• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Amendment 2 In Fl/Prop 8 In CA

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hi All,

I am here in Florida wondering how to vote on Amendment 2. I have the idea that I want to vote no because it wants to constituitionaly define marriage as between oner man and one woman only. At the same time I don't want my kids to think of marriage asa possible between men and men etc. But then I guess it's up to me to define marrige for them, huh? Not Florida's job... The "christians" are up in arms and are pushing this amendment big time. What's a voter to do?? What do Florida and Cali people think? What do others think???
 
I also have the same quandary: I actually don't mind the way it's worded - marriage IS between one man and one woman - since they didn't add "and a man may only contract one such marriage", it's not a problem for me. (I don't go for the Big Love wording: "there's four of us in this marriage".)
At the same time, I really just want the government out of the marriage business altogether, and isn't voting for it giving implicit agreement that the government has the right to define marriage?

What other thoughts do people have?

Right now I lean towards not voting on that amendment at all (leave it blank).
 
God has defined marriage.

For man to attempt to say that He didn't get it right, can't be trusted to do so without Caesar's wisdom, or must be overruled, is pure Evil.

What was it that our Savior said about replacing His commandments with man's traditions?
 
Yes, Nathan i think the whole "we are married as a group" is not my thing either. I think I am leaving it blank and not legitimizing it at all with a response.
 
I agree with Mark, God has written the laws. Even if this goes through as a man and woman only it will be just a little time until a small group of people sue to change the law. The government will listen to them and not believers in Christ. The ones of you that think your vote counts beware of the wolf in sheeps clothing. Live in this world, not for it.

Dairyfarmer
 
I would agree with Nathan and Marichu about the group marriage thing. Randy is married to T. Randy is married to me. T and I are not married. If Randy died tomorrow, we would have no obligation to each other. That doesn't mean we wouldn't care for each other, but we would not be required to share another husband. If I were to die and they were to get a new wife they would be required to share her, and likewise if T died, but if Randy did, then we could go our separate ways and just remain friends. Right?

Sweet Lissa
 
I understand the objections to give implicit support to monogamy, but realistically voting isn't an operation where people are given a vast menu of choices and are asked where exactly in a spectrum they sit. Like it or lump it these votes (at least Californias, I'm not familiar with Floridas) are about expanding acceptance of homosexuality. Everyone here is in trouble if the aggressive activist groups get even more foothold. In Alberta there has already been a minister prosecuted for refusing to preform gay marriage. A time might come where us saying male homosexuality is wrong results in our arrests no matter what we do, but we should at least oppose that outcome as best we can.

No one's asking any of you if you want the gov to get out of marriage. More importantly allowing gay marriage expands government control of marriage, in that they will have more marriages under their control. A yes restricts government control of marriage to the ones it already has.

I would comment that God's laws exist for the good of people, we should try to keep mans laws as close as possible to them for the good of mankind.


As to Sweetlisa, and others on that side topic, I understand that it is not a marriage, but I'm not sure you'd have no obligation to each other. If there was a tragedy in a polygamous relationship I would think the women would have an obligation to work together at least when there are kids at home. I would hope the relationship wouldn't just dissolve taking the kids from a family of three to a family with two single moms. I don't know, what do you think?
 
Tlaloc I think you are some kind of Genius!!!! I amazed by all of your posts, my goodness! Anyway, maybe Book of Ruth is a good guide about what to do if a hubby dies!!
 
Professor Walter Williams (George Mason University, and columnist) tells a story about voting that I find very helpful when it comes to understanding the principle of jurisdiction, and proper Authority.


Suppose we are in a restaurant. Suddenly "Joe" stands up and says "YOU will buy dinner here for EVERYBODY; let's VOTE! All those in favor, raise your right hand!"

There are shouts of glee, and hands go up everywhere, voting to do that for which they have no Authority.

SO, here's the question. Which course of action is more principled -
to "vote against" the usurpation, or to get up and leave?

I contend that any participation with a process that you KNOW is unlawful constitutes service to "another master". If "God be God, then serve him." If His Word can be overridden by a mere majority of those who serve the 'prince of this world', then is He Supreme in our lives?


Finally, I challenge those who believe we live in a 'democracy' on two fronts. First, find that word (democracy) in ANY form, in any of our Founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights). I often offer $200 for the challenge. (It used to be $100 when I did a Constitution-oriented radio show, but inflation takes a toll.

And, hint -- it's right next to the famous "separation of church and state" verbiage. ;) )

More importantly, check the Bible. I started making a list a few years ago of "votes" that appear in any form in Scripture, in order to see if there's a pattern. I see three main examples:

1) Twelve people went into the Promised Land, to spy it out. Joshua and Caleb lost that vote, 10-2.

2) Israel decided they wanted a king - like "all the other" nations. Samuel advised them against it. Saul won by a landslide, and God declared that they had rejected Him.

3) Pontius Pilate held a famous voice vote to select a prisoner to be freed. A guy named Barabbas won that one.


There comes a time when the only right answer is to "Come out of her, My people...that ye be not partakers of her plagues."
 
Thanks Mark, I like the restaurant analogy.

Reading the rest of your post, let me put you on the spot: are you advocating just not voting on this amendment because it's Caesar taking something that belongs to God (Marriage) and perhaps other similar cases (i.e. unjust taxes?), or not participating at all (not voting for officials even) as a way of "coming out of her"?
 
Mark...let me put you on the spot: are you advocating just not voting on this amendment because it's Caesar taking something that belongs to God (Marriage)... or not participating at all...?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, Nathan. Both.

God has given clear and unequivocal instruction and definition concerning marriage. We've already seen where the concept of "licensure" by Satan, er - the State, inexorably leads. And someday I will add more from personal experience of just how Evil such usurpation can be.

(And I would make the same argument for any so-called "Marriage Amendment" to the Constitution, or statutory attempt to "define" marriage. Even a cursory reading of the Constitution will show that the Founders left NO room whatsoever for meddling there by the central government. To do so, as Jefferson said, "...to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus… drawn… is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer [subject] to any definition.”)

As for non-participation, I have already referenced Revelation 18:4. People must ultimately read prophecy for themselves, but I can't deny what to me seems increasingly obvious. From the secular standpoint, I came to the conclusion back when I was doing my radio show that the Signers of the Declaration made a good point:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Click to expand...

They withdrew consent, and "came out" from under a King they called a "Tyrant", "unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

It is an ancient principle of common law that even silence implies consent. Participation, without question, GIVES consent.

There comes a time to withdraw consent, and "choose this day Whom you will serve."
 
- All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to sit by and do nothing.

Mark,
I'm not deeply familiar with you're countries documents, though I know it began as a landowners republic and has gradually become much more of a universal suffrage democracy, though it is still technically a republic in name isn't it? We are a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy here. Either way the statement 'peoples love of peace is greater than their love of freedom.' comes out more the wider the voting base. Canada has has more problems with liberal parties in the past, though we are getting much more toe to to as far as liberalization (in the bad sense) is concerned over the last years.

Mark, I respect you greatly, but look at you're words, you've made the most damning arguments against you'reself. My country gained freedom by diplomacy, you'rse by war, neither just withdrew consent and expected something to happen or someone to care. Neither of these examples can be used as an excuse for inaction.

If you believe you're country to be the prophetic Babylon, then the course of action you suggest falls grossly short of coming out of it. You imply you're consent just by living there. Just to use a road is to use a government service. I do not believe Babylon as said has come yet, but if it you're conviction that it is and you are there, you are not living up to you're convictions by not voting.

Win or lose, Joshua and Caleb did vote.

But the first thing you said is the biggest rub. If people at the restaurant where trying to bully someone into paying their check, I would vote against it. That failing I would speak against it. That failing, I would fight and cover the person being targeted until they where safe. If a man of able body and sound mind where to get up and leave that situation, I would not respect them.

This exact thing has not happened to me, but I have more than enough precedent to say with confidence that is what I would do. If someone is being coerced or threated by force, intimidation, or unjust rules I do not leave. I have fought with words, and with force as is necessary. I have won, and I have lost, and I have suffered personal injury. In the situation you depict I understand I would very likely be injured and possibly fail to protect my objective, but I can see no other justifiable course of action to take.

¿Now you tell me if the leaders of you're revolutionary war would have walked out on this person?

When homosexuality was elevated to marriage up here in Canada (By an un-elected leader, by force actually) speaking against homosexuality in any was was immediately made a hate crime. People have been arrested and people have lost their jobs. One teacher was thrown out of his job for presenting scientific findings against male homosexuality in a local newspaper. Similar things happened in the UK and in Spain, and in Sweden and in several other countries I don't have a comprehensive list of. This is bad news for everyone, it's not even just a Christian issue. Freedom of opinion and speech have been repeatedly curtailed in regards to this issue. If you have the opportunity to oppose this movement and stall this from happening in you're country you have an obligation to.

No one's asking you if the state should control marriage. No one's asking if they should allow polygamy. Whats on the bloc right now is expand marriage for gays or stop the expansion. If you think the government should be out of marriage all together then vote to stop the expansion of its control. As you said, silence implies consent, in this case consent to the government becoming more powerful.

If you have the opportunity to work within the system for change then do so, it is not until that opportunity ceases that you can move to civil disobedience and outright rebellion.

-I pray that we have the power to change what we can, the patience to abide with what we cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference.
 
Marichu,

You are by far too kind.

By and By I haven't read the book of Ruth in the context of this discussion. I think its a tremendously helpful suggestion as to where to look for insight in to what to do about that tragedy. I think I see where you're going with it, but Ruth is definitely on my to re-read list now.
 
I dont vote in any election. We are to be in the world but not of it. I like the fact that mariachu desided to abstain from voting when concerning the definition of marriage. God doesnt care how the world defines mariage because he already defined it. And we are surprised when the nations of the world mess it up? Abortion is the same concept. Abortion is evil and this is satans world so if a evil woman wants to slaughter her unborn child where in scripture does it say that I have the right to stop her. Where in scripture does it say I have a right to try and get the government to stop her. If abortion is illegal do you think the abortions stop? No the ungodly women will just put their own lives at risk to slaughter their unborn babies. Makeing laws will not stop evil. It just punishes people after they do the evil thing. The sooner christians realize this the better we will be. Rome was a republic but Jesus didnt try to change the laws he tried to change mens hearts. So should we. Politics is about comprimise and popular oppinion. AS christians we can not care about either. WE know what we believe we know what the truth is just as we know that scripture states. Do not cast pearls before swine nor cast that which is holy unto the dogs and if any man consider himself to be a prophet or spiritual let him aknowledge the things that I write unto you but if a man wish to be ignorant let him be ignorant. The whole world and especially our government wishes to be ignorant so we should let them be so and focus on the hearts of men and not the laws of the land.
 
6thH is on the right track.

Yeshua warned that we could not serve two masters, and was careful to distinguish between what was Caesar's and what was God's. Each of us must "choose" Whom we will serve. One of the well-known rallying cries of that age was "NO king but King Jesus".

And sorry, Tlaloc, but we simply differ dramatically here. In no small part that may have to do with history; I would suggest that you read the story that resulted in the Declaration, and then the document itself.

The Declaration of Independence is a legal brief, laying out explicitly the principle ( "We hold these Truths -- that all men...are endowed by their Creator..."), the facts ("causes which impel them to the separation""), and the remedy.

(While you're at it, note something interesting: In addition to the "Creator", from where Rights come, there are three other SPECIFIC references to God, and they come right out of Isaiah 33, and form the basis for the concept of separation of powers; "in His hands ONLY" should men trust such powers to be combined.)

Only after EVERY lawful remedy was exhausted ("our repeated petitions...repeated injury") did they take other action. And even then, note in Whom they put their faith.
 
Hey Guys,

I see that you all have good points(Tlaloc, you use the question marks as if you were writing in Spanish! Very interesting.) Anyway Sixth, I understand your point very well and at this point am so conflicted and sick about the whole voting/civic duty thing and want to move past it to a point of peace with my decision. Now since you brought up the abortion topic (I feel new thread coming on) what do you say about violent action against abortion such as that of Paul Hill http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UijVBnOVPtI and others. They are not neglecting to turn the other cheeck but claim to be defending the innocent. Do they do the same as someone who attacks in defense of someone trying to kill or hurt a born child? They do not wait for the government to place deterents but take proactive action to save lives outside of the "law of the land" what do you all say?
 
Oh for goodness sake Mark, how can you possibly miss the irony that you're arguing for NOT petitioning and working in the system in the same post you said this:

Only after EVERY lawful remedy was exhausted ("our repeated petitions...repeated injury") did they take other action.
Click to expand...

The history is clear, you have you'rself referenced it. It in now way allows you to advocate not working within the system or not doing anything.

That said its hardly worth pointing out that voting is an action of mastering, not serving.
 
Six,

Christ actively opposed the rules of the Pharisee and Sadducee parties. He publicly opposed their policies and the things they where telling people. Mentioning Rome is meaningless, because it was a republic, not a democracy, and Christ was not a did not have say in it.

Politics is the art of governing a people. It directly affects what people are told is right and what is promoted in a society. The word society here means a lot of people, and people are the ones we care about because God so loves them.

Now, you brought up abortion saying that we shouldn't bother to oppose it because evil people would do it anyway. Do you not see the difference between multi-million dollar government backed institutes and active propaganda favouring abortion, and a handful of very broken people doing it on their own?

If you are able in any capacity to stop the promotion of evil you are obliged to it.

The government is an organization composed of people, the world is filled with people. God, with Adam did not say:

The whole world wishes to be ignorant so we should let them be so
Click to expand...

But rather:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever beliveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Click to expand...

We work with people for change as individuals, laws represent a broader scope of the hearts of men making them. The difference is quantity, it's not a dichotomy.
 
...how can you possibly miss the irony that you're arguing for NOT petitioning and working in the system...
Click to expand...

You didn't read the Declaration, did you? And you don't know me, or how long I "worked within the system".


That said its hardly worth pointing out that voting is an action of mastering, not serving.
Click to expand...

No offense, Tlaloc, but if you actually BELIEVE that, facts are immaterial. Print yourself up a big stack of bailout money while you're at it.
 
Marichu,

The inverted question mark in English denotes a rhetorical question, though it isn't normally used anymore. I am working on improving my Spanish, but thats a side note. I just need to build my vocabulary for fluency...

If you want peace with you're decision I offer you this. The views of Six and Mark hang on the idea that the Government of America is evil, it has even been liked to the revelationary Babylon. I believe it to be grossly imperfect, but in the scope of everything it is a very good government, so many have used their authority so violently, oppressively, and destructively neither America nor Canada compares. ¿ At another time you mentioned you're family being political prisoners in Cuba did you not? If you think America is the same as that then they are right, you shouldn't participate, and leave it there with no more thought. If you have found it to be a better place that is more fair and has been kinder to you then you should do what you can to uphold that peace. As I have said, Gay marriage has bridged directly to silencing opposition in several countries. If you believe that to be a bad thing then act against it and be at peace with you're decision.

Now, as to violent action against abortion.

Hmm, even the prisoners supported him. That's really something. Even the guards had respect for him. I would have to criticize him for not being more organized and having only a minimal accomplishment of his objective. If you're going to take counter-aggressive action that dramatic you should at least have multiple simultaneous assaults or enough arsenal to hold ground or escape out to a secure position. While his intent is clearly sincere and his heart is pure to his convictions it appears he only managed to further polarize the argument. Thankfully for him God judges the heart first over the results.

Obviously at the point he took action diplomacy and operating within the system had failed. Biding would probably have been a good idea to make his campaign more successful, but this is this and that is that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top