Front Page  »  

Same-sex couples will get coverage

May 25, 2012

Same-sex spouses and partners are entitled to long-term care insurance coverage from CalPERS, a federal judge ruled Friday. [Sacramento Bee]

U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken scrubbed part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Wilken’s ruling said the public employee retirement system’s ban on long-term insurance for same-sex partners “appears to be motivated by anti-gay animus.” She said the man-woman provision in the federal law “violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.”

Wilken is the second federal jurist to declare that part of the 1996 law unconstitutional.

CalPERS has refused to make the coverage available to same-sex spouses or domestic partners, citing the federal statute.

A Republican-led group of Congress members calling itself the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group opposed the decision.


Loading...
Subjects:     
Related:


66 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

.

Relative to Judge Wilkens decision, I’ve included in this thread many literal passages, without any interpretation needed whatsoever, in what our Hebrew-Christian God wants done to the homosexual or lesbian.


To be quite honest, it is frightfully unnerving and sad to accept what our God says to do with this faction, but where do we as mere followers of our God get the authority to usurp His edicts and commands? This is the conundrum that all Christians must face.


I pray every day to Jesus and God for them to change their minds in a more loving way regarding what they want done to the homosexuals as proffered in Leviticus 20:13, and Romans 1:26-27, 32. Thus far, my request has fallen upon deaf ears.


Subjectively, it becomes very hard to be a Christian when our Hebrew-Christian God promotes death and bloodshed to the homosexual in the ways described in the above passages.


I try to find the strength on a daily basis to continue in the faith, but at times, it waivers to the point of leaving Christianity altogether. But if I do, then Hell awaits me upon my demise. This is the “Catch-22” that we Christians must face. Nonetheless, we continue in the best way we can under the given circumstances of the blatant and commanded killing of certain factions mentioned within our bible.


Let us pray.


0

Ted: I suggest that you investigate the idea behind Deism, the spiritual guidings that enabled Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and to a degree, George Washington, to found our country on an ideal of laws, not religion. I know the many insecure Christians will flag away and spout off some passage or quotes from other founding fathers, but look deeply at the motivations behind Jefferson especially to see that he was most concerned about not having a religion dictate how the country should be run, especially as it applies to the laws that govern us. You may remember the Treaty of Tripoli; President George Washington authorized a treaty to be written so we could have trade and peace with that country, a Muslim nation. The major concern of the day was that IF we were a Christian Nation, there could be no peace with a Muslim nation, so the treaty spells out in very plain english that the United States of America was NOT founded as a Christian nation and the treaty was eventually signed by President John Adams and ratified by the entire Senate.

My reason for bringing this up is that as a nation of laws, ALL of our laws should be applied equally to all of our citizens. If any citizen can obtain a driver’s license, a fishing license, a business license, why shouldn’t any citizen be able to obtain a marriage license, provide of course, that they are of legal age, not blood related, able to understand what they are doing and they are wanting to do so willingly? Gender should NOT be a reason to exclude two citizens from obtaining a marriage license since marriage is a legal contract; if you have any doubts about marriage being a legal institution, try ending a marriage without following the legal requirements. For those who say marriage is an institution that should not be tampered with, go back fifty years and tell that to couples of different races. Go back a couple of hundred years and look at how the bride was basically “purchased” from the bride’s parents; marriage has evolved over the years, it is time for it to evolve a little further. If you have religious objections to same sex marriage, don’t have one.

If you as a Christian believe that Jesus would condemn same sex marriage, do you really understand what forgiveness and compassion is all about?


0

bfsl… Your dessertation is long-winded, but uncompelling.


Jefferson only USED the ‘Deism’ argument to cover for his Atheism that would have been unnaccepted in those times. HELL, atheism is even UNACCEPTED today. It is more reviled as a philosophy than belief in GHOSTS…belief in UFO’s …even belief in WITCHES.


Those poor, misguided souls that believe that GOD is a myth, and that religion is a cruel joke perpetrated on the most gullible and dimwitted amongst us are the MOST persecuted and discriminated against in our backward 16th Century mindset.

But, they deserve it for going against HOLY WORD !


GLORY- GLORY-GLORY !


0

“Jefferson only USED the ‘Deism’ argument to cover for his Atheism ….” Wow, I believe you got that one really wrong. If, as you argue, Jefferson only “used” Deism, can you explain why he took the trouble to take apart numerous Bibles so that he could paste together all of the teachings of Jesus without any mention of any of the miracles associated with the life of Jesus? It is my understanding that the teachings of Jesus, the examples he lived, the message of love, tolerance, acceptance and peace resonated with someone like Thomas Jefferson who was, for his time in history, was very progressive in most areas. Since I think along similar lines, I choose to not judge people for their choice of religion, or if they choose to not have any religion; how is that “forgiveness” part of Jesus’ teachings working for you?


0

Brother Ted, Once again, you hit the nail on the coffin of the ultimate depravity and inherent sinfulness of man. GLORY !


It should be noted, however, that before we get to Leviticus 20:13, the Lord speaks to a variety of sinners ..and what their punishment be.

The first ( and therefore, theoretically the WORST sin was offered in Leviticus 20:2, where any of the Israelites that give of their seed ( children ) to Molech ( an Ammonite deity as an agent of YHWH ) i.e. human sacrifice , to be put to DEATH.

Later, Lev. 20:9 …cursing ones father or mother; Lev. 20:10 …adultery with another man’s wife ( how many have done this today ? ): Lev. 20:11 …sleeping with your father’s wife; Lev. 20:12 …sleeping with your daughter-in-law:

ALL of these are to result in DEATH !


Mind you, if a man sleeps with a woman that has BEEN another man’s wife, this prescription still applies, IF the husband is still alive.

So fellows, you had better be darn sure that you are sleeping with a WIDOW, a VIRGIN, or your OWN WIFE before you start doggin’ around; or you know what you got comin’ to you !


SELAH !


0

Brother SF,


Thank you for enlightening the flock with the many other deathly passages that our God has in store for those that break His commands while on this planet of His. It’s not a pretty sight, but who are we to disagree with our God? To be a Christian, we must be strong even though what our God promotes, goes against our feelings of love for our fellow mankind.


0

I do not think anybody here is suggesting you disagree with your god. People are disagreeing with your categorizing them as a member of your flock and with your suggesting they have to agree with your interpretation of the bible.


0

prbisownr,


Please understand, to the Christian, we’re all created by our Hebrew-Christian God, therefore, relating to the flock, please take it in our subjective Christian context.


Furthermore, there should be absolutely no alleged interpretation of the bible! What our God said once, He could not mean in many different and contradicting ways. There is no decoder ring or hermeneutic spin doctoring needed in the reading of the literal word. Do not fall for the Satanic apologetics of the New Age Christians and their myriad of contradicting bibles subsequent to the King James 1611!


0

There were many translations of the bible before 1611. Translations are subject to bias, and are an interpretation of meaning. Modern scholars believe that the process of canonization of the Tanakh became finalized between 200 BCE and 200 CE. [1] That is a 400 year process of adjustment and interpretation. How many more interpretations were made in the translations between 200 and 1611? Are there no bible classes or meetings at your church to discuss the meaning (interpretation) of scripture?


Which sect of Christianity do you adhere to? [2]


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh


[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity


0

prbizwang …There is only the ONE TRUE version of Christianily, that is NOT a sect. That is the original ESSENE, that was established by the ELDERS that predated even the Mosaic and Talmudic scribes.

Some call it Gnostic, others call it Apocrypha.

These were the minds that built the pyramids…around the whole globe, long before others recorded it.

This was the intelligence that made language, communication, commerce, rational thought; available even to the dunces of human existence.

Sadly, many of those humans have not progressed in thousands of years. They are still rather stupid, naked apes.


Those of us “in the know”, the modern Gnostics, carry the torch of TRUE Christianity …being the ‘annointed’ ones of Christly awareness.


We have had to move to the ends of the Earth to preserve this KNOW-LEDGE…to keep it safe from the HEELOTS, ROMANS, AMMORITES , SIMONISTS, and various other religious phonies. We operate in secrecy today, because there are so many stupid people that would kill us and snuff the flame of genuine spirituality.


0

You want people to take you seriously, but continue to be condescending by butchering their names. If not a sect, then what denomination? According to Wikipedia, Christianity is based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings. The Essene flourished from the 2nd century BCE to the 1st century CE. The Pyramids predate them by a couple of millennia. I am using Wikipedia as my source because it is self policing. If you feel Wikipedia is in error, you may submit your corrections with vetted source material and they will update their pages.


0

prbo ( Abbreviation OK with you ? My …. touchy-touchy ).

If I revealed to Wikipedia OR you or anyone else, it wouldn’t be a secret then, would it ?


BTW, Wikipedia has had to close down comments and edit several topics after being swarmed with disinformation by Palinistas and Fauxvians.


0

ENOUGH OF THIS SATANIC TALK ABOUT PLACATING TO THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE!!!


I continue to be outrightly amazed at the alleged Christians and the non-religious that inhabit this thread and forum! You’re dancing around by insidiously trying, although in vain, to work it out somehow to make the homosexual lifestyle okay in the eyes of our Hebrew-Christian God. IT CANNOT BE DONE!


Without question, God’s word in the bible totally and completely condoms ANY homosexual activity, period!


Take your time and energy and fight all actions by our government to promote such Devil Speak, and remove all laws of placating to the homosexual faction! When doing so, you’ll start following the Hebrew-Christian God’s word in the scriptures, as partly shown below to the Satanic moniker of tzu, and Jesus will smile upon you!


Enough of this Satanic jibberish that you postulate in the name of Satan!


0

Your desire to discriminate against others by using government to force others to behave according to your religious beliefs is the reason the separation of church and state was written into the constitution. If God wants to punish someone for their behavior, fine, that is up to his discretion. You are not entitled to do it for him.


0

prbizownr,


You are correct. First and foremost, she did postulate that CalPERS, “appears to be motivated by antigay animus.” within the same sentence as your remark in question! Therefore, because of the constitution of equal protection, she struck down this CalPERS ruling.


Therefore, separately, the Judges, laws, constitution, or not, this ruling goes blatantly against Christian principles pertaining to the Satanic homosexual lifestyle and the ramifications thereof mentioned in the Judeo-Christian bible earlier in this thread!


0

^^^ Whoops! My above godly post is regarding what prbizowner stated below! ^^^


“Judge Wilken said the man-woman provision in the federal law “violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.” The Constitution does not address the scriptures, and neither did she.”


Yes, I know, everyone is surprised that Brother Ted actually made a mistake! I don’t blame you.


0

Animus is prejudiced ill will. She did not say for religious reasons. Why did you feel it necessary to make this a subject of abiding by religious principles when that has nothing to do with law?


0

prbizownr,


Why did I feel it necessary? Any TRUE Christian should find it necessary to spread our Hebrew-Christian Gods word (Matthew 28:19). Judge Wilken’s notion on this matter precluded that it was prejudiced ill will, then in fact, she is supporting the gay community plain and simple, and by following Matthew’s passage above, this and many other judges will hear from us!


We Christians should stand fast against any actions that support this ungodly and Satanic faction of gays! Once again, read the passages in this thread that I’ve given in the support against this faction.


0

The Initial Declaration of the Golden Rule (“We must treat others as we wish others to treat us”) was signed by 143 respected leaders from all of the world’s major faiths, including Baha’i Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism, Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and Zoroastrian. By your statements, you would discriminate against others based on their beliefs being different than yours. Based on the Golden Rule, you would desire that others discriminate against you for the same. If you have issue with that, it is a subject for a theological forum elsewhere, perhaps with the 143 leaders that signed the Initial Declaration. BTW, I do not practice any particular religion, and I think it is dangerous to allow religion to become intertwined with government. I do believe you have the right to practice your religion as long as others are not harmed in the process. I do not believe you have the right to shove your religion down my throat. There are plenty of examples around the world where religion being used as the basis of government has failed catastrophically. See the Middle East and many sub-Saharan African countries where people are being slaughtered in the name of religion.


