All Comments for: 'Suspect' Judgment | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > July

Christianity Today, July, 2008 |

'Suspect' Judgment

Decoding the California Supreme Court's gay-marriage decision.

Derek R. Keefe | posted 6/02/2008 08:55AM

In a decision with far-reaching implications, the justices of California's Supreme Court ruled 4–3 on May 15 to overturn a state law prohibiting samesex marriages.

The court ruled that sexual orientation ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 49 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

God has changed me...

Posted: June 11, 2008 8:51 AM

I feel the need to speak out about popular opinion on here concerning homosexuality. I came out of the closet as a teenager, and spent the next 10 years believing I was a lesbian, working for HRC and other gay-rights organizations. I gave God my life, He embraced me with LOVE...in the course of revealing many wrongs to me, He let me know that He has a plan for me, and it does not include women. Jesus has since opened my eyes to the culture in which I once lived, and I now understand it's deceptions. I just wanted to say that the deception of homosexuality is quite strong, and only the result of other issues. Everyone who grows up gay feels isolated, different, strange, etc. The devil then presents the idea of homosexuality, and when you find others who had your same feelings of isolation, you believe it to be true. I heard discussions from Focus on the Family and others, but those comments did nothing more than make me hate myself. Do we hate the sin or the sinner?

Peter F. Benson, editor UNITYINCHRIST.COM

Posted: June 08, 2008 4:35 PM

Scary man...eventually all this 'legislation' will undermine the rights of Christians, across the board, and will eventually lead to a nationwide set of laws that ban on public preaching via radio, TV, and severe regulation of what is preached in church services, with a lot of real Holy Spirit inspired and led pastors ending up in jail for their faith. Don't laugh, it's happened in England, Norway, Canada and Australia where these laws have already been put in place. When the real famine of the Word takes place, what's next? 2nd coming? Good question. Look down the road to see where all this is leading to.

Mitch

Posted: June 07, 2008 3:34 PM

in the effort to keep civil liberty we are afraid to stand up for right, if we allow this supreme court ruling in calif as just with a 4-3 vote we have given the issue allowance as being undecipherable between the judges, there is no margin for doubt in this matter, it must go before the federal level or be trashed as a mistrial, when we give in to the minority vote at the voter level because we don't think our christian vote matters we allow the same sex wanters to prevail, soon we won't be able to determine what the heck went so wrong, our constitution and it's amendments must be read and understood correctly at the federal level since state level is not possible on this matter, so goes the state so goes the country??

Dave	Posted: June 06, 2008 9:09 AM

Just because Jesus did not speak out directly against homosexuality, does not mean he condones it. I don't hear him speaking out against smoking crack, but also don't see him endorsing it either. Also, Paul does speak against homesexuality, or haven't you read the book of Romans. And just because Abraham and others had more than one wife, does not mean that it was ever the way God set things up. Read Genesis. He made Adam and Eve, and then instituted marriage. He didn't make Adam and Eve and Mary and Jan and Jill and Betty, etc, and then have them marry. Every instance in the Old Testament where a man has more than one wife shows what happens next, there are problems in the family and in generations to come because of this very problem. Culture does not change truth. Truth is to impact culture.

Writer JOE---

Posted: June 04, 2008 11:01 PM


THE CALIF. COURT JUDGEMENT! It is my opinion that the CA court are not correct. Their judgement in his case, is reaching out beyound the LEGAL aspect and allowing them to permit broader descisions following the GAY rights, and other false claims. This is why all judges must prove their integurity and NOT that which NOT the correct decision.

CBob	Posted: June 04, 2008 10:11 PM

A crucial element that often gets obsfucated in this discussion - homosexuality is a sin among other sins - is the fact that the loudest and most contentious voices are those that insist precisely that homosexuality is NOT a sin, that it is as normal and acceptable as ANY OTHER lifestyle/choice. And herein is the difficulty. In my church (The United Methodists) the vortex for the battle cries center around this phrase from the church's 'rule-book' THE BOOK OF DISCIPLINE: "we do not condone the practice of homosexuality nor do we find it compatible with scripture and Christian teaching". It is this latter phrase that the militant homosexuals want to change - the part that stands squarely in allignment WITH scripture and with Christian teaching!

