The Supreme Court in California flipped the citizens of California a collective middle finger. There is absolutely no reason or logic for the court ruling. This is an example of Black Robed Freaks deciding to create law rather than enforcing law.
My position has been marriage is a religious term and I want the government as far away from thepulpit as possible. There is no such conflict with Civil Unions. It is important for society to respect gays right to dignity, but it is equally important for Gays to respect the religious views of others.
Ted Kennedy has been a national disgrace and should have retired years ago. That being said we take no joy from his health woes. Maybe this will prompt him to retire so that we are spared Senator in a casket. There should be a mandatory retirement age of 80 so that we are spared death watches.
16 comments:
Despite the Court's ruling, religious intolerance towrds lesbian and gay marriage will be permitted to continue without question. No church, synagogue, mosque or temple that does not wish to perform them will ever be required to. Your diatribe here represents the biggest problem when it comes to the issue of civl marriage for lesbians and gays, the refusal to recognize the difference between the religious "institution" of marriage and the word that the governments have co-opted to describe civil recognition of kinship partnership agreements. Your sacred ideal of marriage was not effected by this ruling only the civil concept is a matter of the rule of law. While you may wish to believe that the separate and kinda-sorta equal notion of so-called domestic partnerships was a sufficient answer to address the issue, the reality is, straight or gay we are all due equal protection under the law and that does and should mean the "M" word is a legal option for all...
I agree on both points.
us Californians are about to flip the middle finger back...give us time.
Anon
The term marriage is clearly a religious term that is defined in every religion. There are strict laws over who may marry.
The role of government is not to violate or define religious terms. The problem with activist judges is incrementalism. I am pro abortion, but Roe vs Wade is terrible law based incrementalism smoke and mirrors.
I respect gays and lesbians as human beings. They are not disenfranchised or harmed in any way by Civil Unions. Civil Unions have the same legal rights and benefits as marriage without intruding into religious terms.
I would disagree that gays and lesbians face religious bigotry en masse. Bigotry certainly does exist
and so long as it does not rise to encitement to criminal acts then it is protected under the First Amendment. I have no problem with a Church that says a non Christian is hell bound. However, a Church that urged lynching of Gays, Jews or Albinos would be commiting a criminal act.
There are plenty of Churches that welcome Gays. Gays should select one more suited to their own views.
The right of freedom of association
is also in question. Should I as a non Christian have the right to demand a membership in a local church, of course not.
Anon
Gays are not in anyway disenfranchised by Civil Unions. In fact they are getting a benefit is the same without intruding into religious terms.
The gay marriage fight is an example of the radical falacy. We used to have a Gay commenter who was very well loved in this community. At some point in time he embraced Christ and was greeted as a member of the family. To me he was and remains a close and valued friend no matter who he sleeps with. I am bothered by his rooting for the eeeeevil Dallas Cowboys.
A running series of posts with this valued friend was on the path to progress. There are going to always be those who hate gays for being themselves. However, the path to progress for gays leads to building bridges to Christians. One can not or should not deduce that all religious Christians hate gays. The attitude of most of the readers here has almost entirely been to love the sinner and hate the sin.
I am probably the only non-Christian that posts on this blog with the exception of Batya whom we adore. According to these same scriptures I am every bit the sinner that the gays are. I will freely admit to having sex out of wedlock with a UN of female partners. Is my conduct any less honorable than that of gays, probably not.
If you stick around the Kahanist sex police or their Archie Bunker style Commie allies may pay a visit.
My problem with gay marriage are of course, religious in principle, but...even nature would reveal that the union will not produce. So...even evolution, or atheism should see this as a danger to survival.
I totally agree with your comments of not viewing this as any sin worse than another. Should a couple choose to live in this way, it's their business. But legalizing gay marriage is making it everyones' business.
Beak,
In regard to Kennedy, you might want to get your T-shirt from my friend's website, go check it out:
http://www.cafepress.com/misfit410/5298997
dang, we all thought this was it for Kennedy....too bad he's recovering. There's too many bloggers out there who are sympathetic toward Kennedy.
Peace brother, I hope you're doing good these days.
"I respect gays and lesbians as human beings. They are not disenfranchised or harmed in any way by Civil Unions."
They seem to disagree and they aren't going to be restricted by some pontificating straight.
If you respect gays why do you expect them to listen to crap from straights defining what's good for them?
Marriage is a strictly religious institution? You can't get a civil marriage? Sounds as if you dug that one out of your butt, Beak.
Beak you said:
"I would disagree that gays and lesbians face religious bigotry en masse. Bigotry certainly does exist
and so long as it does not rise to encitement to criminal acts then it is protected under the First Amendment"
Yes, gays and lesbians face religious bigotry from the evangelical right. Now as to whether it rises to encitement to cirminal acts I would say yes, in many cases it does because they degrade and demean the gay or lesbian to the sub human status just as the Nazis did the jews.
After Matthew Shepard was killed in 1998, a pastor in North Carolina published an open letter regarding the trial of Aaron McKinney that read: "Gays are under the death penalty. His blood is guilty before God (Lev. 20:13). If a person kills a gay, the gay's blood is upon the gay and not upon the hands of the person doing the killing. The acts of gays are so abominable to God. His Word is there and we can't change it."
The very fact that he said from the pulpit that the blood was not upon the person doing the killing can send some people to do exactly that. They think this is a non person and of non worth and killing them is ok.
Rev. Mel White, co-founder of Soulforce
When I was a guest on a talk show in Seattle, I saw what might happen to me and to millions like me if a genuine literalist gained political power over this country. The other guest on the show was an independent Presbyterian pastor. When I told him that I was gay, he said without hesitation, "Then you should be killed."
When you use such speach in your church then you are asking people to follow your words. Remember the cult leader never tells his people what to do he subtley suggest to them what would be better for them.
Most of the people I know who say "the Bible condemns homosexuality" would never condone these acts. Most Christians have no idea that the people killing gay and lesbian persons go around quoting those few verses of Scripture as justification.
However, that ignorance is being preached from thousands of pulpits and believe me there are people who will act on those sermons. Worse if we did not have the law in place it would be far worse.
Marriage never was until modern times a religious thing. It was a mutual and financial contract between two famlies. Many times famlies promised their children before they even reached the age of puberty. Kings offered their daughters to form political alliances. Not to sacred is it?
This is just another two-bit political issue. Note the timing of this California Supreme Court decree. They could have just as easily done it last year, or even better, waited a year, but they happen to pick a time to make sure it would have an impact on the upcoming election.
And furthermore, it is not just one side that plays this game, it is both sides. Both the left and the right use this as a political football, and it amazes me most people haven't caught on by now.
The gay rights activist groups care about one thing only-making money. For every one step forward gays have now taken in California and a very few other places, other gays in other regions of the country will now take an equal amount of steps back just to balance things out. That's the way the game is played. Then they cry and whine and their donor base throws the money to them. Then, the religious right cries a little louder, and their donor base throws money at them.
If the truth were known, leaders of both groups are probably off somewhere having a good laugh about it, probably while they're cornholing each other.
Justin
I am not claiming that there are not some evangelicals who hate gays. I am certainly not stating that homophobia
does not exist.
However, to a certain extent there is a media culture of Marxist arrogance directed at evangelicals. The vast majority of evangelicals take the position of love the sinner and hate the sin.
The question is where do gays go from here and how do we move ahead.
This is certainly not done in the manner of Act Up. Progress will only be made through engaging the rational majority via reason.Even the doofus Falwell had to appologize for his stupid remarks after 9-11.
I am starting to see 9-11 as an inkblot. Falwell blames gays and Commies, Jihadis and Nazis blame Jews. Do note that Falwell unlike the rest of the bigots did appologize. You will never hear any
of the far left freaks ever appologize for anything. Even the other day Renegade Eye tried to claim the genocide of the Indians by the Sandanistas was a misunderstanding. This is seriously on a par with Holocaust Denial.
As far as the roots of marriage every known religion has rules and regulations. Marriage is called a covenant, but it is also called an institution.
Extreeme hatred of gays is largely
ignorance and lack of interaction.
In NYC one encounters a wide variety of gays from regular folk.
I was shocked at the unusually nasty tone about gays I encountered
in Northern Vermont. Much of that is from lack of interaction. I dismissed the bigotry as lack of sophistication and the Vermonters probably viewed me as an Urban elitist.
Respecting Religious Views, does not Mean that Religious People get to decide how other people get to live their lives, thats not respect, thats Theocrarcy!
I agree with Rob about Theocracy to a point, but at some level, this is neither a political nor religious issue but more cultural.
I've lived in cultures where polygamy was acceptable, and yet there were guidelines to follow, mainly how many wives could the man support.
I've also observed cultures such as the Yanomami which have child brides and seen atrocious acts put upon children in the name of "culture".
At what point do we deiced what is acceptable and what is not? There must be a rule of law. Be it community, church, state, whatever, a consensus, usually of the majority, is required.
What's the big deal. Gays can get married. Look at ex-Governor McGreevy from New Jersey. He was still married when he gave his stinkhole stabber a cushy state government job just to have him around on call whenever he felt the urge to ingress the egress.
If it's any consolation, straight men can't marry gay men either.
wow Justin your analogy seems extreme...Could you please point me to (other than those bozoz at Westboro Baptist) to an evangelical church that advocates putting gays in concentration camps or gassing them?
I think that would be an insult to holocaust survivors.
yes Christians disagree with it just as they do heterosexual sins or lying, cheating and stealing.
Respecting Religious Views, does not Mean that Religious People get to decide how other people get to live their lives, thats not respect, thats Theocrarcy!
and making it legal is the moral equivalent of foisting a homosexual's 'ecclesiastical' interpretation on the rest of society
Post a Comment