Prop 8 Ruling Could Criminalize Christianity, Leaders Warn

[truthquest]

Preaching against homosexuality is already considered a hate crime. And Christians are being arrested for presenting the bible's position on homosexuality.

Prop 8 Ruling Could Criminalize Christianity, Leaders Warn
Monday, August 16, 2010
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

(CNSNews.com) – Religious leaders warn that if an Aug. 6 ruling by a federal judge on same-sex marriage is upheld, it could wind up putting a gag on Christians speaking out about homosexuality – a gag that a top Southern Baptist leader says his denomination will not accept.

In a 136-page decision barring California’s Proposition 8, which limited marriage to one man and one woman, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found that “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University Law School and chairman of the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, said Walker's finding is shocking, and, if upheld, would have ominous implications for Christians wanting to present the Bible’s position on homosexuality.

“It’s an astounding statement by a judge, and if that finding were to be upheld, it would criminalize Christian beliefs, because the Bible and Christian beliefs historically have clearly indicated that homosexuality is sex outside of marriage – and is contrary to God’s design,” Staver told CNSNews.com.

He added: “For this judge to say that Christian beliefs or religious beliefs contrary to homosexuality are actually harmful -- what that essentially says is, that if that’s the case, then you’ve got to change your religious beliefs, and if you don’t, you’re going to be penalized as result. That is a very dangerous aspect of this court decision.”

The judge based his finding on testimony of witnesses produced by the plaintiffs and on quotations from documents from the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Orthodox Church and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

One Catholic document that the judge said “hurts” homosexuals, published by the Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith, titled “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,” states: “Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts as ‘a serious depravity.’”

Another document he cited -- a resolution the Southern Baptist Convention passed in June of 2003 -- says: “Legalizing ‘same-sex marriage’ would convey a societal approval of a homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible calls sinful and dangerous both to the individuals involved and to society at large.”

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention, said the judge's finding was disturbing, but predictable -- his denomination had filed a “friend of the Court” to challenge the finding even before the decision was issued.

“We filed an amicus brief case in this case because we had already heard that this was out there, and that the people who were making the appeal to overturn Proposition 8 were going to say that the religious beliefs of Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics and other groups ‘create an animus’ and were ‘the products of centuries of hate,’” Land said.

The biblical position on homosexuality isn't “hate speech,” he said.

“The confession of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention, which states what the Bible says about the family and about marriage – those are not the products of centuries of hate or animus toward homosexuals. They are adherence to the revealed teachings of the Creator of the universe -- God Almighty. These are religious affirmations of revealed truth,” Land said.

“It is quite clear that God condemns same-sex relations as particularly abhorrent. And if that is indeed the case, and we believe it is, it is an act of love towards those who are engaged in such relationships to tell them that they are violating the most sacred laws of God,” he said. “It would be indifference – or worse – to not tell them.”

Christian counselor Joe Dallas, who operates a center that uses Scripture to counsel people on homosexuality, is concerned about the implications of the judge's finding.

“For a judge to say that it is literally damaging to homosexual people when churches simply express and maintain a clearly defined biblical approach to homosexuality, is to introduce the concept that the ‘damage’ that’s being done to homosexuals needs to be stopped. That damage will have to be stopped by silencing the Church,” Dallas said. “There’s really no other way to read that particular finding.”

A former gay activist, Dallas said he came out of the homosexual lifestyle in 1984 precisely because of the Bible’s injunction against homosexuality.

“By 1984, I had been an active member of the gay community for about six years. I also was a Christian and I realized I was going to have to make a choice between obedience to the teachings of the Scripture – or expression of my sexual feelings,” he told CNSNews.com.

“A clear look at the Scripture and a re-evaluation of my faith reminded me that my relationship with God was far more important than sexual satisfaction. And so, I pursued a life of repentance from homosexuality and abstinence from any sort of sexual behavior outside of marriage,” he said.

