This is the classic shot yourself in the foot senerio-

You had a record number of African American voters at the polls- Historicly they have overwhelmingly favored a traditional view of marriage (MAN – WOMAN). Thus you had a historic vote for Afican Americans that turned out to negativly effect Prop 8. It was an interesting vote to say the least.

I don’t want to hijack Adam’s space to talk about all this – especially when he has done so so well previously. I’ll just say that Christians of good faith disagree about these things. See this for a good example of Christians with a differing perspective. I hope we as the Church can keep putting up with each other and maybe even loving each other in and through this intramural debate.

As far as the US government and Constitution goes, I think its important to seize original intent, yes, but even run with it toward greater freedom, love and responsibility. “All men are created equal” did not refer to any other than white, land-owning males in ‘original intent.’ But it can mean so much more. And, we’ve decided, it does. It already does in California right now, but some people want to roll back civil liberties. I say conservative Christians cannot have it both ways. Either advocate for civil unions for all people regardless of orientation, with churches recognizing marriage as each community sees fit (the ‘Tony Campolo solution’), or see marriage as equal to all under the law. But you can’t expect the State to mirror your interpretation of sacred edicts with regards to marriage. It’s not good politics and its not particularly good theology either.

2)By original intent I mean-
The origin of man and woman- God made a companion for man (ADAM) and it was a woman (EVE)
Gen 2:18-24
18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
The New King James Version

WHAT IS CONFUSING ABOUT THIS?

Your examples of Dinah and incest are part of the narrative story. This was not a command to go and commit incest. God actually instructs man to “leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”. The difference is clear here. One is a command and one is history story about man’s depraved sinful state.

3)My point is the original intent of God for marriage was to be between a man and woman

My point for the constitution is that the original intent of the constitution was not to give the right for a man to marry a man.

I’m not confusing the Bible with the constitution just comparing the ease at which we walk away from the original intent of these Historic writings.

* SORRY FOR ANY MISSPELLED WORDS.

And by ‘the original intent in Genesis’ do you mean the rape of Dinah? Incest? Which precedents in Genesis are we branding God’s ‘original intent’ and following?

And why do you confuse a nation’s inaugural documents with the first book in the Bible?

By the way.
Are you not a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Read the Bible. Unless you don’t want to honor God’s original intent either.

His original intent is found in the book of Genesis- Anything other than this is a perversion of that intent. God loves all but his intent for marriage is clear.