We have a collection of letters on the Opinion pages today about the California Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage. To read the letters. click here.
What do you think?
From the discussion, I'm hearing a lot of people seem to want to make this personal, implying a "liberal court" made this ruling or that these are "activist" judges. Hold on. They are all Republicans except for one.
What a lot of people do not seem to comprehend is that, if you really want to make marriage between only men and women in California, you can certainly do that. You just need to square that with the Constitution. An unconstitutional law, even if voted on by the people, won't stand. That's why we have a Supreme Court. To let us know those things. Essentially, the court said the state constitution needs to be amended. No doubt folks will get an opportunity to vote on that in November.
The interesting part of the issue to me is this: What's going to happen in the interim?
So far, the only non-religious argument I've seen against the Court's ruling is the "people voted on it" argument. Those that make this argument must have been dozing off in civics class, or they would realize that the Constitution always trumps a statute, voter-enacted or not.
But those who wish to deny gay people the basic rights the rest of us enjoy will get another chance this November (it appears), when an initiative proposed by conservative professing Christians will try to write discrimination and inequality into our state Constitution. Hopefully, this "hate thy neighbor" iniative will be soundly defeated.
So Mike(D) what is the new definition of marriage... and could others not expand on the new definition to include almost anything? Why discriminate? Where does Mike(D) draw the line?
Brian makes a good point Mike - just where do you draw the line? As one internet blogger, on another forum, has previously stated: "If marriage changes definitions from 'Two people of the opposite sex of consenting age...' to 'Two people of consenting age...,' then 'two,' 'consenting age,' and 'people' are all up for grabs."
Why not polygamy? Marriage to another species? Incest? Why make them second class citizens? If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing.
The homosexual crowd don't really want "marriage." They want to destroy marriage. They want it destroyed because the right kind of marriage is Biblically ordained. And the wrong kind is forbidden. (If there is one thing the gay crowd can’t stand it’s ... "God said...").
Parenthetically, Ya gotta wonder if this whole homosexual / marriage thing is really a devious, deep undercover ploy of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) a SF-based organization that advocates the legalization of sexual relations between adult males and under-aged boys.
"Two consenting adults" is a pretty easy line to draw and maintain. I really don't see your difficulty with that. This slope is not that slippery at all.
And I don't for one moment believe that Mr. Morgan has even the slightest inkling of what homosexuals want. He'd prefer to demonize and dehumanize them. Not very persuasive at all, except maybe to the paranoid fringe of the religious right.
Well said TC. If the same sex marriage is allowed there will be all kinds of others to come forward and say they are being denied their rights and want to change it again and again. They have already been given domestic partnership which entitles them to the rights of a married couple which is what they wanted first. There is just no end in sight. Next people will want it to be ok for an older man or woman to marry a young child or children to marry without consent. This leniency in California is what makes everyone want to come here. It is simply just not the way God intended things to be. YES I said GOD. He has been taken out of everything which is why our society is so bad and out of control.
Parenthetically?
....LMAO!
I gotta go, I hear they are offering free GLBT vaccinations at city hall...gonna go get one so I can be safe from the NAMBLA Conspiracy....hahahahahaaha
...what was christ's position on this issue? He traveled with a lot of single men,...an old-time-religion homophobe-saviour?, or an advocate of love and compassion?...Parentheticly,If there's one thing the hateful bigots hate to hear, it's; "Jesus said..."
Very simply put, a ban on gay marriage is discrimination--plain and simple. One group of people is allowed to do something while another is not. Sounds like discrimination to me.
I agree with many who say the minute you bring God into the picture, Gay people immediately are up in arms they want to throw the Christians to the lions not unlike the Romans. The last true culture to believe in orgy and all matter of sexual acts be present in their lives. Is it the fear that God had a hand in changing that they fear so much, or is it their dogmatic indignation. Just because you have same sex feelings is no reason to also cling to Ahteism. If you truly believe what you are doing right, then you should be open to everyone sharing in the experience if you eliminate God perhaps your beliefs aren't as strong as you shout to the roof tops? Could it be you first have to turn your back on God in order to participate in what you know deep down inside isn't acceptable to him?
Someone needs a reality check here. It's not Christians who are being persecuted or deprived of their rights in this country. And what do "orgies" or "Ahteism" have to do with anything? They just trying to get married, like the rest of us can. As for what God wants (as if we could know), there are churches in Fresno that welcome gay members.
My church would never turn gay people away. We are all about connecting people to GOD.
swift:
I need some help here. Could you do me a favor and tell me which exact verse quotes Jesus as saying it's just fine for a man to lay with another man? Or maybe you're quoting one of the apostles who said that it's okay for a man to lay with another man or beast, que no?
While you're at it, can you tell me which verse explains why the disciples remained single? You have strongly implied that Jesus and his disciples were advocates of homosexuality, so it must be in the Bible somewhere.
Parenthetically, this "hateful bigot" loves to hear "Jesus says..." ...Just as long as it is accurately quoted.
...Hope to see your next post with those chapters & verses to which you've referred...
It is I who am speaking from reality. I didn't say the churces are turning away gays, I said just the opposite. You bring God into the theory of relativity here and the first thing the gays do is to renounce him. Doesn't the ceremony read "What God put together let no man put asunder".
I am not claiming I have the power to prevent gay marriage, I am saying God has seemed to have a hand in correcting behavor through his own mighty powers. The decay and fall of the Roman Empire was not at the hand of man alone.
Afterall, is the sin going to be homosexuality or turning your back on Jesus as your Lord and Savior when it comes time for the judgement? Or will it be all the above, that is not for me or you to judge.
I've read time and again of incest taking place in the Bible to populate the earth. But nowhere have I heard, been shown or read where homosexual behavor is allowed or promoted. If God is so proud of his chosen flock man then why is it when the Arc was constructed Noah chose two of each animal instead of two of each human?
It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve in the garden. Nor was it Ellen and Eve bonded in holy matrimony anywhere in the First/Last Testament.
I cited the Roman domination as an example and that is where the abstract sexual behavor comes into play with orgies, same sex sex, where caution was thrown into the wind for their own pleasures of the flesh.
Athiest do not think they have to answer to anyone because they do not believe in God and many times, not always, but many times a Gay person will say; what do I care what God says I am an Athiest. In many ways that is how the Athiest recruit people, God may disapprove but we will fail to judge you for having same sex relationships.
You look at our society today, the middle east, issues about gay marriage, and tell me it has nothing to do with God.
I invite you to turn to Revelations and read on brother Mike D.
I honestly don't think you can declare the gay people are persecuted, I've never heard of them being eaten by Lions as the Christians in Roman Times were.
Furthermore, Churches, It is written "whereever three or more shall gather, I will listen". That doesn't say whereever three or more shall gather in a church, I will listen. Nothing against churches it's just not what the Bible says.
Not to mention the aspect of the popular/majority vote being overturned.
Why does it take the majority of the people/electorate to elect candidates? If the majority doesn't rule in our society, why does it take a majority to pass anything through the Senate/Congress? In some cases as much as 2/3 of the majority is only acceptable. If votes don't matter why do we have Joint Chiefs of Staff, we can't trust just one? Why not, we trust one President? If we truly trust one President what is the need for all the advisors, cabinet, staff?
This is perhaps the most important time when Alpha and Omega truly come into vision. When right does conquer the injustices of the world, not to say not giving gay people the right to marry is an injustice. What is an injustice is that they have been given every other right through a partnership contract and yet they still must disgrace the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. I think you may have the wrong party listed as the one being persecuted Mike. By the way no where in my statement did I say churches should turn gay people away.
But I always enjoy an articulate, intelligent conversation and debate.
Hmmm...
Seems no one can find those Bible verses where Jesus or his disciples advocate or accept homosexuality.
Since referring to God seems so offensive these days, maybe a biological approach might support the gay rights perspective.
The sexual act is how animals produce more of their own kind (correct me if I'm wrong on that). And without making more of their own kind, any species will eventually go extinct as the old and weak specimens of the species die off without being replaced (again, corrrect me if I'm wrong). And with the exception of some lower invertebrates, a male and female are required to complete the sexual act in order to reproduce more of the species (at least that's what I've learned over the years). So, it's probably safe to conclude if two females or two males mate, no offspring will be produced.
Medically speaking, the female reproductive system is designed with a different epitheleal and muscle structure than the end of the digestive tract (to state it delicately). A little more bluntly, the female reproductive anatomy is designed for the reproductive act, while the "backside" is not.
Conclusion from a biological perspective: a homosexual human race will go extinct within a generation or two, and--like smoking, drugs, or overeating--homosexual acts dramatically increase the risk of damaging the physical self.
Unlike obvious traits such as skin color or physical deficiencies, homosexuality is a matter of psychology that goes against behavioral norms. If it is touted as a restriction of personal happiness or pleasure, then it becomes a matter of self-control, not equal rights.
...Okay, back to God... Christians don't hate homosexuals and don't want to hurt those who support homosexuality. But like your brother or sister who says, "If you do that and Daddy catches you, you're gonna get spanked," we just want you to know that the Father who loves us so much that he came to us to die for our sins, wishes for us to play by his rules as long as we're living under His roof. So we just want to warn you of the consequences, that's all.