I believe you are wrong to bring religion into a forum to discuss a ruling on a federal law that applies to all citizens, regardless of religious belief. You are not being discriminated against, you are allowed to behave according to your religious beliefs (barring harm to others). Your religious beliefs do not belong in the laws of this country for the purpose of my abiding by them.


The First Amendment of the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


You would take away the rights of other people. What rights are you willing to give up?


0

prbizownr,


I agree with you wholeheartedly for the most part in your dissertation above. The problem arises when the Christian also has the bible to follow as well, and to the letter as well! Understand? It’s hard to serve two masters without being hypocritical to one of them. There lies the rub.


Conversely, it will always be wrong for a secular society, especially in the context of this story, to push their agenda upon the religious that have strict commands from our respective Gods. Especially if they run contrary to that particular God’s Holy Words. Yes, this type of situation causes many wars like you’ve stated in your post.


Thank you for a cogent discussion upon this topic. I only wish that “tzu” had the same brain synapses firing on all cylinders as in your case. :(


0

Oh, you may well be surprised. And Ted, if you disagree on religious grounds, fine. But again do not push your agenda on those that do not share your opinion.


0

Ted,


You stated above:


“it will always be wrong for a secular society, especially in the context of this story, to push their agenda upon the religious that have strict commands from our respective Gods.”


I do not understand how the judge is telling you to change your beliefs or behavior.


CalPERS participation is mandatory under statute in many California public employee scenarios. Equal protection under the Constitution protects you from being discriminated against for your religious beliefs as much as it protects homosexuals and unmarried couples. If you are covered under CalPERS and you do not like the fact that some funds go towards certain populations, you are free to organize to petition for a modification of the statute to make CalPERS participation voluntary.


0

Ted,


Another excerpt from your comment: “I only wish that “tzu” had the same brain synapses firing on all cylinders as in your case.”


Why the condescension towards this person? You did not disagree with me about biblical interpretation over the millennia. It looks to me that this person’s interpretations are different than yours.


0

Now you’re on to Satan and Devil speak? Some one says to bring proof, and you degenerate to the calling of Satan, the fallen angel? Why is that?


Your attempt at bludgeoning people with your interpretation of the Bible is laughable. This country was founded on freedom of and from religion.


0

tzu,


You bring forth nothing but empty platitudes in your vain attempts to address my superior knowledge of true Christian principles written the bible.


I suggest that you save yourself any further embarrassment and exit stage right.


We thank you for your cooperation.


0

You wrote:


“You bring forth nothing but empty platitudes in your vain attempts to address my superior knowledge of true Christian principles written the bible.


I suggest that you save yourself any further embarrassment and exit stage right.


We thank you for your cooperation.”


Could you be anymore condescending? Your interpretation of the Bible is not the final say. I do like your judgmental tone and wonder how you will answer that little sin on judgment day? Men and women have the right to live lives free from legal discrimination. Your use of the Bible to create a schism is what “knows no bounds”.


0

tzu,


Seriously, I am truly tiring of your childlike banter where you think you know in what you speak. Another lesson for you, listen very carefully, okay?


The biblical passages that I’ve included, and that are relative to Judge Wilkens’s decision, is absolutely NO INTERPRETATION whatsoever! They need absolutely NO apologetic spin doctoring because of their simple and easily understood literal form!


Other than you trying to spin doctor the passages in question away relative to Judge Wilken’s decision when it comes to TRUE Christianity, show us with absolutes how I have allegedly and wrongfully “interpreted” said biblical passages! We’re waiting with baited breath!


Furthermore, if you actually read the bible, it allows us to judge! Remember the Lord Jesus Christ commanded, “Judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24). He told a man, “Thou hast rightly judged” (Luke 7:43). The most important judging verse is when Jesus told others; “Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right” (Luke 12:57).


You Judge things everyday. As an example, tell your sophmoric stance to a jury of your peers in a court room setting! Get it?


Don’t you have enough of the proverbial egg upon your face by now?


0

No matter what, you will twist. Judge not lest you be judged and all that. You’d make a fun chew toy on another day and place. But I’m done with your lack of understanding. You want to bash Gods people, you will no matter what anyone says. Just never forget we were all made in God’s image, and what you do and say will be on you.


