A Morman church in Ventura is organizing precinct walks.

Way to try and make it look like faith groups support gay marriage. Let's look at both sites and see where support is stronger.

Here are the churches who believe marriage should be between a man and woman:

A. V. Alpha & Omega Ministries, Palmdale
Abundant Life Assembly of God, Copeland
Abundant Life Christian Fellowship
All Seasons Ministries, El Cajon
Alpha and Omega Arlington Apostolic Church, Riverside
Alpine Anglican Church, Alpine
Baldwin Park Church of Christ
Bible Fellowship Church, Ventura
Bundy Canyon Christian Church and School, Wildomar
Calvary Assembly of God
Calvary Assembly, Milpitas
Calvary Baptist Church, Modesto
Calvary Church
Calvary Temple
Camarillo Community Church
Canyon View Church of Christ, San Diego
Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament
Central Baptist Church of Indio
Chapel in the Pines, Arnold
Chinese Evangelical Free Church, Monterey Park
Chinese Grace Bible Church, Sacramento
Christ Driven Church of Fowler Ca.
Christian Life Center
Christian Life Tools
Christian Outreach for Armenians, Glendale
Church of Christ, Upland
Community Counseling Services, Inc.
Core Christian Fellowship, Murrieta
Cornerstone Baptist Church
Cornerstone Baptist Church, Nicholasville KY
Cornerstone Christian Church, El Dorado Hills
Cornerstone Fellowship, Livermore
CrossPoint Community Church of the Nazarene
Dan Kricorian Ministries Int'l
Dayspring Christian Fellowship
Desert Stream Ministries
El Cajon Wesleyan Church, El Cajon
Elsinore Christian Center, Lake Elsinore
Faith Chapel Church of God in Christ, San Diego
Faith Community Church by the Sea, Encinitas
Faith Tabernacle
Faith to Faith Fellowship, Temecula
F.C.F. Int'l Ministries
Filipino American Community Church
First Baptist Church of Hesperia
First Baptist Church of Menlo Park
First Baptist Church of Taft
First Baptist Church, Lomita
First Foursquare Gospel Church of San Jose, San Jose
First Presbyterian Church, Amarillo TX
First Southern Baptist, Yucca Valley
Foxworthy Baptist Church
Free Indeed Christian Fellowship, Perris
Freedom Community Christian Church, Perris
Freewill Missionary Baptist Church, San Diego
Freewill Missionary Baptist Church, San Diego
Friends Church, Yorba Linda
Friendship Christian Fellowship Church, Moreno Valley
Gem of the Valley Church, Murrieta
God’s Word Church, Apple Valley
Golden Altar Ministries, San Jose
Golden Gate Christian Church
High Desert Church, Victorville
Highland Springs Fellowship, Banning
House of Luke, Hemet
Independent Church of Lake Elsinore
Irvine First Chinese Baptist Church
Joy Ministry for Christ, Los Angeles
Jubilee Family Church, Oskaloosa IA
Koinonia Evangelistic Center, Moreno Valley
Lake Murray Church, Assemblies of God
Life Center Church, Lakewood
Light by the Bay Church, San Lorenzo
Lighthouse Assembly of God, Murrieta
Lighthouse Community Church, Lathrop
Living Faith Christian Fellowship, Garden Grove
Living Word Christian Church, San Diego
Love and Unity Church of God in Christ, Compton
Luke Four Eighteen Ministries International, Temecula
Maranatha Chapel
Maranatha Chapel, Rancho Bernardo
Menlo Park Community Church of God in Christ, Menlo Park
Meridian Southern Baptist, El Cajon
Mount Pisgah Baptist Church, San Diego
Mountain View Community Church, Temecula
Napoleon Washington, Jr. Evangelistic Assn.
Nations Harvest Church, Sunnyvale
New Birth Kingdom Covenant
New Covenant Ministries Christian Fellowship
New Day Church
New Destiny Christian Church, Inc.
New Life Presbyterian Church
New Light Church of God, Riverside
New Seasons Church
Newhall Church of the Nazarene
Oasis of Faith Christian Center
Our Redeemer Lives Church, Lake Elsinore
Progressive M.B.C. of Berkeley
Rancho Baptist Church, Temecula
Ray of Hope Church, Pomona
Resurrection Power Ministries
Revival Christian Fellowship, Menifee
Rose Drive Friends Church, Yorba Linda
Rubidoux First Assembly of God
San Antonio Heights Community Church, San Bernardino
San Diego Christian Worship Center, San Diego
San Jose Church of Christ, San Jose
San Jose Foursquare Church, San Jose
San Jose Open Bible Church, San Jose
San Jose Word of Faith Christian Center, San Jose
San Mateo Pro Life
Set Free Ministries of San Diego, San Diego
Sierra Madre Congregational Church
Skyline Wesleyan Church, El Cajon
Solid Ground Brethren in Christ Church, Alta Loma
South Coast Christian Assembly
South Valley Christian Church, San Jose
Southwest Christian Church, Temecula
Southwest Community Church, Indian Wells
St Timothy Orthodox Church
St. Mary Catholic Church
State College Blvd. Church of Christ, Anaheim
Survivors of Assault Recovery/Living Word Christian Church, San Diego
The Calvary Chapel Churches
The Church of God of Prophecy, National City
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
The Home Church, Campbell
The Oasis Foursquare Church
The Rock Church, San Diego
Tyler Baptist Church, Riverside
Valley Christian Church, Chino
Victory International Church, San Mateo
Victory Outreach of Eagle Rock
Vineyard Family Christian Fellowship, Downey
Voices of Hope Ministries
Whittier Church of Christ, Whittier
Windsor Hills Baptist Church, La Mesa
Word of Life Ministries Int’l, Riverside
Zion Christian Fellowship, Spring Valley

