California Supreme Court: Proposition 8 Upheld

Gay Marriage

In a huge victory for the supporters of marriage and the voters of California, Proposition 8 has been upheld by the California Supreme Court 6-1.

The people have spoken, and the courts affirm:  Marriage in California remains between a man and a woman.

—Beetle Blogger

Advertisements

48 Comments

  1. Gerry said,

    May 26, 2009 at 9:36 am

    However, the existing same-sex pseudo-marriage are still “valid”.

  2. beetlebabee said,

    May 26, 2009 at 9:56 am

    True. A small hitch in the program. They did try to weasel with the existing “marriages” but the people’s clearly spoken voice was heard.

  3. mommyspy said,

    May 26, 2009 at 9:59 am

    I’m glad prop 8 was upheld, but looking at the news they are going right back to the tired old refrain.. “the mormons made me do it”. That is so disrespectful to the millions of Californians that voted for prop 8 and did so because of personal belief that was not in any way associated with the mormon church. Why are they not willing to recognize the millions of catholics, baptists and many other just plain old folks who chose to support traditional marriage between a man and a woman?

  4. KingM said,

    May 26, 2009 at 10:34 am

    It seems a sound ruling on legal terms. I’m sure there will be competing ballot measures put forward next time around.

  5. Chairm said,

    May 26, 2009 at 11:06 am

    The reasoning the court offered on the SSMs licensed during the interim is ridiculous.

    The Court’s re Marriage opinion is the thin reed upon which those licenses now rest. The Court rashly had ordered the issuance of SSM licenses even though the Court had already acknowledged the pending vote on the marriage amendment. The Court, not the People, made this contradiction possible and today the Court refused to take its lumps.

    The marriage amendment is clearly proscriptive. There were other ways to handle the mess the Court created for itself — and now for the People.

    This has been a sorry story of a judiciary imposing itself on the democratic process far beyond the function of judicial review. They want to be the last word even when they are forced to acknowledge, in the opinion’s opening rhetoric, that the Government — including the judiciary — is servant, not master, of the People.

    The upholding of the constitutionality of the marriage amendment was truly not so complicated and is not a great victory. The Judiciary did not give us something we did not already possess.

    The real issue here is the continued power play that the CA courts have been indulging in — despite the uninterrupted affirmation of marriage as the union of husband and wife during the entire existence of the state of California.

    Despite having to do the obvious — leave the marriage amendment untouched — the judiciary today failed the People and have prolonged its political intervention in the issue the People have decided for themselves.

  6. May 26, 2009 at 12:17 pm

    I would like to read the one opposing judge’s viewpoint on the matter since as far as I can tell, this should have been a cut and dried case. It’s time he/she left the judiciary and entered the legislature.

  7. Chairm said,

    May 26, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    Hi Troy, here is the PDF for the opinion:

    http://volokh.com/posts/xenon.stanford.edu/~eswierk/misc/S168047.PDF

    Cheers,
    Chairm

  8. palerobber said,

    May 26, 2009 at 1:16 pm

    but with thousands of exiting gay marriages now officially blessed by the state, all the things you warned us about will now surely come to pass!

  9. Chairm said,

    May 26, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    What did the SSM campaign warn us about?

  10. Brian said,

    May 26, 2009 at 5:39 pm

    I wonder how someone can speak of “protecting” marriage on one hand and wishing for the demise of 18,000 marriages on the other?

    It’s a strange world we live in…

  11. Kelly said,

    May 26, 2009 at 6:45 pm

    While I’m thrilled that the CA Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8, I’m also let down that the existing same-sex marriages in California remain valid. But you know what? God has a plan. I remember the night before the Prop. 8 hearings, I was disappointed that those resolutions to overturn Prop. 8 had passed. I remember thinking about how I had done everything I knew to do to convice the judges to uphold Prop. 8. That’s when I decided to put it in God’s hands. I knew right then that God has a plan and I decided to let Him carry through with His plan. Every night since, I have kept this Prop 8 matter in God’s hands and allowed His will to be done. I was curious as to why God would allow the judges to allow the existing same-sex marriages in California to remain valid, but I do know that God doesn’t make mistakes. He allowed this to happen for a reason. None of us know what that reason is yet, but in time, we will know if we just keep this matter in His hands. That’s how I’m choosing to deal with this.