Bu-bye


0

tzu,


We thank you for giving up on this topic. You really had no place in this discussion with you taking an apologetic stance in trying to rewrite the bible to your liking.


Once again, thank you for accepting your limitations relative to your complete lack of understanding the LITERAL and HISTORICAL intent of the scriptures.


0

tzu,


We expected nothing less than what you’ve shown us with your child like retort to your ineptness of the bible.


How sad. I will pray for you tonight in the hopes that you’ll gain true knowledge of the scriptures like I’ve shown you ad infinitum within this thread. Therefore, taking you out of the realm of just being a pseudo-christian, and being placed in the high esteem of being a TRUE Christian like myself.


You can thank me later.


0

tzu …Not to belabor too fine a point here, but it would appear that you have your own “lack of understanding” as you accuse Brother Ted as having.


In fact, it is Chubby Checker that will twist. What bringing up a popular dance craze of the 1960’s has to do with the subject matter, I don’t know. Are you saying that Same-Sex Couples twist in some unusual manner ?


As for the “all made in God’s image”, you should be aware of the full context and import of that passage. Genesis 1:26 states, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness …” and Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. ”

Get that ? …US ?…OUR ? …THEM ?

So, the Hebrew/Aramaic God is collective AND Bi-sexual.


I hope this clears some things up for you.


0

Sure, why not. You seem to be of a similar cloth to Ted. You seem to have an idea and are not willing or able to understand that others may not share your or Ted’s opinion. I as an individual may interpret the passage as different than you.


Please recall Romans, as Ted seems so fond, and maybe you also,: Romans 2:1-11.


So long…


0

Paul was a bellyacher. Never did meet the Christ. Just another tax collector and/or tax avoider . The pregenitor of contemporary Republican holes.


0

Ted Slanders is the reason why I rarely post and these message boards are vile. He cannot join in any conversation without invoking his over the top religious crap on to anyone and every subject. So Ted, instead of constantly vomiting your religious crap all over the place, why don’t you accept that there are many of us who don’t believe in “your God” or that Bible book which you seem to hold as such truth and fact. It is only true to you or others who choose to believe it. You sound like a hateful person full of fear.


0

I believe that you re correct in your assessment of Ted. It’s really to bad that civilized adult conversation can’t happen with this individual.


0

tzu,


I thought I dispatched you earlier within this thread for said reasons? What are you doing in still trying in vain to be something that you are not?


You are who you pretend to be. Our God will take out His revenge upon you on Judgment Day.


0

SLOLibChik,


You are completely wrong in your vain attempt in saying that Brother Ted only subsribes to religious discussion upon the topics at hand! Many times I have taken my religious robes off to enter the fracus of discussions on many topics within CCN in a secular way.


Granted, I accept that many don’t believe in “my God”, and for the most part, that is not of whom I am directing my religious knowledge too! It is mostly directed at the pseudo-christian that has the audacity to question me, and in doing so, they are questioning the DIRECT and LITERAL word of the Hebrew-Christian God!


You’re assuming as a premise, the conclusion in which you wish to reach, when you state that I am a hateful person and full of fear. How sad. This is not the case. The only hateful and revengeful one is our Hebrew-Christian God that resides in the Holy Bible.


Have a nice day. :)


0

A little education for you Black_Copter_Pilot:


Having been in a domestic partership for over 10 years I may have a little more insight to this matter than you but let me attatch some CA Family code for you to look over:


FAMILY.CODE

SECTION 297-297.5


297. (a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share

one another’s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of

mutual caring.

(b) A domestic partnership shall be established in California when

both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the

Secretary of State pursuant to this division, and, at the time of

filing, all of the following requirements are met:

(1) Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of

another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been

terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.

(2) The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would

prevent them from being married to each other in this state.

(3) Both persons are at least 18 years of age, except as provided

in Section 297.1.

(4) Either of the following:

(A) Both persons are members of the same sex.

