Read the interview on the EPS blog
On the Dividing Line, Dr. White reviews the recent debate
mp3 from William Lane Craig’s Defenders class
It looks like the judges are left-leaning
Download sermons from Mark Driscoll and Ed Stetzer
I was doing some quick research before posting my last comment which mentioned (briefly) the physical dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. I’ve heard these numbers before in passing but they are worth sharing here for a few reasons. First, it is pertinent to the past few blogs relating to Prop 8 being overturned by Gay Judge Vaughn Walker. Second, this data has relevant apologetic value for combating the media’s (and many pro-gay advocate’s) portrayal of the need for same-sex marriage.
The quote below is part of a pdf which goes into some pretty ugly statistics about the less told side of homosexual sex. There is a lot about the physical damage and the bacteria, viruses, STDs, etc (79 footnotes in 14 pages, not bad). This snippet below focuses on the number of sexual partners that homosexuals typically have. To break it down, if you have 33 homosexual friends who have been gay/lesbian for awhile, statistically speaking only one of them has been monogamous (with one partner). 7 of those 33 will have between 100 to 500 sexual partners in their lifetime. Continue reading
I didn’t know this when I wrote about it on Thursday, but Vaughn R. Walker is openly gay (maybe this is proof that I’m not looking for ammo, cause I would have mentioned that). Think about this: The most costly campaign on either side over a state proposition, EVER. After all of the drama over Prop 22 being overturned, Prop 8 being voted in by the majority of California voters, and now an openly gay judge gets the case? Can anyone say bias? He personally has something to gain by overturning Proposition 8.
The 136 page ruling on Prop 8 from Judge Vaughn Walker is available here:
http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/prop8/FF_CL_Final.pdf
Thanks to Brian from Know It’s True for sending me this massive document that I will end up reading in its entirety!
This morning is cloudy as I write, and how appropriate it is that the sun is not shining. Yesterday a very dark thing happened in California. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker from (surprise surprise) San Francisco overturned Proposition 8.
Prop 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license…Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.
In 2000 I had just turned 18 and in my first election I proudly (and biblically) voted yes for this short sentence to be added to the Family Code: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Proposition 22 only stated as law what the vast majority of Americans have held to be true in the past, marriage is a union between two things, and those things are a man and a woman. That was overturned, despite the will of the voters. For 8 years we enjoyed a statute which defined marriage biologically and biblically.
When the courts overturned Prop 22 California voted for an amendment to the California Constitution to the same effect. I know we aren’t supposed to quote Wikipedia, but this is a safe one:
Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition that sought to change the California Constitution to add a new section (7.5) to Article I, that would read: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
This time it was more than a statute, it was an amendment to the very constitution which was used to overturn Prop 22. A statute can be overturned if it is found to be inconsistent with the state constitution. This point is good, by the way. As a Christian and as an American I want my laws to be consistent with one another. Laws can not be enforced fairly if they contradict one another. With Prop 8 now adding a familiar phrase to the California Constitution the voters had spoken again. They told us that a biblical/common sense definition of marriage was unconstitutional, so we changed the constitution. Continue reading