Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
6/26/2013 9:33:50 PM

Gay Marriage Ruling Forces Pastor into Disagreeable Choice

Supreme Court Same-Sex Ruling Creates Quandary for Pastors


J. Robert Hanson


Yahoo News asked Americans who are tangibly affected by the
Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decisions to react to Wednesday's rulings. Here's one perspective.

COMMENTARY | I love this country. I love my faith. I relish the principles of freedom Americans share. I also love the fact we can peacefully coexist in an environment of individualism. Presenting ideas and ideologies, winning each other to opposing views is what freedom is all about.

California's Proposition 8 and the federal DOMA law are two such examples. As late as 2008, the majority of Americans agreed with these measures. However, according to Gallup, that support has eroded. Ideologists have successfully changed the minds of many Americans.

Apparently, the Supreme Court has chosen to agree.

I'm a 55-year-old minister of a small evangelical church in Southern California, specifically Placentia, right in the heart of a conservative bastion. With my faith and beliefs, one would think I'd be at home living in this part of the country, but the Supreme Court's decision changes that. A cornerstone of my faith is the foundation of my church's belief system -- the Bible. And while I acknowledge there are countless disagreements over interpretation of the Bible, my faith tells me marriage is defined as union between a man and woman -- not just two consenting adults -- essentially agreeing with Proposition 8. My congregation follows and adheres to the judgments of the same faith.

I am at a crossroad: Do I preach on my faith's traditional definition of marriage or do I conform to the modern evolution mandated through the courts? I'm pressed to choose between love for my faith and my love for my country -- a simple, but difficult choice.

In fact, the issue can get even more complicated in the future. Since the courts have chosen to define a same-sex union as marriage, there's been some question in California as to whether public opposition from the pulpit is considered to be "hate speech," according to SB 1234, legislation passed 2004. If a pastor cannot legally voice his concerns on a moral subject, it makes it all the more difficult for ministers to win back the hearts of the populace.

Freedom of speech has the potential of being lost in the land of equality. And the quandary for pastors becomes greater in regard to speaking on the convictions of their faith. The Supreme Court's ruling favoring same-sex marriage forces pastors like me to make a disagreeable choice: love of faith or love of country?


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
6/27/2013 12:23:09 AM

Gay marriage ruling draws sober response in SF


Associated Press/J. Scott Applewhite, File - FILE - In this June 20, 2013 file photo, Chad Griffin, right, president of the Human Rights Campaign, leaves the Supreme Court, with Jeff Zarrillo, left, and Paul Katami, second from left, the plaintiffs in the California Proposition 8 case, and their attorney Ted Olson, center, in Washington. Proposition 8 is the California measure that banned same sex marriages. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling that will determine the fate of California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages on Wednesday morning, June 26, 2013. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

FILE - In this Nov. 5, 2008 file photo, Joni Boettcher, left, kisses her roommate Tika Shenghur during a protest march down Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood , Calif. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling that will determine the fate of California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages on Wednesday morning. (AP Photo/Kevork Djansezian, File)
FILE - In this Nov. 5, 2008 file photo, Joni Boettcher, left, kisses her roommate Tika Shenghur during a protest march down Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood , Calif. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling that will determine the fate of California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages on Wednesday morning. (AP Photo/Kevork Djansezian, File)

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A crowd at San Francisco City Hallapplauded the news Wednesday that the U.S. Supreme Court had cleared the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California, but the reaction was shaded by the knowledge that the high court had sidestepped the larger question of whether banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The justices voted 5-4 to let stand a trial court's August 2010 ruling that overturned the state's voter-approved gay marriage ban, holding that the coalition of religious conservative groups that qualified Proposition 8 for the ballot did not have authority to defend it after state officials refused to do so.

The practical effect of the Supreme Court ruling, however, is likely to be more legal wrangling before the state can begin issuingmarriage licenses to same-sex couples for the first time since Proposition 8 passed in November 2008.

"While it is unfortunate that the court's ruling does not directly resolve questions about the scope of the trial court's order against Prop 8, we will continue to defend Prop 8 and seek its enforcement until such time as there is a binding statewide order that renders Prop 8 unenforceable," said Andy Pugno, a lawyer for the ban's supporters.

The uncertainty has made it impossible for anyone to say when gay marriage might resume in California, where such unions had been legal for 4 1/2 months and an estimated 18,000 couples tied the knot before passage of Prop 8.

Gay marriage advocates said marriages could resume as soon as the midlevel appeals court that also invalidated Prop 8 lifts a hold it put on the lower court order while the litigation made its way to the Supreme Court. Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said his group would be pushing for that to happen within days instead of weeks.

"The headline here is marriage is starting very, very soon in the great state of California, and those couples should be planning those weddings tonight," Griffin said.

Gov. Jerry Brown said Wednesday he has directed the California Department of Public Health to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples as soon as the hold is lifted.

City and state officials said they were assuming that the earliest marriage licenses could be extended to same-sex couples would be the end of July, to give Prop 8 sponsors time to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider. Under Supreme Court rules, a losing side has 25 days to petition for a rehearing, and a decision would not become final until that period elapses.

