Sean Penn, who was named best actor Sunday night for his role as gay rights activist Harvey Milk, used his time before a worldwide television audience to criticize Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban passed by California voters in November.
"I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren's eyes if they continue that way of support," Penn said.
The Sacramento Bee's Capitol Alert says that speech has nationalized the Proposition 8 debate.
The measure passed with 52% of the vote. Supporters of gay marriage have asked the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8.
Long before Penn's Oscar speech, the Proposition 8 battle had national ramifications. The campaigns for and against the measure made it the most expensive social issue in the nation's election history. A combined $83 million was donated to both sides of the ballot initiative, according to California elections officials.
Sean Penn...what an idiot!! That pretty much goes for the entire Hollywood elitist crowd as well. Why any average "Joe" out on the street would pay attention to what he or any of his buddies have to say is beyond me. They have no clue what life is like out in the "real world" and thus have no credibility to speak on it. He said he was glad that we elected a president who was "elegant"?? So that's the deciding factor for Mr. Spicolli..."ELEGANCE"?? What a MORON!!!!
Sean Penn wins an Oscar and thinks that gives him the moral authority to try to make US ashamed?!
For some reason, rich hollywood types and well-known musicians choose to get up on a soap box to spout their political blatherings in their delusional thinking that we actually care what they think.
The last few times I've inadvertantly dropped in on "The Oscars" one thought has come to mind...Where's Alqaeda when you need them.
Brian your last comment is the most anti-American, hate filled comment I've read in a long time. You have no shame.
Bill don't think you are will versed in what the "real world" is like more then anyone else.
Just because someone has millions of dollars does not mean they are out of touch with the "real world". Conversely they have access to parts of the world most of us can not afford.
Calling Penn an "idiot" seriously puts into question your credibility.
Sue,
You may not care what actors have to say, and it is your right, but don't assume others don't.
If they are "rich Hollywood types" it some how makes them "delusional". How about the cast of characters from the Republican Party:
Ronald Reagan
Fred Thompson
They have exemption status right?
Divorced from any particular topic and/or individual post, I had to make the disconcerting observation that many bloggers invoke the constitutional right to say just anything they feel like. But they are not willing to concede the same right to those who seem to be of different opinion. There is something cockeyed with that picture. I call it lack of fair play.
Sean Penn won an Oscar and that gave him a public, very public, forum to tell the whole world that HE thinks Californians are to be shamed for not giving 'Gay' men and women the right to 'marry'. Mr. Penn rubbishes the folks of California to the whole bloody world.
As an American, Mr. Penn has that right, it is his opinion and he shared it with us.
The good folks who read and comment here are now wasting no time to rubbish Mr. Penn.
Last looked, to my mind, that shames us all.
On a scale of 1 to 10, letting 'Tom and Jack' or 'Jill and Jane' to marry is NOT the burning bush that requires all of us to rally round. If homosexual men and women want to unite and proclaim their 'love' for one another, they can already. To force society to legislate their 'chosen' lifestyle is not going to change how many feel about their desire to 'marry', a word that homosexuals use to ignite the opposition and enflame feelings both for and against.
Sir Elton John, a world famous homosexual who is partnered with another man, tells it best. Sir Elton is united in his 'domestic partner' relationship and quite happy to NOT be married, knows full well, that the use of the word 'marriage' is done to whip up the common homosexual in support of the cause by the 'lavender elite'. Tells the whole world that.
What wonders could have been done with $83,000,000. More's the pity that it seems even more cash is going to be spent to continue this fight.
MOI is homosexual and was once partnered with another man, MOI did not need a piece of paper to tell that he was much loved or to let the whole world know how special his relationship was.
MOI has not heard anyone tell homosexuals that they could not be what they be, or that they could not 'love' one another in a relationship. Marriage is not the way of it, never was, never will be.
In these hard times, with so much of more import facing the folks of California, it is so very wrong that so much cash and time is being spent on an issue that need not be.
HATE......be it against homosexuals or homosexuals against straights.......is the issue. That be so very wrong and all who use this blog or any other forum to promote HATE should be ashamed.
Now pass MOI that bloody Oscar...........
"Just Dick"...it's free speech and no more hateful than your phoney baloney celebrity idols'.
Rich...you slay me, brother. These Hollywood elites are completely sheltered from the "real world" that I, and even you, live in. Do you SERIOUSLY believe that they have a better perspective on what an average person's life is like?? Come on, even you can't be that ignorant?? Talk about questioning one's "credibility". Penn was so self-absorbed that he didn't even thank his wife, who was obviously over-joyed and had tears in her eyes when he won...what a class act!! He's a brilliant actor...but still an idiot.
Also, you forgot to add Charlton Heston to the list you had for Sue...another famous Conservative actor to be proud of.
A couple of observations:
1. Why are we surprised at the opinions of anyone from the Hollywood crowd, or a person of dubious sexual orientation?
2. Did we really think that the Academy, their sponsors, and the drive-by media wouldn’t push their radical homosexual agenda?
3. The homosexual crowd actively denies evangelical Christians the right to express their opinions because -according to them - we are "intolerant." It doesn’t matter if our opinions are sincerely held based on the theology found in the Bible; In our politically correct society anything contrary to their agenda is persecuted.
4. My prediction: It soon will be illegal to express any contrary opinions about homosexuality even if sincerely held by a Christian denomination. It would not surprise me at all to see the Obama administration operate "reeducation centers" - much like the Maoists and Khmer Rouge.
Like most Hollywood actors Penn has been assisted by that slick public relations outfit in successfully constructing an image of moral superiority. He has inserted through his roles enough moral ambiguity into the minds of impressionable fans that he can say anything and it is instantly important, the real goal of that hypocritical society. As I see it, provocative speeches such as his, those meant to evoke shame when none is due rather than produce a rational argument, is water off a ducks back.
It seems that a certain religious group is spending a lot of time and energy trying to tell people to live a certain way. Why can't you just let it go? I love how certain groups like spouting out God's will on others. Like Gandhi said," I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians...they are so unlike your Christ".
Say what you will about "Hollywood types' but they have as much right as any of us to express their opinions in any forum.
Nobody complained when Ronald Reagan (a Hollywood type) expressed his opinion that ketchup (catsup?) was a vegetable during the school lunch debates of the 80's.
What really amazes me is that I'm not amazed at self-described Christians vitriol towards anyone who doesn't agree with them. They selectively choose the sections of the Bible (Old & New testament) which suit and support their particular brand of ignorance.
"God's" minions have killed more people across history than any other group.
1)Sean Penn is as qualified as anyone to speak on the subject of homosexuality/heterosexuality, and more qualified than most because he has spent a year making a movie in which he did a great deal of research on the life of a prominent homosexual and the political movement he led. 2) The only ones who are "inflamed" by the use of the word marriage attached to homosexual relationships are the homophobic bigots. 3)No one, and certainly not Sean Penn, is denying the right of any Christian to express his or her opinion about this issue, which they do endlessly.
I am amazed at all the comments on this issue. (Including my own, to be honest). We have an economy in flames, at least two wars going on, and huge unemployment in our valley. It is all so sad, and takes such citizen involvement to reverse all of this. What people do in their personal lives is no danger to me. Wow. There could be a gay couple living near me, and it would have no effect on me at all. Declining investment values, a loss of dreams for my children and grandchildren, a risk of death for our troops. Let's get real and focus on what is so critical, and also so ill served by so much controversy (including my own).
If "to the pure all things are pure" and "all things are lawful unto me," and if, under this Law of grace and Love, extramarital sex and all of these other things are lawful, then where do things like sodomy fit in? If you are truly pure and loving, you wouldn't do such things, because they're definitely not good for you physically or spiritually, and they're hurtful. Just because "all things are lawful" unto us doesn't mean that we can go around murdering or killing or torturing people OR GIVING THEM AIDS! That's not love!
Ted Rudow III,MA
Hey, I don't care if some of you disagree, just that name calling does nothing but alienate. It serves to question your credibility.
Oh yea, I missed "Moses" Charleston Heston.
Bart we can paint Hollywood, media, and slick advertising, with one brush. Conservative talkshows locked up that arguement in the "minds of the impressionable fans" as well.
Keep your personal morality, religion, and ways of your personal lives, but don't take it away or impose them on others.
It is true that Sean Penn has a right to speak his mind. He can feel superior if he likes and he can say "shame" to anyone he likes. We all have the choice to take it or leave it. He is not the first actor to use the Oscars or other awards ceremonies as a soap box. That is the real issue here. People who tune into the Oscars, Academy Awards, etc. do so because they wish to watch the awards ceremonies regarding the craft of acting and making movies. It should not be used as a forum for political ajendas. There are plenty of opportunities and media access for actors to voice their opinions and the Oscars are not the time or the place. It is bad form, a disservice to the audience and the people hosting the event. That is really the only issue needing to be addressed here.
Thank you Sean! I'm grateful we have individuals and opportunities like the Oscars to make such obvious statements about the basic immorality of denying fundamental human rights to fine, upstanding citizens.
My marriage is not threatened by Gay marriage. If yours is, get counseling. Get the help you need without blaming others for your pain.
We are all one, and it's time to erase religious ideology that separates us from our civil law.
If the Supreme Court reverses Prop. 8, which I fully expect it to do because it's ticked off that We the People actually dared to contradict it, there still won't be equality for all people. Polygamy and incest will still be forbidden. So, where's the equal rights for everyone?
The amazing contradiction about all of this is that polygamy and incest have been accepted through the centuries, whereas homosexual marriages have not. Go figure.
There are plenty of us out there who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and we're mighty sick and tired of being told that we're bigots and homophobes by the intolerant people who claim to be so tolerant.
By the way, in 1977 Vanessa Redgrave won an Oscar and decided to use the moment to spout her bilge about "militant Zionist hoodlums". The next person who came on, whose name escapes me, put her in her place by saying that her win was not a pivotal moment in history.
Neither is Sean Penn's.
Re: Robert Sundre! Once in a while my faith in the sanity of homo sapiens is restored. Permit me to thank you and the late Mahatma Gandhi.
Movies, at least some movies, are political. Indeed, except for "Button," all of the movies nominated for best picture were either mainly political or had strong political overtones. "Milk" was certainly political in its orientation and message, as well as an interesting story about an interesting person. To see the film is to see two hours of what Sean Penn talked about for 20 seconds. It seems ingenuous to argue that his little speech was somehow inappropriate.
to the people who refuse to believe that gay marriage affects your straight marriage, wake up, it does.
your marriage is no longer sacred. the pedastool that you put your marriage on has been broken, and now your marriage is in the gutter. you look at your marriage pictures with joy and amazement, but you just don't see gay marriage has tagged all over it.
yep, letting homosexuals actually get married brings down the value of your own marriage. you might not see it that way but it's true.
marriage is suppose to be for a man and a woman. also, marriage is used for creating life. how can life be created by a man and a man, or a woman and a woman?
obviously the sacredness of marriage has been going down the toilet for sometime now. society has made it acceptable to have sex before marriage, therefore bringing the sacredness of marraige down. society has made it acceptable to have children out of wedlock, therefore bringnig the sacredness of marriage down.
and now society wants to allow homosexuals the opportunity to get married, which of course, brings down the sacredness of marriage. my marriage means absolutely nothing if homosexuals are allowed to get married.
homosexuals have their domestic partnership unions. if federal law and state law wants to expand on those unions by providing them the same benefits as a married couple when it comes to insurance or tax breaks, then go ahead. but do not, and i repeat do not allow them to marry. they can continue to love their same sex partner with the same love that they were giving eachother without the title of marriage.
sounds fair enough right?
Generally, I don't place any credibility on any of these folks. Sean Penn visited Venezuela last year and praised Hugo Chavez. His comments about Chavez informed me about his political leaning. I know he's using this opportunity when millions of folks are watching to speak about Prop. 8, and I have my own opinions. Why should we get all perturbed about him when others have done the same?
Everyone is welcome to have their opinions even Penn but I watch the awards shows to see who wins not to hear their opinions on anything. Anything he or anyone else says doesn't make me ashamed of how I voted.
It is quite obvious that Sean Penn's statements were based on his role as Harvey Milk, a city official who was openly gay, and was murdered for it consequently. Kim Tanksley, I may be wrong, but as a beehive blogger, I would not feel comfortable presuming to set the tone, protocol and social conduct for the Oscar award ceremony. But I do agree, too much is being said about a subject which should not be talked about on and on and on....and I am not proud of this post. I subscribe to the quality of being discreet. That must be generational. Pre "let it all hang out" baby boomer.
