Love who you chose to love. Just be mindful that every choice has it's just reward. But please don't take my word, read Genesis 2:24 and Deuteronomy 30:19. God loves you and there is room at the alter.
Most Christians don't have a problem with who you choose to share your life life with, but we are concerned about protecting marriage. Marriage belongs to God, it was not a Californian or American idea or right. it was God's first institution and is the building block of the society and the human race. Every culture from the beginning until now has regarded it as one man and one woman.
(x) Voting NO protects marriage as it stands now, and "doesn't affect anyone".
(_) Voting YES restores "traditional" marriage and strips 2 million Californians of the right to marry.
Who has everything to lose?
Who has nothing to lose?
You can VOTE *NO* on PROP 8! or you can STRIP THE DIGNITY of 2 million Californians in the name of a bigotry and hatred - while blaming God for your action?
Here is part of what the California Educaton Code 51937 says: "The Legislature recognizes that while parents and guardians overwhelmingly support medically accurate, comprehensive sex education, parents and guardians have the ultimate responsibility for imparting values regarding human sexuality to their children."
October 10, 2008: San Francisco first graders took a school-sponsored field trip to a same-sex wedding. Unmentioned in the video: It was noncompulsory. Permission slips were signed. Two students opted out. It was organized by parents, not the teachers.
The comments from zortnac and jstutz2003 illustrate that there is disagreement in the pro gay marriage community regarding the impact it would or should have on churches. zortnac may not think that churches should lose tax exempt status, but jstutz2003 (and many others) seek that very outcome.
The fact is, you can't prove a negative, and as more and more incidents in schools and churches arise, they will become harder and harder to explain away as anomalies.
All Americans deserve to to be treated equally under the law with tolerance. Proposition 8 is mean spirited, misguided, and propelled by a strong undercurrent of bigotry and fear of something different.
The field trip of a group of first-graders to the same-sex wedding of their teacher came as a complete surprise to her, as the trip was suggested and organized by the STUDENTS PARENTS THEMSELVES
The legality of same-sex marriage in California has NOTHING to do with "forced acceptance of homosexuality" against a parents wishes, and more over, Proposition 8 which threatens to eliminate marriage rights if passed, has nothing to do with that issue either.
The Supreme Court ruling you mentioned dealt with organizations which were not intrinsically religious, but which had religious ties. For example, and this is related directly to the ruling, Bob Jones University refused to admit black students.
Regardless of the fact that Bob Jones U was religious, first and foremost it was a school that had racially discriminatory policies.
NO CHURCH IS THREATENED WITH LOOSING IT'S TAX EXEMPT STATUS FOR REFUSING TO HOLD GAY MARRIAGES.
As I pointed out, the Washington Blade author disagrees with your last statement. He believed that church tax-exempt status was at risk, depending on the outcome of the "steady stream of court battles."
The Bob Jones case relied upon the tax exemption statue which applies to churches (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)). There is nothing in the opinion to suggest it would not apply to churches perceived to be "discriminatory" under the law.
"As I pointed out, the Washington Blade author disagrees with your last statement."
And he's wrong. Being a writer for a paper doesn't make him right. There's not a single precedent of the government ever telling a church how to handle their sacraments and religious ceremonies.
If a case were to ever go to court over a church refusing to marry a couple, it would be thrown out immediately. The catholic church refuses to marry non-catholic straight couples every day.
Sorry, I may not have been clear. I wasn't trying to say that religious organizations will be prosecuted for their "sacraments and religious ceremonies."
What I am saying is that there is a risk that their tax-exempt status will be revoked if we establish a public policy in favor of gay marriage.
I think the Bob Jones case is very relevant precedent in this regard.
What is the policy toward the Catholic church today does not determine what the policy will be after the election.
No, you see, what the Catholic church does today is VERY important because it's the EXACT same thing.
Catholic churches will not marry you if you're not Catholic, and they will not marry you if you're been previously married, and those are both religious reasons.
It's also a religious reason for a Catholic church to refuse to marry a gay couple.
No church can be punished because of who they deny choose to deny their sacraments to. Our first amendment completely prevents that.
The Bob Jones case, as I explained before, was not an issue of a church loosing its tax exemption, it was an issue of a university that was denying admission to black students.
When a church extends its arms in to other venues, adoption charities, universities, etc, it doesn't get to use its right to free practice of religion to break the law in those other venues.
In the Bob Jones opinion, the Supreme Court clearly states that neither of the religious organizations in that case "qualifi[ed] as a tax-exempt organization under 501(c)(3)."
And I think we just disagree on whether churches, charities, and schools ought to lose First Amendement rights and government benefits simply because of their sincerely held beliefs regarding gay marriage.
And that is your misunderstanding of the first amendment. Individuals and churches are protected by the right to free practice of religion, but things like employment, schools, housing, you can't try to use your first amendment rights to discriminate.
Imagine you're part of a white supremacist Christian church. They do exist. Imagine you're church starts up an adoption agency open to the public....as long as you're white.
Do you think this is a matter of religious liberty?
the couple getting married was a teacher and the kids where her students. No kid was made to go learn anyhting about same sex marriage. there are parents that beleive that all people are equale no matter who they choose to love.
The intent of the field trip was precisely to teach the kids. The administrator in charge of the event said this was a "teachable moment" for the children.
The trip was the idea of the parents of the students themselves, to surprise their teacher.
Because of that, this is explicitly NOT an example of something being forced on children against their parents' will.
Also, how often do you hear of students making a field trip to their parents wedding, gay or straight? This was a small performing arts charter school, and the teachers and parents probably form a close community.
This is not something that would happen in typical public schools.
Can Christian churches refuse to marry Athiests? What about Muslims? Are churches required to perform Scientology weddings. It isn't going to happen.
Also, sourcing your argument to some gay bar rag is pretty dumb.
Sorry if my point wasn't clear. I don't think religious groups will be forced to perform same-sex marriages. They may, however, lose tax-exempt status if they refuse to do so.
I understand that The Blade is the oldest LGBT newspaper in the US and 2nd largest by circulation. I don't think it considers itself a "gay bar rag." In any event, the Blade article does prove my point: that some proponents of same-sex marriage (and commenters here) see the tax exemption issue as up for grabs.
They should lose their tax exempt status for discrimination, but won't(anti-women mosques don't get hit by this). Kids should learn that this is okay. If you want your kids to grow up ignorant like you, send them to a private Christian brainwashing school.
Shit, do you also have a problem with teaching kids that slavery is bad?
Your comment helps make my point, which is that many proponents of gay marriage think that churches "should lose their tax exempt status." We can expect a "steady stream of court battles" until this effort succeeds.
To suggest that kids withdraw from public schools due to their religious beliefs hardly seems a tolerant approach to this issue.
Should a church not lose its tax exempt status if it doesn't allow a black woman to marry a white man? Discrimination is discrimination.
We wouldn't need to have court battles if people would get over their ignorance and prejudice.
How is teaching kids that gay marriage is okay any worse than teaching kids that women or blacks should have equal rights when that isn't their religious belief?
fuck yes on 8. NO ON 8 FOREVER. I STAND FOR EQUALITY AND LOVE.
MomntrySilence 3 years ago
Love who you chose to love. Just be mindful that every choice has it's just reward. But please don't take my word, read Genesis 2:24 and Deuteronomy 30:19. God loves you and there is room at the alter.
cocheeze25 3 years ago
Most Christians don't have a problem with who you choose to share your life life with, but we are concerned about protecting marriage. Marriage belongs to God, it was not a Californian or American idea or right. it was God's first institution and is the building block of the society and the human race. Every culture from the beginning until now has regarded it as one man and one woman.
cocheeze25 3 years ago
(x) Voting NO protects marriage as it stands now, and "doesn't affect anyone".
(_) Voting YES restores "traditional" marriage and strips 2 million Californians of the right to marry.
Who has everything to lose?
Who has nothing to lose?
