Prop 8 upheld by Supreme Court
Find a Conversation
Prop 8 upheld by Supreme Court
| Tue, 05-26-2009 - 8:49pm |
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-decision27-2009may27,0,6677891.story
Prop. 8 upheld by California Supreme Court

Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times
Engaged couple Robert Franco, right, and Shawn Higgins kiss as San Francisco police line up to arrest anti-Proposition 8 demonstrators.
The justices uphold the same-sex marriage ban but also rule that the 18,000 gay couples who wed before the November vote will stay married. The decision is sure to spark another ballot box fight.
By Maura Dolan
11:44 AM PDT, May 26, 2009
11:44 AM PDT, May 26, 2009
Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.
The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists say they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.
The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists say they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.

Pages
It's the exact same issue.
And yet you wonder why the majority of the population isn't too keen on supporting your alternative lifestyle choices.
Is that your answer to the gay population? Just do what you want anyway regardless of the law?
Explain why a dismissive answer is Okay for me but not the gays seeking the same thing I am?
Why are telling someone to break the law?
Maybe this is the correct answer to the gay population. Just do whatever you want anyway.
Really not that simple though is it?
An expressed prohibition against polygamy. Those who contend that the Bible never negatively treats polygamy are wrong. Consider the warning given to prospective and actual kings of Israel:
"16: But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold" (Deut. 17).
Notice the three "shall nots," multiply horses, multiply wives, multiply silver and gold. Solomon is often sited as proof for the practice of polygamy being right, but Solomon was wrong in all three areas. Solomon had a vast number of horses; he had riches unparallel; and seven hundred wives (I Kgs. 4: 26; Eccl. 1-10; I Kgs. 11: 3). Hence, to use the example of Solomon and his seven hundred wives to argue for polygamy is an example of how simplistically a subject can be approached and dialectically presented.
The ideal marriage, according to God. The very first marriage, Adam and Eve, in many ways serves as a prototype, if you will. Notice that God knew that it was not good that Adam be alone and God provided for Adam a "help meet" (counter part that was a complement to Adam, Gen. 2: 18). Observe how God did not simply provide another man, but for Adam God made woman, the "glory of the man" (Gen. 2: 18ff., I Cor. 11: 7ff.). Hence, same sex marriage is not part of God’s arrangement for the marriage bond (see Rom. 1: 22ff.). Moreover, appreciate the fact that when God instituted marriage, it was one man and one woman (Gen. 2). If polygamy is the "ideal," as some are teaching, why, then, did not God create Eve, Sue, Jane, etc. for Adam?
Some of the most beautiful teaching relative to the intimacy and duration of marriage resides in Malachi 2:
"14: Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15: And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth."
Notice how the practice of many wives just does not fit into the passage. However, how about all the references to polygamy in the Bible?
Just because the Bible mentions a trait or act of an individual, even a godly person, does not necessarily mean that the Bible endorsed such. The mentioning of Noah becoming drunk and disgracing himself is mentioned, but certainly not condoned (Gen. 9: 20ff.). I submit that God was not pleased with polygamy, an aberrant from the monogamous marriage God put in place, but that he did two things: (1). God tolerated polygamy during the maturation of his people and (2) he sought to regulate the evil practice.
We know that God intended for one man, one woman and that this relationship was to be for the duration (Matt. 19: 4ff., the only allowable cause for divorce is fornication). Yet, we also read of a divorce provision for a cause other than fornication (Deut. 24: 1-4). This divorce concession was not given for the pleasure of flippant husbands, but was actually for the protection of the women. Thus it was relative to polygamy. God put in place monogamous marriage, but man within a short time became dissatisfied with one woman (Gen. 4: 19). Hence, God then sought to regulate the polygamous practice (Ex. 21: 10). Notwithstanding, God was never pleased with polygamy or divorce for a cause other than fornication (cp. Mal. 3: 16).
Polygamy is expressly denounced pertaining to the leaders of God’s people.
"2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach," "6: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly" (I Tim. 3; Tit. 1).
The expression "husband of one wife" (andra mias gunaikos) was provided by the Holy Spirit and must be respected. The Holy Spirit could have worded this requirement a number of ways. This construction requires marriage (present marriage) but forbids polygamy.
Thus in the case of the Hebrew leaders (the kings) and in the case of the rulers of God’s people today (cp. Heb. 13: 17), having more than one wife is expressly forbidden. Why would one think such would not also follow regarding those under these men?
In closing, we must realize that emotionalism and popularity do not establish God’s norm. I am aware that one of the world’s largest religions (Islam) has in place in its teaching (Koran) that in certain circumstances, a man may have more than one wife (Mohamed had ten wives). Some believe that today there are up to sixty thousand Mormon polygamists in Utah. As seen, polygamy is practiced even legally in many places in one third of the world’s population and that there is a movement underway to legalize multiple wives in America. However, God’s teaching remains one man, one woman (Matt. 19: 4ff., I Cor. 7, Rom. 7: 3, 4, Eph. 5: 22ff.). "God no longer "winks at ignorance, but now commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17: 30). (For more study on the subject of polygamy, visit "An Exchange on Polygamy").
Addendum: We can historically establish the existence of polygamy among the Hebrews from Lamech, six generations from Adam, to about the time of the Babylonian exile. From the time of the exile, history is silent regarding the presence of polygamy among the Jews. By the time of the New Testament, polygamy appears to have been the exception and monogamy the norm even among the Gentiles and Romans.
http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR324.htm
Explain why a dismissive answer is Okay for me but not the gays seeking the same thing I am?
It wasn't dismissive.
It's the exact same issue.
No.
And yet you wonder why the majority of the population isn't too keen on supporting your alternative lifestyle choices.
I don't wonder or care why anyone would object to anything in my life, thank you.
Is that your answer to the gay population? Just do what you want anyway regardless of the law?
Personally, I don't care if you marry your sister.
In fact, I volunteer to be the one to invite your dh to the wedding.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Call it what you wish, your argument re: marriage, ie. that cousins don't "get to do it", was incorrect.
God is undoubtedly happy tonight that one more state chose to love rather than hate.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
"You think you know, sir!" ~ Cornflake Girl ~ Tori Amos.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
What's been pointed out repeatedly is that minors and cousins can already marry, ie. the minor and familial doors were opened by opposite sex marriage, not same sex.
Go for it, and I won't vote to ban your marriage is dismissive?
Wow.
When is the wedding?
Pages