Carrie Wigal

California Courts, Hold That Thought…

Posted: May 22nd, 2008 under Family, Faith/Religion, Politics.
Comments: 5

5 Responses to “California Courts, Hold That Thought…”

1. Comment from Ty:
   May 23rd, 2008 at 11:37 am

   Where would the Campaign for California Families (CCF) like the check sent to support their efforts? I think I will send a thank you letter with the check.

   I hope Californians manage to hold the liberal judges accountable for their actions. 60 plus percent is a formidable majority especially considering the turnout percentages most likely favor the much more vocal and active liberals. What arrogance is displayed by those judges in overturning the will of the people!

   The conservative majority will certainly prevail once fully awakened.

2. Comment from D. Elliott:
   May 23rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm

   I find it interesting that we are already referring to these judges as liberal when all but one of them were appointed by conservative Republican governors. Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps there is a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. The court did allow the legislature to name the legal ceremony something different than “marriage” and then people who married religiously could refer to that as marriage. My marriage (30 years ago) was first done by a judge and then we married in the Church. We knew there was a difference then. Why is it now somehow forgotten that the legal rights of marriage were civil while the moral obligations and the Church’s recognition had a completely different meaning when we did our vows in the Church. Just a thought that we ought to consider how much the Church has changed its position about civil marriages in the last quarter of century. Does that mean if the Church does not recognize my right to divorce, I should not have the right to remarry legally? That is a little scary!

3. Comment from Ty Wigal:
   May 23rd, 2008 at 4:35 pm

   You make interesting points.

   I personally call a liberal a liberal when he acts like one. This is a label, just like saying Republican. To me, actions speak louder than words. Call a dog a dog and a left winger a liberal and call a judge that attempts to redefine the institution of marriage a liberal.

   Secular marriage is just fine with me as long as it is between two members of the opposite sex. Being married in a church building is wonderful but is much more significant when the spiritual ramifications are understood. I believe society as a whole could do a much better job of keeping the covenant that was willing agreed to by a man and a wife. Respect for marriage isn’t just needed from the left.

   What church do you attend that has you spelling it with a capital “c”?

   Any biblical church should recognize the right for a divorce. We are allowed to “put away” a spouse in the proper circumstances, according to the book of Matthew. Only by the hardness of hearts is divorce necessary. I would say it is lawful but certainly not good for us. Both marriage and divorce are often taken too lightly in our current culture, even by those who consider themselves to hold conservative values. I think any church should stress forgiveness and healing over divorce. I do not know of any church that has the power to prevent a secular marriage. That day may come, but you can bet it won’t be a Christian church.

   I think marriage on the coldest end of the spectrum is a secular civil marriage and on the hottest end of the spectrum is a spiritual union pleasing the Creator, which grows to a point of worship in its maturity.

   Spiritually hot or spiritually cold, keep marriage between opposite sexes, as the traditional institution intends.

4. Comment from Carrie Wigal:
   May 23rd, 2008 at 4:56 pm

   I’m not so quick to label people as liberal or conservative regardless of which political party they are affiliated with. It seems the party that’s supposed to be conservative has strong leanings to the left these days, so I’ll draw my conclusions about a person by their words and actions.

   I don’t think the wide concern is over a “religious” institution (although perhaps there are those who might be concerned primarily about what the Church has to say about it). Whether you get married in a church, synagogue, on a beach somewhere or in a judge’s chambers, the idea is that there are two opposite sex people joining together in union/matrimony and that is called a marriage. Again, it doesn’t have to be a religious ceremony for it to be considered getting married.

   Then, I believe there are civil unions taking place where same-sex couples can join together in something similar, but it is not technically considered a “marriage”.

   The problem that has surfaced with the California ruling is that we have unelected officials legislating that “marriage” must not be limited to opposite-sex unions, whereas the majority vote of the people of California clearly wanted to preserve marriage as only being between one man and one woman.

   Maybe a large portion of that 61% were members of the Church, but I’m sure there are many non-churchgoers who still believe that marriage is only meant to be between one man and one woman.

5. Comment from D. Elliott:
   May 24th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

   I listened to the whole three hours of arguments presented before the court. Those that argued for it to be between a man and a woman relied heavily on their religious views that this was right. I am very open to rename the civil ceremony that gives me the civil and economic rights and privileges currently given when I “legally” marry another name such as state civil union and let everyone take part in that both couples that are man and woman as well as homosexual couples and leave the word “marriage” for a religious ceremony. I don’t agree that just because the majority of people want something this way means that we should abandon our constitutional principals of fairness which is what I believe the courts a specifically set up to do - make sure laws are fair and equally applied so that there is no “tyranny of the majority” and historically, I believe that is why we have civil marriages between man and woman that does not demand it to be religiously recognized. None of the arguments against seemed to have other reasons besides the argument for procreation which the other side made a point of stating, if we then apply the law equally across the population, that would mean that any couple that could not procreate, could not get married. I guess I am worried that if the argument that it is religiously wrong enters with no other argument, that my religious freedom might be next since I don’t necessarily agree with all Christians on their theology. By the way, I’m Baptist and if you have a problem with capitalizing Church to emphasize a particular church then I have to believe you are just frustrated and putting out a “cheap shot” rather than being willing to discuss the issue politely and civilly. I didn’t know good manners were no longer valued by Christians. I also know that reason for divorce biblically are very limited and most states now have “no fault” - I don’t think anyone would argue adultery is not a good reason for divorce but many other reasons we divorce are not biblically sanctioned.