\nAll hell broke lose again after a judge overturned the ban on gay marriage in California.\n<\/p>\n
\nAfter noting a "baptist" minster's comment, who, unfortunately, actually advocated the ruling, said of the ruling:\n<\/p>\n
\n"important distinctions between civil \n"was sensitive to the \nI began to analyze him with what I could gather.\n<\/p>\n \nMy conclusion was that he is either very liberal or a coward. The key being the fact that he supported the distinction of a world with God in it and a world without God in it. Thus, an obvious denial of responsibility to be the light and salt of the world, as commanded by Christ.\n<\/p>\n \nOn the other hand, I have been wondering, of the proponents of the ban, especially Christians, about what they have been doing about being the salt and the light of the world in respect of TRUE marriage, after the risky 52% victory on Proposition 8.\n<\/p>\n \nThere is only one TRUE marriage. There is no such thing as a "religious marriage" and that of other kinds. What then? if there were other kinds and those "family" become Christians? What would these liberal advocates pronounce then? Divorce? Ignore their previous stand on such distinction?\n<\/p>\n \n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" All hell broke lose again after a judge overturned the ban on gay marriage in California. After noting a "baptist" minster's comment, who, unfortunately, actually advocated the ruling, said of the ruling: "important distinctions between civil marriage and religious marriage."... … Continue reading
\nmarriage and religious marriage."...<\/em>\n<\/p>\n
\nconcerns of people of faith who oppose same-gender marriage on religious
\ngrounds but that he recognized, as do we, that their religious freedom
\nwill not be impacted by the legalization of same-gender marriage."<\/em>\n<\/p>\n