OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 10:37:09 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Massachusetts legislators refuse to allow gay marriage issue on the ballot  (Read 4240 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« on: June 14, 2007, 10:20:08 PM »

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Legislators vote to defeat same-sex marriage ban

By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff

A proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was swiftly defeated today by a joint session of the Legislature by a vote of 45 to 151, eliminating any chance of getting it on the ballot in November 2008. The measure needed at least 50 votes to advance.

The vote came without debate after House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, Senate President Therese Murray, and Governor Deval Patrick conferred this morning and concluded that they have the votes to kill the proposal.

"Today's vote was not just a victory for marriage equality, it was a victory for equality itself," Patrick told reporters as cheers echoed in the State House. "Whenever we affirm the equality of anyone, we affirm the equality of everyone."

The three leaders - along with gay rights activists - spent the last several days intensely lobbying a dozen or more state representatives and state senators who had previously supported the amendment but signaled that they were open to changing their positions.

Because fewer than 50 of the state's 200 lawmakers supported the amendment, it will not appear on the 2008 ballot, giving gay marriage advocates a major victory in their battle with social conservatives to keep same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts.

---------

Well, obviously Deval Patrick, DiMasi and the rest of their sorry group were successful at pulling the strings they pulled to get what they wanted. What cowardice from the vote-switchers. I'd say what I think of Patrick, but it is not printable.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2007, 10:23:42 PM »

June 14, 2006 - Statement of the Massachusetts Bishops

Ignoring the will of more than 170,000 people who signed the marriage petition and blocking the people from exercising their right to vote is tragic.

In the Commonwealth, our state laws provide for the process whereby the citizens have a right to vote on a constitutional amendment. However, the leadership of the Democratic Party refuses to allow citizens and elected officials to vote their conscience on social issues. Their ideological positions undermine the common good. Today, the common good has been sacrificed by the extreme individualism that subordinates what is best for children, families and society.

It is obvious from the unprecedented amount of pressure that was put upon elected officials that opponents of the amendment believed that the voters of the Commonwealth would have voted in favor of the traditional definition of marriage. The pressure tactics were engineered to insure that the will of the people would not prevail.

The question for those elected officials who opposed allowing the marriage amendment to be voted on by the people is: do we live in a country where people are free to vote their conscience or are we controlled by what is viewed as politically correct and by powerful special interest groups?

We extend our sincere appreciation to those members of the legislature who stood firm in their support to allow the people an opportunity to exercise their right to vote on the marriage amendment.

Perhaps in the future legislators will have the courage to let the people vote on an issue so important to the future of families.


Seán Cardinal O'Malley, Archbishop of Boston
George W. Coleman, Bishop of Fall River
Timothy A. McDonnell, Bishop of Springfield
Robert J. McManus, Bishop of Worcester
« Last Edit: June 14, 2007, 10:24:14 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,749



« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2007, 11:36:45 PM »

I would initiate a recall drive for those politicians immediately...

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,492



« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2007, 11:39:45 PM »

Quote
Because fewer than 50 of the state's 200 lawmakers supported the amendment, it will not appear on the 2008 ballot, giving gay marriage advocates a major victory in their battle with social conservatives to keep same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts.

Cool, thanks for the good news!  Smiley
Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2007, 02:35:01 AM »

Wow, more fascism by the far left. Now they know what's best for the entire public. When will it ever end.... Roll Eyes

Quote
Ignoring the will of more than 170,000 people who signed the marriage petition and blocking the people from exercising their right to vote is tragic.

Well, the number could be 10 million and these fascist still wouldn't care what you think. They are right of course, and the entire populace is wrong.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,492



« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2007, 09:12:23 AM »

I find it odd that when conservatives disagree with the masses, they claim that politicians should be "leaders" and make their own decisions without constantly consulting the masses, that politicans should be willing to fight for what they believe is right even if it's unpopular, they point out that this isn't a pure democracy but a representative republic, and so forth. But when the conservatives think that they agree with the masses--oh! all of a sudden democracy must not be thwarted, the will of the people must prevail, you must let everyone have a voice and vote, etc. If the left tell people how to live, they're facists. If the right tell people how to live, they're simply standing up for "traditional values".

