Posted in days of lot, end time, end time. prophecy, gay marriage

Homosexual marriage ban in CA (Prop 8) ruled unconstititional [UPDATED]

See bottom for the update

 Last November in CA, citizens voted on a citizen-initiative at the polls defining marriage as only between one man and one woman in the state constitution. It passed. The amendment was immediately challenged legally, there was a trial, and it’s been in Judge Walker’s hands for consideration ever since.

Judge Walker sifted through evidence, heard arguments, reviewed the law, made a decision, and today he totally botched it. He ruled that homosexuals banned from marrying under the newly enacted, State constitutionally defined marriage definition was a contradiction against the US Constitution. He struck down the definition that only one man and one woman are qualified to marry in CA. The case marks the first federal court test of a state law banning gay marriage.

In one very real sense this in an interesting interplay with the MA law that was also recently struck down that stated the Federally defined marriage act stating one man and one woman are the only qualifiers for marriage, was unconstitutional because the Federal Government had no business defining marriage qualifications for the states. But in CA, the citizens did just that in their state, and and passed their definition. And it was struck down.

The Judge wrote that Prop 8 “unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.” God’s definition of marriage is not irrational. But to continue, the judge wrote, “[Prop 8] fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.” The freedom to marry is a fundamental right under due process, he said. Beginning on page 113 he outlines the criteria for marriage under our nation’s past legal history, traditions and practices and uses those criteria as the foundation to show that marriage between same sexes is a fundamental right, rather than a new right.

Walker said that characteristics of marriages in the US have included two parties, free consent, forming of a household, and mutual support of each other and dependents. Nowhere is the main characteristic of marriage in the US’s history mentioned, that those two parties have always been of opposite gender. As a matter of fact, he wrote, the institution of marriage has been moving away from a gendered institution as our understanding of gender increases and the two genders are now considered equal.

Moreover, the notion of two genders having distinct roles in society is an artifact of a time that has passed. (p 115).

Judge Walker could not be more wrong, about everything. The gender roles are just as distinct and in force as the day that God made them (Gen 2:20-25). It is man’s sinful and corrupt nature that has put aside the good and the perfect that God planned for us, including the structure of marriage and the functions of the husband and the wife.

Jesus said that the time immediately prior to His coming would be like the Days of Noah. (Matthew 24:37). The days of Noah were “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that <sup class="xref" value="(D)”>every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”” (Gen 6:5-7)

Paul said the time of the end would be characterized by conditions where the majority of people will be “boasters, proud, blasphemers,… unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God…” (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

Of the decision, the chortling and trumpeting of the ‘new day’ has already begun. Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote on Twitter, “Very joyful court ruled against #prop8, it is a stain upon the CA Constitution’…” Sean R. Simons wrote, “is a huge victory for all Americans who believe in equality for not just few, but for all. Today is a great day for our nation.” Lesbian talk show host Ellen DeGeneres said, “We’re all equal, and we should all have equal rights. I’m so grateful for today’s decision.” A Twitterer tweeted “If one should have faith in anything, it is that Love endures. In the end, Love will always win out over Hate.”

Understandably, the lost do not realize that God is love and satan is hate, and that they are actually working for satan and his hate against anything and everything God holds dear, including and especially marriage. Unfortunately, they will soon understand that, and more devastatingly, they will have an eternity to ponder its truth. Yes, Love will win, it already has, in the form of Jesus at the cross, dying for the very people who pollute His institutions today.

Christian, if your heart is heavy, and you see, listen to, and read the joyful chortles of mockers and scoffers of our faith, and more importantly, of God’s standards for moral purity, take heed that His wrath is coming and what the mockers and scoffers will endure will be far worse than anything we can say or do.

“It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. “It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. (Luke 17:28-30)

UPDATE: The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.

Posted in end time, gay marriage, homosexuality, Prop 8, prophecy, same sex marriage

DOMA, Prop 8, and legally defined marriage

There are two court cases in the US right now that have an interesting tension together. One is in Massachusetts, and the other is in California.

In the MA case, a decision from a federal district court judge in Boston last night struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman. It was the “Defense of Marriage Act” known as DOMA. DOMA was passed as a federal public law in 1996, and its precepts were that no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. And secondly, the federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. Judge Tauro wrote, “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.”

This was challenged in MA and last night the judge declared DOMA unconstitutional on the grounds that it takes away from the individual states their right to define marriage in the way they see fit.

However, the second case in CA is being challenged exactly because the state defined marriage, but not in the way that is preferable to homosexuals. California’s legal history with same-sex marriage is a long and a sad one. Without getting into boring specifics, in the past, the people voted traditional marriage as the only valid marriage to be recognized in the state, the homosexual lifestyle lobby challenged it in court, and it was overturned. Rinse. Repeat. This cycle has been ongoing for several years but in the latest iteration, the November 2008 elections contained a ballot initiative known as Proposition 8. This proposition amended the state constitution to declare marriage between a man and a woman as the only validly recognized marriage in the state. It passed.

The homosexual lifestyle lobby immediately challenged it in court and that is the CA decision we are awaiting imminently. If the Federal court in MA declared that DOMA was unconstitutional because the rights of states to determine for themselves which kind of marriages are legal, and California validly went through a process defining marriage just as the MA Judge said they have the right to do, it will be interesting to see how this CA judge decides this Prop 8 case and on what grounds.

That was the legal summary. Here is the cultural summary. Last night Drudge had a red blaring headline announcing that the Prop 8 case decision would be released at 9 pm ET. This rumor caused swarms of reporters, television crews, and activists to storm the courthouse in anticipation. Emotions were running high because of another controversial decision handed down shortly before regarding the Mehserle trial for murder, known as the BART murder. Indeed, riots broke out in Oakland. And adding to the emotional mix, the MA DOMA decision was handed down that dame day, fueling conjecture that more riots would break out in CA, depending on which way the CA verdict went.

Well, no verdict came out on the Prop 8 decision but that didn’t stop the twitter-sphere from running rampant with emotions and accusations of “rights denied”. One particular point of the defense of overturning Prop 8’s definition of traditional marriage, was that homosexual lifestyle adherents are being denied their civil rights. This is not the case, however. There are five states and one District of Columbia which allow gay marriage. Three other states offer reciprocity in recognizing gay marriages from other states. Rights cannot be denied if they exist.

Of course, gay marriage is not about rights at all. Gays have not been deprived of the law’s equal protection, the clause under which many of their challenges are based.  Nor have they been deprived of the right to marry — only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a “marriage” according to a legal definition. Boston Globe commenter Jeff Jacoby explains, “They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don’t want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically — by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn’t civil rights. “

Traditional marriage as defined as the union of a man and a woman does not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all. Here is the Family Research Council’s FAQ on ten facts about gay marriage.

Supporters of same sex marriage block the streets in a civil disobedience act in San Francisco, California, May 26, 2009. In a victory for gay rights in the United States, a U.S. district court judge in Massachusetts ruled on Thursday that a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. source

In any case, homosexuals who choose that lifestyle are not qualified for marriage under the one law that counts: God’s law. Engaging in same sex sexual activity is sinful behavior condemned in the bible, along with other sinful behaviors. Attempting to set aside the standard of marriage that has for thousands of years been  the norm, to placate a small set of the population who declares it their right, is something that they will discover is a dangerous activity indeed. Displeasing the LORD is shaky ground and its effects last for all eternity.

Christian, please review these matters, it is an enormous national issue right now. Having both the legal facts and the spiritual facts, and then being able to speak the truth in love will do much for influencing those who are lost in hearing the truth. Being uninformed, or worse, being harsh and judgmental, will only further close the ears of those who need to hear the truth the most.

I’ll be awaiting the CA judge Walker’s decision. Please pray that he makes the right one: that the right of a citizenry to define marriage for themselves is valid. I hope he does not take away the rights of those voters. They participated in a valid and legal process, they voted, and they won. It is how democracy works. For now.