SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : California Legalizes Same Sex Marriage

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 )


Hey MoeMAc,

I understand what ur saying, I am merely clarifying how I truly feel.

The world doesnt except our stand nor the ONE in which we stand for.

Yes, I m very much in this World, but I am NOT of this World, and I boast in Christ for that, MY life or OUR lives are HID with God in Christ....

Appreciate cha MOE

 2008/5/16 18:30



ejg wrote:
Hey MoeMAc,

I understand what ur saying, I am merely clarifying how I truly feel.

The world doesnt except our stand nor the ONE in which we stand for.

Yes, I m very much in this World, but I am NOT of this World, and I boast in Christ for that, MY life or OUR lives are HID with God in Christ....

Appreciate cha MOE

No problem brother. Actually I'm a little encouraged by this. Maybe there are more Christians than I thought there were. They are just undercover.

 2008/5/16 19:40

Joined: 2006/1/19
Posts: 1406



moe_mac wrote:

hmmhmm wrote:
Well it deals well with the two kingdoms, Gods and this worlds and says what scripture clearly teaches and Jesus taught.

That our kingdom is not of this world, and any good soldier dont get tangled up in this worlds affairs.

Politics or otherwise.

Kinda figured that, discernment I guess. One of most misused passages in the Bible. One entangles himself in the affairs of this world when he lives like the devil and don't stand for righteousness. If one discerns how he can please his master he is going to be salt and light in the midst and a wicked and perverse generation. Light don't hide and salt don't preserve unless it gets on something.
2 Tim 2:15
2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.
5 And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.
6 The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.
7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.
8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
9 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.
10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:
12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Discerment or your opinion on ones ivolvement in politics?

 2008/5/16 21:05Profile

 Re: California Legalizes Same Sex Marriage (THE REST OF THE STORY)

I was a Californian for 40 years, so I have to ask my former fellow citizens: Are you going to sit by and do nothing while four black-robed despots take away your right to govern yourselves?

By one vote, the California Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the expressed will of Californians to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

In 2000, a 61.4 percent majority of Californians passed Proposition 22, which limited marriage to a man and a woman and precluded California's recognition of same-sex "marriages" consummated elsewhere. In a decision derided by a dissenting California justice as "legal jujitsu," the Supreme Court majority held that the ban on same-sex marriage is an infringement of the fundamental state constitutional right to marry.

California is now the second state after Massachusetts where homosexuals will be allowed to "marry." But unlike Massachusetts, California has no law that prohibits homosexual couples living in states that don't recognize same-sex "marriage" from marrying in the Golden State. The California Supreme Court has opened the door to a legal battle royal across the nation. Homosexual couples will flock to California to marry, return to their home states, and file lawsuits to force the recognition of their Land of Fruits and Nuts marriages — and the destruction of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.

According to the California court majority, the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution because it discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, which the majority declared "a suspect classification" akin to race, sex and religion. In Re Marriage Cases, S147999.

The 4-3 decision, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, rules that even though California's domestic partnership (DP) laws give same-sex partners "all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage," the DP scheme violates the California Constitution because of its "failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage." George writes:

In light of all of these circumstances, we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional.

The "proper remedy," according to the court, is "that the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples."

The court reversed the court of appeals and ordered it to issue "a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state" issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Justice Marvin R. Baxter, joined by Justice Ming W. Chin, called the ruling a "startling" act of "legal jujitsu" that "oversteps judicial power" in his concurring and dissenting opinion:

I cannot join the majority's holding that the California Constitution gives same-sex couples a right to marry. In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error. Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature's own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People's will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power.

Justice Carol A. Corrigan writes in her concurring and dissenting opinion:

The voters who passed Proposition 22 not long ago decided to keep the meaning of marriage as it has always been understood in California. The majority improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision. It does that which it acknowledges it should not do: it redefines marriage because it believes marriage should be redefined .... It justifies its decision by finding a constitutional infirmity where none exists.

As important as the institution of marriage is for society in general, and children in particular, there is far more at stake in this ruling. The question for Californians is:

Are you going surrender your sovereign right to rule yourselves to four black-robed despots who've ignored your will and perverted your constitution?

And for clergy in particular, are you going to lead your people in taking righteous action, or hide behind a "nonpolitical" pulpit while God's ordained and holy institution is profaned?

Although there is no relief available in federal court, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has already announced he will do nothing to terminate the ruling, the people of California can still act. This November, Californians can vote for a constitutional amendment, The California Marriage Protection Act, that will prevent this ruling from being enforced.

Californians can also initiate a recall vote for George and his three cohorts, Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn M. Werdegar and Carlos R. Moreno, and send them packing as they did to former California Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird and company.

And finally, all Americans who respect the rule of law should demand that Congress pass a constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage, and send it to the states for ratification. It's the only way to protect state sovereignty and the will of the people from judicial tyranny.


 2008/5/16 21:34

Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4529


Hi hmmhmm…

Well it deals well with the two kingdoms, Gods and this worlds and says what scripture clearly teaches and Jesus taught.

That our kingdom is not of this world, and any good soldier dont get tangled up in this worlds affairs.

Politics or otherwise.

I have wrestled with this sort of question ever since becoming a believer. On the one hand, we know that we hold a primary citizenship in Heaven. But on the other hand, we live, work, eat and interact with the people of this world. We know that we should be free of Earthly entanglements, yet we know that Paul was able to use the most corrupt government on Earth’s legal system in order to skip out on a flogging, “appeal unto Caesar,” use the government’s “Roman roads,” and take the Gospel to Rome. Thus presents the conundrum: How much involvement in our government is too much?

Like it or not, each of us is involved in our government. Even the most separate sects (like the Amish) are forced to become involved through taxes, legal land deeds, required immunizations, etc… We all pay taxes (everything from sales taxes to income taxes), use government-built roads, and own cars that are required to be inspected and registered by the state. If we choose to drive, we are forced by law to have a driver’s license and insurance (in case of an accident). If we own a business, we have to have a business license. Many of us attend churches that are protected as “non-profit” organizations. This list could go on and on. It amounts to the accumulation of our involvement with the government.

Every now and then, I have heard believers who decry the evils of “entanglements in this world’s affairs.” Some say that believers should not vote. Some say that believers should not serve in the military. Some say that believers should not get involved in “the process.” And some claim that believers should refrain from any involvement whatsoever since our citizenship is located in Heaven.

Yet, like it or not, we are involved. If you are using the internet, you are taking part in a intergovernmental regulatory organization called ICANN. To travel overseas as a missionary, you must have a passport. If you eat a hamburger at McDonalds, you are eating beef that is regulated by the government.

I find it funny that those who claim to want complete and utter non-involvement in government affairs are quick to use the government when it comes to their advantage (or for the advantage of Christ). I know a preacher who is adamantly anti-involvement. Yet he testified about the “blessing” of having received his IRS stimulus rebate check last week. Again, I know guys who preach such non-involvement, yet they are quick to register their congregation as a IRS non-profit organization, and they make every effort to work the tax system to their advantage.

Is it hypocritical to complain about any involvement in the affairs of this world when we are undoubtedly involved in a far more comprehensive yet less obvious manner?

I must confess that I am ignorant of the system of government in the land that you dwell (Sweden). In the United States, our government consists of people. It is people chosen by the majority or plurality to represent other people. A vote is simply a voice. It doesn’t signify ALLEGIENCE to a particular candidate, party or even set of social views. Rather, it is simply voicing which direction to which you would like the nation, state, county, city or special district to move. If I vote for John McCain, it doesn’t mean that I have sold my soul to him, his party or the groups of individuals that constitute his party. Rather, it simply means that I think that he is the better of the two choices to serve as the Chief Executive of this nation.

I said this before, but it is worth mentioning again. My wife and I purchased a vehicle not long ago. After careful consideration, we purchased a Ford Escape. Why? It wasn’t that it was the best choice amongst all vehicles. It isn’t necessarily the safest model. It isn’t even the prettiest vehicle. But we considered our budget. We considered the cost of the Escape. We decided that this was the best vehicle for what we wanted with the budget that we have at this time in our lives. We would have preferred a BMW, Mercedes or Lexus SUV. However, we cannot afford such a vehicle at this time. And while the Ford Escape might not have been the best choice amongst all others, it represented the best of what we considered that our family needed.

When we choose to cast a vote – something that I prayerfully feel the liberty of Christ to do – we choose what we think is the best possible choice for the benefit of our family, neighbors, fellow believers and nation. If I choose a new mayor, it is only because I feel that he is the best possible candidate amongst the choices. The same is true with every choice…from choosing a pastor or a president. When all options are weighed, we choose (through prayer) the one that we feel is best for the needs of our family.

I do think that people often try to spiritualize every detail of our lives. As a young believer, I used to pray over which toothpaste to purchase. Nowadays, I usually choose the one that I feel is best from experience or my knowledge of toothpaste. The same is true with the men who endeavor to influence the laws of this land. This is still a nation and government of the people, for the people and by the people. If I severely disagree with the desire of a man who wants to promote something wicked like abortion or homosexuality through legislation – I choose to make my voice heard through my vote.

Our votes have a way of trickling down into even the smallest parts of our lives. If we vote for a candidate for the office of the President who is a social liberal activist, chances are that he will choose individuals in the courts (from the Federal Appeals Courts to the US Supreme Court) who agrees with his own particular views. That is why President Bush was able to nominate and install two conservative, anti-abortion men to the US Supreme Court. This November, South Dakota will likely vote on whether or not to make abortion illegal in that state. Likewise, the State of California is likely to appeal the ruling of the California Supreme Court that declared laws preventing homosexual “marriage” to be discriminatory. These things will likely be appealed to the US Supreme Court. If those cases were argued today, the outcome would likely be a 5-4 decision in favor of outlawing abortion and gay marriage.

I don’t mind that some people might not feel the liberty to get involved in such things. However, I do feel that liberty (no matter how much some want to “warn” me or “feel sorry” for me). Although I realize that my citizenship is in Heaven, I also have a temporary dual citizenship here on Earth. Like Paul, I might utilize the benefits of such a citizenship from time to time (such as voting) – especially to oversee the needs of my family and neighbors. I just hope that those who disapprove of such involvement will afford me the same grace for which I also afford them in such matters.

Since my wife, sister-in-law and I will be relocating to California later this year, we feel the near obligation to stand up to this sort of blantant activism. While those on the side of immorality (and even some in the Church) would prefer for us to remain quiet (at least, with the voice we are given through a vote), I feel that the situation merits a voice.

But if you feel that one shouldn't get involved, then by all means, do not do so. But for those who claim that voting is evidence of becoming "tangled" in the affairs of the world, then I recommend that they remove themselves from every area of world affairs. Don't pay your taxes. Don't accept a tax rebate. Don't apply for non-profit tax exemption. Don't get a driver's license. Don't complain if your city attempts to encroach upon your home in order to pave a new highway. Don't voice a complaint about other types of issues (like war). Don't use a bank. Don't complain about a proposal to raise the tax rate (even to 50%). Don't voice your concern when you see immorality peddled on the streets and on billboards. Etc... These are all acts that can be considered "worldly affairs."

Me? I choose to let my voice be heard -- both as a citizen of Heaven and a temporary citizen of this nation. I just care too much for those around me to do (or not do) otherwise. Yet I will respect those who do not feel such a liberty...and will use my voice to allow them to keep practicing it as they feel is best.



 2008/5/16 23:18Profile

Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991


Hello brother Chris

I have read many post by you where you share what you believe. So i know some of your beliefs.

And yes we do need to live in this world eat, pay taxes and so on, and for your question how much involvement is too much?

I think where we start transgress Gods Word.
If they say pay this much tax we do, if they say you must do this with your cars then we do it, if they say you can only drive in so many miles on our roads we obey.

If they say all these kinds of stuff and laws we obey.

If they claim 70% taxes we pay.

Jesus told us to.

As for some examples Jesus said to us love our enemies, this is hard for example if you have an army, its hard loving someone while you kill them.

So for me voting for a government who actively makes war is to go against what Jesus taught.

But then to instead vote for someone who dont have this war mentality but makes abortion ok, that i believe is also against what the bible says.

so voting for someone like that is also wrong.

And since i cant find one single politician, Swedish or American that can qualify worthy of a believers vote i think they should not vote for wicked God opposing governments.

Then i know some argue and say what about this and what about that. What if government do this? or that? what will we do?

I personally believe God have all under control, the bible says he gives the nations to whom he will. Not who we vote for.

But if people want to vote and feel they need to of course do so.

But i cant understand how we can vote for the "best thing out there" even thou its wicked but not as wicked as the others.

I truly believe we should be as Daniels, he was in babylon, he worked what we would call in government. He dident do so by choice but God put him there. But he refused to become Babylonian, he stayed true to god.

We dont have such politicians today, they all bowed the knee to the golden statue.

And i have a sense voting is bowing the knee in some degree, but not sure yet.

I tank god we can talk about these things, may God show us all things.

Dan 4:17 'This decision is by the decree of the watchers, And the sentence by the word of the holy ones, In order that the living may know That the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, Gives it to whomever He will, And sets over it the lowest of men.'

Dan 4:34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:

I rejoice in there is no voting in heaven :-)


 2008/5/17 3:01Profile



hmmhmm wrote:
Hello brother Chris

I rejoice in there is no voting in heaven :-)


 2008/5/17 8:44

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy