Iowas Decision

[micatala]

As you may have seen, the Iowa Supreme Court has legalized gay marriage.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... S/90403010

The ruling is not up for appeal, and the legislative avenue for turning this back will be difficult and time consuming, with no possibility for a voter recall until 2012.


Questions for debate:

1) How much does this bolster the case in the U.S. agains gay marriage bans?

2) Is this a blip, or a signal of the tide turning?

A couple of snippets from the judges:

Friday’s decision also addressed what it called the “religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate� and said judges must remain outside the fray.

“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them,� Cady wrote.

“This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all.�

I will try to post a link to the full decision. As another question for debate, we could consider the quality of this decision. Is this "judicial activism run amok" or is this another "Brown versus Board of Ed" ruling in which the judiciary stands up for minority rights that the majority is unwilling to bestow?

[micatala]

As a footnote to the previous, consider the ninth amendment.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Amos]

3) Romans chapter 14, where it is allowed that each believer can decide for themselves what is sinful (moral) or not in their own conscience and in their own relationship with God. Believers are told not to judge other believers as it is "to their own master they stand or fall." As long as believer A is not harming believer B directly or by harming his faith, believer A is free to follow whatever practice they deem fit for themselves.

This is a horrible perversion of the teaching in Romans 14. Paul is discussing matters about which the Lord is indifferent, e.g. eating meats or observing days. We are not to judge our brother when it comes to these matters, and we're not to allow our liberty in these matters to be a stumbling block to our brother. Our clean conscience cannot make something sinful into something that is ok, but our guilty conscience can make something that is ok into something that is sinful.

[micatala]

3) Romans chapter 14, where it is allowed that each believer can decide for themselves what is sinful (moral) or not in their own conscience and in their own relationship with God. Believers are told not to judge other believers as it is "to their own master they stand or fall." As long as believer A is not harming believer B directly or by harming his faith, believer A is free to follow whatever practice they deem fit for themselves.

This is a horrible perversion of the teaching in Romans 14. Paul is discussing matters about which the Lord is indifferent, e.g. eating meats or observing days. We are not to judge our brother when it comes to these matters, and we're not to allow our liberty in these matters to be a stumbling block to our brother. Our clean conscience cannot make something sinful into something that is ok, but our guilty conscience can make something that is ok into something that is sinful.

I think you are forgetting how contentious the particular issues discussed in Romans 14 were in Paul's time (not to mention making some assumptions about what the Lord thinks). Paul was stoned and left for dead mostly because he was advocating that the Gentiles did not need to follow Mosaic law and because some felt he was saying the same for Jews. The Apostles had a huge controversy and a contentious discussion culminating in Acts chapter 15 over these issues. Paul called Peter to task for his hypocrisy as part of this controversy. Yes, James ultimately pronounced that Gentiles did not need to follow Mosaic law, but this was far from a trivial decision, and certainly did not reflect "indifference" on the part of anyone. The rationale for the decision was that the law was difficult to uphold, even for those raised as Jews, and thus represented an undue burden for the Gentiles.

To say that these are things the Lord is "indifferent" about ignores that they were given as explicity, even vehement, decrees of the Lord in the OT.

If God is indifferent about these commands now, why should we not also consider He might be indifferent to other commands given as part of the very same law. When the OT law was given, it was not divided into "segments." It was all one law, all to be obeyed. The Israelites were to obey all the commands.

In addition, is not presenting gays with a choice to be celibate or live a lie by feigning heterosexuality placing a similar, perhaps even greater, burden on them than the Apostles felt necessary to relieve the Gentiles of?



Now, I do not expect you to be convinced by this argument, but I hope you do consider that you are giving short shrift to the controversy that these issues engendered in their day. People were every bit as passionate about upholding these traditional morals as some are today concerning gay issues.



My point is that one can make a biblical case that it is moral to allow gays the freedom to marry. It is allowing them to make their own moral decisions, just as the Bible indicates is their right to do!


However, do not forget the larger point that what is considered moral does not dictate what should be legal. In a free society that respects freedom of religion, it is tyranny to impose the religious or moral views of some on everybody as law if the only reason for the imposition is religious.


Keep in mind the constitution does not really have any right not to be offended by someone else's actions. We have made a place for what might be called "decency" but this typically only has to do with very public displays (e.g. public nudity).



Two heterosexuals having sex in public would be considered indecent. In their own home, it is OK. It should be the same way for gays. Let's get to using a fair measuring stick instead of a biased one.

[Amos]

3) Romans chapter 14, where it is allowed that each believer can decide for themselves what is sinful (moral) or not in their own conscience and in their own relationship with God. Believers are told not to judge other believers as it is "to their own master they stand or fall." As long as believer A is not harming believer B directly or by harming his faith, believer A is free to follow whatever practice they deem fit for themselves.

This is a horrible perversion of the teaching in Romans 14. Paul is discussing matters about which the Lord is indifferent, e.g. eating meats or observing days. We are not to judge our brother when it comes to these matters, and we're not to allow our liberty in these matters to be a stumbling block to our brother. Our clean conscience cannot make something sinful into something that is ok, but our guilty conscience can make something that is ok into something that is sinful.

I think you are forgetting how contentious the particular issues discussed in Romans 14 were in Paul's time (not to mention making some assumptions about what the Lord thinks). Paul was stoned and left for dead mostly because he was advocating that the Gentiles did not need to follow Mosaic law and because some felt he was saying the same for Jews. The Apostles had a huge controversy and a contentious discussion culminating in Acts chapter 15 over these issues. Paul called Peter to task for his hypocrisy as part of this controversy. Yes, James ultimately pronounced that Gentiles did not need to follow Mosaic law, but this was far from a trivial decision, and certainly did not reflect "indifference" on the part of anyone. The rationale for the decision was that the law was difficult to uphold, even for those raised as Jews, and thus represented an undue burden for the Gentiles.

To say that these are things the Lord is "indifferent" about ignores that they were given as explicity, even vehement, decrees of the Lord in the OT.

If God is indifferent about these commands now, why should we not also consider He might be indifferent to other commands given as part of the very same law. When the OT law was given, it was not divided into "segments." It was all one law, all to be obeyed. The Israelites were to obey all the commands.

We (Christians) don't live by the Law of Moses today (Galatians 3:19-29, Colossians 2:11-17). We live by the gospel. Eating meats is not in and of itself sinful. Observing days is not in and of itself sinful. God doesn't care if you do these things or not. There was a time when He did, but not any longer. That's the point Paul is making in Romans 14. Of course it was a contentious issue. That's why Paul addressed it.

Homosexuality is in and of itself sinful, because it is condemned repeatedly in the scriptures. It is no more sinful than any other kind of sexual immorality, but it is no less sinful than any other kind of sexual immorality. Jesus defined marriage as between a man and a woman in Matthew 19. The marriage bed is undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge (Hebrews 13:4). Homosexual sex is always sinful because it always takes place outside of what the Bible defines as marriage.

The way you are using Romans 14, anybody can do whatever they want to do in violation of the clear teaching of the scriptures and, as long as they don't hurt somebody else, God is ok with it. If I were single and it didn't bother my conscience, could I have sex with a string of willing female partners and God be ok with that? Can I sit at home and drink myself into a stupor and be ok with the Lord because my conscience isn't pricked? I'm not hurting anybody else.

As to whether or not homosexuals will be granted a "right" by the courts to be called "married," I'm sure they will. We're talking about a legal system that says it's a woman's "right" to kill her unborn child if she so desires. But it won't make what they do any less repugnant to the majority of society. It won't make what they do any less sinful according to the scriptures.

[Mere_Christian]

I think the following is worth highlighting, as it points out that gay people, in couples or not, are ordinary every day citizens and as deserving of rights, respect, and legal recognition of their consenting relationships as anybody else.

I do not have to recognize or respect same-gender "marriage." Nor homosexuality in any of its guises or manifestations.

I only have to live with its occurence. That is to say, tolerate it as a part of diversity.

Tolerate is not respect nor is it recognition of support.

[JoeyKnothead]

I think the following is worth highlighting, as it points out that gay people, in couples or not, are ordinary every day citizens and as deserving of rights, respect, and legal recognition of their consenting relationships as anybody else.

I do not have to recognize or respect same-gender "marriage." Nor homosexuality in any of its guises or manifestations.

I only have to live with its occurence. That is to say, tolerate it as a part of diversity.

Tolerate is not respect nor is it recognition of support.

I 'preciate that Mere_Christian could be adamantly opposed to something, but tolerate it in order to "get along" as a society.

Holler your objections as loud as you can. Let everyone know you disagree with something. Never stop trying to correct what you consider wrong.

But at least be willing to do so peacefully when violent conflict would be even more damaging to the society you seek to protect.

[Goat]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/ ... index.html

(CNN) -- Same-sex marriage became legal in Maine on Wednesday as Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill less than an hour after the state legislature approved it.

"I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage," said Baldacci, a Democrat.

But he raised the possibility that the residents of the state would overturn the law, saying, "Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the State belongs to the people."

Three other states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa -- allow same-sex marriages. Vermont has passed a law making gay and lesbian marriages legal that takes effect in September. New Hampshire lawmakers are close to passing a similar bill.

On Tuesday, the Washington City Council voted to recognize same-sex marriages from states that allow those unions. Mayor Adrian Fenty has indicated that he will sign the measure. It will become law if Congress fails to overturn the measure during a 30-day review period.

[Mere_Christian]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/ ... index.html

(CNN) -- Same-sex marriage became legal in Maine on Wednesday as Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill less than an hour after the state legislature approved it.

"I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage," said Baldacci, a Democrat.

His opinion. Now will Christians be forced to live under it? With the Gay Indoctrination Bill (Hate Crimes Legislation), will Christians go the way of the Jewish citizenry of 20th century Germany?

But he raised the possibility that the residents of the state would overturn the law, saying, "Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the State belongs to the people."

One can only hope that sensible people rise up to keep the Gay Agenda from taking a vice grip over (religious) society. As history has shown it does. Nero and Hadrian anyone?

Three other states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa -- allow same-sex marriages. Vermont has passed a law making gay and lesbian marriages legal that takes effect in September. New Hampshire lawmakers are close to passing a similar bill.

The demise of a civilization is underway. Step three.

On Tuesday, the Washington City Council voted to recognize same-sex marriages from states that allow those unions. Mayor Adrian Fenty has indicated that he will sign the measure. It will become law if Congress fails to overturn the measure during a 30-day review period.

And now we know how Sodom and Gomorrah got the way they did.

Watch.

[Mere_Christian]

As to whether or not homosexuals will be granted a "right" by the courts to be called "married," I'm sure they will. We're talking about a legal system that says it's a woman's "right" to kill her unborn child if she so desires. But it won't make what they do any less repugnant to the majority of society. It won't make what they do any less sinful according to the scriptures.

Bravo.

And I don't mean the channel.

The puzzling thing to me is how people that claim to be enlightened free thinkers using logic and science can support modern-liberalism and the Humanism that has infected it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 8 Post 78:

His opinion. Now will Christians be forced to live under it? With the Gay Indoctrination Bill (Hate Crimes Legislation), will Christians go the way of the Jewish citizenry of 20th century Germany?

If all else fails, Godwin!

This is a ludicrous connection to make, and indicates the lengths folks will go to scare folks into an irrational belief (here that gays are somehow less deserving of our love and respect).

One can only hope that sensible people rise up to keep the Gay Agenda from taking a vice grip over (religious) society. As history has shown it does. Nero and Hadrian anyone?

Oh please. Gay folks just want to be recognized as human beings. This whole fear of "oppression of religion" reeks of the tantrum of a majority whose ideas are no longer considered, much less accepted.

The demise of a civilization is underway. Step three.

Then let's hope that civilization falls on top of the broken bodies of the oppressors!

And now we know how Sodom and Gomorrah got the way they did.

Can you offer verifiable evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah even existed?
---------------------------------------
From Page 8 Post 79:

The puzzling thing to me is how people that claim to be enlightened free thinkers using logic and science can support modern-liberalism and the Humanism that has infected it.

By cleansing themselves the religious infections of old.