Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[reddogs]

Well the ruling by the California Supreme Court striking down a state law banning gay marriage has openned the door for this.....

"...Hours after Thursday's landmark ruling by the California Supreme Court striking down a state law banning gay marriage, the 50-year-old daytime host announced during a taping of The Ellen DeGeneres Show that she and the 35-year-old former Ally McBeal star plan to swap vows..."

http://www.zap2it.com/celebrities/news/zap-ellendegeneresportiaderossimarriageplan,0,4042003.story?track=rss

[RND]

Well the ruling by the California Supreme Court striking down a state law banning gay marriage has openned the door for this.....

"...Hours after Thursday's landmark ruling by the California Supreme Court striking down a state law banning gay marriage, the 50-year-old daytime host announced during a taping of The Ellen DeGeneres Show that she and the 35-year-old former Ally McBeal star plan to swap vows..."

http://www.zap2it.com/celebrities/news/zap-ellendegeneresportiaderossimarriageplan,0,4042003.story?track=rss

That's odd. I thought marriage was between and man and a woman.

[Emma]

Well the ruling by the California Supreme Court striking down a state law banning gay marriage has openned the door for this.....

"...Hours after Thursday's landmark ruling by the California Supreme Court striking down a state law banning gay marriage, the 50-year-old daytime host announced during a taping of The Ellen DeGeneres Show that she and the 35-year-old former Ally McBeal star plan to swap vows..."

http://www.zap2it.com/celebrities/news/zap-ellendegeneresportiaderossimarriageplan,0,4042003.story?track=rss

That's odd. I thought marriage was between and man and a woman.

It WAS.  Apparently that is an old definition.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

One must keep in mind that the ruling of the court simply argues that Civil Union is an inequality under the California Constitution. California already has a Civl Union Statute that larely conferred all the rights of marriage upon Civil Union.

The People of Californai simply have to correct this incongruity with a Constitutional Amendment that corrects and clarifies Marriage...Best of luck!!!

I am sure the Cup nearly runneth over!!! If the Lord does not punish California and some other states for the horrendous breach of civility, let a lone Christianity, He will soon have to apologize to San Francisco, Sodom and Gommorrah!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

[RND]

One must keep in mind that the ruling of the court simply argues that Civil Union is an inequality under the California Constitution. California already has a Civl Union Statute that larely conferred all the rights of marriage upon Civil Union.

The People of Californai simply have to correct this incongruity with a Constitutional Amendment that corrects and clarifies Marriage...Best of luck!!!

I am sure the Cup nearly runneth over!!! If the Lord does not punish California and some other states for the horrendous breach of civility, let a lone Christianity, He will soon have to apologize to San Francisco, Sodom and Gommorrah!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

I can assure you that when the time comes everyone will get the same punishment handed out. God is no respecter of persons, no matter what the Klan at Westburo Baptist think.

However, California stands -zero- chance to pass a "legitimate" Marriage Amendment that won't be overturned in the courts and declared "unconstitutional." The nation is broke and needs more certificate holders in order to produce more fiat bonds so they can print more fiat dollars. In 2000, 61% of California voters approved a ballot measure, Proposition 22, that said "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

They attach value and anticipated return on each and every birth/marriage certificate issued. I hear the print value for each certificate is somewhere around one million dollars.

"Gay" marriage, just like in Massachusetts, is here to stay in California.

[Snoopy]

Very interesting.  RND, you sound like someone I used to know.  Ever been in the SF Bay Area??

One must keep in mind that the ruling of the court simply argues that Civil Union is an inequality under the California Constitution. California already has a Civl Union Statute that larely conferred all the rights of marriage upon Civil Union.

The People of Californai simply have to correct this incongruity with a Constitutional Amendment that corrects and clarifies Marriage...Best of luck!!!

I am sure the Cup nearly runneth over!!! If the Lord does not punish California and some other states for the horrendous breach of civility, let a lone Christianity, He will soon have to apologize to San Francisco, Sodom and Gommorrah!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

I can assure you that when the time comes everyone will get the same punishment handed out. God is no respecter of persons, no matter what the Klan at Westburo Baptist think.

However, California stands -zero- chance to pass a "legitimate" Marriage Amendment that won't be overturned in the courts and declared "unconstitutional." The nation is broke and needs more certificate holders in order to produce more fiat bonds so they can print more fiat dollars. In 2000, 61% of California voters approved a ballot measure, Proposition 22, that said "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

They attach value and anticipated return on each and every birth/marriage certificate issued. I hear the print value for each certificate is somewhere around one million dollars.

"Gay" marriage, just like in Massachusetts, is here to stay in California.

[Chrissie]

Very interesting.  RND, you sound like someone I used to know.  Ever been in the SF Bay Area??

One must keep in mind that the ruling of the court simply argues that Civil Union is an inequality under the California Constitution. California already has a Civl Union Statute that larely conferred all the rights of marriage upon Civil Union.

The People of Californai simply have to correct this incongruity with a Constitutional Amendment that corrects and clarifies Marriage...Best of luck!!!

I am sure the Cup nearly runneth over!!! If the Lord does not punish California and some other states for the horrendous breach of civility, let a lone Christianity, He will soon have to apologize to San Francisco, Sodom and Gommorrah!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

I can assure you that when the time comes everyone will get the same punishment handed out. God is no respecter of persons, no matter what the Klan at Westburo Baptist think.

However, California stands -zero- chance to pass a "legitimate" Marriage Amendment that won't be overturned in the courts and declared "unconstitutional." The nation is broke and needs more certificate holders in order to produce more fiat bonds so they can print more fiat dollars. In 2000, 61% of California voters approved a ballot measure, Proposition 22, that said "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

They attach value and anticipated return on each and every birth/marriage certificate issued. I hear the print value for each certificate is somewhere around one million dollars.

"Gay" marriage, just like in Massachusetts, is here to stay in California.

Snoopy, I think RND might have a more detailed understand of the law in California, than we do here. Could be wrong of course, but...

[RND]

The point that should be taken is this: It doesn't matter what gets voted on and passed by the people, the "powers that be" want and need more certificate holders in order to print more fiat bonds and fiat currency. What other explanation can there be for overturning a law enacted by vote that is over 8 years old?

When you think about it a marriage, to be legitimate in the eyes of God, doesn't require a state issued certificate - God reads the hearts and minds of those getting married and judges the motives, not pieces of paper. Now, from a purely Biblical understanding can two people of the same sex get "married?" Nope. Marriage in God's eyes is between a man and a woman. Satan changes everything that God says and attempts to make it his own in order to achieve the worship he knows he can never receive and that's why the state gets involved.

Rev 13:15      And he (the second beast) had power to give life unto the image of the beast (the first beast), that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 

A beast in Bible prophecy represents "temporal political power." Kingdoms and nations. How does a kingdom or a nation speak? It speaks through it laws and decrees (see Daniel 3 and Daniel 6 for examples). Satan, in using the state, has again changed another of God's laws and perverted the wishes of God.

No surprise.

[WillowRun]

As long as marriage is as simple as getting a license and go to a justice of the peace I have no problems with it.  However, should they force churches to marry a same sex couple or any couple for that matter, I would have a problem with it.  The SDA church has limits on who they will marry already...

The Europeans have two marriages one civil or legal and  if one chooses a church wedding.  Time is short and things like this are the diversion before Jesus comes again...

As always,

Respectfully
Willow

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Debonet wrote an excellent thesis on Marriage and Divorce, including it roots in civil law as well as in ecclesiatical.

In Western Society, the issue began with the false "protest" in England under Henry VIII who simply took away ecclesiatical authority over marriage and divorce and transferred it arbitrarilly to the state, and thus began "civil" divorce and marriage in the western world under old English Common Law.

I am always mystified by the arguement asserting a "wall of seperation" and then we clearly merge the two into oblivion when a credentialed minister conducts an ecclesiastical "Holy Matrimony" but marries the couple "with all the powers granted to me by the state of X...". But the absolute dichotomy is that what "God hath joined together" the state readily allows the courts "to tear assunder" with impunity and without cause, particularly in "no fault" states, and without any regard to ecclesiatical authority.

Where is that wall of seperation? It simply does not and never has existed, other than in the minds of human secularists whenever convenient to avoid accountability or moral standards.

So, is marriage ecclesastical or civil? Should there be two forms of marriage and two seperate authorities? And how do you enforce ecclesiastical marriage and divorce versus civil marriage and divorce? And who will set the standards fro each?

Have fun with this debate as there is no simple arguement or simple solution.

Gailon Arthur Joy