Posted on 11/18/2008 7:35:49 PM PST by dvan
Hundreds of homosexual activists rushed out of bars and swarmed a group of Christians who were singing songs in San Francisco's Castro District – and some even threatened to kill the worshippers.
Warning: Video may contain offensive language)
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I would like to add to your comment.....
And build a border fence all around the State.
(first I would want to bring my sons Dad and his kin up here)
This group have regularly held these witness events in this location.
This was the first one held after the Prop 8 vote.
Ya Know Sir Elton John just came out to say his Opine.
He says any gay can get a civil legal union but insisting they call it marraige is not appropriate.
I agree any two people gay or not can make legal arrangements/contract to take care of one another financially like business partners may do and so far as hosp visits there is civil ways to be reconized as ones care provider
The gays don’t want Christians in their neighborhoods, but think that they have a right to go into Christian neighborhoods to protest the churches.
Watching the video made me think of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah where the angels were not safe going into the city because the gays ruled the city to the extent that any man who entered would be gang raped. SF is a whiskers breath from that extreme of violence.
Quite a few Freepers were discussing the idea of having the Creep Phelps (funeral crashing God hates fags dude) and his cult go do what these Christians did.
Now that (I have to agree) would be a pay per view event I would love to see.
AMEN!
Not only that, those Christians were there merely to pray and share the gospel.
Swell.
Yeah. This world would be, like, so much better off without all these "Christians"! So tell me, Timmy... do you like gladiator movies? Don't worry, your secret is safe with us...
;-/
“Here’s an idea: Regular people move to other states, and leave California to the homosexuals, gangbangers, illegals and assorted fruits & nuts, and let’s see how long they last without you.”
I’m with you on this one!
Question, I am missing something on this issue I think. I don’t live in California and am not in the country at present and only get my news from foreign TV or news sources and I am not gay so I don’t read those groups for that lifestyle, so don’t flame me. I just want to know since I keep reading reported increased instances of violence from afar. If California has a civil law union contract provision which is what in reality a marriage is from the governmental view and the specifics of a marriage are up to each church, what is problem? Is this a matter of being only upset over the defination of marriage as a union between a man and a woman or is there more to this? Why didn’t they strike it months ago before the election? Surely,they knew it was coming or do elections occur overnight in La La Land. Elections and post election court battles are expensive and could make the public even more angry. If they are getting what a marriage allows anyway via the government and really the individual churches can perform or deny a service for any religious choice. I am getting concerned about the increased reported violence and harassment by this group in the msm that I can access from abroad which is why I wanted to know more of the specifics.
There’s a thread floating around here somewhere, an after action report from the people there. They were there long before prop 8 and have witnessed for Christ, sang songs, etc.
There was no gloating or looking for trouble.
Christ instructed us to love all sinners, minister to them and condemn the sin not the sinner.
The people there witnessing are many times the Christian I am. I applaud them.
Never happen as they are on the exact same side.
I had a simmilar thought. They should be careful. Our wrists aren’t as limp and not all Christians turn the other cheek.
So much for all this “tolerance” they preach.
My guess from abroad is that it has to do with the definition of marriage between a man and a woman going into law now and with California being La La Land. However, churches still pretty much do what they want regardless of the law on this issue and may call it a blessing or something else. I am abroad so I don’t know the specifics but when violence makes it to foreign press from my own country repeatedly then I am just wondering what else I maybe missing.
Perhaps I can answer some of your questions. The issue of gay marriage as a civil right under the California Constitution was not a problem until last May when four justices of the California Supreme Court determined that the California Constitution did not specify marriage could only exist between a man and a woman so, therefore, the state had to allow same-sex couples to marry. Licenses began being issued in June. Opponents of this judicial activism to redefine marriage worked feverishly to add a marriage definition to the California Constitution limited to heterosexual couples. Even though the matter was thrust upon the public rather suddenly, the gay activists believed it would not pass. When it did, they were shocked and angry and are now acting out their anger against identifiable groups they blame for its passage, including Mormons, Catholics, other Christians, Blacks and Latinos.
Ostensibly the argument seems to be grounded in the notion that there should be one type of union for heterosexual couples and another for homosexual couples; however, it is not just the two-tier issue that angers the gay rights people. They hoped to take marriage rights and privileges under the California Constitution and use them to demand federal benefits (now withheld under federal laws protecting heterosexual marriage) and to sue for discrimination any person or organization, including churches, which might distinguish between heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages on the basis that the law doesn’t discriminate. They further wanted to use a California marriage as a way to sue for full faith and credit to force every other state in the union to recognize marriages contracted in California even if it were still illegal in the host state.
Give us your angels!
Give us your angels!
“Ostensibly the argument seems to be grounded in the notion that there should be one type of union for heterosexual couples and another for homosexual couples;”
Meant to say “argument seems to be grounded in the notion that there should NOT be one type of union for heterosexual couples and another for homosexual couples;” Need to really preview instead of lying about it.
Bookmark.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.