Eugene M. Wiese

Posted: June 04, 2008 3:21 PM

The use of general terms leads to vague thinking. Failure to distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual relations leads to unfounded charges of homophobia. My late wife and I were welcome at homosexual social events for many years. Our "gay" friends used to joke with us about our "straight" tendencies. Our opinion then and my opinion to this day is that homosexual relations are sinful, just as fornication and adultery are sinful. I have not shunned the adulterer, the fornicator, or the homosexual because of their behavior. Since I have had "urges" along some of the same lines, it would ill-behoove me to condemn other such sinners. That has not stopped me from adjudging these actions as sinful, and I have the full authority of the entire Bible to support me. But that does not give me license to condemn the persons. Unfortunately, most people consider sexual relations to be a great way to spend their time, but this should be in proper context: Sex for procreation.

Ernie

Posted: June 03, 2008 5:56 PM

I think it is time to abandon the government on the issue of marriage. It has been corrupted and may well have corrupted the institution of marriage in the Christian community as well. Let us make it a church issue. It seems to me that the "common law" legal protections now in place are adequate. The Christian community needs to respond to the current cultural climate by making a new commitment to the sanctity of marriage for its members. On this issue we may be finding it easier to examine and critique the behavior of those outside the church, while we neglect to pay attention to renewal within.

Kim	Posted: June 03, 2008 1:31 PM

We have the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that former President Clinton signed into being, that says in essence that as a nation we will define marriage as a heterosexual union, but the states have the right to vote on it. In at least 35 states, the voters have said NO to gay marriage in those states. The actions of judges essentially in this case and others is saying "We don't care what you the voters think, we'll do what we want to do." Seems simple to me, if given the opportunity to vote then the voters are saying NO. If enough gay people and gay marriage supporters voted YES it would be yes. It's not. There's a reason for that. Majority rule? Not with activist judges. Judges aren't to be activists, they're to uphold the law. Get rid of lobbyists and see how that all goes. God help us we're ignoring Him by being a liberal society, motivated by money and correctness.

kam	Posted: June 03, 2008 1:11 PM

How shall we define sin, if not by the Bible. Despite the ascension of deconstructionist arguments to the summit of academia and intellectual debate, morality of any kind can only be understood from a structualist perspective. Without a center, a foundation, then all sin is open to debate. While that might make for fun b.s. to debate in college, my mind and my heart tell me a different story. Pedophilia is a sin. War without cause is a sin. Murder is a sin. And homosexuality, because it contradicts the Bible, is a sin. Of course, bigotry is also a sin. And several postings above make it clear I'm a bigot. If only bigotry against bigots was as odious as bigotry against homosexuals.

Y.P.	Posted: June 03, 2008 12:05 PM

This too shall pass. There has never been any evidence to suggest that homosexuality is inborn. It always amazes me how people often hold a pro-homosexual perspective while holding a pro-evolution perspective as well. They are mutually exclusive. If survival of the fittest is true and the goal is to pass on genetic material to further the line of the strong, homosexuality is self-defeating. Eventually, researchers will determine that most cases of homosexuality are a choice the person has made based on their environment. Should Christians treat them as second class citizens? Absolutely not! Introduce them to the lifechanging hope that is in Jesus Christ revealed through His inspired word and they will endeavor to be more like Christ.

BB	Posted: June 03, 2008 11:44 AM

The Church suffers from limited vision. It does not understand that adherence to the conventional view of Scripture equals hatred. You can stick close to what you have always believed, but you'd better recognize that it results in sorrow and a feeling of being hated in the hearts and minds of the sexual minority. Is hatred defined by the motives of the voter? Or by the resulting discrimination felt by those who lose? Before you vote for "one man-one woman," think about whether hatred is as hatred feels - to the recipient. States which adopted civil unions have not experienced any effect on conventional marriage. How many Biblically-based churches do you know which reject would-be members who are in their second marriage?

Jim	Posted: June 03, 2008 11:34 AM


If the church defines itself by cherry-picking verses out of Leviticus, its doom is sealed and well deserved. Leviticus also prohibits lending money at interest, eating shrimp, and other practices which we casually ignore. The science is difinitive and our prejudice will only hurt us. It is time to move on to more important issues.

John N.

Posted: June 03, 2008 10:57 AM


I am saddened by this decision. God makes his point very clear in the bible that this behavior is simply sin. Sodomy was illegal not very long ago, and now the courts and others are pushing for homosexual marriage? If marriage becomes something for anyone, how long until groups who want to marry their pets, or marry children will become legal?

Steve Skeete

Posted: June 03, 2008 10:02 AM

Ross writes: "Polygamy has been practiced throughout the history of mankind, but the Old Testament, and Jesus, never condemned it like they condemned homosexuality". Genesis says " a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and they will become one flesh". Jesus says having been joined together the man and woman "are no longer two but one". Paul says to avoid immorality " each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband". These statements, while stated positively, speak clearly against homosexuality and polygamy. Marriage, according to the Old Testament, the Gospels (Jesus), and the Epistles (Paul) is an arrangement between one man and one woman, not between man and man or woman and woman, and not between multiple men nor mutiple women. This is unmistakeable to the person who is reading from the Bible and not imposing an alien meaning on it. While one is free to disobey the Bible, I know of no right to re-write it.

Jc	Posted: June 03, 2008 9:48 AM

Remember that it is a Republican who wrote the paper in California. For me it is interesting that some of the experts say (not) "a single shred of scientific evidence to prove its assertion that sexual orientation is a natural trait or immutable characteristic." lnteresting for I just had this conversation with family. I never asked for attractions to men it just was. My mother even worried if I might be gay at the age of 4. Gay marriage will be good for all for it will protect the institution of marriage being between 2 people. No longer should any man or woman be labeled a suspect classification or other (remember the Samaritans). No longer should I a Christian gay man be defined by a sex act, a double standard. Thank the good Lord that change is coming to the US and the church much like interacial marriage and womens rights barriers of the destruction of the family at one time.

J.D. Judah

Posted: June 03, 2008 6:07 AM

The real danger here lies in this statement from the article, "By labeling sexual orientation "suspect," the California court indicated that any law based on sexual orientation would be presumed discriminatory." This means that homosexuals can practice their evil on little boys, and no law can be passed to stop it--because it would be a law based on sexual preference, which would then be a violation of the "suspect classification". California courts seem determined to lead this nation as far from God as it can get. This issue isn't just about gay marriages. The whole gay agenda is far reaching and they have many more things they want changed in the mainstream of America. Because they are activists, they just chip away at our laws, and nullify our majority votes so that our voices are no longer heard. We are slowly being turned into the Great Satan that the Islamic extremists call us and we're letting it happen.

Ephrem Hagos

Posted: June 03, 2008 1:22 AM

May the LORD open our eyes to see the glass houses in which all of us in traditional marriages live! How appropriate the words: "You hypocrite! First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will be able to see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matt. 7: 5). Now, which is worse: traditional marriage or same-sex marriage? Let us beware not to throw the first stone!!!!!!!!!!

Glenn

Posted: June 02, 2008 10:25 PM

I think GDP made a good in saying that we Christians will be asked to support this law with our tax dollars as courts and justices are paid to legitimize homosexual marriages. However, we need to be clear on something: California has said that legal unions recognized by the state and pertaining to legal rights -- the unions we traditionally call "marriages" -- cannot discriminate against homosexuals. But the legal protections for married couples have never extended beyond marriages without huge legal hurdles. In just one simple example, in most states the husband cannot easily change his name to include his wife's surname, but the wife certainly can. The laws and times are changing, but WITHIN THE CHURCH, we need NOT recognize nor condone same-sex holy matrimony. If the state starts requiring churches to perform same-sex marriages or lose tax-exempt status, THEN we will see a truly monumental fight. I fear such a conflict will not be far away...

Cliverty

Posted: June 02, 2008 9:08 PM


In Lev 18 God points out a few sins (including 1 or 2 of the Ten Commandments) for which godless pagan nations are held accountable. There God provides a list of sins and identifies a few of them as "abominations" for which the clueless, godless, pagan nations before Israel were destroyed. Turns out -- this topic is one of them. in Christ, Bob

RJ. Connors

Posted: June 02, 2008 7:54 PM


"No doubt any number of Episcopalian and Methodist clergy, among others, will now line up to officiate at such ceremonies, ignoring the clear Scriptural truth that doing so bolsters Satan instead of the Creator of marriage". I wouldn't bet the farm on that just yet but hey, on the upside we did manage to get rid of all the bigots.

Naurya

Posted: June 02, 2008 6:49 PM

Indeed, traditional marriage is like the definition of tradition. A Traditionalist is not one who knows anything about Tradition, but rather has a fond memory of how things were thirty years ago. In an English publication by a sub-Dean of Westminister, AE Harvey, the authentic history of marriage is outlined. Even in Jesus' day, the definitions are smeared. If we move back to the righteous Abraham, the friend of God says scripture, then we have what today would be called a polygamist sect. It seems to me that those who are so ardently opposed to gay marriages would as likely rejected the teaching of Jesus and Paul. It's not THEIR tradition. Don't for a moment think that such things are not mediated strongly by human reasoning and culture, otherwise, we would still condone and practice slavery as well as keep the female gender walking several paces behind the male as well as not speaking out in church. These were considered issues of "morality" in past days.

trutojc

Posted: June 02, 2008 6:35 PM

Those who purposely want to change laws that are already proven to be favored by the majorityseem to be good at wording things in confusing language in order to change the law to suite theirpreference. Calif has clearly voted in favor of marriage only between one man and one woman. Ithas definately been settled. Is this a democracy or not? It simply seems that it is no longer true that majority rules anymore. The supreme court often rules contrary to majority. That means that we are no longer a free democracy. What is the good of voting when our majority is slapped down by acontrary court? We are no longer free, but victims of a minority in our courts. Thank Gd for theoverworked lawyers and judges in the minority (in courts) who continue to fight for right. God help!

Dave	Posted: June 02, 2008 6:25 PM

When I first became a Christian I was a young man in college. Although I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I was still susceptible to wordly pleasures because I wasn't immediately grounded in a Christ-based church and had not learned to call upon God's grace when challenged by sin. Sadly, I later became entangled in a cult and and an ill-advised marriage that ended in divorce. It wasn't until I found a church whose foundation was the Lord that I started to see growth in my Christian walk and new marriage. As some of the responders below stated, we, as churches filled with redeemed sinners, need to open our doors to those who also seek redemption, allowing God's love and grace the opportunity and time to change hearts and minds, as I was changed in the years following my own conversion. Should we not extend this same invitation to those confused in their own sexual identity, inviting them into our congregations and seeing them washed anew in God's life-changing grace?

Ross	Posted: June 02, 2008 5:08 PM

Doesn't it seem a little odd to you "Christians" that we punish the polygamists for having more than one wife, which in NOT an abomination to the Lord, yet we sanction homosexual marriage. I'd just about bet my next paycheck that the "Liberals" who condone homosexual behavior are the first ones to condemn polygamy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a polygamist, nor do I necessarily condone polygamy, However, except in certain circumstances in the Bible, the Lord has never condemned polygamy other than the abuseor misuse, or with men in certain positions. Polygamy has been practiced throughout the history of mankind, but the Old Testament, and Jesus, never condemned it like they condemned homosexuality. Seems we have a bunch of hypocrits in this discussion.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment