Federal court overturns California's Proposition 8 gay marriage ba n

US District Court Judge Tauro Ruling against DOMA “This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status.” “This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status.” “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid.” “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid.”

California Proposition 8 A simple measure of two sections: A simple measure of two sections: Section I. Title Section I. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.” Section II. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Section II. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Passed by majority vote on Nov 5, 2008 Passed by majority vote on Nov 5, 2008 The vote overturned previous May 15, 2008 ruling by California Supreme Court that same-sex marriages were protected by the State Constitution The vote overturned previous May 15, 2008 ruling by California Supreme Court that same-sex marriages were protected by the State Constitution

Post-Passage Events The amendment was challenged; State Supreme Court upheld. The amendment was challenged; State Supreme Court upheld. Enactment of Prop 8 was also challenged with regard to the Federal Constitution. Enactment of Prop 8 was also challenged with regard to the Federal Constitution. On August 4, 2010 U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and issues an injunction against it. On August 4, 2010 U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and issues an injunction against it. This marked the first time a federal court examined whether the U.S. Constitution allows states to outlaw same-sex marriage. This marked the first time a federal court examined whether the U.S. Constitution allows states to outlaw same-sex marriage.

Prop 8 Ruling Excerpts "Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians." "The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent." "The exclusion (of same-sex couples from marriage) exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having different roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.“ "Domestic partnerships exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriage."

Prop 8 Ruling Excerpts "Proposition 8 harms the state's interest in equality." "The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples." "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians."

Prop 8 Ruling Excerpts “The evidence shows that the state advances nothing when it adheres to the tradition of excluding same-sex couples from marriage. Proponents’ asserted state interests in tradition are nothing more than tautologies [the use of words that merely repeat elements of the meaning already conveyed.” “The evidence shows that the state advances nothing when it adheres to the tradition of excluding same-sex couples from marriage. Proponents’ asserted state interests in tradition are nothing more than tautologies [the use of words that merely repeat elements of the meaning already conveyed].”

Prop 8 Ruling Excerpts “In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.” (Page 132 of 136) “In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.” (Page 132 of 136)

Marriage truths shift just like everything else Neil Steinberg August 7, 2010 “Marriage is a social institution, a civic bond with religious overtones, and as with all social institutions, it changes… I bring this up in the wake of U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling last week that California's ban on gay marriage violates the Constitution. Of course it does, unless you are trying to use said Constitution to promote your religious morality, in which case you will be talking about gay marriage violating the timeless traditions of marriage. Someone needs to point out how that's a lot of hooey… With that in mind, not only does the eroding of the stigma against gay marriage fail to detract from the institution, but it is in harmony with marriage as we have been redefining it for 100 years.”

GALATIANS

Galatians Summary Outline I. I. Ch 1-2: Defense of Message and Messenger II. II. Ch 3-4: Grace-Faith versus Law-Works III. III. Ch 5-6: New Life in the Spirit

Ch 1-2: Defense of Message and Messenger A. 1:1-5Salutation B. 1:6-9Exclusivity of the Gospel C. 1:10-2:21Defense of Apostleship

Defense of Apostleship A. 1:10-24Paul’s Authority Acquired B. 2:1-10Paul’s Authority Acknowledged C. 2:11-21Paul’s Authority Applied

God’s Impartiality 1 Sam 16:7 1 Sam 16:7

God’s Impartiality 1 Sam 16:7 1 Sam 16:7 2 Chr 19:7 2 Chr 19:7

God’s Impartiality 1 Sam 16:7 1 Sam 16:7 2 Chr 19:7 2 Chr 19:7 Job 34:19; 37:24 Job 34:19; 37:24

God’s Impartiality 1 Sam 16:7 1 Sam 16:7 2 Chr 19:7 2 Chr 19:7 Job 34:19; 37:24 Job 34:19; 37:24 Acts 10:34 Acts 10:34

God’s Impartiality 1 Sam 16:7 1 Sam 16:7 2 Chr 19:7 2 Chr 19:7 Job 34:19; 37:24 Job 34:19; 37:24 Acts 10:34 Acts 10:34 Rom 2:11 Rom 2:11

God’s Impartiality 1 Sam 16:7 1 Sam 16:7 2 Chr 19:7 2 Chr 19:7 Job 34:19; 37:24 Job 34:19; 37:24 Acts 10:34 Acts 10:34 Rom 2:11 Rom 2:11 Eph 6:9 Eph 6:9

God’s Impartiality 1 Sam 16:7 1 Sam 16:7 2 Chr 19:7 2 Chr 19:7 Job 34:19; 37:24 Job 34:19; 37:24 Acts 10:34 Acts 10:34 Rom 2:11 Rom 2:11 Eph 6:9 Eph 6:9 Col 3:25 Col 3:25

πιστευω (v) πιστις (n) “to believe”“faith”

πιστευω (v) πιστις (n) “to believe”“faith” “to entrust with”

ενεγέω ENERGEŌ

ενεγέω ENERGEŌ “energy”

“pillar” 1 Tim 3:15“…the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” Rev 3:12“He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God…” Rev 10:1“I saw still another mighty angel coming down from heaven…his feet like pillars of fire.”