The author of 11 books on Christianity and sexuality, Dallas said he would not want to see a law passed requiring all people to make the same decision he did.

“But believe me there are many other men and women who have made a similar decision and I have had the honor of working with them over the years,” Dallas said.

“Clear biblical teaching on human sexuality did not damage us,” he said. “And let me say this plainly: clear biblical teaching on human sexuality does not damage anyone. Can that teaching be misapplied? Can people use it as an excuse to harm people? Well, of course – but the same could be said about clear biblical teaching on parenting children.

“Most people, whether Christian or non-Christian, would agree that parents should have authority over their children and that there should be consequences for misbehavior when children misbehave. Now some people have misused that authority as an excuse to physically abuse their children, but we wouldn’t be silly enough to say that because a small minority has misused that teaching and caused harm, that therefore the majority should abandon that teaching – and the same is true here.”

The ERLC's Land, meanwhile, said Southern Baptists will not change their position on homosexuality, and will not bow to political correctness -- even if U.S. courts ever rule that they must.

“Let me spell it out for you, If they say that telling what the Bible says about homosexuality is hate speech, and cannot be allowed -- we will be arrested in our pulpits. We will obey God rather than man,” he told CNSNews.com.

CNSNews.com - Prop 8 Ruling Could Criminalize Christianity, Leaders Warn

 

[kiwimac]

The judge found that you can not CONSTITUTIONALLY prevent a right such a marriage based on sexual orientation. This has NOTHING to do with Christians right to call something sinful. Someone is over-reacting.

 

[Paul]

The judge found that you can not CONSTITUTIONALLY prevent a right such a marriage based on sexual orientation. This has NOTHING to do with Christians right to call something sinful. Someone is over-reacting.

Where does the CONSTITUTION of the USA give anyone the "right" to marry?

 

[[email protected]]

The judge found that you can not CONSTITUTIONALLY prevent a right such a marriage based on sexual orientation. This has NOTHING to do with Christians right to call something sinful. Someone is over-reacting.

The fact that a Federal judge insinuated herself into a state's issue IS a violation of the US Constitution (amendment 10).

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Federal ruling is a usurpation of power not intended nor granted by the Constitution and is, therefore, illegal.

 

[kiwimac]

The fact that a Federal judge insinuated herself into a state's issue IS a violation of the US Constitution (amendment 10).

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Federal ruling is a usurpation of power not intended nor granted by the Constitution and is, therefore, illegal.

The case was brought before the circuit court and was the judge's to decide. As for marriage being a right, the case Loving vs.Virginia established that people have a right to marry which cannot be abridged by a state.

 

[Paul]

The case was brought before the circuit court and was the judge's to decide. As for marriage being a right, the case Loving vs.Virginia established that people have a right to marry which cannot be abridged by a state.

Courts are good at making law aren't they? I wouldn’t let a lot of judges judge a goat roping computation.

 

[truthquest]

Of course a judge who is a practicing homosexual would strike down the same-sex marriage ban, his judgment was compromised. While at the same time ignoring seven million voters in California.

Excerpt from a news story: Judge's 'sexual proclivity' compromised Prop. 8 ruling
On two separate occasions, voters in The Golden State declared traditional marriage as the law of the state -- once as a state statute and then as a constitutional amendment. ...Bryan Fischer (Amer. Family Assn.)"[It's an] absolutely outrageous and unconscionable ruling by this federal judge to so cavalierly overturn the expressed will of seven-million voters in the state of California," Fischer offers. "[He] didn't even have the legal right to consider this case. Marriage policy is not established in the federal constitution. Under the Tenth Amendment that issue is reserved for the states. So this judge trampled the Constitution [and] trampled the will of the voters in California."
In a press release yesterday, AFA identifies Walker as a "practicing homosexual" who, for that reason, should have recused himself from this case "because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity." Fischer concurs.
"It's really no different in our judgment than having a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to issue a ruling on an anti-pornography statute," says the AFA spokesman. "There's a conflict of interest there."
The California pro-family leader tells OneNewsNow that Judge Walker has violated his oath of office. "He swore that he would support and defend and be impartially faithful to the written words of the United States Constitution," says Thomasson. Instead, he says Walker has "imposed his biased homosexual agenda" upon the voters, the parents, and the children of California.

Judge's 'sexual proclivity' compromised ruling (OneNewsNow.com)

 

[JarBreaker]

The case was brought before the circuit court and was the judge's to decide. As for marriage being a right, the case Loving vs.Virginia established that people have a right to marry which cannot be abridged by a state.

Times are coming when you will stand by His Word or you will let human reason decide what is *tolerable* in society. You should be careful of any leanings to support of man's decisions.

Both those who condemn the righteous and declare the wicked justified are equally an abomination.

 

[[email protected]]

The case was brought before the circuit court and was the judge's to decide. As for marriage being a right, the case Loving vs.Virginia established that people have a right to marry which cannot be abridged by a state.

My point is that the US Constitution does not give jurisdiction to any branch of the Federal government to decide matters of marriage. Period.

On the one hand there is nothing specifically stated about it in the Constitution. Amendment 10 states that unless there is, the Federal government has no authority.

The US Constitution, one of the most brilliant governmental documents ever drafted, is all about restricting Government, not people. Today it is being ignored and even laughed at in Washington.

The rights of people to marry whoever they want is therefore up to the states to decide, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The Supreme Court has upheld by precent the right of the Federal Government to violate the Constitution. It has done so in support of Presidential actions, congressional laws, and its own rulings.

When the general government encroaches upon the rights of the State, is it a safe principle to admit that a portion of the encroaching power shall have the right to determine finally whether an encroachment has been made or not? In fact, most of the encroachments made by the general government flow through the Supreme Court itself, the very tribunal which claims to be the final arbiter of all such disputes. What chance for justice have the States when the usurpers of their rights are made their judges? Just as much as individuals when judged by their oppressors.
- Joseph Desha governor of Kentucky 1825

Those who have known freedom and lost it have never known it again.
Ronald Reagan 01/05/67

With regard to separation of church and state, has anyone EVER heard or read where any argument favored Christianity? For some reason the separation argument always seems to work against Christianity.

Several weeks ago a group of Christian school children were praying for the Supreme Court on the steps of that building. Armed guards forced them to leave. (This police action was both illegal AND inappropriate. What does it teach school children about their rights?)

BUT, President Obama goes on national TV to state that Muslims have a right to organized prayer within two blocks of Ground Zero. (It may be legal, but is it appropriate? What message does this send to radical muslims?)

In the absence of Constitutional law in America, we are forced to live under a double standard NOT OF OUR CHOOSING.
- - - - - -
If the reader thinks all this jazz about constitutional law is for the birds, let me ask one question.

If allowed to continue unabated and unrestricted a Federal law or court decision in the near future may force YOU to choose between your religion and jail. What will you do then?

Is the practice of Christianity now come down to the same level as peddling drugs, burglary and murder? What happens to the separation of church and state then? Do you really believe there IS such a thing as separtion of church and state?

 

[kiwimac]

Of course a judge who is a practicing homosexual would strike down the same-sex marriage ban, his judgment was compromised. While at the same time ignoring seven million voters in California.

Excerpt from a news story: Judge's 'sexual proclivity' compromised Prop. 8 ruling
On two separate occasions, voters in The Golden State declared traditional marriage as the law of the state -- once as a state statute and then as a constitutional amendment. ...Bryan Fischer (Amer. Family Assn.)"[It's an] absolutely outrageous and unconscionable ruling by this federal judge to so cavalierly overturn the expressed will of seven-million voters in the state of California," Fischer offers. "[He] didn't even have the legal right to consider this case. Marriage policy is not established in the federal constitution. Under the Tenth Amendment that issue is reserved for the states. So this judge trampled the Constitution [and] trampled the will of the voters in California."
In a press release yesterday, AFA identifies Walker as a "practicing homosexual" who, for that reason, should have recused himself from this case "because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity." Fischer concurs.
"It's really no different in our judgment than having a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to issue a ruling on an anti-pornography statute," says the AFA spokesman. "There's a conflict of interest there."
The California pro-family leader tells OneNewsNow that Judge Walker has violated his oath of office. "He swore that he would support and defend and be impartially faithful to the written words of the United States Constitution," says Thomasson. Instead, he says Walker has "imposed his biased homosexual agenda" upon the voters, the parents, and the children of California.

Judge's 'sexual proclivity' compromised ruling (OneNewsNow.com)

Interesting how this judge, appointed by Reagan, never had his orientation questioned until now isn't it? Moreover, I'm sorry to inform you that human rights are not decided by a majority vote.

 

[truthquest]

Interesting how this judge, appointed by Reagan, never had his orientation questioned until now isn't it? Moreover, I'm sorry to inform you that human rights are not decided by a majority vote.

Not that it matters to me who appointed him, I did find this bit of information quite interesting--- According to the homosexualist Gay and Lesbian Leadership Institute (GLLI), President Obama has appointed a record number of homosexual individuals to administration positions.

 

[Selene]

In America, all people already have the right to marry including homosexuals. The thing is.... marriage comes with restrictions. One cannot marry a person of the same sex, a person who is under-age (you can't marry a child), or a person of close relation (you can't marry your own brother or sister). A person also cannot be married to more than one person. What homosexuals want is not the right to marry for they already have that right, but rather to remove a restriction. There is a reason why those restrictions were put there in the first place. If one removes the restriction of marrying a person of the same sex, are the polygamists going to come out and say that they should also have the right to marry more than one person? Where is it going to end?

 

[Hamster]

Wow, selene that is the best paragraph I've read about the desires of Homosexuals and marriage

 

[[email protected]]

Nobody seems to be concerned about Federal involvement in all this. Despite the judges ruling, there is NO Constitutional authority given to the Federal government under any circumstances that allows any agent of the government to make a ruling regarding marriage. It isn't in the constitution anywhere. In fact, it is excluded.

Amendment 10 states that unless authority is explicitly given to the Feds, it is reserved for the States or the people. This is usurpation of power. The constitution was meant to put chains on the government, not the people.

If people in a given state grant or refuse authority for people to marry goats and chickens, there is absolutely no grounds for Federal intervention whatsoever.

In addition, no one has discussed the ramifications regarding taxes of such married couples, estate planning, or health insurance among others.

God takes last seat in the discussion and no action of the Federal government takes the almighty into consideration; unless the parties to the litigation are Muslims and their god's name is Allah.

 

[Selene]

Nobody seems to be concerned about Federal involvement in all this. Despite the judges ruling, there is NO Constitutional authority given to the Federal government under any circumstances that allows any agent of the government to make a ruling regarding marriage. It isn't in the constitution anywhere. In fact, it is excluded.

Amendment 10 states that unless authority is explicitly given to the Feds, it is reserved for the States or the people. This is usurpation of power. The constitution was meant to put chains on the government, not the people.

If people in a given state grant or refuse authority for people to marry goats and chickens, there is absolutely no grounds for Federal intervention whatsoever.

In addition, no one has discussed the ramifications regarding taxes of such married couples, estate planning, or health insurance among others.

God takes last seat in the discussion and no action of the Federal government takes the almighty into consideration; unless the parties to the litigation are Muslims and their god's name is Allah.

Those in favor of same sex unions are going to use Amendment 14 (the Rights of Citizens Amendment). The word "marriage" does not appear in the US Constitution, but homosexuals feel that their rights were being denied because they are unable to marry a person of the same sex. So, in this case, I would not be surprised if they use the 14th Amendment to try and get same-sex marriage approved at the Federal level.

 

[aspen]

I am just wondering......are there any homosexuals out there that do not know that many Christians believe homosexuality is a sinful choice, rather than a genetic trait? I doubt it. So why are we so adamant about shouting this idea from the rooftops? I think CS Lewis was right when he said Christians focus so much energy condemning homosexuality because it is the only sin we are not all tempted by. In fact, he refused to take a stand because he has never been tempted by it, himself.

 

[Surf Rider]

prop 8 is a very, very good thing.

The "church" is openly full of sin. It is in dire need of sharp discipline. If it doesn't receive the discipline, that it is clearly not of God at all. That's in scripture somewhere. Right? Believers not only constantly throw spiritual tantrums, evidencing their heart state, their values, and their thoughts, they are in outright rebellion. Just look at the statistics. Even a coursory glance at the evening news reveals the wickedness of believers. Oops. I'm sorry. It's always the other believers, isn't it!

So bring it on!

"How long, O Lord?"

 

[Selene]

I am just wondering......are there any homosexuals out there that do not know that many Christians believe homosexuality is a sinful choice, rather than a genetic trait? I doubt it. So why are we so adamant about shouting this idea from the rooftops? I think CS Lewis was right when he said Christians focus so much energy condemning homosexuality because it is the only sin we are not all tempted by. In fact, he refused to take a stand because he has never been tempted by it, himself.

Hello Aspen,

They are very much aware that the act of homosexuality is labeled a sin in the Bible. Hence, that is why they say it's a genetic trait. There is no scientific evidence of a "gay" gene. There is also no scientific evidence of a "pedophile" gene. Yet, we have people in our society who are not only physically attracted to the same sex but even attracted to very young children. Pedophiles are not given a free pass to do what they want, and they shouldn't. A pedophile should restrain his urge and refrain themselves from indulging in their urges because not only is it a sin, but a criminal offense. Those who are attracted to the same sex should also restrain themselves because it is a sin. Furthermore, fornication is also labeled a sin in the Bible; therefore, those who are attracted to the opposite sex should also resist the urge from having sexual relations with those of the opposite sex because fornication is a sin. Sexual relations are only permitted within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[aspen]

Hi Selene,

Thanks for your response.

"They are very much aware that the act of homosexuality is labeled a sin in the Bible."

So, once again, why do we feel such a great burden to tell homosexuals that homosexuality is a sin?

"Hence, that is why they say it's a genetic trait."

Sexuality is a complicated and basic - hardwired from a young age - trait. If you doubt this just think about how basic Personality disorders are then think about how hard they are to treat.

"There is no scientific evidence of a "gay" gene."

True. We are not sure what the contributing factors are in the development of sexuality.

"There is also no scientific evidence of a 'pedophile' gene."

True. We do not know what causes pedophilia.

"Yet, we have people in our society who are not only physically attracted to the same sex but even attracted to very young children. Pedophiles are not given a free pass to do what they want, and they shouldn't. A pedophile should restrain his urge and refrain themselves from indulging in their urges because not only is it a sin, but a criminal offense."

Of course, pedophilia is different from homosexuality because it is sex between a minor and an adult, rather than two consenting adults. It is sort of like comparing rape with consensual sex between adults.

"Those who are attracted to the same sex should also restrain themselves because it is a sin. Furthermore, fornication is also labeled a sin in the Bible; therefore, those who are attracted to the opposite sex should also resist the urge from having sexual relations with those of the opposite sex because fornication is a sin. Sexual relations are only permitted within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman."

Even for non-Christians? Why? All I am saying is that it seem like a lot for me to demand non-Christians to live a celibate life because the doctrine I believe to be true is interpreted by some Christians to be sinful. Even Solomon suggested that if this is all there is to 'eat, drink, and be merry; for tomorrow we die' in Ecclesiastes. Finally, it is interesting to me that Jesus never mentions homosexuality even though the practice was commonplace in the Roman Empire.

All I am saying is, that this issue gets in the way of real government reform and it has the potential to alienate people.

Peace

 

[Selene]

Hi Selene,

Thanks for your response.

"They are very much aware that the act of homosexuality is labeled a sin in the Bible."

So, once again, why do we feel such a great burden to tell homosexuals that homosexuality is a sin?

"Hence, that is why they say it's a genetic trait."

Sexuality is a complicated and basic - hardwired from a young age - trait. If you doubt this just think about how basic Personality disorders are then think about how hard they are to treat.

"There is no scientific evidence of a "gay" gene."

True. We are not sure what the contributing factors are in the development of sexuality.

"There is also no scientific evidence of a 'pedophile' gene."

True. We do not know what causes pedophilia.

"Yet, we have people in our society who are not only physically attracted to the same sex but even attracted to very young children. Pedophiles are not given a free pass to do what they want, and they shouldn't. A pedophile should restrain his urge and refrain themselves from indulging in their urges because not only is it a sin, but a criminal offense."

Of course, pedophilia is different from homosexuality because it is sex between a minor and an adult, rather than two consenting adults. It is sort of like comparing rape with consensual sex between adults.

"Those who are attracted to the same sex should also restrain themselves because it is a sin. Furthermore, fornication is also labeled a sin in the Bible; therefore, those who are attracted to the opposite sex should also resist the urge from having sexual relations with those of the opposite sex because fornication is a sin. Sexual relations are only permitted within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman."

Even for non-Christians? Why? All I am saying is that it seem like a lot for me to demand non-Christians to live a celibate life because the doctrine I believe to be true is interpreted by some Christians to be sinful. Even Solomon suggested that if this is all there is to 'eat, drink, and be merry; for tomorrow we die' in Ecclesiastes. Finally, it is interesting to me that Jesus never mentions homosexuality even though the practice was commonplace in the Roman Empire.

All I am saying is, that this issue gets in the way of real government reform and it has the potential to alienate people.

Peace

Hello Aspen,

Environment also plays a role in a person's personality and behavior. Scientists don't know what causes pedophilia, beastility, homosexuality, or even heterosexuality. All these are sexual attractions and we don't know what causes any of them. There are some men who are attracted to only certain types of females such as redheads or blondes. Other men are attracted to oriental women because they seem to find them more exotic. The same can be true with females. What causes these types of attraction? I don't know. It could be environmental.

In every religion that I know of fornication (that is sex outside of marriage) is looked down upon. The Muslim religion (which is Islam) frowns on it. The Jewish religion also frowns on it. The Christian religion says it is a sin.

In the eastern religions, Hinduism says that male and females should remain celebate before marriage. That is a stage they call "brahmacharya." In the Jainism religion, fornication is seen as a violation. In the Buddhist religion, virtue is considered very highly and their religion states that laypeople are to abstain from having sexual relations until marriage. However, Buddhists monks are called to strict chastity in the same way as our Catholic priests. I am much more familiar with Buddhism than the other eastern religions because I have some Buddhists friends, and I know a Korean Buddhist monk. Taoism, which is older than Buddhism considers lust a sin and teach their followers not to have any sexual misconduct. Shintoims, which is a major religion in Japan (a country that once occupied my country) forbids fornication and all sexual misconducts.

The only religion I am not certain of would be the neo-pagans such as the Wiccans. I met a Wiccan two years ago when I was in Boston, and he explained to me a little bit about his religion. According to their belief, they can do whatever they want as long as it does not hurt anyone, and if they hurt others, it will come back to them three times more. Therefore, I am assuming that in their eyes, fornication between two consenting adults may be okay as long as it does not hurt anyone. If, on the other hand, one person was hurt because he/she felt misled by the other partner into thinking that the fornication was going to lead them into a much more deeper relationship such as marriage, then fornication in this case would not be good. If there is a Wiccan on this forum board, perhaps, he/she can correct me.

In Christ,
Selene