Now, here are the churches who support gay marriage:

All Saints Episcopal Church
Altadena Community Church United Church of Christ
Bloom in the Desert Ministries UCC/Methodist
Conejo Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles
Mission Hills United Church of Christ
Unitarian Universalist Church in Anaheim
Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry Action Network*
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry, CA

It doesn't matter what Obama or McCain thinks because Prop 8 is a state issue.

Bible Fellowship Church, Ventura
Camarillo Community Church
Cornerstone Baptist Church,
St Timothy Orthodox Church
St. Mary Catholic Church
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Now, here are the churches who support gay marriage:

All Saints Episcopal Church
Conejo Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry, CA

It would be cleaner to add to these lists because it is Ventura County.

Copy and paste this link, it explains it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY

lol

Copy and paste this link, it explains it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY

lol

Copy and paste this link, it explains it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY

lol

Is the issue whether or not govt will force all those churches to believe that same sex couples have the right to marry OR is it whether or not those churches will force all others to obey their beliefs?

Not judging. Just asking.

California Teachers Association has endorsed the no on prop 8 campaign in support of gay marriage.

Next time teachers ask for more money in the classroom, ask them why their union funds left wing causes unrelated to the classroom?

Mike,

Funny video.

GS,

Churches are free to practice their own beliefs and set their own requirements for marriage. Other changes to marriage and civil rights laws haven't changed this at all.

Are the Log Cabin Republicans "left wing"?

Stop calling names instead of debating issues. It shows you have a weak argument. Teachers have long supported civil rights for their students.

Actually, the churches' recent attempts to force their beliefs on everyone shows that conservatives have a weak argument. Every election, instead of tackling the issues that really matter to the future of CA families & children, conservatives are forced to co-opt the pulpits in an attempt to get enough voters to the polls to maintain their obstructionist presence in the Assembly & Senate.

THEY are the reason there's no state budget. They take the blame for borrowing Sacramento into bear-bankruptcy.

If conservatives get their way the portion of our state debt needed to pay JUST bond interest will be almost $10B. If not for that interest the State would have a large surplus.

The difference between Gay marriage and Mormon marriage is Mormon marriage has victims. Gay marriage is between to consenting adults. Mormon marriage victimizes underage children. That's why the F.B.I. chases the Mormons around for getting married and not gay people.

In America we follow the U.S. Constitution not mormon law. The Republicans are siding once again with the enemies of the Constitution.

The last comment from anonymous was the most outrgeous and uninformed comment on this website. I suppose that he/she was referring to the polygamous practices of the FLDS, which has been in the news lately for the government of Texas' involvement in combatting illegal marriages. Anyone with a little knowledge, and who is not attempting to incite hatred or anti-Mormon propraganda would know the distinction between Mormons and the FLDS.

Religous groups have as much of a right to support or oppose proposed laws/constitutional amendments, as much as an individual citizen, or Political Action Committees.

Let the people decide, and the people will, not a handful of judges.

The last comment from anonymous was the most outrgeous and uninformed comment on this website. I suppose that he/she was referring to the polygamous practices of the FLDS, which has been in the news lately for the government of Texas' involvement in combatting illegal marriages. Anyone with a little knowledge, and who is not attempting to incite hatred or anti-Mormon propraganda would know the distinction between Mormons and the FLDS.