You can VOTE *NO* on PROP 8! or you can STRIP THE DIGNITY of 2 million Californians in the name of a bigotry and hatred - while blaming God for your action?
jeffgagnon766 3 years ago
Here is part of what the California Educaton Code 51937 says: "The Legislature recognizes that while parents and guardians overwhelmingly support medically accurate, comprehensive sex education, parents and guardians have the ultimate responsibility for imparting values regarding human sexuality to their children."
No on 8.
locustmunch 3 years ago
October 10, 2008: San Francisco first graders took a school-sponsored field trip to a same-sex wedding. Unmentioned in the video: It was noncompulsory. Permission slips were signed. Two students opted out. It was organized by parents, not the teachers.
Also unmentioned: this video is bullshit.
locustmunch 3 years ago
No on 8!
Massachusetts is a home to Harvard and MIT.
Massachusetts is the PRIDE of U.S.
aleksapovseksa 3 years ago
So funny you speak of lies. You have the monopoly on them!!
HisCreation2 3 years ago
So the argument to pass an amendment that would tell people who they can't marry is about "keeping government out of our lives"???
Ridiculous.
atlg8or6137 3 years ago
this is a good, bigoted hate video.
jerrydoubleu 3 years ago
keep government out of our lives?
please.
like thats actually possible?
what gives anyone the right to take away marriage?
if someone loves another person same sex or different sex.. why cant they be happy with who they may choose??
what has this country gone to?
kicku4fun 3 years ago
The comments from zortnac and jstutz2003 illustrate that there is disagreement in the pro gay marriage community regarding the impact it would or should have on churches. zortnac may not think that churches should lose tax exempt status, but jstutz2003 (and many others) seek that very outcome.
The fact is, you can't prove a negative, and as more and more incidents in schools and churches arise, they will become harder and harder to explain away as anomalies.
robmcspam 3 years ago 4
All Americans deserve to to be treated equally under the law with tolerance. Proposition 8 is mean spirited, misguided, and propelled by a strong undercurrent of bigotry and fear of something different.
SpeedyBruin 3 years ago 2
More truth:
The field trip of a group of first-graders to the same-sex wedding of their teacher came as a complete surprise to her, as the trip was suggested and organized by the STUDENTS PARENTS THEMSELVES
The legality of same-sex marriage in California has NOTHING to do with "forced acceptance of homosexuality" against a parents wishes, and more over, Proposition 8 which threatens to eliminate marriage rights if passed, has nothing to do with that issue either.
zortnac 3 years ago
The real truth:
The Supreme Court ruling you mentioned dealt with organizations which were not intrinsically religious, but which had religious ties. For example, and this is related directly to the ruling, Bob Jones University refused to admit black students.
Regardless of the fact that Bob Jones U was religious, first and foremost it was a school that had racially discriminatory policies.
NO CHURCH IS THREATENED WITH LOOSING IT'S TAX EXEMPT STATUS FOR REFUSING TO HOLD GAY MARRIAGES.
zortnac 3 years ago
As I pointed out, the Washington Blade author disagrees with your last statement. He believed that church tax-exempt status was at risk, depending on the outcome of the "steady stream of court battles."
The Bob Jones case relied upon the tax exemption statue which applies to churches (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)). There is nothing in the opinion to suggest it would not apply to churches perceived to be "discriminatory" under the law.
TSRidington 3 years ago
"As I pointed out, the Washington Blade author disagrees with your last statement."
And he's wrong. Being a writer for a paper doesn't make him right. There's not a single precedent of the government ever telling a church how to handle their sacraments and religious ceremonies.
If a case were to ever go to court over a church refusing to marry a couple, it would be thrown out immediately. The catholic church refuses to marry non-catholic straight couples every day.
zortnac 3 years ago
Sorry, I may not have been clear. I wasn't trying to say that religious organizations will be prosecuted for their "sacraments and religious ceremonies."
What I am saying is that there is a risk that their tax-exempt status will be revoked if we establish a public policy in favor of gay marriage.
I think the Bob Jones case is very relevant precedent in this regard.
What is the policy toward the Catholic church today does not determine what the policy will be after the election.