(B) One or both of the persons meet the eligibility criteria under

Title II of the Social Security Act as defined in Section 402(a) of

Title 42 of the United States Code for old-age insurance benefits or

Title XVI of the Social Security Act as defined in Section 1381 of

Title 42 of the United States Code for aged individuals.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, persons of

opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership unless one

or both of the persons are over 62 years of age.

(5) Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic

partnership.


Another section:


(f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights

regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.

(g) No public agency in this state may discriminate against any

person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered

domestic partner rather than a spouse or that the couple are

registered domestic partners rather than spouses.


So how can this make it so ANYONE can get medical insurance? Unless they have lived together as a same-sex couple ( I believe it is at least 2 years) or are over the age of 62 they should not be entitled to these benefits. If you know of people whom do this I encourage you to report their insurace fraud, unless you intend to marry your brother which in that case you may want to move to another state.


0

Thanks for posting this info. I have 2 questions that you or someone here may be able to answer:


Why the 62 or older exception?

What type of long term coverage is provided through CalPERS, and who pays how much for it?


Thanks to anyone with the answers.


0

Like Disgusted, thanks for the info. My concern, like some, is that the aspect of potential fraud be kept to a minium. If they can control that, then I really don’t have a dog in this fight.


0

The problem occurs when the employer does not check the status (legally registered) of the people they authorize for insurance, just as they don’t check citizenship, or check the validity of minority status for Native Americans, etc. In fact, I doubt if the state of California checks to see if two people are blood related if they present with different sir names. California allows people to adopt new sir names without going through a legal process if they have used the name and can produce evidence of its usage. California has basically lost control of checking identity with its lax enforcement with its own institutions and accommodation for people from other states and those here illegally from other countries.


0

Societies are set up to support the health and well-being of breeding couples so as to increase the size of their population which strengthens and establishes nations by enlarging them. That increases their power over other nations. It implies security for them. Our government knew this and opened the borders because Whitey wasn’t breeding fast enough.

And that’s why doors are opened for couples that choose to marry and procreate, it’s a waste to support (give ins./tax advantages) to couples who just wanna play house and not sleep alone. They’re impersonating normal couples to get at the advantages. Sorry, gay folks, you don’t qualify.

You already have huge financial avantages in that you don’t pay the 150-200k bucks per kid to keep life and the system going, and you want even more money? For what?


0

Justme,


Thank our Hebrew-Christian God that you’re against the gay community as much as our Hebrew-Christian God, as I’ve shown in my post below. Jesus is smiling on your behalf, praise!


Just as a true Christian Pastor Charles Worley, of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, NC, advocated, he said to put gays and lesbians in concentration camps and let them die out.


The godly pastor stated, to wit: “Build a great big, large fence, 50 or 100 miles long,” Worley said in a video posted on YouTube. “Put all the lesbians in there and fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with … the homosexuals, and have that fence electrified till they can’t get out. Feed ‘em, and you know what? In a few years, they’ll die out. Do you know why? They can’t reproduce.”


http://www.shelbystar.com/news/protest-64452-residents-anti.html


It’s about time that Christians start acting like God intended them to act, and to follow His commands towards the gays in His Holy word called the bible!


0

Really? You think creating concentration camps is the answer? Truly, have you actually read the New Testament? Give me chapter and verse where Jesus said a thing about homosexuality. I’ll wait. Do not give me any quotes from Corinthians as those are the words of the convert Paul (you know, the Roman soldier that was converted).


0

tzu,


Relating to the story, Judge Claudia Wilken was completely wrong in upholding ANY gay lifestyle initiatives because they go directly against the Hebrew-Christian God’s words within the scriptures relative to the gay community!!! She metaphorically slapped our God and Jesus in the face when she did!


You seem to have a hard time with reading comprehension. Understand this very simple syllogism; when our version of God says; “I am the LORD, I change not.” (Malachi 3:6), then the Hebrew-Christian God stated that He cannot change His mind. Therefore, the Leviticus 20:13 passage that is godly inspired, is to be upheld regarding what to do with the homosexual.


Furthermore, homosexuality in the New Testament is disdained as well, and has the same outcome as in the Old Testament Leviticus 20:13 passage in question! “For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: FOR EVEN THEIR WOMEN DID CHANGE THE NATURAL SUE INTO THAT WHICH IS AGAINST NATURE: AND LIKEWISE THE MEN, LEAVING THE NATURAL USE OF THE WOMAN, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet . . . Who knowing the judgment of God, THAT THEY WHICH COMMIT SUCH THINGS ARE WORTHY OF DEATH, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them” (Romans 1:26-27, 32)


Christian Pastor, Charles Worley, is just doing God’s work as commanded. Are you questioning God in this respect, or are you inferring that you know more than God by going against His scriptures pertaining to what to do to the homosexual?


Now, to save yourself any further embarrassment in front of this forum, just run along before I religiously swat you again like a mosquito at a Baptist picnic!


0

Ted,


Who wrote Romans and when? Again, were any of the words from Jesus? Nope. They are the words of Paul. You recall Paul. Do you know any of the history of the peoples of Rome from the era that you’re quoting? You see, Romans in the first century AD were quite prejudice. It was not something that they could easily change as they had been raised in a prejudice society. You’re quoting a Roman soldier, first, convert to a belief system that later became Christianity, second. Paul’s belief was based on the Hebrew belief system. And if you’re going to go into the Hebrew laws, please tell me how you follow all of them.


If you recall, Jesus died for our sins. That includes prejudice, sloth, avarice, and the like. You claim to have this all figured out, but at the same time your argument is hallow. Jesus did not teach us to love people just like us, but to love all people. Did you forget Matthew 25:44-45?

Or John 13:34?


0

tzu,


Your biblical ignorance has no bounds!


Simply put for your easy understanding, you keep postulating that this person wrote this book, that this person wrote this other book in the bible, yada, yada, yada!


IT MATTERS NOT WHAT BIBLICAL CHARACTER WROTE WHAT OR WHEN, BECAUSE OF THE SIMPLE GODLY FACTOID THAT THE ENTIRE BIBLE WAS “INSPIRED” AND WRITTEN BY THE HEBREW-CHRISTIAN GOD, UNDERSTAND???!!!


“All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). The phrase “inspired by God” translates into a single Greek word, “theopneustos”, which literally means, “breathed out by God.” All Scripture is “Godbreathed,” exhaled by the Almighty. Few passages more clearly affirm the divine origin of the Bible.


Furthermore, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21) Get it?! It matters NOT whether Paul, the Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, or whoever, it all deduces to GOD wrote the bible! If you disagree with God’s inspired word, then take it up with Him in prayer tonight, get it?


Besides, Jesus’ dying for us wasn’t that big of a sacrifice because He returned in the flesh three days later. A real sacrifice would be our soldiers dying forever in Iraq by defending our country, and with more serious wounds than Jesus ever imagined.


Then the ressurection of Jesus wasn’t that big of a deal either, remember? Many holy people who had also died, were raised along with Jesus and went into the holy city to continue their lives! (Matthew 27:50-53)


If you haven’t realized it yet, you do NOT have the acumen to discuss anything futher relative to the Hebrew-Christian God and His written word with the Brother Ted. This is where you gracefully bow out of any further discussion to prevent any further embarrassment to yourself!


Thank you.


0

As for ignorance? Really? Keep up the good work with your brand of legal interpretation.


0

tzu,


Your feeble attempts to refute biblical axioms is waning. Do yourself a favor because we all can sense that you see the handwriting upon the proverbial wall in the fact that you have nowhere else to go with your very weak, and childlike refutations to the LITERAL word of God that I’ve presented.


What you thought you knew, you didn’t. Therefore, just remain silent from this time hence and learn from the Brother Ted.


Good day.


0

It’s not literal. It’s an interpretation. It’s not in the original ancient Hebrew or Greek or Latin. It’s been filtered, digested, translated and yes, changed. Get over yourself.


Again, so-long.


0

Ted,


Judge Wilken said the man-woman provision in the federal law “violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.” The Constitution does not address the scriptures, and neither did she.


0

You wrote:


“Judge Claudia Wilken was completely wrong in upholding ANY gay lifestyle initiatives because they go directly against the Hebrew-Christian God’s words within the scriptures relative to the gay community!!! She metaphorically slapped our God and Jesus in the face when she did!”


So? You brought a religious argument into a secular decision. I did nit bring the Bible into this, you did. I only asked that you to clarify your standing/opinion by citing Biblical New Testament, chapter and verse but not to include the writings of Paul. It’s really rather noble that Paul gave up most of his previous life to follow the teachings of Jesus, but the reality is, he was still first and foremost a Roman. I like Paul for all the right reasons, but I can still disagree with his conclusions which are based on his prejudice upbringing. And as you state from Timothy the Bible is is inspired by God, but written and interpreted by mortals. Therefore, I shall hold fast to the teachings of Jesus from the New Testament and loving your neighbor. Truly.


0

tzu,


Your hang up upon Paul is your problem. You use Paul as your safety net, and it is NOT working, sorry. You do NOT have the authority to disregard the “rest of the bible” when you try and gather your weak argument.


Please use logic 101 at least once in this conversation, okay? You erroneously state that the hell with Timothy, and the rest of the disturbing passages that I bring forth, but accept Paul’s and Jesus’ word.


Listen up, ALL OF THESE PASSAGES were written by mortals by the inspired word of the Hebrew-Christian God! In other words, you cannot pick and choose your biblical characters and passages and not be responsible for the obligation of the whole bible! Get it?


Furthermore, what the hell has loving thy neighbor have to do with the discussion at hand? You are throwing in red-herrings to try and take this discussion on a different course. I will NOT allow that to happen!


Now, haven’t you learned your lesson as of yet? Remain silent from this time forth, and hopefully you’ll gain a modicum of respect, with what you have left of it, from the alumni within this forum!


Shhhhhhhh…………


0

You wrote:


“Societies are set up to support the health and well-being of breeding couples so as to increase the size of their population which strengthens and establishes nations by enlarging them.”


I need to ask you about heterosexual couple that do not procreate because of medical reasons, are they too, “…couples who just wanna play house and not sleep alone.”? Your reasoning is flawed and narrow minded. If a couple doesn’t procreate, it’s not any of your concern. Are you going to become the sexual activity/procreation police? Big brother, are you paying attention? Is this a ‘plus good’?


0

“A Republican-led group of Congress members calling itself the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group opposed the decision.”


BLASPHEME! True Republican Christians of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory should oppose this ungodly action! True Christians that actually read the bible for themselves, instead of having it read to them on Sunday mornings at church, understand that homosexual activities are ungodly and wrong!


What our God proposes for this faction, well, I’ll let you read it; “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death, their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13)


When the Hebrew-Christian God stated; “My covenant I will not break, Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips.” ( PSALM 89:34 ), then by all means, we’re to accept what He has said in the above passage, period!


Judge Claudia Wilken obviously doesn’t read her bible. In her decision, she is promoting the gay lifestyle. This is what happens to spoon fed pseudo-christians that want their bible their way, and not the Hebrew-Christian God’s way!


Our version of God will sort her out on Judgment Day, that is for sure. Praise Jesus in what He says will happen to sinners of this magnitude! (Matthew 13:41-42, 50)


0

This is very scary. It opens the door to a potential “free for all” and fincancial disaster. How are they going to define “partners”? Does it seem too far-fetched that there could be single, straight people saying their friend is their “partner”, so they would be eligible for long-term care coverage? It seems like this new ruling will get majorly manipulated and abused!


0

Yes, it’s already being abused. Anyone can get domestic partner insurance if they have a good friend who works for the state. California, as usual, lets every policy it makes, be abused. They never check and they never find the abuse.


0

Why should the state care as long as the taxpayers are on the hook to make up the short fall, it’s not their money, just the dumb taxpayers, and they say ” we don’t worry they will continue to put us back into office”.


0

Actually, the ban served as a protection for gay spouses/domestic partners considering California’s economic state. Now gay couples are free to apply and pay for long term care insurance that they will likely not get, just like the heterosexual couples.


0

Fantastic, now me and my brother can be covered under the same insurance.


All barriers are meant to be broken


0
1 2