Full story here: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f...w&pageId=62907

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

The Lord said we are in the last days when Good is Evil & Evil is Good!

__________________
“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him."
Hebrews 11:6

Our preacher talked about the possibility of it coming to a point where we could no longer condemn homosexuality in public, not even from the pulpit.

It appears we have already gotten to a point where man's law conflicts with God's Law.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

It has been in the last days since the establishment of the church in Acts. It is nothing new.

The last days began right after the church was established. For proof see anninias and Sapphira beliving they could lie their way to salvation.

Actually, the evil being good and good being evil when mankind became seperated from God for the sin of disobedience.

__________________
Romans 16:16 1 Thess. 5:17 1 Thess. 5:22 1 Tim. 6:12 2 Tim 2:15

Full Story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355836,00.html

What these judges fail to see is that homosexuals are NOT discriminated against when it comes to marriage. Anyone choosing to marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex is permitted to do so, regardless of sexual orientation. Therefore, everyone has exactly the same rights.

So let's see now... the reasoning is that people should be permitted to enter into an co-habitating arrangement of their choosing and call it "marriage". Well where does it end? I am sure society would not smile upon marriage between a man and his dog now, but in 20 years, when society degrades further??? Hmmmm. I bet there will be a movement to declare a marriage to be a relationship between two humans. And people will scream about it as being unjust.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

Texas Sen. John Cornyn: California gay marriage decision will spark push for national ban
04:51 PM CDT on Thursday, May 15, 2008

By TODD J. GILLMAN / The Dallas Morning News
tgillman@dallasnews.com

WASHINGTON – Thursday's California court ruling striking down that state's ban on gay marriage will spark a fresh push to add a nationwide ban to the U.S. Constitution, Texas Sen. John Cornyn said shortly after the ruling was announced.
"It's certainly surprising. Many of us thought that the efforts to overturn the tradition marriage laws would be confined just to Massachusetts," said Mr. Cornyn, a chief backer of a push to enact a constitutional ban, which failed in 2004.
Also Online
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban
The California Supreme Court issued a 4-3 ruling Thursday that overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage, finding that domestic partnerships laws are an inadequate substitute for allowing same-sex couples to enter into formal marriages.
Coming from the nation's biggest state, gay and lesbian advocates hailed the ruling as historic. But critics of same-sex marriage were dismayed, Mr. Cornyn among them.
He noted that during congressional debates several years ago, one argument used by opponents of a constitutional ban was that few states allowed such arrangements, making the drastic step premature.
The California development, he said, reopens that argument.
"I do expect it'll generate some more debate, and I'll be happy to contribute to it," said Mr. Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, adding that Thursday's ruling also unleashes a slew of questions about whether other states will be forced to recognize same-sex unions from California.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed legislation intended to allow same-sex couples to get married. He said Thursday that he would not support a Constitutional amendment meant to overturn the state high court ruling.


It will be a long struggle to return from the moral decay that has infected our nation. Prayer is powerful and I believe that we need to double our efforts on behalf of our nation's leaders.

__________________
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 2:5 (U-NASB)

Full Story: http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=580635

We have no conservatives any more. Voting has become an exercise of nose-holding.

I'm afraid he is right.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

We can only hope and pray that there are enough Christian values in the American people to withstand this onslaught of moral corruptness.

__________________
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 2:5 (U-NASB)

Will Californians submit?
Jan LaRue - Guest Columnist - 5/16/2008 9:45:00 AM

I was a Californian for 40 years, so I have to ask my former fellow citizens: Are you going to sit by and do nothing while four black-robed despots take away your right to govern yourselves?


By one vote, the California Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the expressed will of Californians to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

In 2000, a 61.4 percent majority of Californians passed Proposition 22, which limited marriage to a man and a woman and precluded California's recognition of same-sex "marriages" consummated elsewhere. In a decision derided by a dissenting California justice as "legal jujitsu," the Supreme Court majority held that the ban on same-sex marriage is an infringement of the fundamental state constitutional right to marry.

California is now the second state after Massachusetts where homosexuals will be allowed to "marry." But unlike Massachusetts, California has no law that prohibits homosexual couples living in states that don't recognize same-sex "marriage" from marrying in the Golden State. The California Supreme Court has opened the door to a legal battle royal across the nation. Homosexual couples will flock to California to marry, return to their home states, and file lawsuits to force the recognition of their Land of Fruits and Nuts marriages — and the destruction of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.