TSRidington 3 years ago
No, you see, what the Catholic church does today is VERY important because it's the EXACT same thing.
Catholic churches will not marry you if you're not Catholic, and they will not marry you if you're been previously married, and those are both religious reasons.
It's also a religious reason for a Catholic church to refuse to marry a gay couple.
No church can be punished because of who they deny choose to deny their sacraments to. Our first amendment completely prevents that.
zortnac 3 years ago
The Bob Jones case, as I explained before, was not an issue of a church loosing its tax exemption, it was an issue of a university that was denying admission to black students.
When a church extends its arms in to other venues, adoption charities, universities, etc, it doesn't get to use its right to free practice of religion to break the law in those other venues.
This isn't about churches.
zortnac 3 years ago
In the Bob Jones opinion, the Supreme Court clearly states that neither of the religious organizations in that case "qualifi[ed] as a tax-exempt organization under 501(c)(3)."
And I think we just disagree on whether churches, charities, and schools ought to lose First Amendement rights and government benefits simply because of their sincerely held beliefs regarding gay marriage.
TSRidington 3 years ago
And that is your misunderstanding of the first amendment. Individuals and churches are protected by the right to free practice of religion, but things like employment, schools, housing, you can't try to use your first amendment rights to discriminate.
Imagine you're part of a white supremacist Christian church. They do exist. Imagine you're church starts up an adoption agency open to the public....as long as you're white.
Do you think this is a matter of religious liberty?
zortnac 3 years ago
the couple getting married was a teacher and the kids where her students. No kid was made to go learn anyhting about same sex marriage. there are parents that beleive that all people are equale no matter who they choose to love.
depfox 3 years ago
The intent of the field trip was precisely to teach the kids. The administrator in charge of the event said this was a "teachable moment" for the children.
TSRidington 3 years ago
The trip was the idea of the parents of the students themselves, to surprise their teacher.
Because of that, this is explicitly NOT an example of something being forced on children against their parents' will.
Also, how often do you hear of students making a field trip to their parents wedding, gay or straight? This was a small performing arts charter school, and the teachers and parents probably form a close community.
This is not something that would happen in typical public schools.
zortnac 3 years ago
Typical lies from the "bear false witness" crowd.
cryan71 3 years ago
If you can identify any inaccuracies, I will be happy to address them. Thanks.
TSRidington 3 years ago
Can Christian churches refuse to marry Athiests? What about Muslims? Are churches required to perform Scientology weddings. It isn't going to happen.
Also, sourcing your argument to some gay bar rag is pretty dumb.
cryan71 3 years ago
Sorry if my point wasn't clear. I don't think religious groups will be forced to perform same-sex marriages. They may, however, lose tax-exempt status if they refuse to do so.
I understand that The Blade is the oldest LGBT newspaper in the US and 2nd largest by circulation. I don't think it considers itself a "gay bar rag." In any event, the Blade article does prove my point: that some proponents of same-sex marriage (and commenters here) see the tax exemption issue as up for grabs.
TSRidington 3 years ago
They should lose their tax exempt status for discrimination, but won't(anti-women mosques don't get hit by this). Kids should learn that this is okay. If you want your kids to grow up ignorant like you, send them to a private Christian brainwashing school.
Shit, do you also have a problem with teaching kids that slavery is bad?
jstutz2003 3 years ago
Your comment helps make my point, which is that many proponents of gay marriage think that churches "should lose their tax exempt status." We can expect a "steady stream of court battles" until this effort succeeds.
To suggest that kids withdraw from public schools due to their religious beliefs hardly seems a tolerant approach to this issue.
I agree kids should be taught slavery is bad.
TSRidington 3 years ago
Should a church not lose its tax exempt status if it doesn't allow a black woman to marry a white man? Discrimination is discrimination.
We wouldn't need to have court battles if people would get over their ignorance and prejudice.
How is teaching kids that gay marriage is okay any worse than teaching kids that women or blacks should have equal rights when that isn't their religious belief?
jstutz2003 3 years ago