[GCFL-discuss] Marriage

Fri Jul 16 22:33:16 CDT 2004

I have one thing to say about all this. THe church were I am attending plus my whole family is attending WAS Episcopalian up until last year when the gay bishop was voted in. You might have heard about my church. We are in Akron OHio. We made the news around April when we and 5 other former Episcopal churchs had 5 retired bishops and one current bishop from Brazil come and confirm many of us. We are currently taking a strong stand against the vote from last year and are actively working to have a bill put on in the november election for the state of OHio to outlaw same sex marriage. So guess where I stand on this issue!

Brit

gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net wrote:

Many people would argue this & I am not about to start an argument
but I think homosexuality is wrong. For one thing Gods design was for one
MAN & for one WOMAN to be together not the same sex together. Not only
is it disguisting but it is unnatural & unbiblical. There are many people
who try to argue & twist different scriptures to their benefit but it
doesn't change Gods plan & design. Thats my opinion.
Jeff

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:08:35 -0500 gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net writes:
> It has been awfully quiet this month. Dare I raise the subject of
> defining marriage?
> 
> I believe the controversial ruling by the Supreme Court of 
> Massachusetts
> contained a simple, obvious, but apparently overlooked flaw. I also
> believe inserting a definition of marriage into the federal 
> constitution
> is both dangerous and silly.
> 
> I believe there is a proper place for states rights -- although
> preserving racial discrimination is not one of them. Actually, 
> whether I
> approve or not, the constitution IS a contract by the governed
> authorizing the existence of a federal government, and it does 
> reserve
> all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal level, either to 
> the
> states or to the people.
> 
> Marriage has always been in state jurisdiction, not federal. Nothing 
> in
> the federal constitution delegates to either the executive or 
> legislative
> branch any jurisdiction to write laws pertaining to marriage. An
> amendment would change that of course, but writing an amendment to
> intrude federal authority into one narrow subject area that happens 
> to
> have created a lot of excitement is very dangerous. Marriage should
> remain a state matter.
> 
> The decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts (which was a 4-3
> decision, and may well be overturned by the legal processes of that 
> state
> in the next couple of years) is binding only in Massachusetts. Fears 
> that
> other states will be required to recognize any marriage licensed by
> Massachusetts are very premature. In fact, a landmark Massachusetts
> decision freeing a slave brought into the state by her owner's wife 
> on a
> visit from Louisiana provides an interesting precedent for NOT 
> imposing
> such a requirement. Without going into humongous length, if another 
> state
> has no such thing in its laws as marriage between two people of the 
> same
> gender, then that state has nothing to offer the parties "married" 
> in
> 
> 
> (The reasoning that freed the 14 year old slave: not because 
> entering
> Massachusetts triggered a process of emancipation, but because the 
> laws
> of Massachusetts did not recognize the status of slave, so that no
> authority existed in the state to restrain her movements or keep her 
> in
> bondage, no matter what her status in Louisiana).
> 
> Which brings me to the flaw in the Massachusetts court decision.
> 
> The court applied "equal protection of the laws," which is certainly 
> a
> vital principle of American democracy. The court reasoned that it 
> had
> before it two classes of people, one denominated "heterosexuals" 
> the
> other denominated "homosexuals." Both classes of people, said the 
> court,
> desired the benefits of the status of marriage. No rational reason
> existed to grant the status to one group, while denying it to the 
> other.
> 
> Very logical, and like much logical reasoning, based on a flawed 
> premise.
> No homosexual plaintiff desired to marry a person of opposite 
> gender. No
> man who sought a license to marry a woman had been denied on the 
> ground
> that they were a homosexual -- which would have been unwarranted
> discrimination. No woman who sought a license to marry a man had 
> been
> denied on the ground that she was a lesbian. In short, the 
> plaintiffs did
> not seek ACCESS to what other citizens enjoyed, they sought a NEW 
> status
> which only they would enjoy, and which did not exist.
> 
> (By the way, the court was very explicit that their ruling applied 
> only
> to civil acts of government. No church has an obligation to bless a
> "marriage" that violates its own faith and doctrine. THAT is
> constitutionally guaranteed too).
> 
> But the court was still wrong. Issuing a marriage license is an act 
> of
> overt approval on behalf of the happy couple's fellow citizens. If 
> a
> majority of the people of a state choose to adopt legislation 
> recognizing
> homosexual couples, they can. It doesn't seem like there is a 
> majority
> ready to do that right now. There is no constitutional right to 
> approval
> and respect.
> 
> At least 48 states seem to be moving in the opposite direction, 
> which is
> another reason not to play with the Constitution. State governments 
> seem
> quite competent to deal with the question. And at least seven 
> members of
> the U.S. Supreme Court are individually on record as saying that 
> nothing
> in their decisions would required any state to grant the status of
> marriage to two people of the same gender -- there hasn't been a 
> formal
> decision because no case has even made it into federal court yet.
> 
> Siarlys
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
> _______________________________________________
> GCFL-discuss mailing list
> GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
> 
> 

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
_______________________________________________
GCFL-discuss mailing list
GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss

Brit 

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gcfl.net/pipermail/gcfl-discuss/attachments/20040716/5785db4f/attachment.html