Religous groups have as much of a right to support or oppose proposed laws/constitutional amendments, as much as an individual citizen, or Political Action Committees.

Let the people decide, and the people will, not a handful of judges.

Mike, I agree with your take on the distinction.

Would you agree that the People should be able to pass laws restricting and regulating religious groups and that judges should stay out of their way when they do?

Don't get your safety pants in a bunch. I was referring to the Arizona sect. It's not your sect. It's the other guys sect. O.K.?

Anyways,
The important thing is "NO" religion should ever trump the U.S. Constitution. This is a Country that respects all people's beliefs and if two people want to team up on life together who are you to say no?

gs, I'm probably more liberal in my views than some (I plan on voting for Obama in the Presidential Election), so I do think people should be able to pass laws restricting and regulating religous groups that cause harm or violate the human rights of its members or other citizens of the United States. In a perfect world, that would be the case, and to me, that would be within our rights, as writen in the constitution. I'm not an expert on the US constituion, but I don't think we have a "right to marriage" (obviously some judges disagree) and definitely in international law, we do not currently (the U.S. that is) consider economic and social rights as "inalienable" human rights. Obviously, some religous groups consider Marriage to be only between a man and a woman, and if they want to support the amendment so be it. If someone doesn't support it, he/she can organize as well and mobilize against it. That's what is great about the US.

Since Mormans go to there own celestrial heaven where gentiles are not allowed why are they concerned with what a small percentage of people do?

For years they have had an exclusive society of faithful members not interested in becoming community but more dominating communities. There organization of bicycle riding robots is indicitive of the group think mentality the church instills from a very young age.

If the Mo's are against it the rest of society should b for it.

The FLDS is not a sect in that it a mainstream part of Mormonism. They haven't been connected to the official church in many years.

Mike, if a state wanted to ban interracial marriage do you think that would violate the Constitution? I am wondering if you think there truly isn't a right to marriage in the Bill of Rights.

I see it in amendment one.

I think it would violate the constitution under the 14th Amendment, "Equal Protection Clause."

I think it would violate the 14th Amendment, "Equal Protection Clause". States tried this and the law was overturned rightfully.

Mike,

It also violates the free exercise clause of the first amendment. If my church is blessing a wedding but the government bans it then it is interfering with the free exercise of religions practice.

The government only has the right to interfere under very limited circumstances.

I will refrain from leaving a comment on this subject but will leave you with this extract from the Christian bible since this country was founded by Christians:

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

Thank you for the warning, Carlos, but this Nation was founded by Christians who recognized that RELIGION and GOD are two different things and that the trappings of church do not equal Faith.

Would you consider him a Christian?

This country was founded based off of many enlightenment ideals.

And what about female prostitutes? Why are they not mentioned?

Carlos M.,
Have you ran that passage by your priest lately?

Does anyone here know if the Simi POA is for Gay marriage now and would donate against the Church/s? Do you know if the big unions are going to go against the Church/s also?

What I find interesting is that the country was founded on freedom of religion, yet every religious group gets upset when the country tries to do something that different than their beliefs. If you want a country to accept you for your religious beliefs, then you should also let other members of the country have their freedom to choose.

As far as Mormons are concerned, #1 to Mr. Anonymous, they are not polygamists. Polygamy was condoned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints almost 40 years ago. Maybe you should read your history before you state that Mormon marriage has victims.

#2 The Mormons out there who are so upset over these laws should really look back at two of the most basic teachings. Free Agency, and Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged. Should you really be trying to force others to believe as you do? And passing judgment on them for wanting to be happy?

Just puzzles me that so many people keep saying that we need to protect our children, yet here we teach them that Equality, Choice, Tollerance & Understanding are not qualities unless you're Christian and faithful God.

Good news! Larry Craig, Foley and Ted Haggart have announced that even though as conservative males they are pro gay sex, they are against gay marriage!

This issue is used to turn out the vote, much like the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice issue is used to galvanize people in the respective parties. Conservative voters in the Mormon and Catholic churches are dutifully walking the precincts. Republican candidates hope that they will vote this November. Whatever the outcome will be fought in the courts and alot of attorneys will get rich.

The big prop is Proposition 11 - Redistricting. No incumbent wants it to pass and therefore will not give it lip service. It is up to all voters to support it.

This is not an issue of whether heterosexual couples should have a monopoly on "marriage". The real issue SHOULD be whether the State has the authority to give licenses to anyone, gay or straight to make a SPIRITUAL RELIGIOUS committment.

Does the State give licenses to those who are baptized? Does the State recognize a baptism of a baby in the Catholic Church in lieu of a birth certificate?

The real solution to this problem is to remove the word "marriage" from the civil procedure altogether and replace it with the words "civil union" or "domestic partnership".

Under the laws of the USA, a license or permit is "permission" or "license" granted by an individual or the government to do something which one would ordinarily NOT have the right to do.

Our Constitution guarantees our religious freedom, and our freedom to commit to a relationship with others, whether spiritual or civil in nature. Men and women have been getting "married" for far longer than government licensing procedures have existed.

Marriage, as a spiritual and cultural committment, has traditionally been seen as a covenant or vow made between two people (typically a man and a woman) and God or a higher power, in the presence of witnesses from their cultural or spiritual community.

Until recently, in human history, when some kind of "certification" was required, a document or some kind of artifact was issued by the spiritual head of the community. When required, this was deemed to be sufficient to prove the authority to receive certain legal or contractual benefits or protections.

More recently, in order to have a uniform and universally accepted form of certification, and to avoid fraud, abuse of contracts, duplicate legal committments, and other legal or contractual pitfalls which were contrary to public policy, the government began to also issue a "civil license" to couples who may or may not have received a marriage "certificate" from a church, temple, synagogue or other religious institituion.

They opted to get this "license", NOT because they needed the State's "permission" to make a spiritual religious vow in front of their God and community, but because the State required some kind of uniform legal proof that these people were entitled to receive certain civil or contractual benefits and protections which they would otherwise not have a right to receive.

Some of these benefits might be filing income taxes, as a couple, rather than as individuals. Or obtaining insurance as a couple and/or family. There are many other examples: immigration, military benefits, social security benefits, etc. But again, the permission was NOT for the purpose of certifying the religious or spiritual committment between two people in the eyes of God, or their spiritual "family".

The purpose of issuing a "license" was, in the interest of public policy, to regulate civil and contractual consequences of creating a "family" unit, and to address any potential public health issues as a result of sexual and physical contact. However, the intent was NEVER to regulate or interfere with or control religious conduct or spiritual covenants and vows between individuals and God as they understand him/her/it.

In fact, the first time I heard about a conflict between getting a civil license as a requirement of making a spiritual covenant was about 20 years ago when many older Christian couples wanted to be married in the eyes of God and their spiritual community, but they did not want to give up Social Security, insurance or other benefits by remarrying in the civil courts.

Thus, Churches, mostly Christian, offered ceremonies of "covenant marriage", blessed by their spiritual advisors, but they did not obtain a civil marriage "license".

Also, we now have situations where those in the military are obtaining a civil license with a friend of the opposite sex, in order to get more housing benefits and pay, or obtain medical insurance,but do not consider themselves to be "spiritually married".

Then there are the situations of immigration and naturalization where couples have met the civil requirements for marriage in order to obtain resident visas, or become US Citizens, but the US Government takes it upon themselves to determine whether this is a true SPIRITUAL committment.

All of these situations raise the question of separation of Church and state, no matter what the intent of the parties involved.

And now comes the issue of "gay marriage". The irony is that the same Christians who supported the idea that you didnt need a civil license to be married in the eyes of God, are now saying that if you want to have a civil marriage license, you must meet the religious and spiritual requirements of their Church.

So, the real problem is, NOT whether two people can make a spiritual committment or covenant with each other, the issue is whether the State should be using religious or spiritual criteria for for entering into a contract with the State for civil and contractual benefits.

The answer, under our Constitution is NO!

So how do we resolve this conflict between Church and State? My answer is simple: Delete the word "marriage" from the civil licensing procedure. Marriage is a religious spiritual committment to be kept within the confines of spiritual ritual and practice and whether or not you are "married" is a determination between you, your God, and your spiritual community.

A civil union or domestic partnership on the other hand is a contract, and each state can decide what the criteria are for forming a family unit between consenting adults who are not already in another contract for a family unit. And again, the sex of the contracting parties, and the sexual practices of those parties, can not be discriminated against, or used as a criteria.

Whenever the State starts to regulate private conduct or use spiritual or religious criteria to determine public policy, we have been set on a collision course with ourselves. We have the opportunity to avoid the impending impact and resolve this issue by a very simple amendment to the State Constitution...delete the word "marriage" and replace it with "domestic partnership".

This is not an issue of whether heterosexual couples should have a monopoly on "marriage". The real issue SHOULD be whether the State has the authority to give licenses to anyone, gay or straight to make a SPIRITUAL RELIGIOUS committment.

Does the State give licenses to those who are baptized? Does the State recognize a baptism of a baby in the Catholic Church in lieu of a birth certificate?

