ziggy
Active Member
But more alarming to me, your mention of Obama seems to imply that all "true Christians" must oppose gay marriage or be hypocrites. This is simply not true. As I've said before, NOBODY observes all the prohibitions in the Old or New Testaments. The burden of proof should be on those who claim a few mentions of gay sex between men (and one brief mention of lesbian sex) must be specially forced on everyone today, not on those who consider the few prohibitions to be mere reflections of the authors' biases.
Finally, you asked about the Court ruling. I haven't read all of it, but what the Supremes said is technically true: California's domestic partnership statute specifically says that DPs are to have all the rights of married persons. HOWEVER, the same Court said last year that this wasn't good enough, since there are so many marriage rights, it's virtually impossible to insure that all will be afforded to DPs; moreoever, the Court said there were other problems in saying DPs are the same, but calling them by a different name. I guess this year, the justices didn't want to face recall votes initiated by those who are rabidly hateful in this area.
Hey Nova, sorry I misunderstood about the enemies thing.
I didn't mean to insinuate that all true Christians need be anti-gay marriage, I was trying to point out that Obama's feelings about the subject are formed by his Christianity, same as Ms. P, but he's NEVER received even a bad mention from gay rights groups that I have seen and especially nothing main stream news. That's just weird.
With the supreme court, it really isn't that they were afraid to do anything, they are preserving our system. It's about separation of powers and because our constitution can be amended by the vote, it becomes constitutional law and they want to throw it back to the legislators because it's not the judges' job to overturn statutory law. I think they did the right thing to keep our checks and balances, however their opinion was interesting because if gay people really can have all the same benefits of marriage in another way, why are they using that excuse (that if one of them dies, yada yada yada) if they can have everything in place today to protect each other in their committed relationships? By "they" I mean, you know those people interviewed who are always out protesting when I'm at work