It's a cozy little scheme. It makes conservatives feel good about themselves, with a classic in-group mentality ensuring that those nasty "far left" liberals rarely get a legit chance at changing a conservative's mind (of course, liberals sometimes have a similar system in place). Conservative parents wonder why kids change when they go to college. It's not because of all the ultra-liberal college professors--or leastwise that is not the most significant or direct factor. The reason is that the kids have been raised in a conservative bubble all their lives, with nothing more than token glances at alternative viewpoints; and then all of a sudden they not only have to learn about different beliefs and lifestyles, but they have to deal with them in interpersonal relationships. Now they're roomates with the "fag on his way to hell". Now they are brought to tears in an ethics class when they hear from a girl her story about how she was brutally raped, struggled with what to do with the baby, and at the age of 15 finally decided in emotional agony to terminate the pregnancy. All of a sudden, life isn't so black and white.

EDIT--After thinking about it, I think I'll add a few more thoughts. First, I shouldn't have made the context for the 2nd scenario an ethics class--that's distant enough that the callous can brush it aside. I should have set up a scenario more like this: You fall madly in love with a girl. She's one of the best people you've ever met. Loving. Giving. Smart. Pretty. A good Church-going girl, who teaches Sunday School and knows Church history and the Bible well. Ahh yes, and you eventually find out that the girl of your dreams was molested by her uncle, impregnated, and at the age of 15 had an abortion.  Ok, second thought, I do realise that these are extreme scenarios--though by no means impossible. The point is not that every kid who goes off to college encounters a scenario like this. However, there are dozens, possibly hundreds of milder scenarios that they do encounter, which add up to much more than the two scenarios I mentioned. And third thought, some people (on both sides) never break out of their bubble. True, and unfortunate.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2007, 10:59:43 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2007, 09:58:30 AM »

There's nothing new under the sun....
Strange how the issue of homosexuality is a rallying cry for Conservative christians (and the choice of capitalized "c" is quite deliberate). I suppose they want to avoid their cities sharing the same fate as Sodom. Well then, they should take note to avoid what Scripture says was the sin of Sodom:
"Moreover this was the sin of thy sister Sodom: Pride; she and her daughters lived in luxury in fullness of bread and in abundance; this belonged to her and her daughters, and they helped not the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49)
The Scripture is clear. The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but pride and living in luxury while others are in need. But I suppose it's always a much more comfortable option to focus on homosexuality than face the awful reality that no one who claims to be Christian has the right to superfluity and luxury while their brothers and sisters around them are living in poverty, need and suffering.
If we really want to save our cities from sharing Sodom's fate, then we should share our bread with the poor, open our homes up to the homeless, care for those who suffer and have no one to care for them, visit those in prison, clothe the naked.... These are the things Christ commanded us to do, and these are the things on which He said He will judge us. A homosexual who cared for the poor, the imprisoned, the sick, the suffering and who shared their bread with the poor will enter the Kingdom of Heaven and I will not if I fail to do so.
And we shouldn't think that even our fasting will spare us from Sodom's fate if we neglect the poor and needy. Sodom was destroyed because of an "abundance of bread", not meat and fish.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2007, 10:33:01 AM »

^^That's a great post and all, but I don't see what it really has to do with the OP. No one is saying that we should hate gays, but the question of wether 'marriage' should be allowed for gays is another whole issue. Everyone here probably knows some people that are homosexual and they for the most part are not different than any of us in being good citizens & people, but the majority of people would still draw the line at something as culture defining as marriage. Also, conservatives do give more money to the poor and needy than liberals do, atleast in the US. 



Quote
I find it odd that when conservatives disagree with the masses, they claim that politicians should be "leaders" and make their own decisions without constantly consulting the masses, that politicans should be willing to fight for what they believe is right even if it's unpopular, they point out that this isn't a pure democracy but a representative republic, and so forth. But when the conservatives think that they agree with the masses--oh! all of a sudden democracy must not be thwarted, the will of the people must prevail, you must let everyone have a voice and vote, etc. If the left tell people how to live, they're facists. If the right tell people how to live, they're simply standing up for "traditional values".