  12. Urabus said,

    May 26, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    Now that Prop 8 is “mostly” valid, we need to recall the four judges that made this mess possible in the first place. The existing homosexual marriages need to be invalidated in this state. That is what we all voted for when we said Yes on Prop 8. “No matter when or where performed” were the clear words of the amendments description.

  13. Brian said,

    May 26, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    @ Kelly: If today’s ruling is part of God’s plan to eliminate gay unions, was it also God’s plan for Iowa, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut to legalize same-sex marriage?

    We all need to remember that the United States is a democracy, NOT a theocracy. One person’s religious views should never be forced upon another, especially when they strip that person of freedom and opportunity.

  14. Kelly said,

    May 26, 2009 at 7:42 pm

    Brian, I’m simply saying that what happened today with Prop. 8 happened for a reason. As far as the other states where same-sex marriage has become legal, I don’t know what to tell you about that. I live in California and I support Prop. 8. And I am in no way forcing my religious views on other people. I’m simply letting everybody here know how I’m dealing with those same-sex marriages remaining valid. You can deal with this however you choose. But don’t tell me how I can or cannot deal with it! I am a Christain and I take comfort in knowing that God has a plan and He will not lead us astray.

  15. Brian said,

    May 26, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    @ Kelly: If you voted for Prop 8, then you have already forced your religious views on other people. ;)

    I would never claim to know what God’s plan for the future might be, but I am sure that it would always embrace and empower love.

  16. Kelly said,

    May 26, 2009 at 9:44 pm

    Brian, This blog is full of comments by people who are traditional marriage supporters. I don’t hear you tearing down any of those people! Not that you SHOULD tear them down, mind you, but why are you picking me as a target? Look, I didn’t come on here to argue with anybody. This is a pro-family blog and I am a pro-family California citizen. I have as much right to my opinion as anybody else here. And I never said that I know what God’s plans for the future are. That’s something we’ll all have to find out when it’s time. Now can we please just drop this silly arguement? It’s getting us nowhere!

  17. Chairm said,

    May 27, 2009 at 12:11 am

    The licenses issued for SSMs in California were illegitimate. The Court erred by creating the mischief, knowing full-well that the matter was NOT settled.

    Now it acts as if it had been settled by THEM in the interim. Obviously it had not.

    Also, during the election campaign, SSMers were repeatedly complaining that those “interim” SSMs would be invalidated, blah-blah-blah. Either that was a scare tactic or it was yet again another admission of the proscriptivity of the marriage amendment.

    As the Court admitted: None of the parties to the court case disputed that the amendment was proscriptive.

    But look at the underhanded way that the Court now reasoned. It said that the amendment was okay because they chose to narrowly construe it to be solely about the label, marriage. They have tried to salvage their merger of “domestic partnership” with all the content of marital status. Okay, so they are claiming the amendment is okay because it does not really have a big effect on the supposed “right to same-sex marriage”.

    But then on the issue of retroactivity they misrepresent the argument that Ken Starr had made. He said it was NOT retroactive.

    The Court should have turned to the legislature to transitiion these “interim” SSMs to domestic partnership status. Reliance on that, according to the Court’s own stated standard, was the main issue. Indeed, this was addressed by Ken Starr. Even prominent law professors in favor of SSM and against Prop 8 have acknowledge that was a reasonable solution.

    The Court could have also relied on case-by-case resolutions through equity doctrines where problems arose, if indeed any would have presented, in due course. No actual problem could be cited by the Court in this case. They were speculating in favor of their own previous indulgence of the SSM side.

    So, on one hand they narrowed the reach of the marriage amendment — against the meaning of that amendment as the SSMers had themselves argued in court. Ridiculous.

    Then, they say the effect of the amendment would be too strong if it was applied proscriptively in just the way that Ken Starr had explained. Somehow the mere word, marriage, was made HUGE on this smaller question but was made so very tiny on the bigger question.

    No, the Court is playing political games and trying to have the last word for itself. They are again playing chicken.

  18. Chairm said,

    May 27, 2009 at 12:14 am

    You know the phrase, in contempt of court? Well, here the Court is in contempt of the People AND the Constitution.

  19. Brian said,

    May 27, 2009 at 5:10 am

    @ Kelly: If you’ll browse around a bit, you’ll find that I’ve been arguing opinions with several other people as well. I simply pointed out the fallacy of your argument that this was God’s plan and that you aren’t forcing your religious views on others. You are entitled to your opinion, but in a public forum, others are also entitled to share dissenting views.

  20. pomegranateappleblog said,

    May 27, 2009 at 7:29 am

    Kelly! keep speaking your mind about religion. Looks like Brian is trying to force HIS beliefs on you. The belief that religion is not allowed to be expressed in any form in any forum.

  21. Brian said,

    May 27, 2009 at 8:17 am

    @ pomegranateappleblog: I’m trying to force my views on no one. I just hope that by discussing the issue, some will realize that they have nothing to fear when it comes to the advancement of gay rights.

    As far as religion goes, you’ll find plenty of posts about religion on my blog. I go to church and I believe in Christ. But you won’t find me using my religious beliefs to deny civil or social rights to anyone. That is what organized religion has been doing for years and it’s about time that people woke up and realized it’s all about love.

    “And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.” I Corinthians 13:13

  22. Chairm said,

    May 27, 2009 at 8:46 am

    Brian, what is your meaning, please, when you say “it’s all about love”?

    The issue here is all about marriage. And marriage is not a purely religious idea nor is it a purely religious institution. I think you’ll find that most religious people will acknowledge that even if they disagree with you about SSM.

    No matter, are you claiming that the merits of the one-sexed arrangement is derived from same-sex sexual behavior? That there is a religious basis for such a claim? Or that there is a purely nonreligious basis for such a claim?

    Are you are using “love” as euphemism for same-sex sexual behavior? Or are you referring to the love of a deep and abiding friendship.

    Marriage is such a friendship based on uniting the sexes and providing for responsible procreation.

    Whatever the merits of the one-sexed arrangement, sexualized or not, it does not integrate the sexes nor provide for responsible procreation with it.

  23. Brian said,

    May 27, 2009 at 9:42 am

    @ Chairm: Describe marriage however you want, but in Western societies, two people normally fall in love and decide they want to legally and socially validate their union via marriage. It is far beyond friendship. Love is the key and it is separate from sexuality. You can love someone without sleeping with them, just as you can sleep with someone without loving them.

    God is love. It is plain to see that many same-sex couples love one another just a deeply as their heterosexual counterparts. To deny them the same expression of that love through a legal union is appalling and, in my view, anti-Christian.

    Jesus was the epitome of radical love and He paid the ultimate price for it. It’s a shame we haven’t learned much in 2,000 years.

  24. Urabus said,

    May 27, 2009 at 10:02 am

    Which judge was the hold out that still thought the will of the people mean nothing? That “judge” is the number one target for recall.

  25. Chairm said,

    May 27, 2009 at 10:46 am

    Brian what you just described is not limited to marriage.

    Contrary to your remarks, marriage is not anti-Christian.

    Defending the core meaning of marriage — and its universal features — is both Christian and pro-marriage.

    Promoting the variable features and turning a blind eye to the universal features of marriage is anti-marriage and not a Christian approach to love, the family, and community.

    Maybe the type of relationship you have in mind is nonsexual type of friendship, but again that is not what the SSMers keep insisting. And by your remarks you appear to see special social significance, and even Christian significance, in an arrangement that you would equate with marriage but which is sex-segregative and cannot provide for responsible procreation.

    As you said, describe that type of relationship however you like, but if it is not distinguishable from other relationship types or kinds of living arrangements, then, it remains an undistinguished nonmarital type of thing. Whatever its merits you have not shown it is the equivalent of marriage.

  26. Brian said,

    May 27, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    Contrary to your remarks, marriage is not anti-Christian.

    That is a complete twist of my words. I said to DENY marriage is anti-Christian. And nowhere have I described my idea of gay marriage as a “nonsexual type of friendship.”

    Those two examples are evidence that this debate is going nowhere and that you aren’t even taking the time to read that I am writing. Have a nice life.

  27. Chairm said,

    May 27, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    You equated SSM with marriage and then you said that to deny SSM is anti-Christian. Your religious view of marriage is what you wish to assert on Christians and non-Christians alike.

    You emphasized sexual orientation. But you seperated sex and love. If the key to SSM is not sex, but you emphasize sexual orientation, and the key is love, but you claim love is seperate from sex and sexual orientation, then, you have twisted your own words into knots.

    Maybe for you it would be anti-Christian to defend marriage and to maintain the boundaries against closely related people?

    If the love you have in mind is not homosexualized, then, what do you have in mind when you write about homosexuality in the context of marriage?

  28. Chairm said,

    May 27, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    And another thing Brian. You complain of your words being twisted?

    “God is Love” is the well-known title of Pope Benedict’s Encyclical Letter “Deus Caritas Est”.

    Maybe you have untwisted what Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessors really meant to say about love and marriage? Finally we can learn from your certainty that God’s plan embraces and empowers nonmarriage as marriage?

    That to defend marriage as the union of husband and wife is anti-Christian and appalling?

    * * *

    God Is Love
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

  29. Mark said,

    May 28, 2009 at 5:25 am

    God is Love- God hates sin.

  30. beetlebabee said,

    May 28, 2009 at 8:00 am

    Mark, I agree whole heartedly. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

  31. Brian said,

    May 28, 2009 at 8:56 am

    But is homosexuality actually sin? That is totally up to interpretation and one that often pits one biblical theologian against another. Any negative mention of homosexual acts in the Bible in no way references a monogamous, committed relationship. Most, if not all, of the references are to promiscuity, prostitution, and sex during idol worship.

    Anyone using the Bible to condemn homosexuality is also nitpicking, since the main verses used against us are taken from chapters filled with rules on behavior like not wearing garments made of two kinds of fabric, not planting more than one kind of seed in a field, not eating shrimp, etc. How many of you put those rules into action?

    No matter your religious convictions on homosexuality, there is not one person alive who does not sin in some manner, and according to the Bible, no sin shall enter heaven. We are all sinners in God’s eyes, but His grace is boundless.

  32. Brian said,

    May 28, 2009 at 8:59 am

    The truth will set you free:

    http://www.truthsetsfree.net/studypaper.html

  33. beetlebabee said,

    May 28, 2009 at 9:30 am

    Are you really comparing homosexuality to eating shrimp?

  34. Brian said,

    May 28, 2009 at 10:09 am

    Are you disregarding something that God called an abomination?

    Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
    9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
    10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
    11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
    12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

    Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
    9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
    10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

  35. Brian said,

    May 28, 2009 at 10:16 am

    By the way, I’m playing devil’s (or is it God’s) advocate here. I do not believe eating shrimp is a sin, but you can’t thump the Bible while ignoring the parts that are inconvenient.

  36. Mae said,

    May 28, 2009 at 10:20 am

    Brian, for being such a theologist, you sure have a twisty take. What does the Law of Moses have to do with Christ’s teachings?

  37. Raytmimer said,

    May 28, 2009 at 10:23 am

    I have to agree. Ignoring parts that are inconvenient is exactly what Brian is doing. Why do you care so much what the bible says anyway Brian?

  38. Chairm said,

    May 28, 2009 at 10:50 am

    Brian your comments confirm that you meant to say that marriage is anti-Christian.

    You have some other thing in mind when you use the word “marriage” and that is your sleight of hand. You just showed this your comment @ May 28, 2009 at 8:56 am.

  39. Chairm said,

    May 28, 2009 at 10:50 am

    Meanwhile, the CA Supreme Court opinion provides yet more sleight of hand.

  40. Brian said,

    May 28, 2009 at 11:02 am

    @ Mae: What does opposing homosexuality have to do with Christ’s teachings? He never mentioned it.

    @ Raytmimer: I care because you guys care so much. Or don’t you?

