Sweden - Gay Marriage Now Legal In.....

[Steely Dan]

I think I've touched on enough to show that just about all Christians pick and choose from the Bible when it suits their needs.

I don't think you'll ever hear too many wealthy Christians citing Mark 10:17;

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

26The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"

27Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

28Peter said to him, "We have left everything to follow you!"



I can suggest ways of living a more Christian life to people but I shouldn't legislate it unless I can achieve the perfect lifestyle in Christ. JMO

 

[Nova]

He may be taking his time so that when he issues the order there won't be some obscure loophole that wil nullify marriages made before the ruling by the SOTUS. JMO

I agree. Judge Turner's opinion on the subject was unequivocal. But I'm sure he wants to avoid the tragedy of couples getting married, only to find their marriages "annulled" in a few weeks by an appeals court.

As most know, we already have 18,000 gay-married couples (including my husband and I) in California, despite the Prop 8 ban. But the difference is that the Cal Supremes had declared equality the law of the land and that made remained in effect until Prop 8 said otherwise. Even when the Cal Supremes upheld Prop 8 (and shame on them!), they also ruled it was too late to turn back the clock and undo marriages that were legal at the time they were created.

The situation here is more problematic legally... If Turner is overturned, that will mean that Prop 8 remained in force and couples who marry in the coming weeks may find themselves on legal thin ice.

I know Turner's ruling on the stay seems odd, but I truly believe he is concerned with what is best for currently disenfranchised people.

(ETA I am not a lawyer. This is my understanding of the law and how the system works, but I trust nobody will be so foolish as to take my word for it.)

 

[Nova]

Great quotes, Dan!

The Corinthians passage cannot possibly be an accurate translation. None of ancient Greek, Hebrew nor Aramaic had a word for "homosexual" or even a way to describe the concept of sexual orientation. That quote must come from a modern--and badly corrupted--transliteration of the NT.

If the consequences weren't so harmful, it would amuse me how Fundamentalists take such pride in literal readings of texts they can't even read in the original language.

As for the Romans passage, numerous scholars have pointed out that Paul is very specific about men and women engaging in same-sex intercourse "against their nature." Paul says nothing about those of us for whom such relations are very much "consistent with our nature," and, in fact, he'd probably never heard of the concept. (A witty friend of mine suggested that maybe Paul was talking about straight actors who go "gay for pay" in all-male . LOL.)

Paul was no softie, but had he known that there are people in whom homoerotic feelings (including love) are ingrained (whether by nature or nurture), Paul would have had to at least wrestle with the question of why God made such people...

 

[shana]

Big thanks to Nova and Steely Dan for posting such thorough and well-researched information to this discussion.

 

[Belinda]

So, what is everyone's opinion on whether the appeals court will issue a stay? I'm very torn. I want them to deny the stay, I just don't know if they will. I personally feel that Judge Walker's ruling was solid enough to allow the marriages to go forth. I think the appeals court will be hard-pressed to try and overturn it. I would just hate for people to have to wait for this to wend all the way through the courts before they can marry.

I believe Judge Walker ruled the way he did solely to protect couples from being hurt by a potential stay. I know there was a lot of disappointment that it wasn't lifted immediately, but it would be devastating if he lifted the stay, only to have the appeals court put it back in place days later. I think he handled it the best way possible. I couldn't stand to see couples hurt again by the back and forth. It's painful even for those of us that it doesn't affect, because the pain and anger is so evident in those it does affect.

 

[Belinda]

The nooses just utterly disgust me. And these are people who claim to be religious? WTF? I walked away from religion some time ago, when I realized that religion seems to be mostly used to promote hatred and cover the vast sins of the churches. That isn't what I call religion. I have seen more hatred sown by so-called religious people than anywhere else. The 'do as I say, not as I do' doesn't cut it with me.

 

[Steely Dan]

The nooses just utterly disgust me. And these are people who claim to be religious? WTF? I walked away from religion some time ago, when I realized that religion seems to be mostly used to promote hatred and cover the vast sins of the churches. That isn't what I call religion. I have seen more hatred sown by so-called religious people than anywhere else. The 'do as I say, not as I do' doesn't cut it with me.

My father is a liberal minister. I know, seems like an oxymoron. My experiences in the church have made me disavow religion for the most part. I believe in God but I don't believe that Christians adhere to the Bible in most cases.

Most Christians, it seems in my experience, think Jesus was more of an ultra conservative when in fact he was a bleeding heart liberal. JMO

 

[Steely Dan]

Link

Professor claims NY college favored gays over him
CAROLYN THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer
Published: 03:30 p.m., Thursday, August 12, 2010

Dr. Csaba Marosan answers a question during an interview in the backyard of his home in Williamsville, N.Y. on Thursday, Aug. 12, 2010. Marosan says he was passed over forpromotions at Trocaire College for being heterosexual and then was fired for complaining. (Don Heupel / AP)

WILLIAMSVILLE, N.Y. (AP) — A professor who was fired from a small private college says he was discriminated against for being heterosexual, Hungarian and a man; that his bosses favored gay colleagues known as the Merry Men; and that he was let go in retaliation for complaining to the state.