So, in your opinion because conservatives flip flop from time to time gay marriage should then be allowed? Hey son, instead of pontificating how about focusing on the issue at hand? I didn't see anywhere in your post where you were argueing over the merits of gay marriage. Both liberals and conservative flip flop, that's the nature of politics.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2007, 11:36:30 AM »

the majority of people would still draw the line at ........
That should be of no consequence unless you consider Utilitarianism to be the basis of Christian morality.

So, in your opinion because conservatives flip flop from time to time gay marriage should then be allowed? Hey son, instead of pontificating how about focusing on the issue at hand? I didn't see anywhere in your post where you were argueing over the merits of gay marriage. Both liberals and conservative flip flop, that's the nature of politics.
I think you've missed the point entirely. The crux of what Asteriktos is saying is:
If the left tell people how to live, they're facists. If the right tell people how to live, they're simply standing up for "traditional values".
There can be no objection to gay marriage other than the judeo-christian-islamic objection. Just because something is labelled a "traditional value" doesn't mean the State should keep it. Segregation was once a "traditional value"- should the state have kept that too? How would a plebiscite on the issue of Segregation have panned out in 1955 as compared to one in 1975? Should current policy on Segregation be determined on the basis of a plebiscite taken in 1955? This is one of the problems of Utilitarianism- people's notion of "utility" changes through generations, so Utilitarianism is a form of Relativism through time, rather than space.
If you want separation of Church and State, then fine. But if the State cannot tell the the Church how to govern her affairs, then the Church equally has no right to tell the State how to govern it's affairs.
And yes, I can see the issues this includes. We, as Orthodox Christians, may very well feel that the State calling gay and lesbian civil unions "marriages" is a sacrilege of something we hold to be a Mysterion, but if we take that position, then State recognition of heterosexual civil unions should also be viewed as a sacrilege of the Mysterion of Marriage. The reality is, though, that civil unions, whether heterosexual or homosexual, have nothing to do with the Church.

So, should this thread be in the "Christian News" forum or the Private "Politics" forum? You are talking about "Conservatives" and "Leftists". That sounds like politics to me. Or do you think that Our Lord Jesus Christ is a Conservative?
« Last Edit: June 15, 2007, 11:51:06 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2007, 01:08:18 PM »

Where it gets troubling, Ozgeorge, is not in the outcome but in the tactics. There is nothing in our Constitution (or the Massachusetts constitution, for that matter) expressly prohibiting same-sex "marriage" (there is the "general welfare" clause, but I won't touch that much-abused clause). The citizens or their representatives in the states are free to create a new social institution to replace the old one traditionally called marriage if they wish.

But there is nothing requiring same-sex "marriage" either. Liberal ideologue justices have to look into penumbras of penumbras to divine one (just like the abortion issue). The problem is that these judges and their allies are perfectly happy to do so, to create new social institutions and marshal social revolutions from the bench, and to impose them upon the legislatures and citizenry with the arbitrariness of an autocrat. They attempt to use their tortured, twisted, interpretations of the state and federal constitutions to provide cover, though both sides know exactly what they are doing.

I hate it when the "gay" lobby uses slavery, segregation and the denial of female suffrage as parallels, because it was laws (both constitutional amendments and federal statutes) that did away with these things, not courts! The courts were the ones dragging their feet in getting behind the law.

I find it so ironic that MassEquality issued this statement: "Our constitution, the John Adams constitution, the oldest in the nation, will continue to protect the equal rights of all its citizens, including its gay and lesbian citizens and their families." As if John Adams intended such a thing as same-sex "marriage"!

It is disturbing that the same-sex "marriage" lobby has no qualms about abusing our institutions to get its way. An issue like this belongs in our representative bodies or on the ballot, not in court cases! Like the abortion lobby before ("choice," "reproductive health," etc.) the same-sex "marriage" lobby likes to use misleading slogans to cover up the re-definition and vast restructuring of a venerable institution. I detest it when I see "marriage equality" bandied about. It is already equal---any man can marry any woman and vice-versa. No one is left out. Same-sex "marriage" is an oxymoron---to create same-sex "marriage" is to redefine marriage into something different. But no, they do not want people to think about that, so they call it "marriage equality." Just think---something so simple as "marriage equality" never occurred to virtually all Americans (or anyone else, for that matter) until the 1990s. Why is that? Were they all Neanderthals?

If you want to restructure social institutions, persuade your fellow citizens and your representatives and get on with it. I would have no problem if a representative body or plebiscite voted to do it. That's just fine. But to run to a handful of judges willing to do your bidding when you can’t get your way democratically is reprehensible. This is what I decry, not the advocacy of same-sex “marriage” itself.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2007, 02:37:58 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,892


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2007, 03:47:24 PM »

The Scripture is clear. The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but pride and living in luxury while others are in need.

What about Jude verse seven?  Perhaps pride, living in luxury and sexual immorality go together?
Logged

Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2007, 08:15:35 PM »

I find it odd that when conservatives disagree with the masses, they claim that politicians should be "leaders" and make their own decisions without constantly consulting the masses, that politicans should be willing to fight for what they believe is right even if it's unpopular, they point out that this isn't a pure democracy but a representative republic, and so forth. But when the conservatives think that they agree with the masses--oh! all of a sudden democracy must not be thwarted, the will of the people must prevail, you must let everyone have a voice and vote, etc. If the left tell people how to live, they're facists. If the right tell people how to live, they're simply standing up for "traditional values".

I would suggest that such a pattern is not limited to only one side of a political spectrum.  It seems to me that it is a very common *Human* pattern that what one likes/agrees with is the Right and Only Correct Way(tm) and that in positions of power this can be exercised as you wrote over large groups.  I have seen the "Right" called facist as well as the "Left".

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2007, 01:44:02 AM »

People want a constitutional amendment that more than 3/4ths of their representatives arn't even willing to bring to a vote? If people truly have a problem with this, they should elect different legislators...Massachusetts still elects them last time I checked. It would seem that these are the people the citizens of the commonwealth want in the legislature. Three-quarters is a rather overwhelming majority.

I personally fail to see the problem with this turn of events. Everyone is, of course, free to hold whatever beliefs, opinions, or morals they see fit to maintain; however, to attempt to impose these beliefs, opinions, or morals in order to usurp the freedom of one's compatriots is an act of tyranny unbecomming of any Citizen of the Republic. Just live and let live.

Or to put it more bluntly...why don't you mind your own damn business? Surely it's more important to see that our freedoms are maintained rather than seeing that freedoms are denied others. Roll Eyes
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2007, 03:55:59 AM »

Just a friendly reminder that we have a private forum for political discussions.  If you feel you would like to vent your anger in a more polemic manner, please do so there.

- Peter
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2007, 04:06:06 AM »

The entire thread from the OP onward is political in nature...I'm surprised that it has yet to be transfered to those forums.

Though I did restrict my comments to political philosophy rather than details of American politics (which the OP presented), a discussion about the specific actions of a state legislature cannot not be discussed independent of the political context.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2007, 04:07:05 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2007, 12:34:12 PM »

Quote
People want a constitutional amendment that more than 3/4ths of their representatives arn't even willing to bring to a vote? If people truly have a problem with this, they should elect different legislators...Massachusetts still elects them last time I checked. It would seem that these are the people the citizens of the commonwealth want in the legislature. Three-quarters is a rather overwhelming majority.

Why don't you take a look at the poll numbers broham. Just because a block of people in one state vote more for a certain political party doesn't mean they are in agreement on all issues. You have your blue dog type liberal voters and more traditional religious (especially Roman Catholics in that part of the country) that tend to vote that way because many of them are economic liberals, but on certain social issues these people tend to be very conservative. Their representatives and the stinkin' judges are stiff-arming the majority public opinion for their own agenda. It's the same thing with the neo-cons son and that stupid immigration bill they are trying to push through on behalf of the greedy elitist corporate class, even though 80% of Americans are against it. Our politicians more than ever today are beholden to small powerful interest groups that don't have the best interest of most Americans in mind. 


