California Supreme Court Overrules Gay Marriage Ban
In California, the State Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage. In a five-to-four ruling, the court said state restrictions on same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. Beth Teper of Collage, a group for the children of gay couples, welcomed the ruling.
Beth Teper: "Children with LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) parents deserve our families to be respected, validated and protected legally and culturally. The Supreme Court ought to be applauded for their decision
The decision came out of a challenge to hundreds of gay marriages performed in San Francisco in 2004. The California Supreme Court had intervened to stop the weddings and later invalidated the documents. On Thursday, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said the court's new decision could have national implications.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom: "And by the way, as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door is wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not. This is the future, and it's now."
California joins Massachusetts as the only states extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians.
"As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation." Well, California has gone the way of San Francisco. If the U.S. goes that way too, it goes the way of Sodom.
sodomy ... Sexual intercourse that is not the union of the genital ORGANS of a man and a woman. The term is most frequently applied to anal intercourse between two men or to sexual relations between people and animals. (See PEDERAST.) According to the BIBLE, God destroyed the towns of SODOM AND GOMORRAH for unacceptable sexual practices, apparently anal intercourse between men. Sodomy takes its name from the town of Sodom.
Source: The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy
The RLCC (Real Liberal Christian Church) is opposed to coercion. Christians can't use violence or the threat of violence in an attempt to force people to make proper (non-harmful) behavioral decisions. Homosexuality is harmful. That's proven without doubt. "Homosexuals: What they ignore."
As real Christians, we do not have to respect, validate, or protect those who make bad decisions. We only have to speak the truth about the harm and then let it be. It's out of our hands, but we've done our duty in sounding the alarm.
We don't respect the choice of homosexuals beyond our being non-coercive. We certainly don't validate it. It is not sanctioned by God, because it is not righteous. It is ultimately always harmful. No good comes out of it. It is unsound, immoral, and against the real law that is the law of God.
It is a choice that anyone can reject. It is not something over which human beings have no control or choice. People can always choose not to harm others.
Greed, violence, and sexual depravity (harmful) are unworthy.
To the Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, I say, turn to the words of Jesus Christ, who said be as harmless as doves, or fall. That's the prophecy, and it's more powerful than yours.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)