The real solution to this problem is to remove the word "marriage" from the civil procedure altogether and replace it with the words "civil union" or "domestic partnership".

Under the laws of the USA, a license or permit is "permission" or "license" granted by an individual or the government to do something which one would ordinarily NOT have the right to do.

Our Constitution guarantees our religious freedom, and our freedom to commit to a relationship with others, whether spiritual or civil in nature. Men and women have been getting "married" for far longer than government licensing procedures have existed.

Marriage, as a spiritual and cultural committment, has traditionally been seen as a covenant or vow made between two people (typically a man and a woman) and God or a higher power, in the presence of witnesses from their cultural or spiritual community.

Until recently, in human history, when some kind of "certification" was required, a document or some kind of artifact was issued by the spiritual head of the community. When required, this was deemed to be sufficient to prove the authority to receive certain legal or contractual benefits or protections.

More recently, in order to have a uniform and universally accepted form of certification, and to avoid fraud, abuse of contracts, duplicate legal committments, and other legal or contractual pitfalls which were contrary to public policy, the government began to also issue a "civil license" to couples who may or may not have received a marriage "certificate" from a church, temple, synagogue or other religious institituion.

They opted to get this "license", NOT because they needed the State's "permission" to make a spiritual religious vow in front of their God and community, but because the State required some kind of uniform legal proof that these people were entitled to receive certain civil or contractual benefits and protections which they would otherwise not have a right to receive.

Some of these benefits might be filing income taxes, as a couple, rather than as individuals. Or obtaining insurance as a couple and/or family. There are many other examples: immigration, military benefits, social security benefits, etc. But again, the permission was NOT for the purpose of certifying the religious or spiritual committment between two people in the eyes of God, or their spiritual "family".

The purpose of issuing a "license" was, in the interest of public policy, to regulate civil and contractual consequences of creating a "family" unit, and to address any potential public health issues as a result of sexual and physical contact. However, the intent was NEVER to regulate or interfere with or control religious conduct or spiritual covenants and vows between individuals and God as they understand him/her/it.

In fact, the first time I heard about a conflict between getting a civil license as a requirement of making a spiritual covenant was about 20 years ago when many older Christian couples wanted to be married in the eyes of God and their spiritual community, but they did not want to give up Social Security, insurance or other benefits by remarrying in the civil courts.

Thus, Churches, mostly Christian, offered ceremonies of "covenant marriage", blessed by their spiritual advisors, but they did not obtain a civil marriage "license".

Also, we now have situations where those in the military are obtaining a civil license with a friend of the opposite sex, in order to get more housing benefits and pay, or obtain medical insurance,but do not consider themselves to be "spiritually married".

Then there are the situations of immigration and naturalization where couples have met the civil requirements for marriage in order to obtain resident visas, or become US Citizens, but the US Government takes it upon themselves to determine whether this is a true SPIRITUAL committment.

All of these situations raise the question of separation of Church and state, no matter what the intent of the parties involved.

And now comes the issue of "gay marriage". The irony is that the same Christians who supported the idea that you didnt need a civil license to be married in the eyes of God, are now saying that if you want to have a civil marriage license, you must meet the religious and spiritual requirements of their Church.

So, the real problem is, NOT whether two people can make a spiritual committment or covenant with each other, the issue is whether the State should be using religious or spiritual criteria for for entering into a contract with the State for civil and contractual benefits.

The answer, under our Constitution is NO!

So how do we resolve this conflict between Church and State? My answer is simple: Delete the word "marriage" from the civil licensing procedure. Marriage is a religious spiritual committment to be kept within the confines of spiritual ritual and practice and whether or not you are "married" is a determination between you, your God, and your spiritual community.

A civil union or domestic partnership on the other hand is a contract, and each state can decide what the criteria are for forming a family unit between consenting adults who are not already in another contract for a family unit. And again, the sex of the contracting parties, and the sexual practices of those parties, can not be discriminated against, or used as a criteria.

Whenever the State starts to regulate private conduct or use spiritual or religious criteria to determine public policy, we have been set on a collision course with ourselves. We have the opportunity to avoid the impending impact and resolve this issue by a very simple amendment to the State Constitution...delete the word "marriage" and replace it with "domestic partnership".

Did anyone actually read all that. I guess there is no dialog needed. Thanks for all the answers. How should I vote in November?

Case in point. Ratcheted up!

Brush up on your Shakespeare folks: "Brevity is the soul of wit."

"Let ye amongst you who is without sin, cast the first stone."

"And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges."