California Court Affirms Gay Marriage

It is a dark day in American history. The California Supreme Court ruled earlier today that homosexual couples have a constitutional right to marry. “In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George (that name will go down in infamy) wrote of marriage for the majority, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.” For the record, there is NO constitutional right to marriage -- no matter who or what is being "married".

The court’s 4-to-3 decision struck down California state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman. It should be noted that the Author of marriage deemed it to be defined as one man and one woman -- NOT Barry and Larry or Joan and Sloane. The true definition of marriage requires the term to mean the union of one man and one woman -- no matter what the California Supreme Court says.

California already has a strong domestic partnership law that gives gay and lesbian couples nearly all of the benefits and burdens of heterosexual marriage. The slim majority said that is not enough.

"Given the historic, cultural, symbolic and constitutional significance of the concept of marriage," Chief Justice George wrote, "the state cannot limit marriage to opposite-sex couples." What a liberal moron! Historically, marriage has meant a man and a woman joining each other in holy matrimony. Symbolically, there has NEVER been anything other than one man and one woman symbolizing marriage. Constitutionally, there is no concept of marriage, other than that given by the Judeo-Christian values of the forefathers of the United States -- and they would NEVER have allowed such an unholy union to be called marriage.

Yet, Justice George and his ilk thought it their place to redefine marriage and guarantee the decadence of homosexuality a proper place in Californian society -- even after the citizens of California had voted AGAINST gay and lesbian unions being defined as "marriage". California’s ban on same-sex marriage was based on a law enacted by the Legislature in 1977 and a statewide initiative approved by the voters in 2000, both defining marriage as limited to unions between a man and a woman.

Conservative groups have proposed an initiative to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. If it is allowed onto the ballot in November and approved by the voters, today’s decision would be overridden. The groups have gathered more than a million signatures on initiative petitions and submitted them to the state. Lord, I hope the citizens win. Otherwise, California is going to see much more pain, promiscuity, death and suffering as a sure result of the California Supreme Court's ruling on this day.

A dissenting opinion by Judge Marvin Baxter and joined by Judge Ming Chin said a narrow majority of the court had carved a constitutional right out of existing equal-protection laws, overstepping legislative powers in what amounted to "legal jujitsu." A third justice dissented on different grounds. "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," Baxter wrote.

“... a bare majority of this court,” Justice Baxter also wrote, “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.”

Yes, it is a dark day in American history. One we all will regret if the tide of the homosexual agenda is not interrupted. Remember, the ultimate agenda is sex with children, animals, the dead, furniture -- ANYTHING to satisfy perverted desires. May I remind you that means (on the extreme side) torture, mutilation, rape and even necrophilia. The slippery slope started in Massachusetts. The avalanche may have begun today.

If you think these comments are "off the deep end", do some research for yourself. The answer is out there -- and many (including health professional) have been warning us for years.

Excerpts from The New York Times

TOPIC: Family Ties Key to Happy Kids

Article from FOXNews.com

So you're between the ages of 13 and 24. What makes you happy? A worried, weary parent might imagine the answer to sound something like this: Sex, drugs, a little rock 'n' roll. Maybe some cash, or at least the car keys. Turns out the real answer is quite different.

Spending time with family was the top answer to that open-ended question, according to an extensive survey — more than 100 questions asked of 1,280 people ages 13-24 — conducted by The Associated Press and MTV on the nature of happiness among America's young people.
Next was spending time with friends, followed by time with a significant other. And even better for parents: Nearly three-quarters of young people say their relationship with their parents makes them happy.

"They're my foundation," says Kristiana St. John, 17, a high-school student from Queens in New York. "My mom tells me that even if I do something stupid, she's still going to love me no matter what. Just knowing that makes me feel very happy and blessed."
Other results are more disconcerting. While most young people are happy overall with the way their lives are going, there are racial differences: the poll shows whites to be happier, across economic categories, than blacks and Hispanics. A lot of young people feel stress, particularly those from the middle class, and females more than males.
You might think money would be clearly tied to a general sense of happiness. But almost no one said "money" when asked what makes them happy, though people with the highest family incomes are generally happier with life. However, having highly educated parents is a stronger predictor of happiness than income.
And sex? Yes, we were getting to that. Being sexually active actually leads to less happiness among 13-17 year olds, according to the survey. If you're 18 to 24, sex might lead to more happiness in the moment, but not in general.
From the body to the soul: Close to half say religion and spirituality are very important. And more than half say they believe there is a higher power that has an influence over things that make them happy. Beyond religion, simply belonging to an organized religious group makes people happier.
And parents, here's some more for you: Most young people in school say it makes them happy. Overwhelmingly, young people think marriage would make them happy and want to be married some day. Most also want to have kids. Finally, when asked to name their heroes, nearly half of respondents mentioned one or both of their parents. The winner, by a nose: Mom.

READ MORE...

TOPIC: Statement from Schoolgirl Following Purity Ring Ruling

Article from ChristianToday

Statement from schoolgirl Lydia Playfoot following the High Court's decision to uphold a ban on her wearing a purity ring by her school, Millais School in West Sussex.

"I am very disappointed by the decision this morning by the High Court not to allow me to wear my purity ring to school as an expression of my Christian faith not to have sex outside of marriage. I believe that Mr. Justice Supperstone’s decision will mean that slowly, over time, people such as school governors, employers, political organisations and others will be allowed to stop Christians from publicly expressing and practising their faith.

Over two years ago, I was concerned at the number of teenagers who were catching sexually transmitted diseases, getting pregnant and/or having abortions. The Government's Sex Education Programme is not working, and the pressure on young people to 'give in' to sex continues to increase. This is often because of the media’s focus on sex and the expectations of others.

As a Christian I do not agree with sex before marriage. I believe I have a right not only to state my Christian views on sex, but also to demonstrate my Christian faith and commitment to God and my future husband not to have sex before marriage, through the wearing of a purity ring.

I, along with 11 other Christian girls at Millais School decided before God that we would make a commitment not to have sex before marriage, and as a sign of that commitment, to wear a simple silver ring from the ‘Silver Ring Thing’ movement. The wearing of the ring was to me, a demonstration of my Christian faith and values, which are based on the Bible – which clearly teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong and therefore not God's best for us. Despite the fact that Muslims girls at our school wear headscarves, and Sikhs wear Kara bangles, the school refused to allow me to manifest my belief through the wearing of a ring.

The School Governors originally said it was for Health and Safety reasons that purity rings were banned from school, but have offered no evidence to support the view that wearing a ring could physically harm another pupil or staff member. I still believe the decision by the Governors of the School goes against the Article 9 rights to Freedom of Religion and my right to express my faith in word or deed, in a democratic, Christian-based country. I shall be consulting my legal team to consider whether to appeal.

Finally I would like to take this opportunity to thank my parents, family and friends who have stood by me though all of this, and to the many hundreds of people, both locally in Horsham, across the UK and throughout the world who have sent me letters of support and assured me of their prayers. I would also like to thank the national press and media for the balanced way in which they have covered this story, and have portrayed it for what it is; another example of the loss of the right of Christians to demonstrate their faith in public.

Lastly, but by no means least, I would like to thank my barrister, Mr Paul Diamond, and Mrs Andrea Minichiello Williams of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship for all their advice, guidance and support through what is a legal and political minefield for a 16-year-old schoolgirl to walk through. I would also like to thank Paul Eddy, of Paul Eddy PR who has guided me through the maze of working with the national press and media.

To everyone I offer my thanks, and I deeply regret that I could not persuade the Court to consider upholding the religious liberty of Christian people in the United Kingdom.

As a Christian though, I live for another Kingdom, and serve another King, Jesus Christ, and therefore I shall continue to live and speak for what is right and true.
Thank you.
Miss Lydia Playfoot
July 16, 2007"