Does Sean Penn have the right to say what he says? Of course. That he is an effeminate nancy-boy had nothing to do with his right to speak.
But do I, as an evangelical Christian, have the right to oppose such beliefs and advocate my own opinions - that I believe are firmly based on Biblical principles, that is the question? According to the homosexual crowd I do not have that right, based on their perception of my so-called "intolerance."
What the pro-gay crowd fails to recognize - or maybe chooses to ignore - that many opinions on matters of morality are sourced in a relationship with a sovereign God and have a Biblical base. And they are sincerely held by individuals who have no hatred in their hearts and who frequently work and minister among those who are in bondage to sexual addictions / perversions (not my word, but the words of Romans 1:27 NIV).
At least Sean Penn got one thing right when he call the Academy audience at his acceptance speech, "commie, homo-loving sons of guns." It may have been the biggest gathering of socialist and Marxists since last May’s celebration of Soviet might in Red Square, Moscow.
Just remember these liberal hollites often take the opportunity at a high profile event like the oscars to express their point of view for all to see. If you disagree and do not have world wide focus on you, then your ultimate expression has to boycott their work forever! Remember Hanoi Jane, I have never seen one of her movies since then.
Marriage is an institution defined and approved by a society. This society has spoken several times.
Since when should ANYONE be ashamed for exercising their right and casting a vote? Just another example of a Hollywood idiot.
Sean Penn is a talented actor they say - I have not seen any of his movies. He should stay with acting and not give us a lecture on what to think. Oscars is not a place to talk about this,
very poor judgement. Does he think that he is so
important that he can convince us to change our minds on this subject?. He should come down in to the real world.
That's the problem, Daru, we are not "all one". We are INDIVIDUALS, separate,...despite all the Liberal attempts to make us all the same.
I have lived a long life of academic interest in ALL religions, and enjoy understanding the foundations of each philosophy. I am convinced that if all the Prophets we know were to be resurrected and had been asked to vote in last California elections, without hesitation ALL of them would vote NO ON PROP 8!
That is because all of them lived the life of a true liberal and humanist, and valued the dignity and personal rights of every, YES EVERY, human being, to choose the way they lived, what they did with their bodies and whom they wished to spend their lives with.
Adam(a biblical name)...the ability to channel the dead must be an enlightening quality.Have you consulted Hitler or do you only channel what you call prophets?Can you get in touch with "Shoeless Joe Jackson" for me?
"(The Prophets).... That is because all of them lived the life of a true liberal and humanist..." Adam.
The prophet Isaiah: "I will punish the world for its evil, the wicked for their sins. I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty and will humble the pride of the ruthless ....Therefore, I will make the heavens tremble; and the earth shake from its place at the wrath of the Lord Almighty in the day of his burning anger." (13:11,13 NIV).
The prophet Jeremiah: "Pour out your wrath on the nations that do not acknowledge you, on the peoples who do not call on your name...." (10:25 NIV).
The prophet Ezekiel: "I will set my face against that man and make him an example and a byword. I will cut him off from my people. Then you will know that I am the Lord." (14:8 NIV).
O yeah .... that’s just what we need - more Old Testament "true liberals and humanists" like Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel ! ! ! (Can you imagine one of these guys voting NO on Prop 8).
Imposing or taking away someones right to live with another person equally as others are in our Country is unChristian and unAmerican.
On the face of it, to say that homosexual marriage is a "right" is ridiculous. Do the pro gay marriage folk stand up for the polygamous sect leaders? Incestous marriage? Where are the "rights" folks?
To proclaim that history's "prophets" would promote gay marriage is silly. If they would now, they would have then. None did.
I know of no Christians - and I know a lot of 'em - that would advocate, in word or deed, "imposing or taking away someone’s right to live with another person equally"(Rich). That’s not the issue.
The issue is - do I as an evangelical Christian have the right to call "it" what the Bible calls "it"? Do I have the right to advocate on behalf of what I believe? That’s the question. Of course, libs would say, "no"! I am called, "intolerant," "hater," "politically incorrect," because I choose to base my life and life-style on "thus saith the Lord" - the words of the Bible.
Make no mistake, the gay crowd, with the help of fascist elements in the Obama administration is actively working to deny Christians their 1st amendment rights. They will do it under the guise of "tolerance." And they will be extremely intolerant about it!
If I were gay and chose to live permanently with a same-sex partner, I, personally, would not care about "marriage" per se, but I would like to have for me and the partner all legal rights of marriage. I would not mind signing some sort of nuptial that would bear the force of law. I doubt very much that there are many same-sex couples who are hung up on the religious part of the union. When I posted on this topic there were 41 posts on record. But there are only 9 posts on the topic of cleaning up the political mess in Sacramento and to force the legislators to represent the people instead of dancing to the pipe of party bosses. That does not say much for us Californians. Mostly name-callers and voyeurs? Grrrrrrr!
TC the words in your response speaks volumes.
"I know of..."
"I know a lot of..."
"I as an evangelical..."
"Do I have..."
"...what I believe?"
"I am called..."
"...because I choose..."
You think your "tollerant"?
Enough said.
Morality precedes right actions. Want a government that acts right? Get 'em moral. Sacramento & budgets are a moral and spiritual problem.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -October 11, 1798, John Adams.
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." [James Madison, 1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia].
My country, ’tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing…
Long may our land be bright
With Freedom’s holy light.
Protect us by thy might,
Great God, our King!
The crowd was scattering away by then, but Laura stood stock still. Suddenly she had a completely new thought. The Declaration and the song came together in her mind, and she thought: God is America’s king.
She thought: Americans won’t obey any king on earth. Americans are free. That means they have to obey their own consciences. No king bosses Pa; he has to boss himself. Why (she thought), when I am a little older, Pa and Ma will stop telling me what to do, and there isn’t anyone else who has a right to give me orders. I will have to make myself be good.
Her whole mind seemed to be lighted up by that thought. This is what it means to be free. It means, you have to be good…
Laura Ingalls Wilder "Little Town on the Prairie"
TC,
Sounds like you would rather live in "The Theocratic States of America".
Not on our watch!
I loved your post, blogger common sense. But life itself does not stop telling us what to do. A different slant on it.
"I slept and dreamed that LIFE was pleasure. I awoke and I saw that life was DUTY. I did my duty, and behold, I saw that duty was PLEASURE. Rabindranath Tagore. (Bengali poet and various other...)
That works for me, too, as long as we all realize that our freedom doesn't simply mean license to do as we please regardless of its impact on society. A sense of duty, obedience to God, a moral compass -- they all demand that we see that it's not all about us and require sacrifice and service to others. Without this, a free society will disintegrate into anarchy, chaos, and eventual ruin.
Rehabilitated prophets, proscription, and finally sublime denial "not on our watch"...it is all here.
You authored an interesting morality piece, but how, on earth, does it qualify as a reply to comment from me (Isabell Lawson.)
Reply pre-concludes at least a basic recognition of the premise sent forth. Your post, therefore, does not meet the test to being a reply. I demand adherence to the topic from my partners in debate. I am not an apple/orange debater. It has to be one or the other. I am stepping away from your legitimate monologue, which you attempted to give the appearance of a dialogue.
To prevent misunderstanding of my above post, it was directed at T.C. Morgan only.
Your topic was "cleaning up the political mess" and why nobody seemed to be concerned about it (remember, 9 posts out of 41). I simply was making the point that the political mess in Sac town is a moral and spiritual issue. People that are right with a sovereign God don’t do the things they do, hence, it is a moral and a spiritual issue!
Get the individuals right with God in government, and they'll start to do right!
Where on earth did we get the idea that the Constitution and laws are to make everyone equal and happy?
In the Preamble of our Constitution, we are told that the Constiutution was created for the 'common good' and not to make everyone happy!
With everyone thinking they are entitled to something, does that bring us together or separate us?
And then, having the right to voice or thoughts/beliefs however and whenever we see fit, pits people against the others.
And what character Mr. Penn displayed by turning a classic American event into an arena for personal venting. He is entitled to his opinion but displayed very poor wisdom in addresing his opinion in the Oscar forum. Penn's cronnies can hear his rant, the public doesn't want to hear it.
So maybe next year, fewer people will watch the Oscars.
"...the public doesn't want to hear it." (Sean Penn's remarks) contends Harry Sager III. I do want to hear it. But I do not watch any of those award shows. Now let us look at what the people wanted: "Proposition 8 received 52.5% of the in the state's unofficial vote canvass." So maybe the 47.5% who voted against it, wanted to hear it. It seems that the country is not only populated by more than 305 million people, but by far too many super-egos as well. It is the latter who usurp the right to tell us what is right and wrong for us . And without the laws of the land and the American Constitution, those usurpers would run the show as despots. I hope not here; not ever!
Anybody here want to claim homosexual marriage is a "right"? Don't be shy.
Tim,
There are several people over here willing to take you up on that:
http://www.fresnobee.com/277/story/1214673.html
Tim, same sex couples ("homosexuals" if you prefer) should have the same right to marry as you or I. I'm assuming you're not gay. I have the right to marry whom I love and my brother doesn't. He doesn't have the right right now because the churches across the country gathered millions of dollars and created ads that blatantly lied just to make sure to strip him and others of that right given to them by California's Constitution.
Now people are quick to judge and condemn Sean Penn because he spoke up for what he believed in. He wasn't shy. One thing I find disgusting is how people in here love to slam celebrities while they sit on their Lay-Z-Boys. So many celebrities, Sean Penn included, have done so much more than any in here combined to help make other people's lives better. Charities, charity events and more. I've never been so ashamed of my fellow man as when I come in here. I've never felt so much hate in my life until I started coming in here. That's why I don't anymore.
Note to TC - let me explain this again...saying what you feel and what you believe is freedom of speech, even if it is something others don't like. That is and always will be protected. It's what someone says that makes them a bigot. Rush Limbaugh is a bigot and he still has the right to say what he wants on his show. His freedom of speech is protected and always will be. And as long as people like you listen, he will continue to make his $35 million a year. He does donate to good causes on occasion though. Here's a list from September '08:
1. Oprah Winfrey, $50.2 million.
"The Oprah Winfrey Foundation and Oprah's Angel Network: education, health care, and advocacy for women and children worldwide"
2. Herb Alpert, $13 million.
"The Herb Alpert Foundation: music education, including the UCLA Herb Alpert School of Music"
3. Barbra Streisand, $11 million.
"The Streisand Foundation: the environment, women's issues, civil rights, AIDS research and advocacy"
4. Paul Newman, $10 million.
"Scholarship for Kenyon College, his alma mater, in Gambier, Ohio."
5. Mel Gibson, $9.9 million.
"Holy Family Church in Malibu, Calif."
6. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, $8.4 million.
"The Jolie-Pitt Foundation: New Orleans reconstruction, refugee aid, cross-cultural understanding"
7. Lance Armstrong, $5 million.
"The Lance Armstrong Foundation: cancer research, education and advocacy"
8. Michael Jordan, $5 million.
"Hales Franciscan High School, a historically black all-boys school in Chicago "
9. Eric Lindros, $5 million.
"London Health Sciences Centre, a Canadian hospital where the former hockey player was treated"
10. Rush Limbaugh, $4.2 million.
"Financial assistance to the children of Marines and law-enforcement officers killed in the line of duty."
Isabell, if I can discern your post, you posit that too many "super - egos ... usurp the right to tell us what is right and wrong...." Who are the so-called super egos? Would that be the majority of ordinary citizens who vote on what society will define as marriage or the four unelected judges on the California Supreme Court who invent a "right" to gay marriage? If you mean the latter, I completelty agree.
I suspect you mean the former. News flash Isabell: In a democracy, the majority, either through their elected representatives or through the initiative process, are allowed to make laws that bind all citizens. While individual rights are protected against majoritarian rule, they are - or should be - rights expressly spelled out in the federal and state constitutions. Otherwise, unelected judges will simply make it up as they go along (e.g., the "right" to gay marriage) based on their own subjective beliefs.
Apparently you consider majority rule despotic, at least when the majority passes something you disagree with. Are anti-polygamy laws the product of despoticism? If not, how is Proposition 8 despotic? If a majority can outlaw polygamy, surely it can outlaw gay marriage. I seldom chuckle while reading appellate decisions, but I remember laughing at the supreme court's awkward and inept effort in a footnote to explain why polygamy can be banned legally, but not gay marriage. The majority believed society was ready to accept gay marriage, but not polygamous marriage. Apparently lost on the clueless majority was the fact that if indeed the right to marry whomever one wants is constitutional and not subject to democratic or cultural prohibition, then it is irrelevant if "whomever" is one OR MORE consenting adults.
I am struck by the utilization of lists here lately. In your case it is a portable majority. I am surprised that people on yours all have a complete name, even them who claim business interests. I am not surprised by how much you rely on an extra bit of information to make your points, right or wrong.
"People like me"(If you don't like stereotypes, then don't do it to me) don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, because I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. That is mistake number one. Number two is that you say that Churches LIED to people regarding this issue. If you want to list ANYTHING to back up your claim (please be specific, don't generalize or "distort")I'll listen.
But the big one is "rights". If you really believe that, then you believe that incestous marriage and multiple marriage also should be legal. If not, then you agree with me (&the majority) that the issue isn't "rights", but the definition of marriage. Do you believe that people have a "right" to marry their mother or marry 739,083 wives? If not, why not if it is a "right"?
Re: Paul J. O'Rourke Jr.
My post was based on the simple premise that too many people are trying to tell other people what to say and when, like in the case with that Sean Penn actor. I apologize for having evoked the need to respond with an account of the American political structure. My enlightenment on that subject came from literature other than a newspaper opinion blog, and from some semesters of United States History at Fresno State. I am done with the topic Sean Penn, same-sex marriage, California Prop 8 and ,as of this moment, 60 posts on the subject. Thank you! And happy blogging!
Just wanted to tell you if your want to reply directly to person's comment hit "reply" above that persons comment.
Rich, that "theocratic" thing bugs me. If you are talking about Christian PRINCIPLES, that is one thing, and undeniable as to the source of the moral code this country was founded on. But a "theocracy" means you MUST worship the chosen national deity. Every Christian I know would reject the idea of forcing you to worship our God. Do you actually believe that Christians in the US would FORCE you to worship Jesus if we could? If so, that is sad, and a total distortion of reality.
Yea a Theocratic State bugs me as well thats why it was an appropriate response to TC's comment below;
"T C Morgan replied to comment from Isabell Lawson | February 25, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply
Morality precedes right actions. Want a government that acts right? Get 'em moral. Sacramento & budgets are a moral and spiritual problem.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -October 11, 1798, John Adams.
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." [James Madison, 1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]."
*******
Also with this founding fathers arguement that is prevelant among Conservatives realize many of the settlers left Europe (among other things) religous oppression.
I think your hung-up on the idea of being "forced" to observe a religion in this case Christianity.
I bet you and some of the others here would not reject the notion of a the United States excepting Christianity as a State religion.
Most of eople who spout that garbage know better, just as they do about alot of things they misrepresent. Some are just repeaters. Usually they "lead" a group that follows the former around waiting for the handout they are constantly promising.
America's forefathers knew why the guaranteed freedom of religion for everyone, but by God, keep it out of government.
And I understand why religion is one of the no-no topics in the salon of polite society. To start out with, when Austria's misbegotten son, Adolph Hitler, the dictator of Nazi Germany marched into Austria in 1938, he found not very much ideological resistance because by then the Democratic Republic of Austria had been turned into a Theocracy. I don't remember a concerted government effort to make us embrace Jesus Christ as national deity, but I know that the Catholic Church was running the show. (That Austria 's 6 millions could not have resisted the military might of Hitler's 64 millions goes without saying.) Earlier in time, under the leadership of prelate (rank of Catholic Archbishop) who ordered to shoot into the demonstrators, the faithful to the Democratic Republic , Social Democrats, 90 people were killed. By May 1, 1934 Federal Chancellor Engel Dollfusz had suspended all [political parties and proclaimed the "Christian German Federal Austria" The Republic of Austria no longer existed. On July 25 1934, members of the illegal Austrian Nazi Party killed Dollfusz. July 30 1935, Kurt Schuschnigg became Federal Chancellor. He continued that theocratic form of government until Hitler's tanks rolled into Austria on April 20, 1938. Now to conclude quickly, Theocracy is not a desirable form of government. It is anathema to the Democratic Republic, to any republic. I have lived long enough to have seen it all.
"I bet you and some of the others here would not reject the notion of a the United States excepting Christianity as a State religion."
Rich,
Am I correct in assuming that you meant "accepting" rather than "excepting"? It rather changes the meaning of your sentence.
Thanks, it's a good thing we have the english teacher police in here. I meant "accepting".
It wouldnt make cents, I mean sence,
common-sence.
"Keep it [religion] out of government"? They did then, they do now, and they will in the future KEEP IT IN GOVERNMENT, in a very prominent way in every branch of government.
They however, will NOT make an "establishment" of a religion mandatory on the populace. If you don't think Christianity was IN GOVERNMENT, you simply refuse to look at the documentation. That is your choice. It is "freedom of religion", which we can thank the Founding Fathers'" faith in Jesus for.
It makes me sad that you think anything that T.C. said constitutes supporting a "theocracy". Do you know what a theocracy is? By definition, ALL of the people of that nation MUST worship the State God. In Saudi Arabia, you can NOT become a citizen if you are not Muslim. And you can not set FOOT on Saudi soil if you are a Jew. Are you suggesting that acknowledging the significance of Christianity in the past, present and future of the US is somehow equal to the Saudi example? If you do, you reveal your own bias and refuse reason.
For the record and at the risk of being repetitious: I have never advocated - nor have I ever espoused so-called Christian Reconstructionism or advocated a theocratic state.
I have frequented mentioned the Christian beliefs of our Founders. And my prayer is, as always, that men, women and children will "come to a knowledge of the truth; for there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom of all ...." (I Timothy 2: 4, 5 NIV).
How did I know that T.C. also didn't espouse a "theocracy", contrary to the recent accusation? This is one of the most prevalent and off base accusations the PC crowd has lately fallen in love with. But there is ZERO evidence for such.
To promote even the most generic moral position which is compatable to Christianity and common sense national morality is met with the squeeky wheel accusation of "theocracy", when nothing could be further from the truth. But it won't stop the accusations. These people have zero interest in letting you/me/us speak for ourselves. If they can't blindly represent our opinions as if they are fact, they will pack their bags and go home. Witness this blog.
Hey Tim if everyone quoted out of a black book and depended on it as a litmus test for laws where would we end up, in an ideal Christian State?
You can speak for yourselves but that does not mean no one can have an opinion against it.
I wasnt the one who started quoting out of a black book for a sense of direction. Your friend was. Nothing wrong with his and your opinion opionion until it unjustly restricts others.
Rich, the simple fact is that for over 200 years the US has indeed based it's moral structure on "that black book". Now that PC and the ACLU (anti-Christian legal union) have taken over, our moral code is just peachy, right?
In the former, at no time did our country resemble a "theocracy". But in the present, one is developing now...a politically correct socialistic theocracy based upon the mantra that "there is no absolute truth". God help the US! Fortunately, he always has.
The ACLU can go back to the hole it crawled out of. It is fine by me if one doesn't want to be a christian and I don't try to push it down anyones throat so I don't want the anti christians to push it down mine by trying to change what our country was based on. As I heard this morning there is a cross in a park in the south valley that has been there for 65 years now some douche bag wants it removed. To him I say don't look at it or lets hang him on it and see if he respects it.
jackie krage; I fully agree with the sentiment of your post, but the language of it makes me cringe. What is it that makes people believe that vulgar language emphasizes legitimacy and/or authority of a statement. Calling a man a douche bag????? The diction of bloggers is really none of my business.....but....the inevitable but!!!!!
Is it technical, or is it blog protcol, but how did that wind up [again] on the monitor after having gone to the great archives in the sky?
Isabel, do you still actually think that our Founding Fathers kept Christianity out of Government? Are you more interested in convincing people that don't know what your saying isn't true or are you interested in the truth for yourself. There is so much evidence that Christianity was not just IN our government, but it was explicit. Virtually every state constitution had reference to God and/or Jesus complete authority over the US Government and state government. Isabel, are you interested in truth?
I was being nice in using that language versus what he really is. Sometimes people get on their high horse and see wrong in every other post but their own. Have a blessed day.
Pure need, pure expression. Ignore the european diaspora, tell us how you really feel Tepes!