Brown, Attorney General Kamala Harris and state public health director Ron Chapman might then need a few more days to notify county clerks that same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses should no longer be turned away. The three officials were named as defendants in the case but refused to defend Prop 8 in court,

Many activists had hoped the court would strike down bans on gay marriage across the nation as unconstitutional.

The battle over same-sex marriage in California started at San Francisco City Hall in 2004, when then-mayor Gavin Newsom ordered city clerks to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. On Wednesday, he brought the biggest cheers from the City Hall gathering when he said San Francisco is a city of "doers" that not only tolerates diversity, but celebrates it every day.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera called the ruling a great victory. He said people criticized the city in 2004, saying it was moving too fast in granting marriage licenses. But Herrera said he believes the only way to get things done is to "kick down the door."

The measured enthusiasm contrasted with the exuberant cheers that greeted word earlier that the Supreme Court had struck down a federal law that prevents the U.S. government from granting marriage benefits to gay couples.

___

Associated Press writer Sudhin Thanawala contributed to this story.


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
6/27/2013 9:18:30 AM

Americans Oppose 'Obamacare,' Social Security for Illegal Immigrants Made Legal by Reform


National Journal

As eight senators huddled behind closed doors to craft a bipartisan and comprehensive immigration-reform bill, South Carolinians began seeing television ads bashing Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham for his involvement. "Who elected Graham to demand amnesty and welfare for millions of illegal aliens?" a faceless voice asked in the February ad paid for by advocacy group NumbersUSA.

Who would get welfare and other benefits under immigration reform is a complicated and still-unanswered question, with Congress far from done debating immigration legislation. But what Americans think of the idea is suddenly much clearer.

According to the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, more than two-thirds of all Americans and nine out of every 10 Republicans oppose making legalized immigrants "eligible for government benefits ... before they become citizens," confirming the issue's potency as one of the main political attacks against immigration reform supporters in 2014.

NumbersUSA’s February ad against Graham may have been an early shot, but given how strongly the message tests, it seems sure to crop up again -- assuming attention remains focused on the issue.

Overall, 77 percent of respondents opposed making government benefits available to legalized (but noncitizen) immigrants.

In findings that are sure to feed a core conservative fear about the issue, the idea was broadly unpopular across party, race, and class lines:

  • Ninety percent of Republicans opposed it, as did 80 percent of independents and 65 percent of Democrats, suggesting the message could appear in general-election advertising as well as in GOP primaries.
  • Nearly two-thirds of nonwhites stood against the idea, as well as 84 percent of whites.
  • While college-educated women were the group of whites that most supported extending benefits, 71 percent of them still opposed it.

When asked specifically if legalized immigrants “should be eligible for health care assistance under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, before they become citizens,” the margins narrowed thanks to heightened Democratic, nonwhite, and college-educated support -- but respondents still remained hostile to the idea:

  • Sixty-nine percent of respondents said no, including 88 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of independents.
  • Fifty-four percent of Democrats said no, while 43 percent said legalized noncitizens should be Obamacare-eligible.
  • Among nonwhites, extending access to Obamacare polled exactly the same, while whites opposed it 76-20.

The Congressional Connection Poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International from June 20 to 23. It surveyed 1,005 adults by landline and cell phone and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.

In the current version of the Senate’s immigration bill, most legalized immigrants who are not permanent residents will not be eligible for means-tested benefits like the subsidies in the health care reform law. Permanent residents would immediately get access to some programs, such as the health care subsidies, but would have to wait longer to participate in others, like Medicaid.

The figures illustrate the political danger in omnibus reform legislation, such as the Senate immigration bill that’s expected to pass this week, that packages popular ideas with less popular ones. In a way, it’s reminiscent of the Obama health care law itself, which features well-liked insurance regulations alongside other items that Republicans have used effectively against Democrats, such as the “$700 billion in Medicare cuts” featured in so many of last year’s campaign ads.

What immigration reform has going for it, though, is that its main elements are broadly popular: Last week’s United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll found big majorities -- including majorities of Republicans -- in favor of allowing illegal immigrants who meet certain requirements to stay in the country and later apply for citizenship. And a strong plurality supported focusing the immigration system on acquiring needed job skills for the economy, as have the members crafting the Senate legislation. (However, 49 percent of Republicans did say this week that they would be less likely to vote for their U.S. representative or senator if he or she voted for a pathway to citizenship.)

Former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, who heads the Republicans for Immigration Reform super PAC, said that pro-reform Republicans can survive tough messaging -- like the government benefits issue -- by focusing on the anticipated benefits, such as a lift to the economy. Republicans for Immigration Reform has also been on TV in South Carolina, with an ad featuring a local chamber of commerce official praising Graham for helping bring the economic benefit of immigration reform to the Palmetto State.

“You hear very little about the most important part” of the legislation, Gutierrez said.

“It'll be a tremendous surge for our economy,” he continued, noting that’s where his group will focus its efforts defending GOP supporters of the reform bill.

That message will have to compete with a broadly unpopular attack gaining steam among conservative opponents, though, picking away at the bill at its weakest points.

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
6/27/2013 9:25:23 AM

Indian floods a man-made disaster, say environmentalists

By Peter Shadbolt, CNN
June 25, 2013 -- Updated 2252 GMT (0652 HKT)

  • Environmentalists blame rampant development for high death toll in Uttarakhand
  • They blame hydro projects and ad hoc road building for exacerbating the problem
  • Massive Hindu pilgrimages every year strain resources in the Himalayan state
  • Uttarakhand is home to Rishikesh, the meditation retreat made famous by The Beatles

(CNN) -- As the source of the Ganges River, the site of Hinduism's famous Char Dham pilgrimage and home to Rishikesh, the meditation retreat made famous by The Beatles, the India's northern Uttarakhand state justifies its title of "Land of the Gods."

But environmentalists are warning that rampant development in the Himalayan state is tempting fate.

With roads built on an ad hoc basis, new hotel developments built on river banks and hydro dams proposed in the region's steep valleys, environmentalists say the floods and mudslides that have claimed more than 1,000 lives in the past week were an ecological catastrophe waiting to happen.

READ: Authorities scramble to rescue stranded

"You've heard of homicide, well this is ecocide," Devinder Sharma of the Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security told CNN. "The hills have been shorn of the forest cover, there's extensive mining taking place in this region and on top of that the roads that are being constructed are haphazard.

"And the hydro projects coming are phenomenal -- 70 hydro projects back to back. Obviously there are tunnels being built, hills being blasted and everything goes topsy-turvy.

Massive rescue effort continues in India
Images: India lashed by monsoon rainsImages: India lashed by monsoon rains
Rain expected in flooded parts of India
Death toll could rise 'significantly'

"We are playing with nature but at the same time blaming nature."

He said while a massive national road-building program had been well received by India's state governments, routes had been planned through increasingly remote areas without adequate drainage, exacerbating the problems of coping with massive run-off from the region's monsoon rains.

A real estate boom in the region has also resulted in new developments going ahead without adequate planning permission.

"It's a classical model of disaster," he said. "If you want to see globally what can happen in regions like the Alps or the Rocky Mountains or elsewhere you only have to take a look at Uttarakhand."

Souparno Banerjee of the Indian advocacy group theCenter for Science and Environment said that despite state government denials, most experts were of the view that unregulated development and unregulated tourism is responsible for the scale of the disaster.

"Development is important but we need to keep in mind the very delicate eco-system that you're working within," he said. "The Himalayas are the biggest mountain range in the world but they are also extremely fragile.

"You need to keep that in mind when putting disaster management plans in place."

He said his organization recommended a certain amount of flow necessary to keep rivers in the region at a safe level, but that dam projects and river diversions for roads had backed up with flood waters from torrential rains.

"The drainage in many areas is half-baked," he told CNN.

Uttarakhand's chief minister Vijay Bahuguna told the Times of India newspaper that the floods had set back the state by at least three years in terms of development.

You've heard of homicide, well this is ecocide
Devinder Sharma

"My people are going to suffer because tourism is going to be affected. We have to put the infrastructure back on the rails. I have written to the prime minister that preliminary reports suggest there is loss of Rs 3,000 crore (US$500 million). This tragedy has broken our economy," he said.

He said that a balance needed to be struck between the environment and development, adding that he did not want migration away from Uttarakhand.

"Seventy percent of my state is forest cover. (If) I am preserving my forests for the nation then why don't you give me compensation? Let the country compensate us."

He denied that the disaster was man-made and a result of the indiscriminate construction of hotels and houses.

"This is a very childish argument -- that cloudbursts, earthquakes and tsunamis are caused by human factors. In the history of hundreds of years of Kedarnath (a region of the state), no such incident has taken place. In a Himalayan state, this catastrophe has come about in 37,000 square miles of area. This cloudburst, 330 millimetres of rain, cannot be anticipated."


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
6/27/2013 9:33:40 AM

High court strikes down federal marriage provision

Gay rights advocate Vin Testa waves a rainbow flag in front of the Supreme Court at sun up in Washington, Wednesday, June 26, 2013. Justices are expected to hand down major rulings on two gay marriage cases that could impact same-sex couples across the country. One is a challenge to California's voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage. The other is a challenge to a provision of federal law that prevents legally married gay couples from receiving a range of tax, health and pension benefits. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that legally married same-sex couples should get the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples.

The court invalidated a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that has prevented married gay couples from receiving a range of tax, health and retirement benefits that are generally available to married people. The vote was 5-4.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.

Same-sex marriage has been adopted by 12 states and the District of Columbia. Another 18,000 couples were married in California during a brief period when same-sex unions were legal there.

The court has yet to release its decision on California's ban on same-sex marriage.

"Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways," Kennedy said.

"DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal," he said.

He was joined by the court's four liberal justices.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Scalia read his dissent aloud. Scalia said the court should not have decided the case.

But, given that it did, he said, "we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation."

The law was passed in 1996 by broad majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. Since then, many lawmakers who voted for the law and Clinton have renounced their support.



"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1


facebook
Like us on Facebook!