree that our founders believed that only a righteous people would be able to self-govern. Yes, we do see the fruits of our sin as our nation continues on its downward slope. But that won’t be overcome with more government intrusion. We win individuals and families to Christ. Perhaps we can turn the tide.

[QUOTE=DLCreed] Your argument that “the fight for the family starts in the home, then the church, and then to a free society” is a non sequitor. First, this is not an either/or scenario.[/QUOTE] You are missing my point. I agree that it is not either / or. We should pursue righteousness in all spheres of influence. But we must also recongnize the difference in jurisdictions.

[QUOTE=DLCreed] Show me a credible conservative evangelical church that believe and think otherwise. But in a constitutional republic such as ours, we have the right and the responsibility to insist on moral leaders who will promote and enforce basic standards of moral order.[/QUOTE] Yes, but they are limited in their roles by the Constitution. SCOTUS honored its limited role. If you want to expand the role of the federal government to marriage, work on passing an amendment. [QUOTE=DLCreed] We are not an absolutely libertarian society — we are a nation governed by laws — both natural and legislated.[/QUOTE] True. Our founders wanted a vital, but limited government. Thus, the Constitution. It grants specific roles to the federal government and prohibits it from all others. Show me where the Constitution gives the federal government the right to legislate marriage. [QUOTE=DLCreed] Yours is the argument being used by many a theological liberal and they simply do not hold water.[/QUOTE] How does honoring the Contitution couple me to theological liberals? [QUOTE=DLCreed] Of course we are to win individuals and families to Christ. That is a “Captain Obvious” statement. But we are to be Salt and Light as well and we all know that bright lights and salty solutions will offend, spotlight and burn on occasion. Righteousness still exalts a nation. The responsibility of those who have a voice or authority in leadership is to promote righteousness.[/QUOTE] Part of promoting righteousness is living within the law. [QUOTE=DLCreed] As a nation of citizen participants in the government of our civilization, we have every right AND responsibility to FIGHT for those values that invite God’s blessing and which lead to order and peace in our land. To neglect this sacred opportunity will lead to our loss of it.I agree with you 100% on this last statement.

Your Stunningly Naive, Laughable, Theologically Liberal Friend,

Sean

The Constitution does not give the federal government the right to regulate marriage. So SCOTUS correctly struck down DOMA. OK. You may be correct on that one. But doesn’t the Constitution give States the rights not specified to the federal government? Isn’t that what California Prop 8 is all about? So why does SCOTUS have the right to strike Proposition Eight?

And, doesn’t the federal government have the right to define who does, and does not receive federal benefits? Isn’t that really what DOMA was about? By this reasoning, the federal government has no right to determine who is and who is not eligible for medicare. (Age discrimination.) Where does all this take us?

The SC did not strike down Prop 8, they said that the ones defending Prop 8 did not have standing (actual citizens of California) and therefore it was sent back to the Appeals Court where their ruling of striking it down stands. What basically happened is the State of California (read democrats led by Gov Brown) did not like Prop 8 and were unwilling to defend the people of California in the courts.

The implication is if the majority in a given state pass a proposition and someone doesn’t like it (the minority) can take it to court , but if the given state government doesn’t like the duly passed proposition, they can pull a Cali and not defend the proposition (majority of the people) in the courts.

At least that’s how I understand what the SC did with Prop 8.

that’s the basis of the SC’s ruling. The Supremes didn’t even touch the merits of the case. The ruling was simply on procedural grounds.

[Pastor Doug H]

The SC did not strike down Prop 8, they said that the ones defending Prop 8 did not have standing (actual citizens of California) and therefore it was sent back to the Appeals Court where their ruling of striking it down stands. What basically happened is the State of California (read democrats led by Gov Brown) did not like Prop 8 and were unwilling to defend the people of California in the courts.

The implication is if the majority in a given state pass a proposition and someone doesn’t like it (the minority) can take it to court , but if the given state government doesn’t like the duly passed proposition, they can pull a Cali and not defend the proposition (majority of the people) in the courts.

At least that’s how I understand what the SC did with Prop 8.

[G. N. Barkman]

The Constitution does not give the federal government the right to regulate marriage. So SCOTUS correctly struck down DOMA. OK. You may be correct on that one. But doesn’t the Constitution give States the rights not specified to the federal government? Isn’t that what California Prop 8 is all about? So why does SCOTUS have the right to strike Proposition Eight? [/QUOTE] My understanding (and I may be incorrect) is that the California Supreme Court struck Prop 8 on the grounds that it did not provide equal protection under law. My understanding is that SCOTUS said that the plaintifs (California citizens who were for Prop 8) did not have standing to bring this California issue to SCOTUS. So SCOTUS did not strike California Prop 8. California Supreme Court struck Prop 8, and SCOTUS correctly chose not to interfere in a California issue. http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19155307-prop-8-ruling-…

[QUOTE] And, doesn’t the federal government have the right to define who does, and does not receive federal benefits? Isn’t that really what DOMA was about? By this reasoning, the federal government has no right to determine who is and who is not eligible for medicare. (Age discrimination.) Where does all this take us?

It is trickier than that Sean.

California SC ruled for homosexual marriage on the grounds of equal protection. California citizens said not so fast and passed Prop 8. Homosexual marriage proponents brought suit in federal court against Prop 8. Now this is the important part. The California government REFUSED to defend Prop 8 in the lawsuit. So, people stepped in and defended it. The federal court ruled for Prop 8 to be overturned. The same people appealed to the SCOTUS, but SCOTUS said the people had no standing in the case defending Prop 8, only the state of California did. Since the state of California won’t defend Prop 8, the overturning of Prop 8 stands.

I appear to be in error. So let me get this straight:

• Prop 8 passes
• Suit goes to California Supreme Court.
• California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8 was valid as voted, but that marriages performed before it went into effect would remain valid.
• Suit filed in Federal District Court.
• Federal District Court overturned Prop 8.
• Proponents of Prop 8 appeal, eventually to SCOTUS.
• SCOTUS rules proponents do not have standing.

Is this correct? If so, I blush for my misunderstanding of the events. If correct, my argument on the basis of federalism is reversed.

Double post. Double error!!!

gist of it. Regretfully, the Constitution was written before referendums and initiatives became part of the US political process.

There used to be a place called Sodom and Gomorra. What ever happened to them?

We forget that God is a just and holy God, and he cannot long hold back his judgment against a sinful nation.

Homosexuality is a sin in God’s eyes…no one here is disputing that.

But how is it any more sinful for a homosexual couple to receive normal work benefits? Most companies also extend work benefits to cohabited couples once they reach the common-law requirements of their states. I don’t recall any expressions of outrage (or of God’s judgment on America) when that started coming to fruition.

The fact of the matter is that many Christians view homosexuality as a sin that is worse than others. If nothing else, it conjures up strong emotional responses because it is perceived to be more abhorrent than other sins. I have no problem expressing that homosexuality is a sin any more than I have a problem expressing that child abuse and adultery are sins. But I do not think that it should warrant more of my attention than other sins either.

By focusing (and sometimes ranting) about a single issue, it is easy for Christians to be viewed as hateful and bigoted. I think that there are plenty of ways to speak the truth with love.

I really don’t care how the government chooses to define marriage…that isn’t how I define it.

Not all sins are equal before God. Telling a lie is not the same as murdering a man. Stealing an apple is not the same as lying in bed with a man.

You need to read your Bible more, Todd.

We should care deeply about what the government is doing. You may be thinking to yourself that none of this changes how you view marriage. That may be true. But all of these laws are going to open up Pandora’s box. The homosexual activists have already destroyed the Boy Scouts. They are already at work at taking away a small business’s right to serve who it wishes to serves. They have made their way into public schools, forcing teachers to teach that homosexuality is just another valid lifestyle choice. It’s only a matter of time before a law is passed that will require ministers to marry any couple that comes into the church asking to be married.

[pvawter] Christian, according to Romans 1:24-26, homosexuality is part of God’s judgment for man’s idolatry.

I don’t see how you would arrive at that conclusion. Not everyone who is an idolater is a homosexual. In fact, in many third world countries where there is much idolatry, they have strict punishments against homosexuals.

Homosexuality is merely the ultimate result of extreme fornication and adultery. Sexual sin comes in degrees. First lust, then fornication, then adultery, sexual abuse/pedophilia, incest, homosexuality.

Like many other sins, the more we do them, the more desensitized we become to them, and the deeper and deeper we get, until one day we find that we have become that which we hated the most.