According to the California court majority, the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution because it discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, which the majority declared "a suspect classification" akin to race, sex and religion. In Re Marriage Cases, S147999.

The 4-3 decision, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, rules that even though California's domestic partnership (DP) laws give same-sex partners "all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage," the DP scheme violates the California Constitution because of its "failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage." George writes:

In light of all of these circumstances, we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional.

The "proper remedy," according to the court, is "that the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples."

The court reversed the court of appeals and ordered it to issue "a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state" issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Justice Marvin R. Baxter, joined by Justice Ming W. Chin, called the ruling a "startling" act of "legal jujitsu" that "oversteps judicial power" in his concurring and dissenting opinion:

I cannot join the majority's holding that the California Constitution gives same-sex couples a right to marry. In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error. Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature's own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People's will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power.

Justice Carol A. Corrigan writes in her concurring and dissenting opinion:

The voters who passed Proposition 22 not long ago decided to keep the meaning of marriage as it has always been understood in California. The majority improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision. It does that which it acknowledges it should not do: it redefines marriage because it believes marriage should be redefined .... It justifies its decision by finding a constitutional infirmity where none exists.

As important as the institution of marriage is for society in general, and children in particular, there is far more at stake in this ruling. The question for Californians is:

Are you going surrender your sovereign right to rule yourselves to four black-robed despots who've ignored your will and perverted your constitution?
And for clergy in particular, are you going to lead your people in taking righteous action, or hide behind a "nonpolitical" pulpit while God's ordained and holy institution is profaned?
Although there is no relief available in federal court, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has already announced he will do nothing to terminate the ruling, the people of California can still act. This November, Californians can vote for a constitutional amendment, The California Marriage Protection Act, that will prevent this ruling from being enforced.

Californians can also initiate a recall vote for George and his three cohorts, Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn M. Werdegar and Carlos R. Moreno, and send them packing as they did to former California Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird and company.

And finally, all Americans who respect the rule of law should demand that Congress pass a constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage, and send it to the states for ratification. It's the only way to protect state sovereignty and the will of the people from judicial tyranny.




Jan LaRue, Esq. is a member of the board of directors of the Culture and Media Institute, and chief counsel for Concerned Women for America.

They are beginning to speak up; Judges are still making law instead of just interpreting the law. It appears that the will of the people is now secondary to the wishes of those all powerful appointed judges. Watch out other states!:holycow:

__________________
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 2:5 (U-NASB)

A Canadian "Reverend" has been sentenced to silence for his public stand against homosexuality.

h**p://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU08F05&f=PG07J01

h**p://ezralevant.com/2008/06/what-could-mark-steyns-punishm.html

__________________
John 6:67-68: "Jesus said therefore unto the twelve, 'Would ye also go away?' Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.'"

This really does not surprise me. Even some members of the church are against disparaging sin.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

The scary thing is... when I was in high school, we had to read George Orwell's 1984, which introduced the concept of "Big Brother". The PC police back then were very concerned about free speech, not wanting anyone silenced for any reason. We have come a long way in a relatively short time.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

Why I had to leave the last place I served as minister...

__________________
Romans 16:16 1 Thess. 5:17 1 Thess. 5:22 1 Tim. 6:12 2 Tim 2:15

Oh I agree and covet your prayers... but alas, even home schooled children must at some point go out into this cesspool we call a world, and they too are going to have to deal with laws that prohibit them from teaching God's truth about this and possibly other matters.

Free speech is dead.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

...but the Gospel is still alive and well!

__________________
Romans 16:16 1 Thess. 5:17 1 Thess. 5:22 1 Tim. 6:12 2 Tim 2:15

The Coming Persecution
By Chuck Colson
7/1/2008

How Same-Sex 'Marriage' Will Harm Christians

h**p://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=8089


This article speaks out on the fear that many of us have. The growing demand for homosexual rights has ramifications far beyond the stated purpose. Have courage my friends.

__________________
John 6:67-68: "Jesus said therefore unto the twelve, 'Would ye also go away?' Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.'"