The college says he was simply unqualified and that a state investigation that found probable cause this month to support his allegations was "poor and incomplete."

 

[Belinda]

I don't even know what to say to that. It seems completely ludicrous, but I guess you never know. Personally, I'm not buying.

 

[Steely Dan]

BTW, this is how I come to the conclusion that Jesus was a liberal. JMO

Liberal Jesus

Charity is more important than wealth

Matthew 19:

21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Luke 6:

23"Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.
24"But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.

Matthew 5:

42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Matthew 6:

24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

It sounds to me like Jesus would support social programs and taxing the wealthy at a higher rate.

Forgiveness

Matthew 18:

21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"

22Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[f]

Mark 11:

24Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."[g]

Sounds to me like Jesus would be anti-death penalty.

Peace

Matthew 5:

9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.


38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

Sounds to me like Jesus would exhaust every other possibility for peace before war.

Compassion

Luke 10:

25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]"

28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

30In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

36"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

37The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

Luke 9:

1When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. 3He told them: "Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. 4Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town. 5If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them." 6So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere.

Jesus would be pro universal health care.

Taxes


15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

Looks like Jesus wouldn't ***** about taxes all of the time.

 

[Belinda]

Relgious people simply refuse to accept the fact that gay people are born gay. If they were to accept that fact, they would then need to wonder at the fact that God made them that way for a reason. If there is a God, I believe he made gay people to teach the world tolerance and a great number of people are failing miserably.

There no longer seems to be any love involved in religion. It's 'who can we change?' 'who can we force to conform to our standards?' 'who can we convert?'. Rules, rules, rules. As far as I know, Jesus was all about love and forgiveness and acceptance. You won't find that in a church these days.

When the Catholic church threatened DC and their social programs if they didn't vote against gay marriage, I was done. Completely and totally. If you can refuse to help needy people because someone didn't follow your instructions to act in a prejudiced manner, there isn't a religious bone in your body. I can't begin to communicate how outraged I was over that. I can no longer accept that religion is a good thing. I have seen very little good come of it. Sure they do some good works, but I don't think it outweighs the harm they do.

 

[Steely Dan]

Relgious people simply refuse to accept the fact that gay people are born gay. If they were to accept that fact, they would then need to wonder at the fact that God made them that way for a reason. If there is a God, I believe he made gay people to teach the world tolerance and a great number of people are failing miserably.

There no longer seems to be any love involved in religion. It's 'who can we change?' 'who can we force to conform to our standards?' 'who can we convert?'. Rules, rules, rules. As far as I know, Jesus was all about love and forgiveness and acceptance. You won't find that in a church these days.

When the Catholic church threatened DC and their social programs if they didn't vote against gay marriage, I was done. Completely and totally. If you can refuse to help needy people because someone didn't follow your instructions to act in a prejudiced manner, there isn't a religious bone in your body. I can't begin to communicate how outraged I was over that. I can no longer accept that religion is a good thing. I have seen very little good come of it. Sure they do some good works, but I don't think it outweighs the harm they do.

:clap: :clap:

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

Because Steely's picture with the nooses made me sad , I wanted to post some funny/sarcastic signs to make us . Find more and download free or purchase here: http://politicalloudmouth.com/about/legalize-gay-marriage/

 

[Nova]

My father is a liberal minister. I know, seems like an oxymoron. My experiences in the church have made me disavow religion for the most part. I believe in God but I don't believe that Christians adhere to the Bible in most cases.

Most Christians, it seems in my experience, think Jesus was more of an ultra conservative when in fact he was a bleeding heart liberal. JMO

Amen! And it's not just your opinion, Dan. Any fair reading of the NT proves that Jesus was no fire-and-brimstone literalist. Some of the explanations attempting to reconcile Jesus' teaching with modern conservatism are truly hilarious!

 

[Nova]

FWIW, our local paper today has a front-page article in the problem with appealing Turner's ruling. In theory, the State of California was the defendant in the lawsuit and the state is represented by our governor and attorney-general. But both have refused to appeal and have said same-sex couples should begin marrying again.

It's not clear that those who favor Prop 8 have any standing to object to the stay; that is party why Judge Turner gave the higher court a week to consider the matter.

 

[Belinda]

Good Morning, Nova. I read that and I am hoping so much that it will kill the appeal. You don't think the appeals court would give the proponents standing just because Judge Walker said that publicly, do you? On the other hand, while it would be totally nerve racking, don't we need this to go to the Supreme Court to try and get a federal ruling? Wouldn't a SCOTUS ruling then affect all states or do I have it mixed up?

Either way, I am so hoping the appeals court won't issue a stay and let marriages go forward while the appeal is heard. I don't think there should be any more delays. Everyone has waited far too long already.

 

[Nova]

Good Morning, Nova. I read that and I am hoping so much that it will kill the appeal. You don't think the appeals court would give the proponents standing just because Judge Walker said that publicly, do you? On the other hand, while it would be totally nerve racking, don't we need this to go to the Supreme Court to try and get a federal ruling? Wouldn't a SCOTUS ruling then affect all states or do I have it mixed up?

Either way, I am so hoping the appeals court won't issue a stay and let marriages go forward while the appeal is heard. I don't think there should be any more delays. Everyone has waited far too long already.

Amen! The selfish part of me would like SCOTUS to decide this is a state matter and stay out of it. (And not because my own marriage is threatened; it probably is not. And even if it were, our friends and family came to the wedding; a court ruling isn't going to change how they think of our relationship.) I'm not sure whether Turner's ruling is based primarily on the state constitution or the federal.

But yeah, it would be great if SCOTUS were forced to rule in a way that brought equality to other states as well. I just don't trust Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alioto not to sway one other justice to vote their prejudices.

 

[Steely Dan]

Amen! The selfish part of me would like SCOTUS to decide this is a state matter and stay out of it. (And not because my own marriage is threatened; it probably is not. And even if it were, our friends and family came to the wedding; a court ruling isn't going to change how they think of our relationship.) I'm not sure whether Turner's ruling is based primarily on the state constitution or the federal.

But yeah, it would be great if SCOTUS were forced to rule in a way that brought equality to other states as well. I just don't trust Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alioto not to sway one other justice to vote their prejudices.

If it's ruled like a Brown vs. Board of Education or Roe V. Wade there would be no states rights issue. It would be considered against the constitution of the U.S. and thus the law of the land. I believe that's how it would work.

Also, support can come from some unexpected places on the SC. These guys may be put on by conservative presidents but end up being more liberal than thought. Once these people are put on the court they are never going to be taken off. It's an appointment for life so they don't have to kowtow to any political party anymore and just go with their interpretations of law.

Link

(08-05) 04:00 PST Washington — 2005-08-05 04:00:00 PST Washington -- Supporters and opponents of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts were caught off guard Wednesday by news that he worked behind the scenes years ago to assist a gay rights group win a key case before the nation's highest court.

Debate erupted on conservative and liberal Web sites, with partisans on both sides asking whether Roberts' assistance to what is usually considered a liberal cause was an aberration from his otherwise conservative record or a sign his views might be more nuanced than commonly thought.

Social and religious conservatives expressed dismay about his participation in the case but said they are not convinced it amounted to an endorsement of gay rights -- a movement they strongly oppose.

"While this is certainly not welcome news to those of us who advocate for traditional values, it is by no means a given that John Roberts' personal views are reflected in his involvement in this case," the political arm of Focus on the Family, a national organization of conservative Christians, said in a statement. "That's what lawyers do -- represent their firm's clients, whether they agree with what those clients stand for or not."

The White House sought to play down Roberts' participation in the case, known as Romer vs. Evans, in which the Supreme Court voted 6-3 in 1996 to strike down a voter-approved Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.

Roberts, then a lawyer at the Washington firm of Hogan & Hartson, helped gay rights activists prepare their challenge to the initiative as part of his firm's pro bono work.

Roberts did not mention his work on the case in responding to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire that asked for examples of his pro bono work. Roberts' involvement in the case was first reported Wednesday.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Roberts spent less than 10 hours on the case while devoting more than 200 hours to two other pro bono cases in which he was lead counsel.

Jean Dubofsky, the lead lawyer for gay activists challenging the Colorado initiative, said Roberts gave her crucial advice in how to argue the case before the Supreme Court.

 

[Nova]

Thanks for the great info, Dan. I don't know about Roberts, but you are right that SCOTUS can be unpredictable.

And there are conservatives who support gay rights equality on libertarian grounds. They just aren't usually the ones who get interviewed on talk shows.

 

[Steely Dan]

I put this in another thread on the same subject but I've been more involved here than I was there so I'll re-post it here.

Link

Los Angeles (CNN) -- Attorneys on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate will face off in a California appeals court Monday, as a panel of judges hears arguments in a case over Proposition 8.

In August, a federal judge ruled that the voter-approved measure, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will consider an appeal of that judge's ruling Monday.

Arguments begin at 10 a.m. (1 p.m. ET) and will be divided into two hour-long sessions -- one over the legal standing of those appealing the decision, and one over the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

Monday's hearing is the latest in a lengthy legal battle over same-sex marriage in California....