Quote
Or to put it more bluntly...why don't you mind your own damn business? Surely it's more important to see that our freedoms are maintained rather than seeing that freedoms are denied others.

GIC, so freedoms now are judges and politicians ruling over us in a wreckless manner without regard for what the vast majorities want?

Quote
Where it gets troubling, Ozgeorge, is not in the outcome but in the tactics. There is nothing in our Constitution (or the Massachusetts constitution, for that matter) expressly prohibiting same-sex "marriage" (there is the "general welfare" clause, but I won't touch that much-abused clause). The citizens or their representatives in the states are free to create a new social institution to replace the old one traditionally called marriage if they wish.

But there is nothing requiring same-sex "marriage" either. Liberal ideologue justices have to look into penumbras of penumbras to divine one (just like the abortion issue). The problem is that these judges and their allies are perfectly happy to do so, to create new social institutions and marshal social revolutions from the bench, and to impose them upon the legislatures and citizenry with the arbitrariness of an autocrat. They attempt to use their tortured, twisted, interpretations of the state and federal constitutions to provide cover, though both sides know exactly what they are doing.

I hate it when the "gay" lobby uses slavery, segregation and the denial of female suffrage as parallels, because it was laws (both constitutional amendments and federal statutes) that did away with these things, not courts! The courts were the ones dragging their feet in getting behind the law.

I find it so ironic that MassEquality issued this statement: "Our constitution, the John Adams constitution, the oldest in the nation, will continue to protect the equal rights of all its citizens, including its gay and lesbian citizens and their families." As if John Adams intended such a thing as same-sex "marriage"!

It is disturbing that the same-sex "marriage" lobby has no qualms about abusing our institutions to get its way. An issue like this belongs in our representative bodies or on the ballot, not in court cases! Like the abortion lobby before ("choice," "reproductive health," etc.) the same-sex "marriage" lobby likes to use misleading slogans to cover up the re-definition and vast restructuring of a venerable institution. I detest it when I see "marriage equality" bandied about. It is already equal---any man can marry any woman and vice-versa. No one is left out. Same-sex "marriage" is an oxymoron---to create same-sex "marriage" is to redefine marriage into something different. But no, they do not want people to think about that, so they call it "marriage equality." Just think---something so simple as "marriage equality" never occurred to virtually all Americans (or anyone else, for that matter) until the 1990s. Why is that? Were they all Neanderthals?

If you want to restructure social institutions, persuade your fellow citizens and your representatives and get on with it. I would have no problem if a representative body or plebiscite voted to do it. That's just fine. But to run to a handful of judges willing to do your bidding when you can’t get your way democratically is reprehensible. This is what I decry, not the advocacy of same-sex “marriage” itself.

I totally agree and couldn't have said it better myself. I noticed that nobody has cared to refute your fine points in this thread yet.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2007, 02:03:01 PM »

Why don't you take a look at the poll numbers broham. Just because a block of people in one state vote more for a certain political party doesn't mean they are in agreement on all issues. You have your blue dog type liberal voters and more traditional religious (especially Roman Catholics in that part of the country) that tend to vote that way because many of them are economic liberals, but on certain social issues these people tend to be very conservative. Their representatives and the stinkin' judges are stiff-arming the majority public opinion for their own agenda. It's the same thing with the neo-cons son and that stupid immigration bill they are trying to push through on behalf of the greedy elitist corporate class, even though 80% of Americans are against it. Our politicians more than ever today are beholden to small powerful interest groups that don't have the best interest of most Americans in mind. 

That would be how republics work...not to be confused with the mob rule of democracy. 'Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.' -- Benjamin Franklin

If the voters object, they can always vote for someone else next time around who will allow this legislation be put before the mob.

Quote
GIC, so freedoms now are judges and politicians ruling over us in a wreckless manner without regard for what the vast majorities want?

We are a Constitutional Republic, our representatives vote on laws and our courts have been endowed with the power to review them for constitutionality. I am personally of the opinion that though it has many faults (most derived from an excessively strong federal congress and weakened state legislatures) it is by far the best system currently existing in the world. Considering these judges whom you speak so strongly against, look at the actions of the court, the greatest abuses of the court against liberty are when they do nothing. The courts, generally speaking, only interpret, repeal, or uphold laws...they do not add them. They remove restrictions, they do not impose them...making it inherently the branch of government most conducive to liberty. Now while I would argue that there are a good number more laws that need overturned by the courts, I am thankful that we have the institution that has overturned what it has. The purpose of our constitutional system is to establish every aid to liberty and every stumbling block to tyranny. If it is the wish of the mob to restrict liberty, the mob should be ignored. If it is the wish of the president to restrict liberty he should be dismissed by congress. If it is the wish of congress to restrit liberty it should be forbidden to do so by the court. If it is the wish of the court to ignore abuses to liberty, the issues should be addressed by the several states. Our ultimate goal in all things should be liberty, it should be held higher than any majority or any institution, it should be the only standard of right government.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
St. Christopher
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 101


« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2007, 02:52:20 PM »

There's nothing new under the sun....
Strange how the issue of homosexuality is a rallying cry for Conservative christians (and the choice of capitalized "c" is quite deliberate). I suppose they want to avoid their cities sharing the same fate as Sodom. Well then, they should take note to avoid what Scripture says was the sin of Sodom:
"Moreover this was the sin of thy sister Sodom: Pride; she and her daughters lived in luxury in fullness of bread and in abundance; this belonged to her and her daughters, and they helped not the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49)
The Scripture is clear. The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but pride and living in luxury while others are in need. But I suppose it's always a much more comfortable option to focus on homosexuality than face the awful reality that no one who claims to be Christian has the right to superfluity and luxury while their brothers and sisters around them are living in poverty, need and suffering.
If we really want to save our cities from sharing Sodom's fate, then we should share our bread with the poor, open our homes up to the homeless, care for those who suffer and have no one to care for them, visit those in prison, clothe the naked.... These are the things Christ commanded us to do, and these are the things on which He said He will judge us. A homosexual who cared for the poor, the imprisoned, the sick, the suffering and who shared their bread with the poor will enter the Kingdom of Heaven and I will not if I fail to do so.
And we shouldn't think that even our fasting will spare us from Sodom's fate if we neglect the poor and needy. Sodom was destroyed because of an "abundance of bread", not meat and fish.
Ozgeorge, I believe you are misunderstanding Ezekiel 16:49.  In verses 53-58, God, talking about Sodom and her daughters, says He will "restore their fortunes" and they "will return to their former state."  I don't see these verses could be literally discussing Sodom because everybody in that city was burnt to a crisp and the site is under the Dead Sea.  The commentary I used while studying Ezekiel said that Sodom represented the Gentile nations.  I think that explanation makes a lot of sense.

Just like Salpy said, we should listen to the NT writers who discuss Sodom.  Jude says in verse 7 that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they "they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued other flesh."  In II Peter 2, the apostle says about Sodom and Gomorrah that Lot was "distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked."  He then says that God will punish "those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority."

A person struggling with same-sex attraction who does the good things you describe will enter the kingdom of God.  However, if he embraces that attraction and acts on it, Paul says he won't enter the kingdom of God (I Corinthians 6:9.)  I think someone who struggles against same-sex attraction needs our support, but the person who embraces it shouldn't get our support.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2007, 04:17:43 PM »

I think someone who struggles against same-sex attraction needs our support, but the person who embraces it shouldn't get our support.
Well, maybe not in the way you envision support.  If the support we give someone who acts on same-sex attraction in an immoral way is support intended to lead the person to repentance from the immorality, then we owe this person such support.  (But then, support may not be the best word for this.)
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2007, 07:02:36 PM »

Jude says in verse 7 that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they "they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued other flesh." 
Yep. And in the original Koine "other flesh" is "σαρκος ετερας" ("sarkos heteras"). This cannot mean homosexuality because it refers to "flesh" which is different (heteras) to their own. "Heteras" is where we get the suffix "hetero" from, as in "heterosexual". If Jude 7 refers to sex between humans, it is condeming heterosexuality, not homosexuality.
"Other flesh" clearly means Angels.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2007, 07:13:55 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Bono Vox
The Orthodox Bagpiper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2007, 01:09:37 AM »

I cannot believe there would be any Orthodox Christian who would seriously support homosexual behavior. If one does, he/she is truly lost. Orthodox must support homosexuals in overcoming this sin.

Holla If ya hear me!!!


PS- One thing I thought was funny that Tony Soprano said about gays was that "its a victimless crime". Tony sure has a way with words.
Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:
O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 7,003


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #21 on: June 18, 2007, 12:03:23 AM »

I cannot believe there would be any Orthodox Christian who would seriously support homosexual behavior. If one does, he/she is truly lost. Orthodox must support homosexuals in overcoming this sin.

Holla If ya hear me!!!
This is so true. One cannot support the homosexual deathstyle and continue to profess Holy Orthodoxy, yet, as you point out, it is our responsibility to support the person when they recognize they must discontinue this sinful behavior. Orthodox Christians are called to love everyone regardless of their sins.

 
 
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2007, 02:44:58 AM »

Quote
That would be how republics work...not to be confused with the mob rule of democracy. 'Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.' -- Benjamin Franklin

If the voters object, they can always vote for someone else next time around who will allow this legislation be put before the mob.


GIC, your speaking like an armchair theologian there son. It's absurd to view such matters in absolutes and of course I understand how a republic is *supposed* to work, but do you sincerely believe that Benjamin Franklin would be happy with the way our government is run these days? Do you think the founders would be happy to see that the politicians have racked up trillions of dollars of debt via their gross negligence? I'm surprised to see that someone as educated as you doesn't realize that politics in this country has changed drastically in the last 100 years. Not the *process* per say, but in matters of how politicians are completely in bed with big business and special interest groups to raise money for their next election and reap whatever power/financial gains they can.

It's also not as easy as just saying that we can always vote a person out of office if we don't like what they are doing. There are only two trains that go to Washington, one with an 'R', and one with a 'D' on it. These people pretty much pick who is going to run and these candidates are expected to 'toe' the party line if they want to have a bright political future. We don't really have that many choices do we? For these reasons, more than half of Americans don't vote because they see the game is already fixed.

« Last Edit: June 18, 2007, 02:45:31 AM by Nacho » Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2007, 12:25:16 PM »

There's always been corruption in Washington, even 100 years ago. Here's the difference:

1907 federal budget:         $579,000,000
2007 federal budget: $2,800,000,000,000

Federal power has grown enormously over the last 100 years, and so has the money, and with the money comes special interests. So the corruption and entrenched interests are of much more import.
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2007, 12:50:35 PM »

Yep. And in the original Koine "other flesh" is "σαρκος ετερας" ("sarkos heteras"). This cannot mean homosexuality because it refers to "flesh" which is different (heteras) to their own. "Heteras" is where we get the suffix "hetero" from, as in "heterosexual". If Jude 7 refers to sex between humans, it is condeming heterosexuality, not homosexuality.
"Other flesh" clearly means Angels.

I know I might be splitting hairs here but in Matthew 19:5-6 Christ says that when a man and woman are married they become one flesh, so wouldn't different flesh mean sex outside of marriage (when they are still two) and/or homosexuality?  My knowledge of Greek is non-existant so please correct me if I am interpreting it wrong.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
CCM08
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2007, 01:09:51 PM »

Gay "marriage" is no big deal.  Well it's no big deal until your parish is hit with it's first discrimnation lawsuit because it won't "marry" homosexuals.  It's no big deal until the homosexual lobby successful pressures the IRS to take away the tax status of churches, mosques, and syngogues that won't marry homosexuals.  Homosexuals don't want to get married, the average male homosexual goes through 8 partners a year according to the CDC.  There's nothing more alien to homosexuality than monogamy.  What they want is a government seal of approval for sodomy and the ability to use the courts to attack anyone they consider an enemy.  Whether it's Eharmony in Californa or the Baptist church down the street from you.  The current homosexual lobby is the ideological decentant of 1980's blood terrorists, save instead of blood donation centers they wish to use courts as their weapon of choice.
Logged

When man declares there is no God he establishes himself as God and man is a terrible god.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 18, 2007, 01:13:43 PM »

Gay "marriage" is no big deal.  Well it's no big deal until your parish is hit with it's first discrimnation lawsuit because it won't "marry" homosexuals. 

Until the First Amendment is repealed, any such lawsuit won't make it past discovery.

Quote
Homosexuals don't want to get married, the average male homosexual goes through 8 partners a year according to the CDC.

While I'm not going to discount the CDC statistics concerning the number of partners the average male homosexual goes through during the year, I would like to know what the statistics are concerning the number of sexual partners the average male heterosexual goes through in one year.  I would be surprised if it did not at least equal the statistic you cited.

From where I'm standing, heterosexuals don't want to get married, either.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2007, 01:20:03 PM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,464


« Reply #27 on: June 18, 2007, 02:12:31 PM »

Whether it's Eharmony in Californa or the Baptist church down the street from you.

Can you elaborate?  Are there lawsuits in the works?  Thanks.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 18, 2007, 02:31:38 PM »

Can you elaborate?  Are there lawsuits in the works?  Thanks.

I think he's referring to this stupidity.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #29 on: June 18, 2007, 02:38:24 PM »

Gay "marriage" is no big deal.  Well it's no big deal until your parish is hit with it's first discrimnation lawsuit because it won't "marry" homosexuals.  It's no big deal until the homosexual lobby successful pressures the IRS to take away the tax status of churches, mosques, and syngogues that won't marry homosexuals.  Homosexuals don't want to get married, the average male homosexual goes through 8 partners a year according to the CDC.  There's nothing more alien to homosexuality than monogamy.  What they want is a government seal of approval for sodomy and the ability to use the courts to attack anyone they consider an enemy.  Whether it's Eharmony in Californa or the Baptist church down the street from you.  The current homosexual lobby is the ideological decentant of 1980's blood terrorists, save instead of blood donation centers they wish to use courts as their weapon of choice.
You are dead on the money there. Correct.
I wouldn't even allow 'civil unions' - that's  just more backdoor de-Christianizition of the US.
Alter the tax laws, retirement benefits, maybe social security. Handle the money side of the whackos arguments.
This is nothing but a continuing effort to replace God as authority with government. Basic communist manfesto stuff. No, thanks.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #30 on: June 18, 2007, 02:41:49 PM »

GIC, your speaking like an armchair theologian there son. It's absurd to view such matters in absolutes and of course I understand how a republic is *supposed* to work, but do you sincerely believe that Benjamin Franklin would be happy with the way our government is run these days? Do you think the founders would be happy to see that the politicians have racked up trillions of dollars of debt via their gross negligence? I'm surprised to see that someone as educated as you doesn't realize that politics in this country has changed drastically in the last 100 years. Not the *process* per say, but in matters of how politicians are completely in bed with big business and special interest groups to raise money for their next election and reap whatever power/financial gains they can.

It's also not as easy as just saying that we can always vote a person out of office if we don't like what they are doing. There are only two trains that go to Washington, one with an 'R', and one with a 'D' on it. These people pretty much pick who is going to run and these candidates are expected to 'toe' the party line if they want to have a bright political future. We don't really have that many choices do we? For these reasons, more than half of Americans don't vote because they see the game is already fixed.

I agree that there are considerable problems with our government, but the solution is not reducing our Republic to a democracy. Washington warned us that foreign alliances and political parties would be the downfall of the Republic and we see the negative effects of both today. The best solution, which will probably never happen, would probably be to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing political parties, or at least national political parties, forcing every person to run by themselves (this would also eliminate the need for primaries). Of course, I believe the courts would still play a vital role, throughout history we have seen elected bodies trample the rights of the citizens of a republic, there needs to be extra checks, all in favour of liberty.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tags: homosexuality 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.134 seconds with 57 queries.