« Future filming location of The Prisoner | Home | Former Mayor of Arcadia Passes Away »
Grappling With Gay Marriage in Pasadena
By Centinel | May 20, 2008
This LAT article on the gay marriage ruling fallout features a church right here in Pasadena:
Pastor Gregory L. Waybright struggled from the pulpit Sunday to reconcile the laws of God with the laws of man.
Though he wanted his church “to be a welcoming and loving house,” he told worshipers at Lake Avenue Church in Pasadena, the California Supreme Court’s decision last week to legalize gay marriage in California “is a contradiction of what God’s word says.”
The 4-3 ruling, which held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, has prompted conservative and liberal congregations alike to discuss whether gay and lesbian members will be allowed to wed in their churches, synagogues and temples.
I hope this demonstrates that thinking people can disagree on this issue, without the pro-gay marriage camp calling others bigots or full of hate, or the opposing side simply talking about “perverse behavior” or whatever the phrase du jour is.
Last 5 posts in Main Page
- Feed Portantino's Election Reelection Campaign - July 23rd, 2008
- Alvarez Waterboarded! - July 23rd, 2008
- Morning Linkfest: 7 Reasons to Hate Corporations - July 23rd, 2008
- Even the Cost of Underwear Is Increasing - July 23rd, 2008
- Pasadena Has a New City Clerk - July 23rd, 2008
May 20th, 2008 at 8:04 am
But just because it’s against his God’s ways doesn’t mean it’s wrong…..right? Not knocking the guy for what he believes…just sayin’..I thought the Constitution stated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness….
Anyhow..you’re right, it does show that people can disagree on this in a civil manner.
I wonder what our City Council’s stance is on the recent gay marriage stir. I mean, if they would ever actually take a stance on something that is controversial.
Oh wait, it’s not smoking, never mind.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:05 am
I would hope that everyone has the opportunity to marry. I would also hope that they get to pay taxes, sweat out a mortgage, go to the dentist, commute, work a job, and endure in-laws.
Seems only fair.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:22 am
And one other thing: If God is so petty as to actually care about crap like this, or how you cut your hair, or what days you’ve set aside to worship Him, or what you wear when you do your little song and dance for Him, then we’re all in big trouble. Because a God that petty would never be likely to think that your version of the holy roll is quite right.
Religion says a lot more about humankind than it does any all-knowing deity. Face it, if your God isn’t a forgiving God, then you are toast, brother.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:21 am
My position on the subject is that recognized civil unions (w/o Arnold in a 3rd party contract) are a brilliant idea creatively and romantically conceived by gay couples. Straight couples should follow suit.
I hope that places of worship can be a welcoming place for all kinds of unions. (irony)
May 20th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I agree with Dang Son’s first comment..everyone should share in the American dream. Well, unless you’re not an American.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:32 am
(and not an American I mean not a citizen)
May 20th, 2008 at 9:41 am
If you’re a citizen on American soil, why do you have to be defined as American in order to pay taxes, sweat out a mortgage, go to the dentist, commute, work a job, and endure in-laws?
I can see having to be a US Citizen to vote. Wait. Maybe not? There’s a topic.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Live and let live.
I agree with Dang Son:
“I would hope that everyone has the opportunity to marry. I would also hope that they get to pay taxes, sweat out a mortgage, go to the dentist, commute, work a job, and endure in-laws.
Seems only fair.”
You forgot those “nagging” spouses” LOL
May 20th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Below is excerpted from Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Justice Baxter (California Supreme Court):
“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. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority….
“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. The majority purports to apply certain fundamentalprovisions of the state Constitution, but it runs afoul of another just as fundamental— article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause declares that “[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial,” and that“[p]ersons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others” except as the Constitution itself specifically provides. (Italics added.)
“History confirms the importance of the judiciary’s constitutional role as a check against majoritarian abuse. Still, courts must use caution when exercising the potentially transformative authority to articulate constitutional rights. Otherwise, judges with limited accountability risk infringing upon our society’s most basic shared premise — the People’s general right, directly or through their chosen legislators, to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves.
“Judicial restraint is particularly appropriate where, as here, the claimed constitutional entitlement is of recent conception and challenges the most fundamental assumption about a basic social institution.
“The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.”
May 21st, 2008 at 12:32 am
I think there was a lesbian couple that used to volunteer at my old church..they were like in their 60’s and still pretending not to be lesbians…what a shame, how can you live with another woman at that age, one clearly more butch than the other and act as if you’re not lesbians? LOL! Everyone at church accepted them not knowing they might of been lesbians so if they were why would that change acceptance if everyone knew they were? It shouldn’t in my opinion, what you do with your hoo-hoo’s and haa-haa’s on your own time is not the churches business. lol.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:10 am
I’ll just use the old adage “…if they want to be as miserable as the rest of us”.
Speaking of marriage..Centinel is married. Is your wife called “Mrs. Centinel”?