    @ Chairm: Your comprehension skills are so lacking that I’m just going to ignore you. Seriously, take a night class or something.

  41. Rita Danning said,

    May 28, 2009 at 11:17 am

    Brian, It often occurs that the vastness of one’s brainpower is starkly misunderestimated…. Chairm however, is not among that class. Perhaps the comment was mistakenly misdirected toward the wrong half of the conversation?

  42. Brian said,

    May 28, 2009 at 12:45 pm

    Chairm: I apologize for my remark. I shouldn’t have posted it and I felt bad afterwards. I am sorry.

    I will no longer be visiting this site, which I am sure is a relief to many of you. I will leave knowing that I am on the right side of history and that time will prove all of you wrong. I hope that one day you all will look back on your repression and discrimination with shame, but that’s probably a little too optimistic of me.

    Peace.

  43. Mark said,

    May 28, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    Mark 7:18-20 (New International Version)
    18″Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)

    20He went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’

  44. Chairm said,

    May 28, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    Time has proven us correct about marriage. Some features of marriage have been variable, over time and across cultures, but the unviersals have remained the same for milennia. Time won’t change that.

  45. Rita Danning said,

    May 28, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    Thousands of years of experience spread across hundreds of independently developing civilizations can’t be wrong. It’s somewhat naive to assume that because you want an issue to be so, that it makes it so.

  46. Timo said,

    May 29, 2009 at 12:41 am

    Hello. I first want to say that, no matter what, God loves EVERYONE. No one can argue that, for God is love.

    Second, I want to commend Brian on giving some valid and logical arguments, and for using scripture when possible.

    Third, I want to remind everyone that although “civil unions” amongst homosexuals afford all the same benefits on the state level, they are lacking, somewhat on the federal level. It is my belief that this should be fought for by the advocates of SSM, but they should back away from needing the word “marriage,” out of respect for its tradition and what we believe it to symbolize.

    Here are the main reasons I agree with Prop 8 and am opposed to gay “marriage:”

    I believe that marriage is an important SYMBOL for traditional family (much of what you people have already discussed). The word marriage has roots in Judeo-Christian religion, but is recognized as between a man and woman in every single major religion, as well. Again, it is rooted in 5000 years of history: father and mother beget children. ‘Nuf said. The problem is that by CHANGING/ REDEFINING what traditional marriage symbolizes (what the use of the actual word “marriage” symbolizes), you …create too many problems that challenge other morals.

    There are going to be bad examples of straight couples and bad examples of gay couples – especially when it comes to dealing with the civil rights of their children in (both) of these examples. However, I believe the implications for children of gay couples to be much more significant for not only those children, but those in which they come in contact with. The ridicule towards children adopted in SSM’s, while unfortunate, will likely be substantial. Also, these same children’s peers will be forced to digest, analyze, evaluate and make conclusions about that they may simply not be able to handle. They may seek input from their own parents, friends and other peers or adults, which I’m sure would be across the board – but much of it negative, maybe even misinformed, untrue and/ or hateful.

    The bottom line is that it isn’t really fair for kids to have to go through that because of the self-gratification of some parents to just have and raise kids just because they can. The symbol of marriage represents family, and in redefining this, the consequences are to great, and preventable.

    “Civil Union” is the secular term for “marriage,” which has long been a religious rooted word – OUR word and the word of our generation and fore-fathers and the teachers whom we have looked up to in the Bible, the Koran, etc., since the B.C. years.

    In closing, the secular world has been working hard to eliminate many of the core values for which much of this country holds dear, and which IN FACT this country was founded upon. There is nowhere in the constitution itself where the words “separation of church and state” even appear. Look it up. Our VALUES are being chiseled away by the secular movement regularly. Is it “Christmas” once a year or is it “The Holidays?” Is it still okay to wish people “Merry Christmas” at our schools or over the media? Is it dastardly to sing traditional Christmas carols on public property? Is it only okay to display the manger setting during Christmas if Rudolph and two other reindeers are within very close proximity? Is it really so bad to have the simple morality of the ten commandments represented in front of our Federal Courts Buildings? Or crosses placed on the graves of soldiers who bravely died for our country? Is it okay anymore for parents to have their children opt-out of certain school secular assemblies which contradict their religious beliefs or what values they are trying to instill in their kids? Must we change symbols, such as those on the Seal of Los Angeles (a cross and a mission), which depict the city’s historical foundations?

