davidk Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Again, you borrow and mislead. Obama clearly references the United Church of Christ, which has overwhelmingly endorsed gay marriage. The initiative that led to the vote by the UCC began in my church, which is a mere 15 miles from Warren's church. Instead of posting President Obamas's views, please post those of Rev. Warren. President Obama clearly, and consistently states he does not agree with Warren on the issue of gay rights. Are you claiming that Warren supports civil unions? The issue here is local. The California Supreme Court determined that marriage is the only path to equal rights for gay families. As I have already stated, it is the rights of children that most concerned the Court. The Bible simply does not deal with this issue. I remind you, yet again. I have heard Warren speak to these issues, in person. I have heard Obama speak to these issues, in person. The night that Warren hosted his version of a 'debate' between Obama and McCain, he actually lied. He said at the beginning of the program that John McCain was sequestered in a room where he could not hear the questions being asked of Obama. McCain did not arrive until 30 minutes after the program began. And so on ... Bottom line ... show me that Warren supports civil unions and the full rights of gay families. "I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage."- Barack Obama, March 2, 2008 He is talking about and supports the traditional, historic, universal definition of marraige, one man and one woman, for life. He also supports civil unions for gays. The CA Sup Ct had to redefine the term marraige in California law in order to interpret it the way they did. That trespassed on the exlusive responsibility of the legislative branch of California, violating the people's trust. Prop. 8 simply corrected the trespass. A stern reminder to the Court of its boundaries. Mr Warren completely supports full equal rights for everybody in America. The point of intrest is whether the gay "civil union" can be considered a civil right; and that is very arguable. Mr. Warren's position is that it is not; and had Prop. 8 not passed, anyone speaking against gay marraige could be considered involving themselves with "hate speech", threatening the well established and enumerated civil right: freedom of speech. Gays in California already have civil rights. It appeared to many voters that their effort was, and is, not civil rights, but coercion of those who may disagree with them. This is demonstrated by over over 70% of the black vote supporting Prop 8. --- The sequestration ("cone of silence") of Sen McCain was well discussed in public with Mr. Warren, and lying is not what it is considered by any but the most prejudicial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 The ruling of the California Supreme Court supporting gay marriage directly addressed the growing number of gay and lesbian couples that are raising children. In simple language, the real issue extends to families and the rights of children. In this sense, the Court ruled that there is a substantive difference between marriage and civil unions. I feel that this broader view is more in line with (dare I use the term?) family values than squabbling over the man-women issue which I do not feel is all that important. Defining the terms of a loving and caring relationship as well as the boundaries of a family seem much more relevant to the teachings of Jesus, at least to me. The second issue, rarely discussed, is that this is also a matter of religious freedom. Christians are far from unanimous in their views on marriage. California has ammended its constitution 511 times. A new ballot measure is now forming that would make civil unions the state standard and allow churches to follow their own conscience on the matter of marriage. Initial support for this option comes from both straight and gay organizations, supporters and opponents of Proposition 8. This raises a third issue often significant to Progressive Christians which is the separation of church and state. I do not want the state to be telling me what is Christian and I do not want any Christian institution telling the state what marriage is or is not. This is the world we live in and it demands new solutions. As much as Progressive Christians are willing to partcipate in that process, so much the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 My 2 cents: Domestic Partnership: Is allowed between any 2 adult parties. It allows certain basic rights like hospital visitation rights, decision about the other person should they be unable to make decisions for themselves, right of inheritance, right of health insurance. Parties must be registered with the state and live at the same residence and it lasts for X amount of years and must be renewed. I came up with this idea because I knew two sisters who lived together and bought a house together. I also knew a woman who had lost her husband and was raising her son with her father's help. In order to do most of the above things they had to pay an attorney. Domestic Partnerships are for non-sexual relationships and include siblings, Adult parent/Adult Child, Cousins, or unrelated people. Civil Unions: Is allowed between 2 adult parties who are unrelated. This is done, not through ceremony, but the signing of a legal document. It includes all the rights we think of that go with what we call marriage and does not have to be renewed and must be terminated legally. Marriage: Is brought on by ceremony through religious or secular institutions. It has no legal rights or protections. What it does allow is recognition two people in a committed relationship (for example, two people on Social Security) to be recognized by their community as married w/o necessarily the legal part which in some cases causes the loss of benefits. This idea comes from hearing of older people who are stuck because they won't live together prior to marriage for religious reasons but if they do get married they can't afford their basic needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 minsocal, That the court attemptiong to redefine the term marraige is what the citizenry rightfully decided was not the prerogotive of the court in this case. The legislature has the legal authority to address any issues involving designing the laws, including the definitions of terms, so the courts may have some subsatance from which to rule. The courts should have recused until the definition of marraige could be agreed upon in the appropriate legislative body, since it would be that which bears the responsibilitiy for law making and not the court. --- Chritianity does not waiver on what defines marriage. Neither does Judaism, nor Islam, nor Hindu, nor any other religion, nor civilized society. It is the height of arrogance and disrespect to attempt to use the powers of the State to force acceptance on those morally opposed. No ballot measure, new or old, has any authority to deny nor allow any doctrine of the chuch. It should not be unexpected for the religious community and for society in general to be averse of any effort to confuse marriage. --- I would think then with your 3rd issue argument you and other progressives would have swarmed in support of Prop 8. --- These discussions are interesting but any prolonging of the "controversy" would be a denial of the facts and a demonstration of little but personal prejudices against President-elect Obama's choice of Mr Warren as a participant in his inauguration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 minsocal,That the court attemptiong to redefine the term marraige is what the citizenry rightfully decided was not the prerogotive of the court in this case. The legislature has the legal authority to address any issues involving designing the laws, including the definitions of terms, so the courts may have some subsatance from which to rule. The courts should have recused until the definition of marraige could be agreed upon in the appropriate legislative body, since it would be that which bears the responsibilitiy for law making and not the court. --- Chritianity does not waiver on what defines marriage. Neither does Judaism, nor Islam, nor Hindu, nor any other religion, nor civilized society. It is the height of arrogance and disrespect to attempt to use the powers of the State to force acceptance on those morally opposed. No ballot measure, new or old, has any authority to deny nor allow any doctrine of the chuch. It should not be unexpected for the religious community and for society in general to be averse of any effort to confuse marriage. --- I would think then with your 3rd issue argument you and other progressives would have swarmed in support of Prop 8. --- These discussions are interesting but any prolonging of the "controversy" would be a denial of the facts and a demonstration of little but personal prejudices against President-elect Obama's choice of Mr Warren as a participant in his inauguration. With all due respect davidk, I am no longer interested in your opinion. If you wish to make your points known, please do not direct them at me. I do not intend to direct any future dialogue directly to you, so let the law of reciprocity prevail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 The Warren/Obama controversy no longer has legs. For, in fact, it should have never been one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Galatians 3:19-29 19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator. 20 Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. 22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise. Gee, I learned this in Sunday School 50 years ago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Post # 82 suggests that the "law" matures and changes over time. That would be consistent with the term "progressive" ... AND the emergent properties of life given by God. Science has proved that a static world (a static creation) does not exist. This is not anti-religion, and some will just have to "get over it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Galatians 3:19-29 That's nice, but what does this have to do with Obama/ Warren? Post # 82 suggests that the "law" matures and changes over time. That would be consistent with the term "progressive" ... AND the emergent properties of life given by God. Science has proved that a static world (a static creation) does not exist. This is not anti-religion, and some will just have to "get over it". That the Bible implies God's Law changes seems more than a little farfetched. Somewhere around 1948, Fred Hoyle proposed the Steady State Theory, saying, among other things, that the Big Bang Theory is a first cause dogma in line with Western theology rather than science. The description of a noisy, ever moving universe of time, space and matter runs in opposition to the static theories that "all existence is just one silent consciousness"----------Wait a minute--- ! You got me again, - what does any of this have to do with Obama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 What remains unresolved is the behavior of the so-called 'religious right' and those they oppose. If you think it is right for a Christian to yell in public, "your parents are baby killers" to a 14 year old, then we have a very different issue. If you think it is right for conservative Christians to throw eggs on the cars of those they oppose, speak up. davidk, answer up, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 What remains unresolved is the behavior of the so-called 'religious right' and those they oppose. If you think it is right for a Christian to yell in public, "your parents are baby killers" to a 14 year old, then we have a very different issue. If you think it is right for conservative Christians to throw eggs on the cars of those they oppose, speak up. davidk, answer up, please. You might note davidk, that Progessive Christians do not do these kind of things! Ever wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 What remains unresolved is the behavior of the so-called 'religious right' and those they oppose. If you think it is right for a Christian to yell in public, "your parents are baby killers" to a 14 year old, then we have a very different issue. If you think it is right for conservative Christians to throw eggs on the cars of those they oppose, speak up. davidk, answer up, please. You might note davidk, that Progessive Christians do not do these kind of things! Ever wonder why? I think you would agree that had the 'parents' had killed a baby, it would be justifiable for anyone to make such a passionate outburst. The age of the person seems irrelevant. But it appears you seem to believe that confronting a murderer in public is more offensive than the murder itself. If Progressives could not outraged enough to confront someone in public over the murder of a baby, you would be sorely disappointed, and rightfully so. If the 'parents' had not killed a baby, such behavior would certainly have been unwarranted, and would certainly not be appropriate Christian behavior. I'm sure Progressives have impeccable public behavior. I wonder who they could have been that were hurling obscenities along with their coathangers? -- Unless you can address Obama/ Warren I'm through responding to your opprobrious remarks on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I think you would agree that had the 'parents' had killed a baby, it would be justifiable for anyone to make such a passionate outburst. The age of the person seems irrelevant. But it appears you seem to believe that confronting a murderer in public is more offensive than the murder itself. If Progressives could not outraged enough to confront someone in public over the murder of a baby, you would be sorely disappointed, and rightfully so. If the 'parents' had not killed a baby, such behavior would certainly have been unwarranted, and would certainly not be appropriate Christian behavior. I'm sure Progressives have impeccable public behavior. I wonder who they could have been that were hurling obscenities along with their coathangers? -- Unless you can address Obama/ Warren I'm through responding to your opprobrious remarks on this thread. You have stated everything I wanted to get out of you. We are done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.