Black churchgoers break with leading Democrats on marriage amendment

Only a handful of countries have same sex marriage and it's only been legal since the start of the 21st Century. Let's watch for a couple generations, to see if children from same sex homes commit suicide at a higher rate when they reach old age. Let's not rush in to radical social change.

"The Court concludes that, based on the justifications proffered by Congress for its passage of DOMA, the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski. Although the Court finds that DOMA is subject to and fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny, it notes that numerous courts have found that the statute fails even rational basis review."

"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and "the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

“As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”(Gill)

Marriages of gay people can be traced back through 4,000 years of history to ancinet Egypt. Same sex marriages are nothing new, despite repeated claims to the contrary.

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." (American Anthropological Association)

Some random ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court, the most overruled court in the land, isn't law. This must be decided by the US Supreme Court and we must have a President who will defend duly enacted law, as well as enforce law.

That's why I'm voting for Romney in November; imagine what kind of Judges Barack can appoint, if he has another term.

Funny, there is no written law or scripture from before the 21st Century, that permits same sex marriage.

0h-Really wrote:

<quoted text>...and straight people who aren't married.
There's no protection clause in employment, housing, and credit decisions for straight white men like there are for minority groups.

NOT true!

By the way,
...everyone has the equal right to marry,
.... as the law prescribes.

Not according to the North Carolina law recently passed.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Many gays oppose same sex marriage.

And there are still whites and blacks who oppose inter racial marriage. That doesn't change the fact that the U.S. Constitution covers marriage as a right of the people in Amendment 9.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Some gays have married under the same rules as everyone else and I can't imagine anything more likely to rip apart those marriages, than an ex post facto law changing the definition of marriage.

Denying marriage to Same Sex Couples doesn't impact the marriages of Opposite sex couples. You seem to be arguing that Same Sex Marriage will ruin the marriages of heterosexual people. Why would a heterosexual marry a homosexual?

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>Please describe how keeping marriage between husband and wife 'rip[s] apart' the families gays create. North Carolina voted to amend their Constitution last week, to protect husband/wife marriage. How does that amendment change your association with your partner and any children in your custody?

Now you are just being dense. The NC ban affects the children of Same Sex Couples in the same way bans on inter-racial marriage affected the children of inter-racial couples.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Same sex couples violate no law, you have the right to any living arrangement or association where consent abides. What we're discussing, government recognition of same sex marriage, is a purely political issue. Should taxpayers foot the bill for entitlements given or mandated by government, to same sex dependent beneficiaries.

WOW you really are screwing yourself today. You feel fine having "the government" subsidize you and your marriage. Did you forget I have no children and have paid taxes that are used to support your lifestyle choices?

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>This is a budget battle, creating more handouts or cutting wasteful government spending. Let the people vote.

Interesting ideas. And I agree we need to cut wasteful Government spending. Entitlements? Well how about we cut a lot of the perks elected officials have been feeding on for decades?

As for "let the people vote" you stepped into a pile of doo doo again. If you oppose judges overturning popular votes then you should also oppose Governors and Presidents vetoes. After all you want "everything to be fair and equal".

LMAO!

Wat the Tyler wrote:

<quoted text>
America isn't a direct democracy. In fact that's the very thing our founding fathers didn't want. That's why we have a Republican and not a democracy. Look up the tyranny of the majority. You can't vote on people's civil rights.
Also you are dead wrong about the north Carolina gay marriage ban. It doesn't just ban gay marriage, but also civil unions and domestic partnerships. Same sex couples are gonna lose healthcare benefits and tax exceptions from this. Same sex couples are gonna have problems adopting children when they aren't recognized as a couple by the state.

I think you may be wasting your time on Brian.

I have also pointed out that he crowed when the ban passed, but he avoids discussing that it included banning civil unions, which he CLAIMS he supports.

Yet he's using the NC vote to justify his opposition to gays and lesbians.

IMO he's like a poorly trained short order cook. He'll toss anything in the mix and hope people won't notice what's wrong.

Straight wrote:

You want government to stay out of our lives? Have them start by staying out of our bedrooms!
This latest attempt at "social engineering" by the Jesus-freaks has got to stop.

I agree. I've often said I am really sick of other Christians who think God appointed them morality police.

BTW a friend just sent me this and I think you will like it. I think you'll find it useful to refer to in the future as well.

Here's an excerpt from a column a fellow Christian wrote:

My Take: The Christian case for gay marriage. By Mark Osler
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/19/my-t...

"I am a Christian, and I am in favor of gay marriage. The reason I am for gay marriage is because of my faith.

What I see in the Bible’s accounts of Jesus and his followers is an insistence that we don’t have the moral authority to deny others the blessing of holy institutions like baptism, communion, and marriage. God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life, and it is not ours to either give or deny to others.

A clear instruction on this comes from Simon Peter, the “rock” on whom the church is built. Peter is a captivating figure in the Christian story. Jesus plucks him out of a fishing boat to become a disciple, and time and again he represents us all in learning at the feet of Christ.

During their time together, Peter is often naïve and clueless – he is a follower, constantly learning.

After Jesus is crucified, though, a different Peter emerges, one who is forceful and bold. This is the Peter we see in the Acts of the Apostles, during a fevered debate over whether or not Gentiles should be baptized. Peter was harshly criticized for even eating a meal with those who were uncircumcised; that is, those who did not follow the commands of the Old Testament.

Peter, though, is strong in confronting those who would deny the sacrament of baptism to the Gentiles, and argues for an acceptance of believers who do not follow the circumcision rules of Leviticus (which is also where we find a condemnation of homosexuality).

His challenge is stark and stunning: Before ordering that the Gentiles be baptized Peter asks “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

None of us, Peter says, has the moral authority to deny baptism to those who seek it, even if they do not follow the ancient laws. It is the flooding love of the Holy Spirit, which fell over that entire crowd, sinners and saints alike, that directs otherwise."

(Editor's Note: Mark Osler is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I've posted this column in the Religion Forum on TOPIX and hope many will join the discussion there.)

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell3, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th centuries, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books,“Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae”(Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century."

http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files...

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>I think you may be wasting your time on Brian.
I have also pointed out that he crowed when the ban passed, but he avoids discussing that it included banning civil unions, which he CLAIMS he supports.
Yet he's using the NC vote to justify his opposition to gays and lesbians.
IMO he's like a poorly trained short order cook. He'll toss anything in the mix and hope people won't notice what's wrong.

Agreed.
Yet sometimes, as it appears you also believe, it is important to counter the irrational justifications for harming gay people he continues to promote, even though they have repeatedly been shown to be unsupportable in fact, evidence, and reason.

"Prejudice, not being founded on reason, cannot be removed by argument.” Samuel Johnson

"Reason transformed into prejudice is the worst form of prejudice, because reason is the only instrument for liberation from prejudice.” Allan Bloom

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed.
Yet sometimes, as it appears you also believe, it is important to counter the irrational justifications for harming gay people he continues to promote, even though they have repeatedly been shown to be unsupportable in fact, evidence, and reason.
"Prejudice, not being founded on reason, cannot be removed by argument.” Samuel Johnson
"Reason transformed into prejudice is the worst form of prejudice, because reason is the only instrument for liberation from prejudice.” Allan Bloom

Brilliant as always. Thanks for the quotes too. Now if only we could get idiots to stop being idiots!

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Not Yet Equal wrote:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, speaking in opposition to California's Proposition 8, said, "To those that believe in and fought for civil rights, that marched to end discrimination and win equality, you must not become that which you hated.... Those that support civil and human rights cannot, must not, become perpetrators of discrimination against others based upon race, religion, culture, sexual orientation."
In 2009, Julian Bond wrote, "Black people, of all people, should not oppose equality. And that is what gay marriage represents.... No people of good will should oppose marriage equality. And they should not think that civil unions are a substitute. At best, civil unions are separate but equal. And we all know separate is never equal."
John Lewis, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Defense of Marriage Act, remarked, "I am very happy to see the Judiciary Committee holding hearings to address the issue of marriage equality. But at the same time, I must admit I find it unbelievable that in the year 2011 there is still a need to hold hearings and debate whether or not a human being should be able to marry the one they love."
Standing at a podium in front of the State Legislative Building for HKonJ last month, the Rev. Dr. William Barber II, North Carolina NAACP chairman, declared, "They're trying to give people, based on their sexuality, a kind of second- or third-class citizenship. We know what that looks like in the NAACP, and we're calling it what it is."
The Rev. Al Sharpton, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, South African President Nelson Mandela, the Rev. Dr. James Lawson, National NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous - a veritable Who's Who of civil rights - all support marriage equality.
Julian Bond, who testified, "When I'm asked if gay rights are civil rights, my answer is always:'Of course they are.' Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives, the right to equal treatment before the law.... There's no one in the United States who does not, or should not, share in enjoying these rights."
http://www.thepilot.com/news/2012/mar/18/yes-...

Gay rights are civil rights?
Do you believe that?
God said it's an abomination.
If you don't know what that means...look it up.
He hates same sex unions of any kind.
When they stand before Him and He says, "Depart from me, I
never knew you", and they are tossed in a lake of fire,
forever, then, and only then will they understand, but
it will be too late.
A spirit body..burning in hell, for all eternity...no end.
As for me, I don't think, "wailing and gnashing of teeth" is
something I'd enjoy without end. Remember, "just touch my
tongue with water for I am tormented in this place."
It's a real place and you'll probably go there.
Better get on board with Jesus.
Homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle....it's a choice and it's a sin !

myopinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Gay rights are civil rights?
Do you believe that?
God said it's an abomination.
If you don't know what that means...look it up.
He hates same sex unions of any kind.
When they stand before Him and He says, "Depart from me, I
never knew you", and they are tossed in a lake of fire,
forever, then, and only then will they understand, but
it will be too late.
A spirit body..burning in hell, for all eternity...no end.
As for me, I don't think, "wailing and gnashing of teeth" is
something I'd enjoy without end. Remember, "just touch my
tongue with water for I am tormented in this place."
It's a real place and you'll probably go there.
Better get on board with Jesus.
Homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle....it's a choice and it's a sin !

Worship me or burn in hell for all eternity!

Your god sound like a sociopath.

^sounds

Just Think wrote:

^sounds

no I think you phrased it right the first time.

I think a life choice is between you and God. However, when asked do I agree with that life choice, my answer is no. I respect gays, I love gays, like God loves all people. I have no resentment toward any one. I am only answering the question about the definition; ...is a marriage between one woman and one man? My response is yes.

Respectfully

I am black! And, I agree with my fellow black Americans to vote yes on Amendment 1. However, I do not understand why 'we' take such a strong stand against the gay lifestyle choice, yet we do not condem the behavior that lead to single parent households in the black community. 80% of all black households are led by women. 20% of all black children born in the US have no documented father. How does the black church deal with this matter? In God's eyes, they are both wrong.

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>I think you may be wasting your time on Brian.
I have also pointed out that he crowed when the ban passed, but he avoids discussing that it included banning civil unions, which he CLAIMS he supports.
Yet he's using the NC vote to justify his opposition to gays and lesbians.
IMO he's like a poorly trained short order cook. He'll toss anything in the mix and hope people won't notice what's wrong.

32 states have already banned homosexual marriage by constitutional amendment yet you lot still believe 'half' the country supports homosexual marriage....which is amusing since even California wants to ban it.

A national referendum would reveal that only 10% of the country at best actually supports mentally defective homosexuals.

I Hate Syracuse wrote:

I am black! And, I agree with my fellow black Americans to vote yes on Amendment 1. However, I do not understand why 'we' take such a strong stand against the gay lifestyle choice, yet we do not condem the behavior that lead to single parent households in the black community. 80% of all black households are led by women. 20% of all black children born in the US have no documented father. How does the black church deal with this matter? In God's eyes, they are both wrong.

How many cases of HIV in the black community are the result of homosexual affairs?