Church, Politics & Prop 8

[_Brackite]

...

[_Brackite]

Here is Part of the Web Site Page, From Adventists for Proposition 8:

13 Civil & Religious Reasons to Vote YES on 8!

Civil Reasons

1. Scholars recognize that marriage is the fundamental and universal human institution. To call homosexual relationships "marriage" will be to sweep aside what civilization has understood as a marriage since the dawn of history and call the history and heritage of American family a mistake.

2. Without exception, our founding fathers such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson believed certain truths are "self evident." Among those self evident truths was the belief that marriage was defined and designed by nature for one man with one woman.

3. Yes on Proposition 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that "same-sex marriage" is the same as traditional marriage.

4. Same sex couples already enjoy legal rights of domestic partnership, etc. We do not need to surrender the definition of "marriage" to vindicate these relationships. Proposition 8 does not deprive domestic partnerships of any of their rights.

5. Proposition 8 opponents argue that "Homosexuals are a minority that should not be discriminated against." On close analysis, the idea that gays should receive the status of a "minority group" is patently absurd. They are not a racial or ethnic group. The gay rights movement is nothing other than a powerful special interest lobby masquerading as a "minority" and applying its money and political clout to "muscle in on" the special status and entitlements properly reserved for the truly disadvantaged. If homosexuals are recognized as a minority group, the identical arguments could also be applied to classify polygamists or pedophiles as oppressed minorities.

6. The same arguments put forward to justify same sex marriages can logically be used to legalize polygamy and lower the age of consent.

7. Unless we vote Yes on Proposition 8 our religious liberties are at risk. To better understand the threats to religious liberty see the following articles by Alan J. Reinach, Esq.:

- The Implications of Same Sex Marriage
- Why Promote Marriage?
- Same Sex Marriage Challenges Religious Liberty

( Link: http://www.adventistsfor8.com/information.aspx )


And Here is Part of Web Site Page, From Recorder, The Implications of Same Sex Marriage:

The Implications of Same Sex Marriage

Alan J. Reinach, Esq.

The California Supreme Court recently held that same sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. In November, voters in Arizona and California will decide whether to amend their state constitutions to restrict marriage to a man and a woman. Many mistakenly "ho hum" this issue, figuring that what gay couples do doesn't impact their lives. What many miss is that same sex marriage threatens the survival of religious institutions that refuse to compromise their beliefs.

The California Supreme Court now equates homosexuality with race. The same legal standard applies to both. Can you imagine a church school being permitted to exclude teachers or students because of their race? In the very near future, all church institutions can be expected to conform to the new ethic of non-discrimination against gays, or be sued and/or shuttered. Already, Catholic adoption agencies in Boston and San Francisco have been shut down because they refused to provide services to same sex couples, in violation of their beliefs. Who is next?

Church legal experts have expressed varied concerns:

Churches that rent facilities for weddings or other groups to use will have to permit same sex weddings.

Public school students will be taught from kindergarten on that same sex marriages and families are moral and good.

Colleges will be required to conform not only hiring and admissions policies, but curriculum and instruction, or lose accreditation and access to Cal Grants.

Property tax exemption will be challenged for institutions that hold onto "outmoded" notions of marriage and sexuality.

Clergy may lose the right to perform state sanctioned weddings.

Students from Christian schools may be denied admission to public universities.

There is remarkable consensus among scholars that same sex marriage poses a very grave threat to the future of religious freedom. Churches that refuse to change their doctrines and practices will likely become marginalized, forced to close their schools, hospitals and social service agencies, and stripped of property tax exemption, income tax exemption or other "benefits." Amending the state constitutions to define marriage as a man and a woman would interrupt the steady loss of religious freedom.

( Link: http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/108/10/36742.html )

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Didn't I say it was vacated? Didn't I plainly explain that I agreed with the reasoning of the vacated opinion?

But you still claimed the opinion as "precedent," which it surely is not (since it was vacated "regarding the merits"). In sum, you got squat, counselor.

Judge Taylor's opinion was not reversed on the merits.

It didn't need to be -- it's still worthless as precedent.

It was affirmed on procedure.

None of which involved the discussion you were quoting. Again, you still have no precedent (despite your claim to the contrary).

And, yet, you mock my personal attributes yet again?

Sorry. I just find it hard to believe that a lawyer writes some of the stuff you do.

Judge Taylor's opinion presents a correctly reasoned view of the relationship between the Constitution and gay marriage.

Nope. It focuses primarily on due process, rather than equal protection. And his reliance on procreation to support heterosexual marriage is archaic (and embarrassing).

And, as far as the California Supreme Court's decision, you say:

"Nope. No court has reversed it. It's good law. And it remains to be seen whether Prop. 8 will survive Section 7(b) of Article I of the Declaration of Rights."

Oh, gee, I guess the fact that the state stopped issuing gay marriage licenses immediately means nothing?

Pending CA Supreme Court review. Everything in good time, my dear counselor.