    The secular movement has gotten ridiculous and flagrant. I’m not saying that is the goal of many or even most of those who wish to REDEFINE marraige, but out of respect, please fight for equal rights, but a different word. Just keep it secular.

    Thank you

  47. Marty said,

    May 29, 2009 at 9:06 am

    Hehehe, Sorry I got here late — it’s been fun to watch Brian chastise others for “forcing their religious views” on gays, and then to go on and make his own religious case for SSM. The irony is hysterical!

    But not as funny as what he says here:

    I do not believe eating shrimp is a sin, but you can’t thump the Bible while ignoring the parts that are inconvenient.

    So he posts bible verses that compare eating shellfish with sodomy — both abominations, then he chastises other for “ignoring the parts that are inconvenient”.

    Apparently he either forgot, or is deliberately ignoring the inconvenient fact that the dietary restrictions are LIFTED in the New Testament. The sexual restrictions were not.

    Hysterically funny!

  48. Brad said,

    May 29, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    Marty, respectfully, I’m not sure where you get the understanding that only dietary restrictions were lifted in the NT, unless you are referring to Peter’s vision. However, the Levitical code had so many other restrictions other than simply dietary. According to the Levitical code, it is an abomination for two different materials to be worn together. It is an abomination for a man to trim the hair at his temples (basically his sideburns). In studying the Levitical code, it is important to understand it’s purpose and the culture it was written to. It was given to the Hebrews as they were about to enter into the promised land. God wanted to keep his chosen people separated and different from those who already lived there so He could keep the lineage pure for his Messiah. Humbly, I feel Brian was fairly correct in his understanding of the Levitical code.

    But regardless, I do feel that the scripture should be left out of the discussion of constitutional law and civil rights. Though I hold the holy scriptures in the highest esteem, they should not be used to judge and rule our land. The founders of our country made sure that there was a separation of church and state. Most argue today that it was included in order to protect our freedom to worship. Rightly so, but that’s only part of it. It was also put in place to ensure that the church did not have an over-riding influence on the government as the Church of England did and the as the protestant church did in the German states during the Reformation period. Looking at the case at hand, we should not be allowed to deny homosexuals the right to marry based on our interpretation of scripture, saying that homosexuality is immoral. Again, Brian was right in that the passages so often used to condemn gay people are not interpreted the same by all. The vast majority of gay people are moral from the standards set by our society; they pay their taxes, they don’t steal, they don’t murder, they treat others fairly, they give to charities, etc.

    To allow gay people to marry would definitely be a change in our traditional view of marriage. But the definition of marriage has been changing constantly throughout history. We say now that marriage is between one man and one woman. Since when? Well, really just in recent history. King David had several hundred wives. And he was God’s chosen one. King Solomon, in all his wisdom, had several thousand wives and concubines. Jacob had two wives…. And I could go on. If we do change our view or definition to include loving gay couples, will it hurt us???? We’ve talked about the adopted children of gay couples. That will continue to happen whether they are married or not. And, I, for one, am glad. Gay couples have adopted tens of thousands of unwanted, unloved and abandoned children that would otherwise be wards of the county or state. They have saved the different governments quite a bit of money. One could argue that these children would be better off with their biological parents but I’m sure many of their biological parents are terribly unfit to be parents. And these gay couples have given many women and young girls an alternative to ending the baby’s life through abortion. I wish I knew how many babies have been saved because of gay parents. And these children need the stability of a home where their parents are married. Sure, it’s different for us. But I wish the church would reach out and help these unique and different families rather than try to tear them apart. More than anything, these families and all gay people, for that matter, need us to be an example of Christ and His desire that all come to know Him. Sometimes I think we are so focused on stopping the ‘gay agenda’ that we lose sight of the agenda that we should be pushing forward–Christ’s agenda. Be blessed.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: