Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Activist California court overrules voters on gay marriage ban
In a 4-3 decision today, the California Supreme Court decided to ignore the wishes of the state’s voters by overturning a ban on gay marriage in the biggest state in the country. According to the Associated Press, one of the three dissenting justices, Marvin Baxter, wrote that he agreed with many arguments of the majority but that the court had overstepped its authority, adding that changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters. And voters in California may have another chance in November, when a measure that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution could possibly appear on the ballot. The state’s secretary of state still needs to rule whether the measure’s sponsors have enough signatures to place the marriage amendment on the ballot. If the amendment comes to a vote and passes, today’s decision would be voided.
back to top303 Comments to “Activist California court overrules voters on gay marriage ban”
McCain may now actually take California.
The homosexual activists now cannot blame the religious right for dragging out this issue for the election. In fact, blaming us for that in the past was also dishonest. But as usual, the homosexualists started it by cramming their immorality down our throats.
Report comment to moderator
How bigoted and discriminatory can the California Supreme Court get?
Why haven’t they also protected the equal marriage rights of consenting polyamorists and polygamists and adult parent-child same-sex couples. Why can’t those people get married too? Are they less human or something?
HOW WOULD IT HURT YOUR MARRIAGE IF POLYAMORISTS OR CONSENTING ADULT PARENT-CHILD SAME-SEX COUPLES OR TRIPLES COULD GET MARRIED???
Report comment to moderator
Ah, yes, another hole in the wall of prejudice and discrimination. Someday that wall is gonna fall.
It’s a good day for California!
Report comment to moderator
The sky is falling. Against Same Sex Marriage? Don’t Have One.
Report comment to moderator
. . . and a bad day for representative democracy guided by the vote of the people.
Report comment to moderator
But as usual, the homosexualists started it by cramming their immorality down our throats.
I don’t understand this comment. How has immorality been crammed down your throat? I would absolutely agree with you that homosexuality IS immoral, but how does a homosexual couple getting married in California affect you negatively?
Biblical marriage is biblical marriage. Just because homosexuals are getting married and heterosexuals are getting divorced does not change the fact that the institution of marriage is a good and God-ordained gift.
The State shouldn’t be getting involved in marriage anyway.
Report comment to moderator
It should be noted that the California legislature has already passed same sex marriage so the Court can be seen as simply doing the bidding of the elected representatives.
The people, on the other hand…we’ll that’s just mobocracy.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Graceland. My solution would be to abolish marriage and replace the current laws with civil unions for all under which any 2 people could register. Then leave it to the churches entirely to perform the “marriage” ceremony. You are “married” if you church, not the state, says so.
Report comment to moderator
Against polyamorous marriag? Don’t get in one.
Against adult parent-child marriages? Don’t have one.
Agaisnt one man marrying twenty women? Don’t participate.
Nonsense. All of the above, plus the California iron-fisted dictate, are morally wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Ah yes, Jon, who cares about the citizens? They’re lower than dirt, ugly, and ignorant, and fortunately their wise politicians are in a position to save them from themselves. I’m relieved.
I won’t move to California anytime soon, though, at least not till the citizens start throwing these officials onto the street in front of city busses, or at least out of their comfy little offices where they tend to forget who elected them, and why.
Report comment to moderator
What would Jesus say?
“From the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female…’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh,’ They are no longer two, but one.” Jesus (Matthew 19:4-5)
“Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” Jesus (Matthew 19:6)
That is Jesus’ definition of marriage “From the beginning!” One man and one woman. Male and felmale. The TWO become one!
_______________
Also:
“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled.” Hebrews 13:4
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Jon, but the court acts on the case before it, not on the past nor on the same or a similar question in some other form. What the legislature did is meaningless here.
Report comment to moderator
The sky is falling. Against Same Sex Marriage? Don’t Have One. .
Goes a little deeper than that, I’m afraid. It’s not like telling somebody, “Don’t like yellow T-shirts? Don’t wear one.” It’s more like telling a twelve-year-old kid he shouldn’t drink, or telling a chronic smoker he really should quit.
We believe God made us for 1 man/1 woman marriages, and that in those marriages we will be most happy. We also know that we will be most happy (not to be confused with rich) in honoring God in our behaviour, and that includes not going against His plan for marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
I agree with you about what God has defined as marriage, but why do you expect the State to uphold God’s definition?
What do you think of Jon Rowe’s proposal regarding civil unions?
Report comment to moderator
“Ah yes, Jon, who cares about the citizens? They’re lower than dirt, ugly, and ignorant, and fortunately their wise politicians are in a position to save them from themselves. I’m relieved.”
Then you have really enjoyed GWB.
Report comment to moderator
What the legislature did is meaningless here. .
No, it’s not. The California populace decided it wasn’t quite ready for same-sex marriage yet, and the court ignored one of it’s most basic duties in protecting the people’s ability to run their country through the vote. Instead, the court blatently ignored the people and indulged in their own polticially-correct sensibilities.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe nails it exactly: get the state out of the marriage business and leave it to the church to marry or not marry whomever they want.
Give all couples the same legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities under the law through a civil union.
Report comment to moderator
“We believe God made us for 1 man/1 woman marriages, and that in those marriages we will be most happy. We also know that we will be most happy (not to be confused with rich) in honoring God in our behaviour, and that includes not going against His plan for marriage.”
And no one has asked you to do otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
I was teasing a little. A mantra from you folks re judicial activism is it’s the legislature’s job to legislate. Well they already legislated same-sex marriage, which, I believe the Govenator vetoed because of the already existing referendum against same sex marriage, which I presume was not adopted as an amendment to their state constitution. But I guess the next referendum will have to be. I have to brush up on CA law to make sure I got this right.
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly,
You are making the error I’m trying to warn you folks against. The PEOPLE voted through referendum against same sex marriage, after which the LEGISLATURE tried to enact gay marriage into law. The governor said he WOULD HAVE signed it into law had their not been the referendum. If the legislature’s bill and the governor’s signature were the end game, gay marriage would have been the law already in CA.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus also had a point of view about Sodom and Gomorrah and their sin (homosexuality among other sins) and punishment too. So did the apostle Peter and Jude (in the New Testament):
* “I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” (Matthew 10:15).
* “if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;” (2 Peter 2:6)
* “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 1:7)
This sin (homosexuality) destroys hearts, families, and lives. A God of love hates sins that destroys the people He loves. Let us (with non-violence and with compassion for the sinner and disdain for the sin) be honest enough to face what the Bible teaches about this. See also Romans One.
More quotes:
* “Let those who love the Lord hate evil.” (Psalm 97:10).
* “To fear the Lord is to hate evil.” Proverbs 8:13).
* “Love the offender, yet detest the offense.” Alexander Pope.
Report comment to moderator
In fact, Jon and my idea is pretty much in line with what the legislator’s (not the courts) of California have done in the last few years. They’ve given the same rights under the law to all couples. The only thing that’s different is that they call an opposite gender union a “marriage” and a same gender union a “civil union”.
Report comment to moderator
“The California populace decided it wasn’t quite ready for same-sex marriage yet, and the court ignored one of it’s most basic duties in protecting the people’s ability to run their country through the vote.”
Should whites be allowed to marry blacks if the people of Kansas vote that they should not?
Report comment to moderator
11 – “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh,’ They are no longer two, but one.
That is Jesus’ definition of marriage.
Odd, wasn’t he a bachelor?
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe–
I didn’t realize the legislature had also voted FOR same-sex marriage. It appears that they too have indulged in a little (or a lot of) politically-correct blah.
Have they forgotten that we elect our representatives to represent us in government, not to do whatever they jolly well please?
Report comment to moderator
Graceland,
60 percent of Califonia voters were over-ruled and disrespected by this 4 to 3 vote. That is forcing a form of what most voters think is immoral down their throats.
This will render parents unable to stop public schools from cramming the homosexual agenda down the throats of their kindergarteners (Obama wants sex-ed to go even to kindergarteners).
This is the bib-brother government forcing moral policy on the people against their will.
Graceland asked; “how does a homosexual couple getting married in California affect you negatively?”
Graceland, how does a school teacher marrying a dog in Nevada effect you negatively? My point is that your question is the wrong one. How we define marriage effects all our children and how they grow up.
Marriage is the glue that holds our civilization together. We are pulling out the rug on our posterity and our nation. It will take a generation or two but this will kill our culture and our future.
Report comment to moderator
Graceland, how does a school teacher marrying a dog in Nevada effect you negatively?
It doesn’t. My marriage is not defined by any school teachers or dogs in Nevada.
Report comment to moderator
OK Godlumps–
Maybe I’d better say this a little stronger (at risk of being a stereotypical anti-homosexual evangelical: that’s fine for you doesn’t cut it when it comes to what our God says.
God’s law is universal … meant to apply to everybody and be obeyed by everybody, whether or not they think they have a different “sexuality.”
But we don’t “hate” homosexuals, because we feel that through this tough law that goes against every part of human nature (whether lying or homosexuality), God wants to bring us to Himself into a relationship of Joy.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe says, “You are ‘married’ if you church, not the state, says so.”
Does this mean that no Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Jews, atheists, etc. are married?
Jesus acknowledged the validity of marriages of people outside the covenant when he was speaking to Samaritan woman at the well who had had a number of husbands. Why shouldn’t we?
Report comment to moderator
You know, there’s nothing I’d love more than to go off on Joel Mark’s gay-bashing “hatefest”. But alas, I’ve been no angel myself on here lately, so it would be injudicious of me to so.
Durn!
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote; “My solution would be to abolish marriage and replace the current laws with civil unions for all under which any 2 people could register.”
“Any 2 people”?
Adult parent and child? Brother and sister? Sister and sister? A man and a woman who is already married to someone else? A woman and another woman who is married to someone else?
And why just 2 people? Why not 17? How dare you discriminate against the rights of those who want polygamous marriages among consenting adults?
Barack Obama has falsely stated that the Sermon on the Mount justifies same-sex unions. Don’t expect truth from politicians like that.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote; “My solution would be to abolish marriage…” (see context)
In previous threads Jon has advocated for government to legalize prostitution. Not a good solution either, in my humble view.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir wrote; “Give all couples the same legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities under the law through a civil union.”
“ALL couples?” Why just couples? Why would Anlir discrimminate against the equal marriage rights of consenting adult triples? Quadruples? Baseball teams?
And if just couples, how about same-sex sisters? How about same-sex adult parent child couples?
How about it? Let’s just have social chaos on a platter here!
Report comment to moderator
Yes any two people. The key would be the civil union has nothing to do with sex, which is none of the government’s business. A good Christian widowed mother and her never married daughter in a Platonic relationship could get the civil union with for the benefits and still believe marriage is 100% between man and woman for life.
Government should legalize prostitution and drugs. If you are concerned about exploitation of women, having the conduct illegal invites the worst, most exploitive types of characters (i.e., “pimps”) into the business.
Report comment to moderator
ALL couples?” Why just couples?
OK, Joel Mark, I’ll play your game. Yes, ALL couples. Doesn’t matter if you’re related, as long as they consent.
And why just couples? Because you have to limit it at something, since it involves benefits. If you don’t set a limit on it, you could have the entire state of Ohio file for a civil union. 2 makes sense, as it’s the foundation for an incredibly high percentage of families.
Report comment to moderator
Number is very different than gender because benefits and joint tax filings and whatnot are predicated and apportioned on 2. Changing genders and having a man instead of a woman get your spousal benefits is not much of an administrative change.
If one can figure out a way to make the civil union work fairly and equitably with more than 2 (for instance, have three people split the same benefits that two ordinarily would, like 3 children inheriting from an estate instead of two), then by all means, if it’s a private contract/voluntary association, government shouldn’t stand in the way of such societal evolution.
Report comment to moderator
35: That’s a good point. Administratively, it makes sense to just draw the line at 2.
My own flirtation with more than 2 has to do with the wonderful things private associations, i.e., corporations, churches, whatnot have brought us in free capitalistic societies. An entire church could share its civil union benefits one another! The possibilities are endless.
Report comment to moderator
Ree has a point … how do people of other religions than Christian-based get married? A ceremony with their own religion?
And how would one dissolve the civil unions? Could you have a woman and her sister in a civil union, while each was married to a man and in another civil union? Would you have to dissolve the first one before you entered into a second?
Sounds like a lot of paperwork ….
Report comment to moderator
Joel – 33
You wrote: “How about it? Let’s just have social chaos on a platter here!”
That might not be so far off the charts in a few years. How many people feel sorry for the Texas FLDS? After all its ‘their business’-
If this continues it will be CHAOS -
Report comment to moderator
My grandpa used to rail against integration. He’d go off on a tirade:
“If we let black people into our schools, they won’t stop there. They’ll be in our stores, our restaurants, and moving into our neighborhood. Then they’ll be taking our jobs. This country is going to hell!”
He made Archie Bunker look positively liberal.
The reality is, allowing gay people to get hitched won’t be the end of civilization or marriage. God isn’t going to damn America for allowing gay people to legally marry, no matter how much preachers thunder down the judgment of God on us.
The American people are quite capable of forming a sane policy of allowing marriage equality without resorting to “man/goat” marriage or any of the other wild scenarios being batted about.
As for Jon’s idea, I think it’s usually called “reciprocal benefits” and it is a fine idea.
Report comment to moderator
Wow! This thread is just like old times. I even know what each character is going to say next.
I love re-runs of old episodes. Like the one where Gilligan finds those radioactive seeds. Or, when Spock goes loopy for that girl Leila on spore planet (that’s for you, TJ). Even though I know all of Kirk’s lines by heart, I could watch that one any day of the week.
Too bad this ruling didn’t happen earlier. On the season finale of Brothers and Sisters on Sunday, the gay son and his partner got married in the Walker’s home in SoCal. They could’ve made it official and showed State of Cal paperwork. How cool would that have been? Something to look forward to in September season pilot.
PS – Although I’m pretty laissez-faire on the whole gay marriage thang, I thought it was kinda gross when the two guys kissed on TV. Am I allowed to say that?
Report comment to moderator
Graceland, in fact it doesn’t affect you directly, but it does affect the opinions and decisions made by those not grounded in the truth of the Word and who merely run with the crowd—”it’s OK for them, it’s OK for me”—without further thought or consideration of the larger questions Joel raises. As these peoples’ ill-considered votes count as much as yours, you must realize that as the country crumbles outside your gates eventually your fence will fall. Then what are you going to do, if it’s not too late?
Report comment to moderator
There things are important to this discussion that will not be represented well by World Mag Blog conservatives.
[1] The people cannot pass a referendum that is unconstitutional, and when they do it is the proper function of the court to uphold the constitution. No one should be arguing this point.
Those of you commenting on “activist judges” should be prepared to answer questions about the California constitution if you want to defend your position.
[2] The court did not redefine marriage. It left the state the option of using a word to describe the union other than marriage. It did, however, rule that the state cannot use different terms for same-sex and different-sex unions.
Graceland’s interpretation could under this decision, be a legal (though unlikely) option for the legislature.
[3] I remember when the legislature passed marriages for same-sex couples the FIRST TIME. It was leading up to the 2006 elections, and Republicans and bigots swore up and down that it would be a bad year for Democrats. Voters wouldn’t tolerate it, they told us. The people would hold them accountable and vote out the dis-respecters of the people will!
Voters went to the polls and strengthened the Democratic majority.
–Fact is, this is a change who’s time has come.
–The constitutional amendment is already polling in the red, and the “coalition” that supported it has already blown their entire budget PAYING signature gathers to try and get it qualified.
–Joel Mark’s knee jerk McCain reaction is completely unfounded.
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly,
It’s really not all that complicated. You apply the exiting laws regarding marriage and divorce equally to all couples.
Besides, the law should be genderless in it’s application. The person’s sex shouldn’t be an issue.
Report comment to moderator
Travis,
It is like old times! I mean look – this post hasn’t been up 2 hours and already there are 44 posts. I bet it will break 100 no sweat! Nothing brings out the people on Worldmag like the “gay” issue.
Report comment to moderator
“ALL couples?” Why just couples?”
Because people do not have a constitutional right to polygamy. Because a union of two people is a good way to make a family. Because joining two people together monogamously is an inherently good thing that isn’t true of three people. Because parenthood is best and most stably done in sets of defined pairs.
You can continue all of your old arguments. But that “union of a man and a woman”-moral g-d crap, is an argument you are currently, publicly losing!
Report comment to moderator
Because joining two people together monogamously is an inherently good thing that isn’t true of three people.
I don’t think that holds much water. Get the State out of the marriage business completely. Then whoever finds a church that will perform a wedding that suits their desire, great.
Report comment to moderator
PS- Mickey lied to all of you.
Justice Baxter did not say that the decision should be made by the voters (implying that the Court should defer to proposition 22), what he said was that the court should defer to the legislature (the same one that voted for same-sex marriage TWICE). So while he disagrees with the court making the decision, he concedes that the court made the same decision as the body he wanted to have make the decision would have made!
I guess a judge has to appreciate the nuance of legal things like that, and his minority opinion is not totally offensive.
NOw if only Mickey would fact check himself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?hp
Report comment to moderator
“‘Because joining two people together monogamously is an inherently good thing that isn’t true of three people.’
I don’t think that holds much water. Get the State out of the marriage business completely. Then whoever finds a church that will perform a wedding that suits their desire, great.”
Alright, I’m willing to back you up there. If you think the state has no right to mandate two person couplings in ways that imply monogamous relationships, I support you.
How much of the conservative movement can you bring along with you to this “anti-monogamy” position?
This could be a real cross-ideology movement in the making.
Report comment to moderator
However the issue is decided, it should be decided legally. That’s actually more important to me than whether we end up with same-sex marriage across the country or not. The reason that the legality of the process matters, is that the more we ignore our legal process, the more we are in danger of total anarchy and chaos.
In the state of California the people have the constitutional right to decide on laws by referendum. No court should have overturned their decision, unless there’s something I don’t know about in the state Constitution that says that people of the same sex can be married.
I suppose the only way to settle this issue civilly is to do what some have suggested here. We need civil unions for any two consenting adults, and then we should let each religious group decide how to define “marriage.” I don’t like that solution, and it shows how far down the slippery slope we have come that I am saying I could live with it.
For the above suggestion to take effect, though, I believe it must happen through legal means–not through a court trumping either the vote of the people or the act of a legislature.
Report comment to moderator
Luke,
Ha. You won’t see many conservatives making the move because it’s purely a libertarian thing. The less the State is involved, the better. I have strong religious beliefs, and I intend to continue practicing them…thanks to freedom. The same should apply to all of those who have different beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
I like dissenting justice Corrigan’s quote: “We should allow the significant achievements embodied in the domestic partnership statutes to continue to take root,” Justice Corrigan wrote. “If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.”
How is that not judicial advocacy? does that even come close to ruling on the law? It seems like the word “should” is misplaced in an impartial opinion. This is not a statement about the constitutionality of marriage bans. She is literally expressing the opinion that an unconstitutional measure (which she concedes) should be left on the books in order to passive the populous, based on her personal view of public policy!
Report comment to moderator
Those of you commenting on “activist judges” should be prepared to answer questions about the California constitution if you want to defend your position.
OK, Luke: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that the California constitution says anything whatsoever about same-sex marriage. I think it’s silent on the issue.
Thus, we should go with the will of the people (who voted against same-sex marriage.)
Report comment to moderator
It’s all about sex. Has been for more than 2,000 years. Who was that fleeing naked male companion of Jesus, anyway?
I guess in a way, the Christian obsession with who can have sex but utter lack of concern about the age of the participants does make a whole lot of demographic sense. One can get one’s tribe to multiply and the new kids certainly are likely to see things their parents’ way…
Similarly by insisting on deciding who can get married, one can prevent any kind of potentially dangerous union, especially one with someone of another tribe (or race).
I suppose one should ask whether it is more likely for a god to regulate sexual behavior or for his self-appointed interpreters to do so for their own manipulative purposes. It’s sort of like the mandatory sabbatical day of rest. It doesn’t really make much sense until one thinks about conveniently it works out for the interpreters.
Speaking of which, just a reminder that those same interpreters conveniently did not discern any provision against pedophilia. Pity, that.
Report comment to moderator
Graceland and Jon Rowe,
Are willing to blatantly deny the equal human rights of three people to marry merely for the sake of administrative convenience? How cold is that?
Are you going to slam down the equal marriage rights and desires of free consenting adults just because, in Graceland’s wrods, “…you have to limit it at something, since it involves benefits.”
How selfish!!!
You guys are limiting benefits to free consenting adult humans just because you want the number to be low?
Graceland wrote; “If you don’t set a limit on it, you could have the entire state of Ohio file for a civil union.”
Okay, but how about Rhode Island? That wouldn’t be as bad would it? How about Macon County in GA? How about the Bronx? How about the Democrat Convention? How about the Lakers?
Sheesh!
Report comment to moderator
For something with more substance than Joel Mark, check out this sweet video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kxDxLAjkO8
Report comment to moderator
This makes me sick for two reasons.
1. I think California, while promoting equal rights and the stability of society via marriage, is promoting homosexuality, which I believe to be hurtful to both mind and body.
2. I think a piece meal approach to this issue, i.e. promoting this right state-by-state, inflicts a further injustice upon homosexuals.
If our courts, our legislators, and our people want to grant homosexual married couples the same social benefits as heterosexual married couples enjoy, then we ought to ratify a constitutional amendment making it apply to every citizen regardless of residency.
A person’s marriage vows should be valid everywhere in the nation.
Report comment to moderator
Nothing brings out the people on Worldmag like the “gay” issue.
I, for one, have deliberately chosen to never comment on any homosexuality threads.
Aw, shoot.
Report comment to moderator
Ultimately, this will come to God’s judgment throne like everything else. Always remember that man’s laws are inferior to God’s, and God is not bound by any state or federal constitution.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: . . . the homosexualists started it by cramming their immorality down our throats.
According to Jesus or Socrates, this assertion is a non-sequiter. What goes into a person’s mouth doesn’t make him unclean. It’s what comes out that defiles. Immorality doesn’t enter, it springs from within. We don’t acquire corruption, we manufacture it. The corollary to this moral teaching is that following traditional moral principles is never sufficient to achieve a virtuous life. Rules don’t make the desiring part of us want the good.
Joel Mark has repeated his deep throat imagery on numerous threads. He presents us with a seedy cathexis, a cry for help to face an inflated trope head on (sorry, there’s no other way to say it). Homosexual/ists can try to cram their penises down our throats, perhaps, but immoralists can’t force their immorality. They can turn the girl out, but they don’t give it to her — she takes it.
Report comment to moderator
Any determinant of marriage — age, number, gender — can be said to be theoretically arbitrary. Marriage in the Bible was a union between a man and an unlimited number of wives of almost any age, but not a union between a woman and an unlimited number of husbands (i.e., the woman taken in adultery). The difficulty of determining joint and several responsibility in contractual relationships, let alone emotional and personal relationships, provides a reasonable basis for limiting marriage to a union between two persons.
Report comment to moderator
Contracts are not necessarily limited to two people.
Report comment to moderator
Why couldn’t the Lakers get married if they really wanted to? They need the benefits too don’t they? This is so unfair, slamming shut the door of marriage equality, equal opportunity and even tangible social benefits to anyone and everyone who simply wants to be free to marry a 3rd, 4th or 5th or 36th consenting adult partner with whom they are desperately in love from the bottom of their beating hearts. What is this close-minded country coming to?
Report comment to moderator
Just when I thought world mag was getting boring, they toss out some red meat.
Writing from the nation which first legalized gay marriage, I just checked the sky hasn’t fallen. In fact our real estate prices are still rising, but our fresh produce prices fell last week. Under Hagee’s logic God must be rewarding us.
As for the perninal complaint that the slope is now slippery I say we should slide away as long as consent is involved. Although I’m sure the gov’t, insurance companies and corporations will have a few ideas about limiting our rights to group marriage. And yes Joel if Ed the talking horse says yes, he’s available for marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Good for the Supremes of Cali. The nerve of those arrogant California voters! They actually went to the polls and voted their disapproval/rejection of sodomite marriage. Thank Goodness we have judges today who will courageously make law and not just interpret it as it was written.
Sounds like a judicial recall will once again hit California. Rose Bird, call your office!
Report comment to moderator
From the CA Supreme Court ruling, regarding the issue of the fundamental right marry and whether it should face “strict scrutiny” (page 11-12):
A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and
will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples.
Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.
Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.
Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.
Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.
Yes!!
Report comment to moderator
It is funny how worked up a guy like Joel gets.
Report comment to moderator
Godlumps,
The 14th Amendment clearly addresses your question about Kansans voting. It does not, however, address the question before us.
Report comment to moderator
Not voting, getting married! Ugh–long day!
Report comment to moderator
Think of the plusses and minuses are reinforcements and dependencies, the multiplication and division as intensifiers and diminishments
Marriage between two persons is complex enough.
a + b
a – b
b – a
ab
a/b
b/a
Group marriage between more three or more persons involves a higher order of complexity altogether.
a + b + c
(a + b) + c
a + (b + c)
(a + c) + b
(a + b) – c
a – (b + c)
(a + c) – b
(a – b) + c
a + (b – c)
(a – c) + b
a + (b – c)
(a – c) + b
a – b – c
b – a – c
c – a – b
(a + b) / c
a / (b + c)
(a + c) / b
(a – b) / c
a / (b – c)
(a – c) / b
a / (b – c)
(a – c) / b
abc
ab/c
ac/b
b/ac
c/ab
bc/a
That’s not counting the radicals!
Family courts don’t have the legal technology yet to reverse-engineer group marriage into smaller groups or dissolve it altogether. Professional athletic teams may continue to shower together, however.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t see this having much effect on the upcoming election. Public acceptance of gay marriage has increased in recent years, as evangelicals have used the issue for little more than shallow grandstanding. Today, Dobson (i.e., the evangelical Pope) referred to this as “judicial tyranny.” There are people in this world who do live under tyranny. To compare their situations to this shows how stupid Dobson and his millions of evangelical acolytes are.
Report comment to moderator
OK, I have some whinin’ to do.
First off, my spelling stinks. I really should learn to use spell check.’
Second, and I don’t mean to sound whiny, but. Here I go. Now I posted this on the WV post at like 2:34. I e-mailed the editors at WoW at like 2 minutes later. Now I don’t know if it’s because you guys don’t check your e-mail or what, but it seems to me you hate being scooped, or you just ignore your e-mails. I had you beat by 1/2 hour. I saw it, and posted it 2 minutes after it showed up on MSNC, on the WV 5/15 post. THere’s this thing called a HT. I think I should have got one. Now granted, you linked a different story. but the subject is the same. And I had both WoW, and world mag, by 1/2 an hour. At least aknowledge me, since I “scooped” you both by 30 minutes. Now if you saw it elsewhere first, shame on you for not being quicker with posting it. If not, it’s called a hat tip, and it doesn’t make you look bad, just like you’re paying attentiion to the regs. Thanks in advance, Allen.
Report comment to moderator
A question for the Christians.
Back in 1948, when the same CA Supreme Court threw out the state law banning interracial marriage, was that an activist court overstepping its bounds?
Report comment to moderator
Cameron-There were 99 years between ratification of the 14th amendment and repeal of miscegenation laws.
Report comment to moderator
“PS- Mickey lied to all of you.”
Surprised? No.
Report comment to moderator
Mickey McClean would be perfectly justified in arguing the court misapplied the constitution, if he had such arguments to make, but he shouldn’t fault the court for applying the constitution and oreding the “action” corresponding to it’s conclusions. We don’t pay courts to be “passivist.” Courts are a branch of government.
Report comment to moderator
Society is constantly in the process of redefining its concept of morality. Fortunately, God never changes His concept of morality. The lies that satan brings are a smokescreen designed to cloud over the moral absolutes upon which civilized society has been built. But no matter what any court of law declares, no matter what laws any government passes, it will never change the severity of moral impurity in the eyes of a holy God.
Report comment to moderator
73,
I was not around back in 1948 and don’t know the circumstances surrounding whatever that court allegedly did. I do know that the Bible does not oppose marriage between a man and a woman of different ethnic origins or races (Moses & Zaporah; Ruth & Boaz; Esther & Ahahuras, etc).
I also know that it does oppose homosexuality and it stands opposed to the immoral redefinition and deconstruction of marriage that this court imposed when it over-ruled the will of 61 percent of Californians.
I also know that this 2008 case was decided by an activist court overstepping its bounds.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder how long it will take to successfully sue a minister in America for refusing to perform same-sex marriages. I wonder if children will be sequestered from parents who affirm the immorality of homosexuality. I wonder if the parents will one day be charged with hate speech.
Report comment to moderator
p79 of the debate shows the inherent contradiction in their reasoning, and how it ends up being all about one’s view of what is best for the family, from note 52:
We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.
So, their view of what is inimical to healthy families is the final determinant on who can marry and who can not. If we turn the clock back 25 years, the argument would ban homosexual marriage. If we turn it forward, the same argument invites polygamous and incestuous marriage.
Although the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay individuals and gay couples clearly is no longer permissible, the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment.
The determining factor? Effect on a sound family environment. The ban on gays is no longer permissible – it once was permissible – and the ban on polygamous and incestuous continues to be banned, for the moment.
Note – this is not the slippery slope argument, one thing does not necessarily lead to another. This is applying the reason used for one thing to another. This ruling paves the way for legalizing adulterous and incestuous marriage if an argument can be made that such marriages do not necessarily have a detrimental effect on the family.
Report comment to moderator
link:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly at #13: We believe God made us for 1 man/1 woman marriages, and that in those marriages we will be most happy.
That’s right. You believe that. And that’s fine.
But it does not give you the right to impose what you believe on other people who don’t share that belief.
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly at #16: The California populace decided it wasn’t quite ready for same-sex marriage yet, and the court ignored one of it’s most basic duties in protecting the people’s ability to run their country through the vote.
One of the duties of the judicial branch is to protect the civil rights of minorities against what is often described as “the tyranny of the majority.”
Our system of government is not actually a direct democracy, and the majority doesn’t always rule. That was the same principle that overturned racially discriminatory laws in the South, supported by the majority, in the 1950s and ’60s.
In this case, the Court has decided that marriage is a civil right that cannot be denied to a minority group, no matter what the majority thinks. I realizes that “activist judges” is one of the Right’s favorite boogeyman words these days, but the Court actually did what it’s supposed to do here … protect the rights of minorities.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe: “You are ‘married’ if you church, not the state, says so.”
This brings up an interesting thought. Is a California church free to refuse to perform a same sex marriage?
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly at #28: Maybe I’d better say this a little stronger (at risk of being a stereotypical anti-homosexual evangelical: that’s fine for you doesn’t cut it when it comes to what our God says.
God’s law is universal … meant to apply to everybody and be obeyed by everybody, whether or not they think they have a different “sexuality.”
I must have missed the part where Jesus said to use the civil laws to enforce God’s laws on those who don’t freely accept it. Can you point it out to me?
Report comment to moderator
Roger at #57; If our courts, our legislators, and our people want to grant homosexual married couples the same social benefits as heterosexual married couples enjoy, then we ought to ratify a constitutional amendment making it apply to every citizen regardless of residency.
It would be nice but it’s not necessary. Laws against inter-racial marriage varied state by state for a long time, until the Loving vs. Virginia Supreme Court case in 1967. Until that point, it was a patchwork, and the Union did not collapse because of it.
Report comment to moderator
Too many Americans care more about their own perceived rights and pleasures on their own terms than they care about the natural and fundamental needs and rights of children. And there are few more fundamental needs for kids more than having their own moma and dad, married and loving each other in the home.
If death or tragedy or abandonment rip that away from a child, we cope as best and courageously as we can. If our own sin caused that rip, we repent. But to depirve children of this need on purpose or as a policy is evil to the core.
Report comment to moderator
Godlumps/#74,
I’m not sure what your point is. Regardless of how long it took the Court to address it (for myriad reasons), or even address it correctly, the Amendment clearly related to the case.
That is not the situation here.
Report comment to moderator
Steve — It would be nice but it’s not necessary.
Roger — Not necessary? What are you talking about? My comment had nothing to do with the Union. Weren’t you reading? Can you tell I’m mad?
Come on Steve. Pay attention. Can you not see the injustice of the fact that two states out of fifty recognize gay marriage? What happens to a gay married couple from California who happen to move to State ‘x’, which does not recognize gay marriage? State ‘x’ will certainly deny that married couple any benefits afforded other married couples.
You don’t see the injustice in that?
The Fourteenth Amendment will not protect Gay Marriage as long as the states retain the right to define the term, e.g. between a man and a woman.
Report comment to moderator
Roger: I think you are more facetious than mad. I think you know such a Constitutional amendment would never be able to attract the super-majority votes needed for ratification, and that you are trying to subtly make an argument that the nation as a whole does not wholeheartedly endorse same-sex marriage.
Which is true, but then, neither does it have the unanimity to pass an Amendment forbidding it. Amending the Constitution is a very difficult thing to do, and for good reason.
On the off-chance that you’re being sincere and actually do think an amendment is needed and desirable (hard for me to think so given the first point you made #57) then I agree.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: . . . be honest enough to face what the Bible teaches about this . . .
Hear! Hear! The Bible is more homophobic than you ever dreamed. Meanwhile, let’s be honest enough to face what the Constitution says.
Judges place their hands on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don’t place their hands on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.
And there are few more fundamental needs for kids more than having their own moma and dad, married and loving each other in the home.
Children are thriving in the love and care of GLBT people in almost every county and parish in the country.
Report comment to moderator
From the ruling (page 67-68):
There can be no question but that, in recent decades, there has been a fundamental and dramatic transformation in this state’s understanding and legal treatment of gay individuals and gay couples. California has repudiated past practices and policies that were based on a once common viewpoint that denigrated the general character and morals of gay individuals, and at one time
even characterized homosexuality as a mental illness rather than as simply one of the numerous variables of our common and diverse humanity. This state’s current policies and conduct regarding homosexuality recognize that gay individuals are
entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity afforded all other individuals and are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation, and, more specifically, recognize that gay individuals are fully capable of entering into the kind of loving and enduring committed relationships that may serve as the foundation of a family and of responsibly caring for and raising children.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi said:
I don’t see this having much effect on the upcoming election. Public acceptance of gay marriage has increased in recent years, as evangelicals have used the issue for little more than shallow grandstanding.
I think, and hope, you are right. It might even have quite the opposite effect than many here think it will. If McCain chooses to make this an issue, it may well be perceived that he is engaging in shallow grandstanding. I think voters are fed up with that sort of thing, and would repudiate him for doing that.
So, in a really odd way, I hope he gets drawn into this, and grandstands with the best of them.
Joel said:
And there are few more fundamental needs for kids more than having their own moma and dad, married and loving each other in the home.
Joel, I think you have got it part way right. Kids absolutely need a stable home with two adults to love them. I just disagree that perforce those two adults must necessarily be a man and a woman.
One of the boys in my daughters kindergarten has two mommies. And ya know what? He and his older brother are two of the nicest kids in the school, and you could not ask for two more involved parents. They show up to all the school events and fund raisers, and are actively involved in the school’s community association.
They would put many “traditional” couples to shame in that regard, but then, I don’t understand parents who don’t get involved with their kids’ schools, roll-up their sleeves, and pitch in. I would take a dozen such same-sex parents over uninvolved “traditional” couples anytime, in my school and neighborhood.
Report comment to moderator
Is a California church free to refuse to perform a same sex marriage?
Yes, absolutely.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder how long it will take to successfully sue a minister in America for refusing to perform same-sex marriages. I wonder if children will be sequestered from parents who affirm the immorality of homosexuality. I wonder if the parents will one day be charged with hate speech.
I seriously doubt, with the First Amendment, this will ever come to pass. But if it does, then we’ll be squarely on the same side of the culture war at that point.
By the way, if anyone is the victim of this, none other than the ACLU would litigate the case on the Christians’ behalf.
Report comment to moderator
I was not around back in 1948 and don’t know the circumstances surrounding whatever that court allegedly did.
Joel,
I just told you what that court did. There’s nothing “alleged” about it. It’s a matter of historical record. They overrode the will of the people, and invalidated a law that had been on the books and enforced since the founding of the state.
Don’t evade the question.
And, according to your understanding of the Bible, interracial marriage is allowed. But, after the decision in 1948, Gallup found that 94% of white people disapproved of interracial marriage. The vast majority of these people were Christians, and they disagreed with you. So the religious argument doesn’t hold a lot of water, when people can come to such opposing conclusions from the same holy book.
Can anyone else explain how yesterday’s ruling, and the reason behind it, is any different than what happpened in 1948?
You do know that the court yesterday based their opinion largely on the 1948 case throwing out laws against interracial marriage, right?
Report comment to moderator
That should read, “based their ruling largely on the 1948 case…”
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
Pretty sure we had a thread or two a while back about a photographer who refused to take pictures of a same-sex ceremony. Photog got sued.
Report comment to moderator
Given the language of the 14th amendment, which the 1948 case was based on, it’s pretty hard to see how the courts can do anything but rule for gay marriage.
In other words, those who argue that laws against gay marriage are discriminatory do so on the basis of the 14th Amendment, which says the law shall treat all people equally. Well, if Jane is allowed to marry a man, but Bob isn’t allowed to marry a man, that’s not equal treatment.
Christians say that not allowing gay marriage doesn’t discriminate against anyone. Everyone is being treated equally, because everyone, male or female, is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Which is the same argument used in defense of anti-miscegenation laws, which were used to “protect traditional marriage”. Liberals said that if a white man was allowed to marry a white woman, but a black man wasn’t, the law was unequal. Conservatives claimed that the law was perfectly fair, and did in fact treat everyone equally, because everyone was free to marry within their own race.
The courts said the liberals were right, and the conservative were wrong, and threw out the laws as unequal treatment. Given the language of the 14th amendment, which says everyone should be treated equally, it’s hard to see how they could make a different ruling for gay marriage.
It’s the very same argument over equality and “traditional marriage that was going on over interracial marriage back in 1948 and 1967.
Report comment to moderator
That was different. The photog. was a secular business, not a religious organization. However, as a libertarian, I still support having privately owned businesses (as opposed to govt entities) exempt from ALL anti-discrimination laws, not just sexual orientation, but race, gender, religion, etc.
If you are going to subject private organizations to race, gender, religion, age, disability, etc., anti-discrimination rules, for the sake of equity I see no good reason for keeping sexual orientation off the list.
Report comment to moderator
In other words, the courts have been redefining the definitions of marriage for 60 years now. In 1948, they threw what was “traditional marriage” – a union of two persons of the opposite sex of the same race – and replaced it with “two persons of the opposite sex”.
Christians and conservatives back then were just at shocked and outraged as Christians are today at gay marriage. But modern Christians approve of interracial marriage, at least the vast majority of them do, and are shocked and disgusted that their ancestors disapproved, because that was “hate” and “bigotry”. And in 60 years, modern Christians will be shocked and disgusted at this generations “hate” and “bigotry.”
Report comment to moderator
“Society is constantly in the process of redefining its concept of morality. Fortunately, God never changes His concept of morality. The lies that satan brings are a smokescreen designed to cloud over the moral absolutes upon which civilized society has been built. But no matter what any court of law declares, no matter what laws any government passes, it will never change the severity of moral impurity in the eyes of a holy God”
Worth repeating. Thanks Tychicus.
Report comment to moderator
Strict Constructionist judges, yea!
The under 30 crowd is way more open to Gay marriage than us old farts. It is possible/probable that all of our complaints about this will be moot in the not too distant future. So, what do we do about it?
Let’s look at another culture war that we Christians have already, seemingly, lost i.e. sex outside of marriage. Have we heard recently that maybe 25% of our teenage girls have some form of VD? Some of it as yet incurable?
According to one national study about half of teenagers have had intercourse. That means that half of teenagers who have intercourse get some kind of VD.
God will not be mocked! The Christian church has not done a very good job of teaching against sex outside marriage.
We have slowly changed society’s views about abortion. We have a way to go in this area; a long way.
Next, we have a long, hard row to hoe in homosexuality and same sex marriage. They are all inter-related. We need to be wise as serpents but gentle as doves.
Report comment to moderator
Christians and conservatives back then were just at shocked and outraged as Christians are today at gay marriage. But modern Christians approve of interracial marriage, at least the vast majority of them do, and are shocked and disgusted that their ancestors disapproved, because that was “hate” and “bigotry”. And in 60 years, modern Christians will be shocked and disgusted at this generations “hate” and “bigotry.”
Which tells me, at least, that people eventually can come to recognize hate and bigotry and repudiate them.
Or are you asserting that anti-miscegination laws were in fact not both hateful and bigoted?
Report comment to moderator
“Christians and conservatives back then were just at shocked and outraged as Christians are today at gay marriage. But modern Christians approve of interracial marriage, at least the vast majority of them do, and are shocked and disgusted that their ancestors disapproved, because that was “hate” and “bigotry”. And in 60 years, modern Christians will be shocked and disgusted at this generations “hate” and “bigotry.””
Worth repeating. Thanks Train.
Report comment to moderator
Even if you support same-sex marriage, you should honestly admit that this ruling usurps and defies the will of the people of California and is legally wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G: I must have missed the part where Jesus said to use the civil laws to enforce God’s laws on those who don’t freely accept it. Can you point it out to me?
No such command by Jesus … actually Scripture says we are to “live at peace with all men” and “live quiet and retired lives.”
I do believe that God’s law is universal, and applies to all people (and therefore I am not forcing my belief on anybody, just flagging them on what God says) but I do not believe that we Christians are necessarily to run around making sure the secular government follows Scriptural principals to the tee.
As much as it is left up to me, I’ll support God’s laws with my individual vote. But the government is secular and therefore not expected to be a Christian government or expected to uphold God’s laws. Just the opposite, actually, if you read Scripture.
Report comment to moderator
Some day perhaps, denouncing homosexuality as immoral may be considered hate speech. That would create an opening for prosecuting ministers or parents.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas (93) wrote; “Kids absolutely need a stable home with two adults to love them.”
How dare you limit it to two? What constitutional right do you claim to impose this rigid and oppressive limitation in your definition of marriage?
Thomas wrote; “I would take a dozen such same-sex parents over uninvolved ‘traditional’ couples anytime, in my school and neighborhood.”
Okay. let each child have a dozen same-sex pairs in his/her home to love him or her as one big happy married family. Why not if they all are consenting adults? What constitutional grounds do you offer to oppose that?
Report comment to moderator
Regarding the supreme Court –
Gays are not a minority group in the same way that different races are.
Many practicing homosexuals agree that their behaviour is a choice, not a way they’re born, and the prevelance of STDs among the homosexual community (e.g. HIV) suggests that there is something unnatural about this behaviour.
I have no problem with interracial marriage (and yes, I am a BJU alum) … but homosexual marriage runs far, far deeper.
Report comment to moderator
I would take a dozen such same-sex parents over uninvolved ‘traditional’ couples anytime, in my school and neighborhood.”
We’re not suggesting that these people are any more wicked than anybody else … we like nice people all the time. Their particular sin just happens to be more obvious than anybody else’s sin (which is just as bad.) Lust or pride: both are part of the seven deadly sins; it’s just harder to see pride.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train wrote, “I just told you what that court did.”
Nonsense. You made a claim or allegation with a few brief words about what some judges allegedly conclused over 50 years ago regarding a completely different case and you offered little to no reference to the context or circustances.
Fine. Even if we take you at your word, you left far too much unsaid for me to comment on that entirely different case. So I did not deny your claim but merely respectfully declined to comment on an unrelated old case about which I am not aware. Yet I did respond to you with regard to this present decision.
If they over-rode the will of the people, perhaps they were wrong in the process they chose to use at the legal level. But I don’t know the facts of the case.
In any case, two wrongs (if it was wrong–and I am not saying it was or wasn’t), then two wrongs don’t make a right in this case.
I have already explained why I do not think inter-racial marriages byu mutual consent are wrong nor do they redefine what marriage is or ever was. But I do think same-sex marriages are immoral and they redefine marriage to the point of destruction.
It was dead wrong (and very arrogant) for this 2008 court to over-ride the will of the people. I leave the 1948 decision to your own judgment.
I disagree with your incorrect stereotypes of Christians and see them irrelevant to this discussion too.
Report comment to moderator
Well, everybody went and read the 14th Amendment, so I joined the fun and have a few thoughts.
The controversy seems to center on this part here: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
First of all, nobody is denying gays–or African-Americans, for that matter–the right to vote. Nobody is denying them life, liberty, or property. So that covers the main part of the text.
The question we need to ask is “Is marriage a civil right, or is it a religious right?” If it’s a religious right, then perhaps Jon Rowe is right and the state might as well just recognize people partnered together for tax benefits. If its a civil right, the question is probably not whether the government can grant marriage to homosexual people but whether it should .
I still believe strongly that homosexual behaviour is a sin against God, and the nation that sins against God is eventually punished (often subtly though, and many times long years later … Edom was punished almost a thousand years after the incident for refusing to let the children of Israel pass through her borders).
Report comment to moderator
Scroop MOth: Judges place their hands on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don’t place their hands on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.
Agreed. See post 107.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train wrote: “Christians say that not allowing gay marriage doesn’t discriminate against anyone.”
When? Where? Give names or evidence for this claim. Of course it discriminates! But it discriminates fairly and justly. EVERY marriage discriminates against someone. Every choice anyone makes involves discrimination. The terms of that discrimination are crucial. I discriminate in favor of my wife EVERY day and I dern well demand that right to discriminate in her favor.
That’s part of being free.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train,
If you think the 1948 decision opened the door for this 2008 decision, that’s your opinion.
Mine is that this immoral and unconstitutional 2008 decision opens the door NECESSARILY for all those who seek to marry three or four or fifty conenting adults. It opens the door for consenting adults to claim the right to choose a polyamorous marriage. It lays the foundation for being obliged to recognize the demand for adult parent-child marriages to be legally recognized. It leaves us with no consitutional ground to stand against the LA Lakers all getting married to each other if they want to. What right do you have now to oppose that? Or do you oppose it?
Report comment to moderator
GODLUMPS,
1. It was Darwinists and anti-Christians who led the way disdaining racially mixed marriages as much or more than anyone else.
2. Christians who know their Bible have always known that Ruth and Boaz in the Bible were not of the same ethnic origin. Same with Moses & Zapporah, and Esther and Ahashurus.
3. A racially mixed marriage does NOT redefine the institution itself. Same-sex marraige does, and this court had no right to impose this on the voters against their will (regardless of what you think of same-sex marriage personally).
The ‘hate’ and ‘bigotry’ (as you are using the terms) and hypocrisy is in this court who still refuse to recognize the equal marriage rights of polygamists, polyamorists and adult parent-child marriage advocates.
Report comment to moderator
I’m on page 90 of the Supreme Court’s opinion, but I wanted to put in a clarification due to some of the above posts.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s request to over-turn the ban on same-sex marriage on grounds of “sex discrimination”, reasoning that both men and women were treated equally by the ban on same-sex marriage.
They did however, over-turn the ban on same-sex marriage based on California law which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. California has a very strong and substantial law on non-discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Report comment to moderator
Or are you asserting that anti-miscegination laws were in fact not both hateful and bigoted?
You’re saying that there are absolutely no reasons to oppose interracial marriage? That 94% of white Americans didn’t really view it as immoral, but were motivated by nothing but hate and bigotry? You sound like Jeremiah Wright.
If anti-miscegenation laws were hateful and bigoted, then so are laws against gay marriage.
Report comment to moderator
It is clear that the leftist state courts are involved in usurping the rights of citizens to determine public policy on the issue of marriage. What is needed is an amendment to the federal constitution that makes clear the biblical and natural law requirement that marriage, both civil and religious, ought to be between a man and a woman.
The sodomites view this issue as a matter of individual rights. They are quite mistaken. Marriage has to in the long run with the bearing and well being of children, whose interests are severely compromised by loose views of sexuality.
Both Massachusetts and California supreme courts decided this issue on a thin one vote majority. The issue is far from settled in both law and politics.
Report comment to moderator
Gays are not a minority group in the same way that different races are.
You’re saying that gays are now the majority in America? That’s ridiculous. I think you meant to say that gays aren’t a racial group. Yes, gays most certainly are a minority group, if words mean anything. But most people, by the way they use the term “minority”, seem to think it means “non-white”. But so what if they’re not a racial group? The 14th Amendment isn’t restricted to equality between the races. It’s for everybody.
Many practicing homosexuals agree that their behaviour is a choice, not a way they’re born,
So what? Just like interracial marriage. That “behavior” is a choice to.
I have no problem with interracial marriage (and yes, I am a BJU alum) … but homosexual marriage runs far, far deeper.
You just think that gay marriage is disgusting, and interracial marriage is fine, because that’s the morality you grew up in. If this were 1948, you and most of the other Christians on here would be denouncing those “perverts” who want to destroy traditional marriage by marrying outside their race.
Report comment to moderator
Five of the seven justices on the California Supreme Court were appointed by their Republican governor’s. It’s hardly a bastion of liberalism.
Just because a decision is rendered by a 5-4 vote does not mean it’s open season on attacking the legitimacy of the court. Going down that road leads to tyranny, mob rule, and undermines the foundations of democracy.
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly; Gays are not a minority group in the same way that different races are.
Many practicing homosexuals agree that their behaviour is a choice, not a way they’re born,
By that logic, people who feel discriminated against because of their religious beliefs should not turn to the courts for redress.
Whether or not homosexuality is chosen, religious belief most definitely is.
So if you are going to argue that people who are discriminated against because of something they choose should not ask for help from the government, then you have to (if you want to be consistent) apply to religious issues just as much.
Many practicing homosexuals agree that their behaviour is a choice, not a way they’re born,
Oh they do not.
When did you choose to be heterosexual? (Some of you knew that question was coming, didn’t you?)
and the prevelance of STDs among the homosexual community (e.g. HIV) suggests that there is something unnatural about this behaviour.
Perhaps; it also shows one of several reasons why it is ridiculous to think it is a “choice.”
Report comment to moderator
You’re saying that gays are now the majority in America?
Uh, no … and I didn’t mean to say they weren’t a racial group either. Minority groups develop based on characteristics people have little choice about (like what race you are born into). My point is that those practicing homosexuality have made a choice and thus are not a “minority” group. Maybe a special-interest group.
Report comment to moderator
The 14th Amendment isn’t restricted to equality between the races. It’s for everybody.
Agreed. Please see my post 113 for how this amendment might apply to homosexual marriage.
Report comment to moderator
121,
Previous poster: “Gays are not a minority group in the same way that different races are.”
Night Train’s response: “You’re saying that gays are now the majority in America? That’s ridiculous.”
What is ridiculous is how unfairly Night Train’s misreading of the previous statment was. Night Trian missed the point entirely.
Report comment to moderator
A minority group is any group who aren’t the majority. Professional baseball players are a minority group. You think “minority” means “colored” or “people we feel sorry for.” It doesn’t.
Report comment to moderator
From the ruling (page 115)
Although the understanding of marriage as limited to a union of a man and a woman is undeniably the predominant one, if we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions.
Report comment to moderator
Anlire wrote; “Five of the seven justices on the California Supreme Court were appointed by their Republican governor’s. It’s hardly a bastion of liberalism.”
Earth to Anlir: Republicans are capable of being the most damaging and virulent liberals of all.
The good news for you might be that people like me are beginning to give up on liberal Republicans, or even oppose them in many cases. And one is running for president now.
But California is pathologically liberal and this proves it again.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps; it also shows one of several reasons why it is ridiculous to think it is a “choice.”
Please clarify … if I make a choice to be a stunt man and end up with a bunch of injuries, then that’s normal and natural enough. So … if homosexual behaviour is “dangerous” per se, then we can naturally expect to have a crop of diseases.
Report comment to moderator
A minority group is any group who aren’t the majority .
You are defining this by its negative, which doesn’t count as a good definition. Under this definition, polygamists and those practicing incest should also be permitted all marriage laws … since of course they are in a minority as well.
Where do we stop this, Night Train?
Report comment to moderator
Night Train in response to Kimberly: You just think that gay marriage is disgusting, and interracial marriage is fine, because that’s the morality you grew up in.
This assumes the fallacy that sexual morality is relative to some sort of historical determinism. The Christian religion assumes that morality has been fixed since the beginning of human time and further that sodomy, however humanly tempting is a grave sin.
The Catholic catechism put this rather succinctly as follows:
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[140] tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”[141] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Christians need to hold the line against the sophistry of folk like Night Train who view homosexuality as merely some sort of life-style choice. The decision of liberal justices on this matter in the long run is so much chaff.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: . . .you should honestly admit that this ruling usurps and defies the will of the people of California and is legally wrong.
Isn’t it wonderful to live in a country where a Supreme Court can stop a plurality of voters from abridging our constitutional rights? Usurping and defying the will of the people can be both legally correct and thrilling and gratifying. JOEL MARK doesn’t seem to understand that judicial review is proper. We can “honestly admit” the first part of JOEL MARK’s proposition, but he hasn’t said what is “legally wrong,” because he can’t.
JOEL MARK: It leaves us with no consitutional ground to stand against the LA Lakers all getting married to each other if they want to.
False. Courts have ruled that polygamy isn’t protected by the Constitution because society has a reasonable basis for prohibiting it. So, removing gender barriers doesn’t require removal of the numerical limitation — or age restrictions, for that matter. Each limit to a right, every departure from equal protection of law, has to have a unique rationale capable of withstanding scrutiny.
Bottom line, JOEL MARK is being dishonest about the content of the constitution.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not defining it by its negative. I’m simply contrasting the two words. Minority means minority. It doesn’t mean “colored” or “someone who can’t cut it and needs special privileges” as you seem to think.
So any group that isn’t the majority is entitled to do whatever they want, because they’re in the minority?
Amazing.
Report comment to moderator
This assumes the fallacy that sexual morality is relative to some sort of historical determinism. The Christian religion assumes that morality has been fixed since the beginning of human time
And the American Christians of 1948 didn’t believe that?
Of course they believed it, just like you do. And they regarded interracial marriage as deeply immoral and destructive of society. 94% of them disapproved of interracial marriage at the time. They viewed interracial marriage just like you view homosexual marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, by the way, Peter Leavitt. I see you’re still a hard core liar. The leopard can’t change his spots.
I don’t regard homosexuality as “just another lifestyle choice”, and I’ve said so repeatedly. It’s decadent and immoral, as I’ve state over and over.
I’m just pointing out that Christians who condemn those who opposed interracial marriage as hatemongers and bigots, as if they had no deeply held relgious and moral views on the subject, haven’t got a leg to stand on when they get the same treatment from today’s “enlightened” liberals.
You’re always saying that homosexuality is deeply immoral. It is. So is lying about other people.
Stop lyihg about me.
Report comment to moderator
PETER LEAVITT: The sodomites view this issue as a matter of individual rights.
Oh shut up, pumpkin, and don’t be a medieval toad.
Report comment to moderator
It’s decadent and immoral, as I’ve state over and over.
Homosexuality is an essential glory of human experience and achievement, as attested to by some of the most dynamic and ethical people in history.
Report comment to moderator
Steve — Roger: I think you are more facetious than mad. I think you know such a Constitutional amendment would never be able to attract the super-majority votes needed for ratification, and that you are trying to subtly make an argument that the nation as a whole does not wholeheartedly endorse same-sex marriage.
Roger — Actually, you may be right about how a national vote might go. However, I wasn’t being facetious in the slightest. I think our marriage laws ought to apply to every state; and I hate to see more injustice.
Please accept my statements on this issue at face value. The current trend is unjust.
Report comment to moderator
Steve — On the off-chance that you’re being sincere and actually do think an amendment is needed and desirable (hard for me to think so given the first point you made #57) then I agree.
Roger — Well, I am a complex human being.
In my view, my first and second point are perfectly compatible since they both relate to harm being done to homosexual people. Putting aside the morality of homosexuality for the moment, I believe that homosexuality is both physically and mentally harmful. Given this belief, it is perfectly appropriate for me to advocate against a practice I deem harmful.
But my second point is also valid. It is unjust for one state to grant marriage benefits to some folks, while other states do not.
Perhaps I am alone on this issue?
Report comment to moderator
Night Train, your equation of past unjust miscegenation laws and sodomy is fallacious. The militant gays have been playing this card forever with little logic or sense. Americans have sensibly repealed miscegenation laws while having grave reservations about sodomite marriage.
I’m delighted to have you on record stating that homosexuality is decadent and immoral. If so, what is right about the Massachusetts and California court decisions that uphold gay marriage?
Report comment to moderator
Night Train, your equation of past unjust miscegenation laws and sodomy is fallacious.
No, it isn’t. Just saying something doesn’t make it so. Almost 100% of American Christians in 1948 disapproved of miscegenation, when CA threw out their law against interracial marriage, and almost as many still disapproved of the practice in 1967, when the Supreme Court threw out all laws against it. Are you seriously claiming that nearly all Christian in America up until just recently were fill fill hatred and bigotry, and those were the only reasons they opposed it, and that that there aren’t valid reasons to oppose it? You dismiss the deeply held religious and more views of past Christians and Americans that you disagree with as nothing but hate and bigotry, and then you cry foul when gays and the courts do the same thing to you?
f so, what is right about the Massachusetts and California court decisions that uphold gay marriage?
From a position of absolute morality, it’s not right. But given the 14th Amendment, and the past legal reasoning used to void laws against interracial marriage, it’s consistent. Go read Loving vs. Virginia and tell me how laws against gay marriage can stand with that precedent not only set in stone, but widely celebrated, even by Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I think you are alone on that Roger, at least as far as I am concerned. Not everything should be federalized. The duties of the federal government are outlined in the Constitution, and those that are not are reserved for the states. Traditionally, these matters have been decided by the states, not the federal government. That’s the problems with the Roe v. Wade decision, too.
Report comment to moderator
Homosexuality is an essential glory of human experience and achievement, as attested to by some of the most dynamic and ethical people in history.
Wanna give us examples on that one, Scroop Moth, or just grandstand a little?
Report comment to moderator
Then, after you’ve read that, go read Goodridge vs. Massachusetts, the case that led to the gay marriage rulling MA. You’ll see them refer to Loving vs. Virginia over and over and over.
Report comment to moderator
Finished! I read the whole thing – all 172 pages, including the footnotes and the dissenting opinions.
Here are some of the main points from the ruling (my numbering, not theirs):
1. Marriage is a fundamental human right, not one granted by the state. A person’s fundamental rights are not subject to a vote by the people.
2. Precisely because CA holds marriage to be of high importance, it would be unfair (unequal) to deny it to gay people.
3. CA has revised it’s marriage and family codes to include Domestic Partnerships, giving same-sex couples substantially the same rights and benefits, leaving no rational reason for it’s “separate but equal” stance.
4. CA specifically prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation (along with race, gender, religion). Prop 22 violates that.
5. The CA SP has the right to review marriage laws for their constitutionality. Perez vs Sharp (invalidating the law regarding interracial marriage) and it’s rulings on “coverture” clearly show that the court has the jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of marriage laws.
6. The ballot initiative process is subject to court scrutiny for it’s constitutionality.
7. The court found that sexual orientation is a “suspect class” based on the three-part test, just as religion, which is freely chosen is a “suspect class” in CA. Therefore, the marriage laws, including Prop 22, are subject to “strict scrutiny”.
All in all, it was a well written, sound ruling.
*****
Conservative attempts to undermine and delegitimize the courts in this country shows a profound lack of appreciation for (even a hostility for) one of the three pillars of our democracy. Irregardless of the make-up of the court (conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican), you should still respect the court and it’s rulings.
Report comment to moderator
“It leaves us with no consitutional ground to stand against the LA Lakers all getting married to each other if they want to.”
True.
Society does have good reason to oppose polygamy and it has even better reasons to prohibit same-sex polygamy and same-sex marriages. Children suffer irreparable harm for the rest of their lives under those redefiitions of marriage. The family is deconstructed.
The fact that some courts have ruled that polygamy isn’t protected by the Constitution only shows that some judges are inconsistent. If they can remove gender barriers to redefine marriage and give marriage rights to homosexuals and other consenting adults who want marriage benefits, then why can’t they remove numerical barriors for polygamist consenting adults? Why can’t they remove familial barriors so that consenting adult parent-child relationships can be called marriage?
I am my own grandpa!
Report comment to moderator
Justice Marvin R. Baxter on the ruling:
Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.
Justice Carol A. Corrigan:
The voters who passed Proposition 22 not long ago decided to keep the meaning of marriage as it has always been understood in California. The majority improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision. It does that which it acknowledges it should not do: it redefines marriage because it believes marriage should be redefined …. It justifies its decision by finding a constitutional infirmity where none exists.
Bring on the The California Marriage Protection Act this November!
Report comment to moderator
From Randy Thomasson, who was one of the parties in the consolidated lawsuit ruled on Thursday by California’s Supreme Court:
“The high court of California has done what no state supreme court in any other state has done — that is, equate homosexuality with race,” Thomasson explains. “No other state supreme court has ruled that sexual orientation is a ‘protected class.’”
Report comment to moderator
Anlir’s summaries:
“1. Marriage is a fundamental human right, not one granted by the state. A person’s fundamental rights are not subject to a vote by the people.”
ABSOLUTELY! Thus, it is bigoted and intolerant to deprive polygamist and polyamorist consenting adults from equal marriage rights.
“2. Precisely because CA holds marriage to be of high importance, it would be unfair (unequal) to deny it to gay people.”
And BY THE SAME TOKEN, it would be unfair and unequal to deny it to polygamists and polyamorists and consenting adult incest advocates.
“3. CA has revised it’s marriage and family codes to include Domestic Partnerships, giving same-sex couples substantially the same rights and benefits, leaving no rational reason for it’s “separate but equal” stance.”
So why can’t California also revise it’s marriage and family codes to include the Lakers if they want to marry as consenting adults! Why can’t they have the same rights?
“4. CA specifically prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation (along with race, gender, religion). Prop 22 violates that.”
Wrong. California still discriminates blatantly against consenting adults who were born to desire marrital relations with more than one consenting adult partner. California allows blatant discrimination against consenting polyamorists. This ruling violates itself and some Texan polygamists are likely to soon make this point. In fact, they can make the ADDED point that their religious freedoms are also being discriminated against.
“5. The CA SP has the right to review marriage laws for their constitutionality. Perez vs Sharp (invalidating the law regarding interracial marriage) and it’s rulings on “coverture” clearly show that the court has the jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of marriage laws.”
Therefore, the Claifornia Supremes are blatantly and intentionally being too bigoted and intolerant to include consenting polygamists and polyamorists and same-sex sibling advocates in this ruling. Shameless!
“6. The ballot initiative process is subject to court scrutiny for it’s constitutionality.”
In other words, we are your dictators and there’s not a thing you can do about it!
Enough for now.
This was an irresponsible and tyrannical ruling.
Report comment to moderator
It doesn’t mean “colored” or “someone who can’t cut it and needs special privileges” as you seem to think.
; I just objected to an antonym being used as a definition.
I think no such thing, Night Train. Like you, I haven’t provided a definition
Report comment to moderator
So any group that isn’t the majority is entitled to do whatever they want, because they’re in the minority?
This actually seems to be your view (e.g. homosexuals are a minority and therefore should be able to do whatever they want, here get married, because they are in the minority) so I’m not sure what you’re saying here.
Under Amendment 14, all citizens are entitled to the same rights. This includes homosexual citizens. We need to answer the question whether marriage SHOULD be a constitutional right (right now, it at least isn’t spelled out in the constitution) and if not, whether it should be.
But simply because homosexuals happen to be in the minority and happen to want to be married doesn’t mean we should rush out and let them be married.
Let’s step back and consider:
1) whether this is even something that fits under the Constitution
2) to what degree is the will of the people important here (I say a lot, esp. in view of the fact that marriage is as far as I’m aware not IN the constitution), and
3) whether legalizing homosexual marriage will really lead our country in the direction we want it to go
Report comment to moderator
Precisely because CA holds marriage to be of high importance, it would be unfair (unequal) to deny it to gay people.
Irony aside, it actually goes the other way: gay marriage cheapens the real purpose of marriage, much the same way that counterfeit coins cheapens real currency.
Report comment to moderator
gay marriage cheapens the real purpose of marriage,
Which is what exactly?
Report comment to moderator
1) to provide mutual help and comofort
2) to ward off lust
3) to have kids!!
Gay marriage automatically fails under the last two counts ….
God set up marriage between “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” and then we cheapen this when we get all in a hurry because two people think they have a different orientation.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt at #132:
The Christian religion assumes that morality has been fixed since the beginning of human time
No it doesn’t.
If it did, you’d still be practicing Levirate marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Further Leavitt goodness at #132: view homosexuality as merely some sort of life-style choice
I don’t.
I view it as an unchosen inborn characteristic that is not immoral unless abused, the same way heterosexuality can be abused.
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly at #155:
1) to provide mutual help and comofort
2) to ward off lust
3) to have kids!!
Gay marriage automatically fails under the last two counts ….
Well, only if by “ward off lust” you mean lust for your spouse as well as anyone else. Because there’s nothing different about a same-sex pairing or an opposite-sex pairing in that regard. Spouses can lust for each other, and not lust for those they’re not married (or committed) to, in either case.
It fails on the third count if you require biological children, but then so do marriages between opposite sex couples where one is infertile. Or where they choose to not have children. Or where they are widows who marry in their 50s or 60s, past childbearing age.
On the other hand, it doesn’t fail at all if yoy include adopted children.
Are you going to keep ducking my question? When did you choose to be heterosexual?
Report comment to moderator
God set up marriage between “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” and then we cheapen this when we get all in a hurry because two people think they have a different orientation.
Not everybody believes in God the same you do, pal. And they shouldn’t have to be constrained by YOUR beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
#155 – Marriage is to ward off lust and have kids?
Are you serious, Kimberly? I feel sorry for your spouse if you have one!
Since you think that justifiable marriage must succeed on all 3 counts, I take it you think that marriage without actually having kids should be forbidden by the state. Why aren’t you out campaigning against childless marriages then? Are you for a federal constitutional ban on childless marriage?
Report comment to moderator
God set up marriage between “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”
That’s not even true!
Wanna see what God most likely set up in your ancestors?
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2004/laird/Summary.htm
Report comment to moderator
One wishes that Joel, Peter, Kimberly, et al would read the ruling so they can discuss it intelligently instead of spouting off trite phrases and the standard talking points of the FRF, etc. I know it’s a tough slog to read the whole document, but well worth the effort.
Acting like a little boy with his hands stuck in his ears, stomping his feet, crying “What about polygamy? What about polygamy?” is a pitiful sight!
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, people are simply born male or female; they normally don’t choose to be heterosexual. While it is human to have polymorphically perverse sexual desires, we are called upon to restrain ourselves until we may properly enjoy the intense delight of sex within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman, protestations of the loose romantics of the sexual revolution notwithstanding.
The physical and emotional penalties of defying the moral law of sexuality ought to be an obvious clue to sensible people.
Report comment to moderator
#162 Anlir, I think Joel is mostly worried about having something stuck down his throat. Of course, he could easily prevent this by simply keeping his mouth shut …
Report comment to moderator
The “marriage is for children” argument is taken on and dealt with in the ruling. Suffice it to say, the Justices tore that pathetic argument to shreds by an examination of the Marriage statutes of California.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, people are simply born male or female;
Even that’s not always true –
http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/BornHermaphrodite/
While it is human to have polymorphically perverse sexual desires, we are called upon to restrain ourselves until we may properly enjoy the intense delight of sex within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman, protestations of the loose romantics of the sexual revolution notwithstanding.
Ah, so homosexuality is “normal” then?
The physical and emotional penalties of defying the moral law of sexuality ought to be an obvious clue to sensible people.
What exactly is this “moral law of sexuality” pray tell?
Report comment to moderator
KIMBERLY #144: Wanna give us examples on that one . . .?
Not now, unless you’re truly begging to know. Let’s cut to the chase. Do you want to argue that no homosexual exemplifies dynamic human achievement and ethical behavior? If so, all I’d have to do is present one example. But why do you ding me for grandstanding and not NIGHT TRAIN at #136, where he failed to provide an example of a decadent and immoral homosexual, let alone demonstrate that homosexuals are generally so? He wasn’t offering an argument so much as boasting to pumpkin, so his bizarre creed deserved a contradiction.
JOEL MARK: The fact that some courts have ruled that polygamy isn’t protected by the Constitution only shows that some judges are inconsistent. Not some courts, JOEL. The US Supreme Court in opinions from 1878 onwards has been consistent on this point of constitutional interpretation.
JOEL MARK: If they can remove gender barriers to redefine marriage and give marriage rights to homosexuals and other consenting adults who want marriage benefits, then why can’t they remove numerical barriors for polygamist consenting adults?
Report comment to moderator
Considering Spinoza and SteveG have started jumping all over me, let me take a moment to attempt to tone everything down.
Ultimately, this isn’t an issue of the government should do such-and-such . I have made it clear in several posts that government regulation of marriage is a tricky issue and depends on answering whether it is in civil or religious domain. On the other hand, I am trying to get across that God considers it morally wrong.
SteveG, this has nothing to do with whatever God anybody else believes in. And I am not trying to force my belief on anybody. We live in America, and you have the civil right to believe whatever you want to believe. I’m just trying to tell you what I believe to be the truth. If it were true that your hometown was about to be destroyed by an earthquake, wouldn’t you want me to tell you.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza–
I’ve indicated my marital status on other posts. You may hunt for it as you wish.
My comment on the purpose of marriage comes from an old catechism, one that took me back a little bit at first too.
Spinoza(160), I am nowhere near suggesting that the government should do anything if marriages don’t fit under the exact guidelines laid out by that catechism, and you are reading into my posts (and ignoring the other ones regarding civil/religious domain).
SteveG, my personal sexual orientation has nothing to do with the argument on hand. (In fact, making an issue out of it is a argumentative fallacy called ad hominem). But I make other choices every day, and much of what I now call my “personality” was originally a choice. Think about alcoholics: sure, genetics predisposes them to addiction, but originally they made a choice to begin drinking too much alcohol and every day they make another not to quit, with whatever aids are at their disposal.
Report comment to moderator
Marriage equality. It’s really that simple.
It’s been a reality in MA, Canada, and some other places for awhile now. The sky hasn’t fallen. The rivers haven’t turned to blood. No children have been sacrificed. No men and their pet goats have been at city hall trying to get a marriage license.
Report comment to moderator
At this point, I am going to echo Joel Mark:
Enough for now. Have a good weekend.
Report comment to moderator
#167, continued:
The court can remove some barriers to marriage but not others (or all) because some have a reasonable basis which can withstand strict scrutiny while others don’t. This is elementary, JOEL. You don’t face up to the court’s duty to review laws for constitutionality. Your so-called “dictatorship of the judiciary” merely ventriloquizes the dicta of the Constitution.
Your discussion of the polygamy prohibition is incoherent. You agree the prohibition is reasonable but deny that the California justices can understand why.
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly at #169: SteveG, my personal sexual orientation has nothing to do with the argument on hand. (In fact, making an issue out of it is a argumentative fallacy called ad hominem).
On the contrary, it has everything to do with it. You are insisting that sexuality is a choice, even though you never chose yours.
In fact, you know it’s not a choice from your own experience, and you can’t share anyone else’s experiences to have known what it was like for them … and yet you feel justified in pronouncing homosexuality a choice.
I ask that question anytime I hear someone spouting off about how it’s a “lifestyle choice,” because people realize that if they answer it honestly, they seriously weaken their own case. Which is why I’ve never had anyone give me a direct answer to it.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG wrote regarding homosexuality;
“I view it as an unchosen inborn characteristic that is not immoral unless abused…”
SteveG’s point of view is dehumanizing toward homosexuals.
He apparently does not believe that homosexuals are human beings, since a fundamental characteristic of humanity (as opposed to animals) is free moral will regarding how and whom we love and why. SteveG is wrong. Human beings are not choiceless automotrons and robots acting purely on instince and genetics with regard to the most intiate preferences, behaviors and alternatives known to humanity.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir wrote; “Acting like a little boy with his hands stuck in his ears, stomping his feet, crying “What about polygamy? What about polygamy?” is a pitiful sight!”
Well, what about polygamy? How dare those judges deny consenting adults the benefit to equal marriage rights?
How is that not bigotry and intolerance toward people who were born to be polygamists? They can’t help it. They are ripping benefits from free consenting adults whose relationships do nothing to harm or effect Anlirs relationships. If people have a basic constitutional right to marry whomever they love, how dare Anlir and others deny them that privilege? If we can remove the gender barrior, why not the number barrior?
Report comment to moderator
Anlir; “Marriage equality. It’s really that simple.”
Right. Why deny marriage equality to same-sex sibling couples, triples, or to basketball teams? Polygamists don’t have marriage equality to marry whom they say they love. Neither do polyamorists. Thik of the benefits they are being deprived of!
In light of the above, “marriage equality” is a nonsensical pipe dream for people who want it for themselves and definitely NOT others.
Marriage has a definition. Unelected judges have no right to change it out of whole cloth, over-ruling the clear will of the voterss.
Report comment to moderator
Inter-racial marriage does not change the definition of marriage itself. It should not be prohibited.
Same-sex marriage totally guts the definition of marriage and serves to deconstruct it. It should not be confused with actual marriage–a covenant bond between one woman and one man.
For a good definition, consider Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4-6
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #174: He apparently does not believe that homosexuals are human beings, since a fundamental characteristic of humanity (as opposed to animals) is free moral will regarding how and whom we love and why.
I’m sure you think your babbling throughout this thread is very clever, but it’s really not.
On this point, could you wake up tomorrow and choose to have sexual relations with another man and gain genuine sexual pleasure and gratification from it?
If not, then you’re just spouting off.
Report comment to moderator
“On this point, could you wake up tomorrow and choose to have sexual relations with another man and gain genuine sexual pleasure and gratification from it?”
I bet he speaks from experience.
Report comment to moderator
JM: He apparently does not believe that homosexuals are human beings, since a fundamental characteristic of humanity (as opposed to animals) is free moral will regarding how and whom we love and why.
To an extent but with limits. As I have pointed out, you could choose whether to love Sarah or Jane or Donna, but not Pete or Bob or Benjamin.
The “free moral will” could presumably be extended to say that if you are a man and your only feelings of romantic and sexual attraction are for Pete or Bob or Benjamin, you should choose to not act on it.
But that is a moral argument, not a legal one. And it still does not mean, in any way, that the attraction itself is chosen.
Report comment to moderator
Inter-racial marriage does not change the definition of marriage itself. It should not be prohibited.
It doesn’t change your definition. But it certainly changed the definition for previous generations of Christians, who were as disgusted and outraged at the Perez ruling as you are at yesterday’s ruling.
What you’re saying is that your profound and sincerely held religious beliefs should be respected, even though other people regard them as nothing but hate and bigotry, but the profound and sincerely held views of people who opposed interracial marriage weren’t worthy of respect, because you regard their views as nothing but hate and bigotry.
Report comment to moderator
Human beings are not choiceless automotrons and robots acting purely on instince and genetics with regard to the most intiate preferences,
I agree it is possible for every person gay or straight to choose every voluntary sexual act. However, let’s get serious about “orientation.” There are lots of heterosexual men here on these threads. Think of your longing for women. Now flip that and imagine a man having the same feelings for men. That’s what we mean by “orientation” as “unchosen” or innate.
It’s similar to Roman Catholics and their imposition of clerical celibacy. If you can do it, more power to you. But it’s a little like telling a bird to choose not to fly.
Report comment to moderator
As I’ve written in my recent blogpost, the anti-gay right (i.e. many if not most of you folks) are going to have a hard time demagoguing this decision as you would like. This was not the judiciary coming out and usurping the legislature’s role — indeed, they pretty enacted the will of the legislature into law. And the govenator too seems arguably pro-gay marriage (he said does NOT support the ballot initiative to amend CA’s Constitution to ban gay marriage). So that’s legislative, executive, and judicial branch all united on gay marriage, not usurpative judicial activism.
CA does have this grotesque ballot referendum process. But such a system represents, in my opinion, in the opinion of America’s Founders, and in the opinion of traditional conservatives, the worst of “direct democracy” or “mobocracy.”
I’m certain many of you folks have heard it said “we are a republic, not a democracy.” Well, it’s procedures like ballot referendums that are being referred to when republicanism if being promoted over “democracy.” More here.
http://positiveliberty.com/2008/05/gay-marriage-republicanism.html
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark — Many children already have two different sets of parents and are no worse for wear; what’s a few more parents thrown into the mix? I have no problem with the entire village raising the child — which is essentially what happens in small town public schools, where the entire community is involved and watches/takes care of each other’s kids.
Joel, the California courts and others have defined marriage as a partnership which serves not only the partners but the state, hence, the polygamy red herring need not be mentioned. As I have mentioned before as long as consent in involved various types of relationships should be acceptable. What great objection is there to a variety of human relations so as to make it a bogeyman.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
That’s a good point. As a libertarian, I’m all for folks experimenting with life, but what I strongly object to is when those experiments fail, government has to step in a provide a fix. Single parent marriages — esp. by young unmarried, uneducated women — have been a disaster. I have sympathy for those in that situation but do NOT support a welfare system that perpetuates the problem. I’d much rather see such single mothers cared for by private Christian charities, not government welfare, forced to get up early in the morning and make beds for nuns and whatnot as a safety net.
That said, what I’ve seen from gay parents is not at all the same. Most gay couples I know are better educated and more wealthy and less likely to run into social trouble. If couples, gay or straight, can raise children responsibly, produce the same or similar outcomes, not be on the government’s dime, then that’s all that matters in a free society.
I think we need time to tell the outcomes though.
Report comment to moderator
“Single parent marriages….”
I obviously meant “single parent households.”
Thinking back to the “Murphy Brown” brouhaha. That episode probably gave a bad message to young unwed single mothers — those likely to have to go on welfare and other public assistance. But, as it works in the real world, the “real” Murphy Browns make 6-figure salaries and can provide their children with private K-12 schools, nannies, and male role models. Hence, this is not an issue free societies ought to be concerned with. They will do fine by themselves.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer — Yes, I think you are alone on that Roger, at least as far as I am concerned. Not everything should be federalized.
Roger — I would like to get clarification. Am I alone in my view that marriage laws ought to apply nationwide? Or am I alone in my observations that a married couple in California can be denied marriage benefits in another state that does not recognize gay marriage? Or am I alone in my view that such a circumstance is unjust?
Report comment to moderator
roger post 187,
ah but marriage will in time be recognized in every state, with the gender of the married couple being immaterial.
It took a long time for interracial marrriage to be recognized in all states, but once the path was started the end point was inevitable.
The same will be true for gay marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: False analogy – homosexuality does not equal race. Further, citizens in almost all of the states have consistently voted to keep marriage the way it has always been. So how do you know that a different understanding of marriage will eventually be recognized in every state?
Report comment to moderator
From Justice Baxter’s dissent:
“Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration.”
You liberals may be clapping your hands in celebration today, but when a court makes one issue “immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration,” it can do so to any other issue. You shouldn’t be so proud of this. Sooner or later, it will come back and bite you.
Report comment to moderator
Roger, you are alone in that you believe that marriage law should be federalized. It has been, so far, reserved to the states, just as abortion was.
Whatever happens in a legal sense, no one can be forced to embrace perversion and deviance. Unless, of course, the liberals are planning to take away the right of free assocation. They tried that with race and it didn’t work. People moved.
Report comment to moderator
There really isn’t any such thing as a “false analogy.” Analogies by their very nature compare apples to oranges or else you would have duplicates (apples to apples). There is such a thing as a “false equivalent.”
[Oranges by the way are a pretty good analogy to apples; apples and oranges are both fruits and both round shape and about the size of baseballs; oranges are a much closer analogy to apples than say typewriters.]
That said, Musing wasn’t comparing homosexuality to race but rather behavior to behavior, couplings to couplings — interracial couplings to same sex couplings.
Report comment to moderator
TICHICUS wrote; “Musing: False analogy – homosexuality does not equal race.”
You are spot on, Tichicus, and it takes a very clouded mind full of pretention and prejudice to disagree with the plain truth in your words.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG wrote; “Could you wake up tomorrow and choose to have sexual relations with another man and gain genuine sexual pleasure and gratification from it?
First a man makes his habits and then the habits make the man. Be a man! It’s a choice. Being male is biological, but being a man is a choice.
Any human being is capable of choosing to do evil. The key to human virtue is that we actually choose NOT to do so, and we choose instead to live within a moral framework that keeps us decent, and happy. That moral framework has God as it’s author. We can take it or leave it. If we take it, we still need the Holy Spirit to live by it. If I kicked the Holy Spirit out of my heart, I could end up crawling into all sorts of behavioral and attitudinal sewers in this life.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah yeah. But you probably couldn’t be homosexual if your life depended on it. At most, you might be able to make yourself go through a homosexual act for the sake of not being murdered, but you could never choose to want it.
Right?
So all your pious moralizing on this subject is just hot air, Joel Mark. You have no choice about your sexuality but you blithely assume other people do.
Report comment to moderator
Children are much more often adversely effected by confusing and complex multi-partner or single-arent circumstances that are non-traditional. It is cruel to allow this on purpose or by policy. Children fare best growing up with their own mom and dad living together in marriage. Families, churches, communities and nations suffer when this standard is trashed.
Report comment to moderator
HRW asked, “What’s a few more parents thrown into the mix?”
This sort of callous and heartless thinking is horrific in the long run for our chilrdren, our churches, our communities and our nation.
HRW, the California court RE-defined marriage against the will of the voters in dictatorial fashion. I would expect a socialist (by your own description) to favor this sort of oppressive and undemocratic abuse of power.
The polygamy question runs to the heart of this issue. It is no red herring. HRW wrote, “It need not be mentioned.” Sorry, but sweeping relevant questions under the rug won’t work.
HRW wrote, “As I have mentioned before as long as consent in involved various types of relationships should be acceptable.”
That’s why the polygamy and polyamory questions are NOT red herrings. You have contradicted yourself, HRW.
Report comment to moderator
There was nothing dictatorial about the CA decision. That decision reflected the will of not just the judiciary, but also the legislature and executive. All three branches of republican government in CA. It’s only the mobocracy that is not yet in line.
Report comment to moderator
For those saying no one chooses their orientation:
Would someone who has experimented with different combinations of partners and then chooses one option qualify as someone who chooses?
Report comment to moderator
Cameron: If they have the desire for different types of partners and choose to commit to one person — forgoing any desires in another direction — then they’re choosing a partner, but not an orientation. Their orientation is already seen to be bisexual in that scenario.
That’s no different than a man being attracted to many women but choosing to marry and stay faithful to only one. It’s not a choice of orientation.
So, no, I wouldn’t agree with the premise.
Now, some Christians believe the sin is not feeling homosexual attraction, but acting on it; for those, I suppose they might say feeling attraction to both sexes but choosing to commit to an opposite-sex marriage, avoids the sinfulness of homosexuality. But that’s still not choosing orientation.
For me, I have no homosexual feelings at all. I could not choose a same-sex relationship. And based on that, I conclude that many or most of those who are homosexually oriented have the same immutability of their desires.
Report comment to moderator
JonRowe, democratic states including California that allow public referendums are not mobocracies. While most issues are resolved by legislative decision, their constitutions traditionally provide the public a perfectly legal process of a referendum. Come November the people of California will have a chance to register their vote on the perfectly valid question question of gay marriage. Your equation of the voters of California with a mobocracy is both untrue and a rather an insult.
Report comment to moderator
Joel
In my personal opinion, consent is the only issue.
In the opinion of the state and the court, gender is no longer relevant but the interests of the state demand only two partners in civil union/marriage. According to the state’s interests, stability, partnership law and other similar issues (tax and benefit related) they can only accept a partnership of two. Polygamy is a red herring in the eyes of the state and court; its not if the issue is only consent, however, the courts have determined consent is not the issue rather equality and the interests of the state.
As an aside why do you equate socialism with dictatorship?? As the Canadian and European experiences demonstrate, socialist will accept transfer of power, will cooperate with other parties, will accept the judgment of the courts, will abide by the rule of law etc. Dictatorships occur on any side of a political spectrum where the above conditions are ignored.
As many here have informed me, America is a republic not a democracy. The judiciary branch is one-third of the republic — respect it.
Report comment to moderator
oops, the italics were supposed to end after personal
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe writes: “There was nothing dictatorial about the CA decision. That decision reflected the will of not just the judiciary, but also the legislature and executive. All three branches of republican government in CA. It’s only the mobocracy that is not yet in line.”
1. The people are not a mob.
2. Not yet in line???? Don’t know how to tell you this but your other groups represent the people, not the other way around. And the other groups are not doing a good job of representing the people. They are decidedly NOT doing the will of the people. If anyone needs to get “in line,” it is the elected and appointed officials.
Report comment to moderator
if they are not doing the will of the people they will be outvoted in the meantime … the sky won’t fall.
Report comment to moderator
tichychus post 189,
so perhaps you can explain your assertion that homosexuality is not similar, with respect to establishing the insitition of marriage, to race.
If you look at the history from say the last half of the 20th century to date, you see a continued increase in acceptance of homosexuality over time. In the 80s no states supported gay marriage. In the early 21st century one state recognized gay marriage. Now two states recognize gay marriage. And of course a number of other countries also recognize gay marriage.
And it would appear that so far, once gay marriage has been accepted, this acceptance has not been reversed. It will be interesting to watch California to see if this trend continues.
And then, as roger notes, once a measureable number of states recognize gay marriage, it will be difficult for the other states not to recognize it. You might review the present legal actions in Rhode Island,
So I suggest the journey has already begun, and it does not appear that once started, anyone turns around.
The opportunity to stay this course I suggest occurred in the 90s. If we had established civil unions with the full rights of marriage at that time, my sense is that it would have taken the wind out of the gay marriage effort. The conservative right passed up their opportunity, and now the die is cast.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 190,
so please tell me about:
Brown vs. Board of Education
Loving
It would seem that the courts are in general the vanguard for protecting the civil rights of minorities. If the public would insist that the legislatures pass reasonable legislation, that perhaps obviate this judicial effort. Observationally, they have not done so unless pushed (and when was the last miscegenation law repealed?
).
Report comment to moderator
JOHN ROWE: I’d much rather see such single mothers cared for by private Christian charities, not government welfare
Do you contribute enough to Christian charities to discharge your ethical obligation?
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 201,
and what was the process by which Socrates was sentenced to dath?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
So every kid who “experimented” in college is bisexual?!? Anne Heche is really bisexual at the end of the day? Nope, I know at least one person who tried a nonstandard relationship, said at the time he/she was in love, broke up, and returned to heterosexual relationships. That person has chosen to be straight, imo.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, the issue of sodomite marriage is rather distinct from that of Socrates’s guilt.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “Why do you equate socialism with dictatorship?”
I don’t think that’s what I said, HRW. Here is what I wrote; “The California court RE-defined marriage against the will of the voters in dictatorial fashion.”
that they indeed acted in a “dictatorial fashion” does not mean that all of California is a “dictatorship.”
I continued, “I would expect a socialist (by your own description) to favor this sort of oppressive and undemocratic abuse of power.”
I am not equating anything with any6thing but just noting a certain unsurprising compativility.
And guess what, HRW, in America we can actually dissent with a judiciary abuse of power and say so publicly and still have respect for the rule of law.
Report comment to moderator
Good response at #204 by NJ Lawyer.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 211,
so lets look at the process first if you will.
I do sense that you ducked the process question I asked.
So perhaps you would like to explain the process or shall I?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 212,
you are so right that we can dissent from judicial rulings.
I think you will find that there are still hold outs arguing against Loving and Brown vs. Board of Education.
Report comment to moderator
I agree that the sky won’t fall. But a lot of real life children will be deceived and deprived of their most essetnial needs and rights. Sexual chaos and confusion will continue its steady rise in our culture. Catholic adoption agencies will be forced to stop doing their good work and more children will suffer. Lawyers will increase their assaults on our values, rights and liberties. But the sky will stay in place.
Break down the family and you break the children first. We could see fall out slowly over three generations.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 216,
now I do believe the research is reasonably clear: children need loving and supportive parents.
I am not aware of credible research which suggests that this parenting must be provided by a hetero-sexual couple.
I have a sense that you are perhaps overstating the case.
Report comment to moderator
Here are our choices (a short list):
Be a heterosexual
Be a homosexual
Be bi-sexual
Be a metrosexual
Be a trans-sexual
Be asexual
Be multiple-sexual
Be necro-sexual
Be adultero-sexual
Be polysexual
Be retrosexual
Be absurdo-sexual.
Take your choice.
We are born with a sex drive. Many factors can close over time in to shape or re-shape or un-shape that drive, none of which abrogate your free moral will as a human being. What we do with our sex drive can lend itself to all sorts of varied feelings, preferences, inclinations or attitudes. What you feed will grow.
If you are reading this, you are a human being and you have moral choices. It’s silly to dehumanize this issue and homosexuals in particular by claiming to be purely genetically determined in your sexuality.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 218,
hmm I do sense that you seem to be repeating your line regarding the genetic nature of sexual orientation but you do not seem to be providing any credible research data to support your view.
Are you saying that this is your personal belief or are you asserting that it is objectively supported?
Report comment to moderator
Cameron: If the person had an interest in a same-sex relationship, enough so to actually give one a try, then he/she is not completely heterosexual.
I do think that sexuality runs on a continuum. It’s possible to be predominantly heterosexual with enough of a homosexual bent to dabble. And in that case, sure, the person might be said to have chosen a path … but that doesn’t mean the other attractions go away. It’s not choosing orientation.
Report comment to moderator
steveg post 220,
excellent insights here.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: That is Jesus’ definition of marriage “From the beginning!” One man and one woman. Male and felmale. The TWO become one!
Jesus wasn’t defining marriage, he was answering a question, “Is it lawful to divorce?” (Math 19:3). Jesus asserted the undisputed fact that God joins men and women in marriage, and, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” The fact that God joins men and women does not prevent Him from joining man to man and woman to woman, if he choses. The corollary to Jesus’ teaching is, “Who are you, Pharisee, to dictate what God joins together?”
The true basis of Christian marriage is, therefore, the union between two people whom God has put together. The key is that God, not the Pharisees, puts the partners together.
You will point out that God didn’t put together men and men and women and women in the days of the Apostle Paul, despite the fact that queers burned with desire then as they do today. As everyone knows, God abominated homosexuality. But that was then. Abominations can be a mater of taste, and tastes change. God has a right to alter his tastes too. Besides, He clearly was being hyperbolic, as everyone who has ever had a fling on the wild side can attest. (Winston Churchill said his night with a man was “musical”) There’s no ethical reason to tie anyone, God included, down to principle in a matter of taste. Even though God was curiously disgusted with homosexuality 2,000 years ago, one can seriously doubt He still feels the same way today. That would be too bizarre. If you don’t believe me, ask Him yourself if He’s relented!
Report comment to moderator
Musing, the Athenian process that slaughtered Socrates is quite different than that of a modern democratic referendum, which allows for judicial appeal. Should the sodomites lose in the November California referendum they may appeal all the way to the Supreme court.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: I do think that sexuality runs on a continuum. It’s possible to be predominantly heterosexual with enough of a homosexual bent to dabble. And in that case, sure, the person might be said to have chosen a path … but that doesn’t mean the other attractions go away. It’s not choosing orientation.
This assumes that human beings are some sort of animals who are compelled to act on any of their polymorphically perverse desires. Actually, humans live in a moral world and at their best are capable of acting morally and restraining their base impulses. I’m afraid that you are rather susceptible to crude Darwinism and pop psychology.
Report comment to moderator
Peter … well, if you ignore absolutely everything I said in the bit you quoted, I guess you could arrive at that conclusion.
But in fact what I said was that people can choose not to act on a desire … but that doesn’t make the desire go away or change the reality of it.
Report comment to moderator
Do you contribute enough to Christian charities to discharge your ethical obligation?
Heh. No comment. I will say that from what I have seen, Catholic Charities does good work. I sure pay taxes that are used for safety for the poor. And if that safety were gotten rid of in return for less taxes, I absolutely would contribute more to such charities.
Report comment to moderator
Nope, I know at least one person who tried a nonstandard relationship, said at the time he/she was in love, broke up, and returned to heterosexual relationships. That person has chosen to be straight, imo.
Women have a more waivering orientation than men. If one is a perfect Kinsey “3″ (fully and evenly attracted to both sexes) then one indeed would have a meaningful “choice.”
There are lots of places on the continuum. Most “gays” (at least gay men) and “straights” (think of yourselves) are so exclusively one way or the other that you don’t have a choice. If you are one of those folks who falls in between somewhere, don’t make the mistake of thinking everyone falls in between in the same respect.
The difference between Anne Heche and Ellen Degeneres is that whereas Heche seems to have a wavering or bisexual orientation, Degeneres does not and has no ability to meaningfully choice heterosexual love. For Ellen it’s either a) lesbianism, b) sham marriage, or c) celibacy. Which do you think she should choose?
If she becomes an evangelical, I understand you telling her that only b or c would be “right with God.” But if she doesn’t, then what’s it to you if she lives her life as a lesbian and marries her partner in CA?
Report comment to moderator
Actually, humans live in a moral world and at their best are capable of acting morally and restraining their base impulses.
Capitalism assumes people act according to their basest instincts in order to maximize profits. There is no room for morality in the marketplace, hence, we use gov’t and society to put brakes on the amoral nature of the market. If we lived in a moral world, gov’t regulation wouldn’t be necessary. In fact the gov’t creation of civil marriage was a result of this recognition and hence the state interest in gay marriage, and marriage to be limited to two people
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: But in fact what I said was that people can choose not to act on a desire … but that doesn’t make the desire go away or change the reality of it.
So, are you saying that the variously perverse animal sexual and diabolical power desires, when acted upon or attempted to be made legal, are proper? Or might they be, gasp, sinful, to use politically incorrect religious language.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #197
The CA Supreme Court did not “re-define marriage” as Joel Mark ignorantly claims. What the court said was that the state of CA could no longer justify it’s exclusion of gay people from civil marriage on “equal protection” grounds.
Of course, Joel hasn’t read the ruling. He’s parroting the talking points of the FRC and other notoriously anti-gay organizations.
*****
Alas, I’m afraid that SteveG and HRW are beating their head against the proverbial brick wall. The bottom line is that conservative Christians have an unrequited hatred of gays, which they use to justify the legal and moral second-class status of gays. Above all, they do not want people to see us as human beings, deserving of the same legal rights and protections that they enjoy.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: But in fact what I said was that people can choose not to act on a desire … but that doesn’t make the desire go away or change the reality of it.
So, are you saying that the variously perverse animal sexual and diabolical power desires, when acted upon or attempted to be made legal are proper?
Or might they be, gasp, sinful?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer — Whatever happens in a legal sense, no one can be forced to embrace perversion and deviance. Unless, of course, the liberals are planning to take away the right of free assocation.
Roger — I’m trying to understand what you mean, but I’m still not getting it. I’m not looking at this in terms of sexuality. I’m asking about the issue of “full faith and credit”, (I think that’s the term, correct me if I’m wrong) which applies here, I think. Why doesn’t Article IV apply to gay couples married in California, who may happen to move to another state?
Suppose John married Joe and lived with Joe for five years in California. Then suppose that John wished to leave Joe and move to another state. What are Joe’s legal rights with respect to property or loss of income?
According to “full faith and credit”, doesn’t Joe have legal expectations? But what will courts in the other states say about the fact that, according the laws in those states, Joe wasn’t actually married.
ut sit finis litium
Report comment to moderator
Jesus defined marriage quite beautifully in Matthew 19:4-6 in his reply to the Pharisees’ question, “Is it lawful to divorce?”
1. He affirmed that from “the beginning” we were made male and female and FOR THAT REASON. a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife (one man, one wife. “From the beginning,” Jesus said).
2. And the two (one man and one woman) become “one flesh.”
3. Jesus concludes, “What God has put together, let no man separate.” Indeed, God does it. Marriage is His idea and He is it’s author.
Don’t desecrate what is sacred. God gave us marriage on His terms for His reasons–companionship, love, procreation.
Report comment to moderator
#230 ANLIR
“The bottom line is that conservative Christians have an unrequited hatred of gays…”
No, I don’t hate gays, I just disagree with them.
As for “unrequited” well…
Report comment to moderator
HRW (#228),
There is nothig ‘base’ about making a profit if you rendered a fair and honest service or good for that profit on a legal and moral mutual exchange basis.
Capitalism, communism, socialism and any other ‘ism’ known to man can be rendered ineffective or harmful by people acting on their basest instincts. Greed for power seems to be worse in communism and socialism, wherein humans are rendered less free, and especially in Marxism wherein faith is excluded.
This is why I am first of all a Christian, and my faith stands above all other ‘isms,’ since the hope of mankind is not in economic ‘isms.’
However, when there is a basic respect for the rule of law and a general climate of Christian conviction, history shows that capitalism has the best track record over all economic ‘isms’ for reducing human poverty and bringing prosperity.
And HRW, There is plenty of room for morality in the marketplace. How could you think otherwise? Seriously! No good capitalist would ever make the statment yu did about no morality in the marketplace.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt at #229: So, are you saying that the variously perverse animal sexual and diabolical power desires, when acted upon or attempted to be made legal, are proper? Or might they be, gasp, sinful, to use politically incorrect religious language.
I do not believe it is sinful. You do. And it’s fine to disagree on that.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: 1. He affirmed that from “the beginning” we were made male and female and FOR THAT REASON. a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife (one man, one wife. “From the beginning,” Jesus said).
So how about all those Old Testament heroes with more than one?
What about Levirate marriage?
2. And the two (one man and one woman) become “one flesh.”
How does 1 Corinthians 6:16 fit in?
3. Jesus concludes, “What God has put together, let no man separate.” Indeed, God does it. Marriage is His idea and He is it’s author.
Then get the government out of it and let it be a matter for religious bodies. Let the government deal with civil unions only and the churches/synagogues/mosques/temples decide what makes it a marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I’m thoroughly disappointed you assume we all hate gays. You’ve decided that’s how we feel. My cousin is a lesbian; I love her very much. I’m as frustrated and saddened by another family member’s adulterous behavior as I am her homosexual behavior. I hate neither of them, and I pray for them frequently.
Report comment to moderator
Yes Cameron, but the problem is that you speak as though those are equally bad.
One is the decision to betray trust and promises and break vows.
The other is an unchosen orientation.
They are not the same kind of thing.
If I were having an affair and you let me know you didn’t approve, I’d have to understand and admit that you had the morally right position.
If I were gay and you let me know you didn’t approve, I’d just feel sad that someone close to me could not accept a significant part of who I am as a person.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron,
Reading the anti-gay comments that so permeate this website is but one small example of what gay people have to put up with from the conservative Christian community. You need to take on your own community if you want to change things.
I think if conservative Christians can get over their racism they can get over their anti-gay prejudice.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, you continually equate the Christian view that homosexual behavior is sinful with bigotry and pejudice.
The most succinct and incisive statement of the Christian view of homosexuality is found in the Catholic Catechism as follows:
Chastity and homosexuality
2357. Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358. The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively dirordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
If you wish to discuss the question of homosexuality with serious Christians, you really need to accord them basic respect for the sincerity of their position.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 223,
well let me see, using pure democratic voting processes Socrates civil liberties were curtailed (he was sentenced to death).
Based on the present interpretation of the California supreme Court, the civil rights of gays were being impaired.
You would apparenlty like to see a referendum to remove this right.
And your argument seems to be:
1) it is inappropriate for the California court to have ruled to protect this right
and
2) it is appropriate for the referendum to remove this right because there will be the option for judicial review
Sounds very much like you are trying to walk both edges of the stream: you would seem to be risking getting very wet.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 241,
it is interesting that as posed there appears to be no scriptural support for this position provided.
And as posed then, it suggests that, much as slavery was considered appropriate by certain Christians without inadequate backing, we are seeing homosexulaity being condemed with inadequate backing.
And we are back to the continuing difficulty for conservative Christians that the consideration of homosexuality by conservative Christians today sounds remarkably similar to how conservative Christians in the past sounded regarding slavery.
If it walks like a duck …
And of course, as I have noted before, conservative Christians observationally appear to be on the wrong side of history here.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, the California decision, based on a thin 4-3 vote, hardly establishes the “right” of sodomite marriage. NJLawyer’s following quote from Justice Carol A. Corrigan’s dissent is salient on this point:
The voters who passed Proposition 22 not long ago decided to keep the meaning of marriage as it has always been understood in California. The majority improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision. It does that which it acknowledges it should not do: it redefines marriage because it believes marriage should be redefined …. It justifies its decision by finding a constitutional infirmity where none exists.
The California voters have a clearly established “right” to propose referenda propositions including on the subject of marriage law, which for compelling reasons has always been a political matter.
On the subject of the basis for the Christian position on homosexuality, there is ample scriptural reference, particularly that of Paul in Romans. The Catholic church sums its basis as follows: Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” This church gives the following scriptural reference: Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.
Your ipse dixit remark that conservatives are on the wrong side of history on this issue is mere speculative rhetoric.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 244,
and you are doing an excellent job of defending the Californian approach BUT you do not appear to have been able to demonstrate that the process is different from the Athenian democratic sentencing of Socrates to death.
Indeed it is just this issue which appear to have led the founding fathers to propose a government which is not based on a pure democratic form.
And you appear to want to play both sides of the game: the present government was established properly BUT when it comes to gay marriage you believe your iodeological position can be sustained by mob rule.
As you well know scriptural support for considering homosexuality a sin, the issue is at best complex.
What is interesting is that you appear to have attempted in post 241 to defend a Christian anti-homosexual position, without providing any scritural support at all. I find your choice interesting. It mirrors some of your earlier comments on the Westminster confession, the Nicean creed etc. where you appear to give higher credance to the statements of latter religious leaders over the recorded statements of Jesus. An interesting position for a Christian.
In your arguments I seem to detect a sense that your generally rigorous use of logic and data is occaissionally contorted when the logic and data do not appear to support your already formed ideological positions.
And agian if it walks like a duck…
As defended by you so far, the Christian anti-homosexual position would appear to be every bit as biggotted as the earlier conservative Chrhstians support for slavery.
My sense is you will have to do better than you have done so far to demonstrate that the conservative Christian anti-homosexual position is not just pure bigottry.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 244,
your comment:
“Your ipse dixit remark that conservatives are on the wrong side of history on this issue is mere speculative rhetoric.”
is both very amusing and would seem to demonstrate the logical paucity of your position.
As I noted in post 206, the history of the late 20th century would appear to be a continued story of increasing acceptance and support for homosexual rights.
You have provided absolutely no data to show otherwise. Indeed, again your ideological position would seem to be overwhelming your logical inclinations.
Report comment to moderator
It mirrors some of your earlier comments on the Westminster confession, the Nicean creed etc. where you appear to give higher credance to the statements of latter religious leaders over the recorded statements of Jesus. An interesting position for a Christian.
In PL’s defense. Since 325 AD this has been the standard Christian practice — for authorities to interpret the Bible, strictly define its doctrines according to a creed and declare those who fall outside narrow orthodox parameters “heretics.”
The Catholic Church is right, it seems to me, that “Protestantism” i.e., the notion of putting authority of what the Bible says in the hands of ordinary folks risks leading to the embrace of *heresy.
* And I’m defining heresy as those things that both Catholics and evangelicals consider heresy like rejection of original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, etc., i.e., rejection of the Nicene Creed.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe post 247,
ah so you are defending Peter Leavitt’s positon?
But of course, myu question is can Peter defend his position.
Peter appears to accept a conservative Christian perspectvie.
Peter also makes it clear that we need to interpret the Bible in the context of what is known now (see his comments on the Bible being a science text).
This now becomes a very difficult argument to simultaneously argue for interpretation of the Bible AND that it must in the cases Peter chooses be accepted literally.
There is a possible rational argument here. My sense is Peter is unable to articulate it.
In short, as I note, despite Peter being arguably the most rigorously logical of the conservative Christians in this blog, when Peter’s ideology does not appear to be supported by the logical development of the material, then Peter appears to revert to ideology over logic or data.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, the California decision, based on a thin 4-3 vote, hardly establishes the “right” of sodomite marriage.
Another absolute falsehood. The CA Supreme Court ruled that gay people must be protected equally under the law. I will pay $1000 to Peter if he can show me the words “sodomite marriage” anywhere in the ruling. Well, I’ve read the entire ruling. I doubt Peter has read 5 pages of it. He’s just spouting off the talking points from the FRC.
All gay people are asking for is equality under the law. Conservative Christians are determined to keep gay people as second-class citizens. Just as they lost in their fight to keep black people as second-class citizens, conservative Christians are losing on the fight to keep gay people as second-class citizens. Well, we had to drag conservative Christians, kicking and screaming all the way, into abandoning their support for segregation. Looks like we’re having to do the same thing on gay people. Pity.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe post 247,
now your comment here is critical:
“The Catholic Church is right, it seems to me, that “Protestantism” i.e., the notion of putting authority of what the Bible says in the hands of ordinary folks risks leading to the embrace of *heresy.”
But of course the majority of the evangelical movement is based on individual Biblical interpretation which as you note can lead to what you call heresey.
If you look at the early chruch, then as vynette argues, it is the modern Paulist tradition which has plausibly adopted a number of “heresies” with many of them arguably embodied in the Nicean creed.
And this is indeed the core of the issue: given the objective uncertainty in the reliability of the Biblical texts, how does one establish an unimpeachable doctrinal position.
One answer is a knee jerk Biblical inerrancy argument. Noting that this is not supported by the objective data, then this is by necessity an “aobjective” position: the objective data is being rejected.
Peter, in contrast to many of the conservative Chrhistians in this blog, does appear to give credance to objective data.
Given that, and the clear uncertainty in the reliability of the Biblical texts, how Peter defends his conservative Chrhstian position has the potential to provide deep insight into the inner workings of his theological logic.
Report comment to moderator
anlir post 249,
I suggest that the situation is not as arguably pathetic as you suggest.
The young voters seem to find this concern about restricting homosexual rights puyzzling. Simple demographiics then suggests the inevitable outcome.
What is more interesting is how this will impact the church makeup in the U.S.. The Pew survey would seem to paint a very gloomy picture for the conservative chruches.
Report comment to moderator
Musing — Board of Education and Loving concern race — that’s strict scrutiny. Completely different standard. You don’t have a protected class in homosexuals, and you know it.
Roger — may I suggest that you google “homosexual marriage full faith and credit clause” — you’ll find quite a few explanations. 39 states have defined marriage as between one man and one woman. I don’t remember the case (Peter Leavitt cited it about a year ago), I think it came out of Washington State, but that majority ruling had the opposite effect of the California ruling. I can’t tell you what’s going to happen in ten, fifteen years, but as of right now, the political will to redefine marriage is NOT there, so a federal amendment is not on the horizon. The clause you cite could be applied either way. If you read Wikipedia, you’ll see that it is not an absolute. In your hypothetical, as we write, John and Joe’s marriage will be recognized in Massachusetts, in my humble opinion. Rhode Island was asked to “divorce” a Massachusetts homosexual marriage and said it couldn’t do it. NJ recognizes civil unions. I suspect, though I am not sure because I have not read or heard about such a case, that they’d have to register as a civil union. I don’t know the answer to that question. I’ll ask around.
No constitution, state of federal, can overrule God’s law. God is not bound by American judicial precedent or any other country’s laws. There is nothing new under the sun, and every civilization throughout history that has embraced homosexuality has failed. Many here seem to think that the US will always exist. The desire to embrace socialism and do in business, the desire to keep people from speaking freely, the desire to accommodate every culture while at the same time denigrating American history will cause the “great experiment” to fail. It is already failing, and embracing depravity isn’t going to help.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 252,
it would seem that you are not reading my posts. I am not arguing that the same legal ruling apply against both gay discrimination and race discrimination.
I am arguing that from a legal and practical perspective the homosexual rights process is mirroring very closely the race process in the American legal system. The one change is that now that we have practice, it seems to be perhaps moving faster than the race issue.
And lastly of course:
1) you can not say with certainty what is “God’s law”
2) your interpretation of “God’s law” as your personal religious belief would seem an inapproipriate standard for creating our civil law unless of course you assert that we should be a theocracy AND that your particular version of Christianity should be the theocrats
I think we can say what will happen in 10 – 15 years: barring a signficiant change in the political will and power of the conservative Christian right, we will see an ever increasingly supported expansion of homosexual rights including the right to gay marriage.
Report comment to moderator
anlir post 249,
actually based on Peter’s past posting history, I am reasonably confident that he has read and analyzed the entire ruling in detail.
My sense is that he is choosing to ignore those aspects of it which do not match his personal ideological position.
Report comment to moderator
Joel #235
There is nothig ‘base’ about making a profit if you rendered a fair and honest service or good for that profit on a legal and moral mutual exchange basis.
Theoretically, but in reality no. the notion of trade occurs when one person has a good or service required/wanted by an other. The former has the upper hand and exerts it on the basis of maximizing profit in either the short term or the long term.
when there is a basic respect for the rule of law and a general climate of Christian conviction, history shows that capitalism has the best track record over all economic ‘isms’ for reducing human poverty and bringing prosperity.
Given the best track record for the elimination of poverty and an increase in equality of wealth lies in the European social democratic movement of the post war period, “Christian capitalism” has very little to do with it. Both in America and Europe general shared prosperity was at its height in the post war period until the 1990s when the gap between the have and have-nots increased again. Coincidently this era coincided with the Soviet era of expansion into eastern Europe. Competitive ideologies prompted a sharing of the wealth.
Joel, morality is not a tradeable commodity and hence has no place in the marketplace. In so much as it influences the buyer and seller, it acts as a distortion to the price mechanism.
Report comment to moderator
Jon rowe post 247,
now in your last sentence:
“* And I’m defining heresy as those things that both Catholics and evangelicals consider heresy like rejection of original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, etc., i.e., rejection of the Nicene Creed.”
you appear to be hinting that if the belief is not consistent with majority Christian opinion that this would then be considered heresey.
and of course this is exactly the argument which Peter Leavitt has made in the past.
It is worth noting, however, that strict Biblical inerrancy is a minority opinion among Christians, and yet it is a lynch pin of certain evangelical arguments.
And when challenged that their model of strict Biublical inerrancy is a minority opinion, the typical response is does the majority opinion make it correct?
And the same holds true for heresies: just because it has been the majority opinion of Chrhstians since perhaps say 325 CE does that make it correct? My understanding of Luther would be that he would argue no.
And on this independence of mind stands virtually all protestant Christian beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
#241 Peter
The Catholic catechism contains the usual error of assuming natural law actually exists; it doesn’t. Patterns in nature provide us with laws and theories of nature but natural law concerning human morals etc are not natural but rather the invention of society as is the marketplace both of which are subject to constant change and intervention.
Nor is sexual relations exclusively for reproduction as hinted (”closes the gift of life”), humans are one of the few species who fornicate at will and not just at the correct moment for conception. The bonobo, our closest relative, also pursues sexual activity for pleasure (and to solve arguments perhaps a method we should employ).
Finally, the catholic church is correct to note the many people have homosexual tendencies but not all embrace them. As Steve has already pointed out, sexual orientation is not either or concept but exists on a continuum. Hence those who exist on a median of this continuum will like take the path of least resistance.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, I’m not so sure you’re going to get around 39 state laws so easily.
That said, there is something above American law. I am not proposing that America become a theocracy. I am saying that God is sovereign over the entire world, the entire universe, and yes, as a Christian, the only “theocracy” I see coming is the one Christ will establish. And I am certain of it. Why would I believe anything else? And when “the government is on his shoulders,” when as Christ said “and when I judge, my judgment is true,” it won’t be my interpretation of anything — it will be HIS. Resist him all you want, I don’t care. I know how this turns out, and history is but one indicator.
God always wins.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
You are right that it doesn’t make it right that the overwhelming majority of Christians might believe in certain doctrines. However rejecting the Nicene Creed does make one a heretic according to orthodox Christian standards. Not only the Roman Catholic Church, but almost all official Protestant denominations (i.e., Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican/Episcopalian, Congregational, Baptists) in the 18th Century held to the Nicene Creed.
Towards the end of the 18th Century, Protestantism, freedom of conscience and enlightenment-unitarianism greatly weakened the creedal system. And since then it’s been that all sorts of heresies have taken off.
Yet the traditional-orthodox members and denominations still hold these things to be heresies.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 258,
at some point enforcing these laws will become impractical and arguably obviously repellent to the American body politic. You have provided no suggestion that the momentum is in the other direction, and with this momentum comes a certain inevitability. The next battle will of course be California. As Peter Leavitt has so eloquently pointed out, California does have an initiative process which is very close to the Athenian mobocracy. However, as Peter points out, there are limitations even here. It will be interesting to watch.
If you insist that your interpretatiuon of “God” is sovereign over the U.S. civil law, it is unclear to me how what you propose is different than a theocracy. Perhaps you can cut your onion this fine, but I believe from a practical perspective we are discussing a difference in detail but not of kind.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe post 259,
but if:
“Yet the traditional-orthodox members and denominations still hold these things to be heresies.”
and yet what are called these heresies appear to depend on the majority rule of the minute, I suggest that we need to reconsider the concept of heresey.
Perhaps a more rigorous model of heresey is a code word used so that one does not have to perform rigorous thoelogical thought to defend one’s theological positions.
Demonize the person as a heretic and burn them at the stake if you have the power (and at varying times both Protestants and Catholics had the power).
So I suggest that the use of the term heresey is actually a symptom of theological laziness: todays orthodoxies may be tomorrows heresies. And the term is arguably shown to have no linguistic content.
Ehrman’s “Lost Christianities” discusses this point in some detail.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt: The Catholic view on this is grounded in the entire Catholic theology of sex and marriage. One key point of that is the belief that all sex should have at least the chance of leading to pregnancy.
It is for that reason they ban the use of contraception and frown on masturbation; they are non-procreative acts. And the absence of children in a marriage is one of the main justifications for annulment.
Homosexuality falls in line with that because it’s not procreative. But if you are a Protestant Christian and presumably not obligated to disallow non-procreative sexual activity, that basis for the objection crumbles.
Are they “contrary to natural law?” Seeing as they occur in nature, I disagree with that too.
The only leg the Catechism really has to stand on is that homosexual relationships do not provide sexual complementariness. Which is true, but the homosexual is not going to ever be in a relationship that does (unless it’s a sham), so I don’t see how that justifies barring them. The catechism offers an ideal, but insists that what is acceptable must be that ideal .. or nothing at all.
I can’t buy that.
Report comment to moderator
39 states deliberately passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It’s not in your pocket.
You really don’t understand who God is, do you? God is sovereign over the entire world, every country, every thing, the entire universe. I’m sorry you’re limited, that you can’t see past a political entity, but God doesn’t have those problems. As a Christian, I believe in the return of Christ. If he came today, I don’t believe he’d recognize American civil law. He’s got His own, and it has been enforced over time — that’s what nothing new under the sun means. Nor do I think God sees the artificial borders that humans have drawn either. “American” doesn’t mean a whole lot to Him. (You really should read up on that weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth stuff.)
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 263,
actually I believe I do. GTod is indeed sovereign. However, it is an interesting discussion to understand how God exercises this sovereignty.
Your points regarding civil political entnties are indeed interesting. Are you prepared and willing to follow them to their logical conclusion?
Report comment to moderator
“todays orthodoxies may be tomorrows heresies”
Well from 325 until around 1800 the standard of orthodoxy didn’t change.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, the conclusion is found in The Revelation. Start reading.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe post 265,
in what part of Christianity?
My sense is you are looking at traditional western Christianity.
But if, as you seem to imply, any non-Catholic Christian belief is a heresy, then I can indeed construct a valid Biblical argument for your case.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 266,
but much as apparently with Martin Luther, I am not convinced of the scriptural validity of Revelations.
On what basis do you argue that Revelations is indeed imparting the teachings and words of Jesus?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, the Catholic church believes both that homosexual acts are closed to the gift of life and that they are intrinsically disordered acts of grave depravity. Though I am a Protestant, I agree with the Catholic analysis of this based both on scripture and natural law.
I actually admire the Catholic church greatly for upholding through its Magesterium to the fundamentals of Christianity for over two millennia. My Puritan ancestors would be appalled with this view, though recent history has proved that the mainline Protestant churches have caved to modern secular heresies, while the Catholic Church has majestically held the line along with some evangelical Protestants.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe post 265,
actually to be precise, any non-Catholic and non-Eastern rite Christian belief is arguably an heresy.
It becomes an interesting discussion on the status of the Ethiopean church.
Report comment to moderator
. . . if that safety were gotten rid of in return for less taxes, I absolutely would contribute more . . .
Talk’s cheap, JON. Thanks anyway. For my part, I’ll keep trying to convince us to raise our taxes on personal incomes over $150k.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 269,
now when you invoke the Magesterium of the Catholic church you are providing what I suggest is the first sound theological foundation for your apparent position on homosexuality.
I do sense in your post, however, an ambivalence towards your own argument: if you really believed this argument I suggest theological concerns would impell you to become either Catholic or Eastern rite. My memory suggests that you are not of either of these denominations.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK #233
Have you never read that in the beginning the Creator made male and female both gay and straight? That is why a person leaves his or her father and mother, or fathers and mothers, and is united to his or her spouse, and the two become one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, Dobson must not try to separate.
Jesus knew that people marry because they are sexual. He concluded that marriage is made by the Creator, not by the Pharisees. Don’t youdesecrate what is sacred. God made humans to choose their partners.
Report comment to moderator
You’ll be glad to know that I don’t make nearly that much money.
To pay off the deficit or debt we may indeed need to raise the taxes on that group. Though the theory of the Laffer curve suggests you might not get more revenues in return. Every time taxes have been cut in the past 50 years or so revenues have increased.
Report comment to moderator
Musing. Shouldn’t you not be capitalizing the “C” in “Catholic.” That is the Protestant Churches who affirm the Nicene Creed are small c “catholic” Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Almost all of the historically Puritan churches are not only pro-gay marriage but actually perform same sex marriages. There was originally a split between the Unitarians and the Calvinists in that late 18th early 19th Century. The Unitarians turned into the Unitarian-Universalist Churches. The Calvinists turned into the United Church of Christ, for which Barry Lynn of American’s United for Separation of Church and State is a minister.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe p[ost 275,
please pardon my typing error.
And your comment on the substance of the points?
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe post 275,
ah my pardon again.
No if you are Non-Roman Catholic or non-Eastern rite, then I suggest that the geneology of your religious views from Apostolic succcession are in doubt. It is the Magesterium point of Peter Leavitt.
Once we relax religious authority based on Apostolic succession as the arbiter, then, as you note, it is indeed a free for all and the term heresy loses all meaning.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe post 276,
as usual, it would appear that your history here is impeccable, although I believe you will also find a link between the UCC and Unitarians dating to the early 19th century through the Congregational Churches.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, I am a member of the Congregational church; my family has been involved with the Congregational and Episcopal churches in New England since 1635. While I respect men like Avery Cardinal Dulles who have converted to Catholicism, I am content to stay with an ancestral church, while having great respect for the Catholic church. Ultimately, though not in a our time, I hope and pray that the Christian churches will unite, fulfilling Christ’s words in John, That they be one [ut unum sint}, thusly shedding the secular heresies in which mainline Protestant churches are foolishly involved.
Report comment to moderator
279:
That could be though when the Calvinists and the Unitarians split in the early 19th Century, it was pretty acrimonious. Lawsuits over who controls church property, with a silver lining that the did away with MASS’s establishment (the last to do so in 1833) because the Calvinists were offended that tax dollars were supporting the unitarian heresy!
Though, I’m still researching how the Calvinist Congregations turned into the United Church of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt at #269: My Puritan ancestors would be appalled with this view, though recent history has proved that the mainline Protestant churches have caved to modern secular heresies, while the Catholic Church has majestically held the line along with some evangelical Protestants.
If interpreting Scripture with reason as a guide is a secular heresy, then I suppose that’s true. That seems a much better approach than submitting to it blindly as an authority, though.
A liberal Christian (or other practitioner of a liberal religion) will see that the Bible’s proscriptions against homosexuality are based in the time and place they were written down, and apply reason to see if there’s a justification for believing they apply today. Most will conclude that they don’t.
A conservative will say “It’s in the Bible, that settles it.”
It actually isn’t that simple, though. There are many things in the Bible that even the most conservative fundamentalist would not argue should still apply today. They don’t actually take the Bible as literally as they claim to. But homosexuality plays into pre-existing prejudices and comes right from the heart of the conservative obsession with other people’s sex lives, so the argument from Scriptural literalism carries weight on the topic.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 280,
your argument for the Roman Catholic Magesterium is arguably a sound basis to condem homosexuality from a Christian perspective. It is arguably the only unchallengably sound Christian argument for this point.
That you remain a Congregationalist suggests that either your sense of tradition overrides your logical theological arguments OR you yourself do not believe your theological arguments.
There could be other arguments, perhaps, but you do not seem to have provided them.
Report comment to moderator
JON ROWE #274 — I’ve got my fingers crossed that you’ll get your opportunity to contribute. Actually, I would start the robbery at $100k, but that seems to be the point of greatest resistance. Those gutless Democrats swear they’ll leave you alone for anything under $200-250k.
This is off topic, so I won’t challenge your post here directly except to drop the cliche that it’s debatable.
The Laffer curve was fashionable 25 years ago. Since then, we’ve constructed a more complete picture of what the economy looks like in periods of wide inequality (like now) compared with periods in which government policies compress disparities by taxing and spending. I concede that big government can be theoretically wrong in some way even if it’s prudential. Further, you may prefer libertarian policies despite their disadvantages, because you think they’ll make you feel better or make someone else feel bad, or for no reason at all. But I doubt it can be proved that libertarianism will make us more prosperous. It takes about three hours to read Paul Krugman on these issues in his latest book (less, if you read the first and last chapters and first and last paragraphs of the others — but I’m sure you’d be concerned enough to read it all.)
Report comment to moderator
Thanks. I’m actually doing quite fine as a full time Assistant Prof. But still nowhere near $150,000. Law school profs. start out with six figures (and only teach 6 credits a semester, to our 15). But then again, there’s a reason why it’s extremely hard to get a job as a law school prof. without an Ivy League law degree. It would be nice to be so lucky. But I can’t complain. Life has handed me a nice set of cards regarding education, career, and economic comfort, comparatively.
“But I doubt it can be proved that libertarianism will make us more prosperous.”
Look at Hong Kong!
Paul Krugman I consider a hack. I’ll take Milton Friedman and my fellow friends at the CATO Institute thank you.
Report comment to moderator
JON — There’s nothing wrong with being a hack when that gets you a column at the NYTimes. How can a blogger gainsay that? Krugman might concede your epithet as to his columns. “Conscience of a Liberal” strikes me as a knowledgeable and sincere polemic containing interesting economic history and sketches of famous articles by other economists. Even if you disagree with it, the liberal theory of government has an answer to Reaganomics. Moreover, Krugman at least knows how to rise above his role as a hack and contribute to his profession.
Report comment to moderator
PETER LEAVITT: my family has been involved with the Congregational and Episcopal churches in New England since 1635.
Pumpkin is an overly sensitive reactionary from a limited background with little sophistication or understanding of world realities.
Report comment to moderator
Musing — Board of Education and Loving concern race — that’s strict scrutiny. Completely different standard. You don’t have a protected class in homosexuals, and you know it.
Actually, the CA Supreme Court did find that gays are a “suspect class” in California.
The CA Supreme Court also subjected the CA Family code (including Prop 22) to “strict scrutiny”.
One would think someone who claims to be an attorney would actually read the ruling before offering such an unfounded statement.
Report comment to moderator
Hong Kong is more of an oligarchy or plutocracy than a libertarian laboratory. In terms of living standards the social democratic countries of northern and western Europe repeatedly top the list. If you were to choose between Scandinavia or Hong Kong, the social stability and comfort of social democracy would lead you and the rest of us to choose the former.
Report comment to moderator
Hong Kong has the freest capitalist market system in the world, period. It may not be perfectly laissez faire (no nation is), but it’s the closest thing to it and its economic and social indicators are every bit as good as any of the Scandinavian countries.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote; “Almost all of the historically Puritan churches are not only pro-gay marriage but actually perform same sex marriages.”
Yes, and within a generation, much of Europe may well be Islamic. Bad stuff happens when we refuse to keep faith with the past, or just refuse to keep faith at all.
There was originally a split between the Unitarians and the Calvinists in that late 18th early 19th Century. The Unitarians turned into the Unitarian-Universalist Churches. The Calvinists turned into the United Church of Christ, for which Barry Lynn of American’s United for Separation of Church and State is a minister.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Joel Mark, for #290!
Report comment to moderator
There was originally a split between the Unitarians and the Calvinists in that late 18th early 19th Century. The Unitarians turned into the Unitarian-Universalist Churches. The Calvinists turned into the United Church of Christ, for which Barry Lynn of American’s United for Separation of Church and State is a minister.
Actually, Unitarians still exist outside of the 1961 merger with the Christian Universalist church. Unitarian Christianity. So do Universalists Christian Universalist Association
Report comment to moderator
Barry Lynn: A devout Christian who nevertheless believes that neither Christianity nor any other religion needs or should have government support.
For this, good Christians in more conservative congregations — those who DO think they’re entitled to have the government impose their beliefs on the rest of the country — demonize him.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 291,
I suggest your comment about Europe being Islamic is a bit of hyperbole.
It is interesting, hwever, that what you appear to consider to be churches that keep the faith with the past appear to be typically 15th century or latter in origin, arguably most are post 18th century.
If one insists on keeping faith with the past then I suggest that Roman Catholicism, Eastern Rite Churches, or perhaps the ethiopean Church are appropriate denominations.
It is interesting that many of those who appear to argue for “the original faith” in fact are followers of what may be argued are relatively modern “heresies”.
Report comment to moderator
When we take God out of our lives, schools,and family the god of this world substitutes his lies and destroys that which God loves. The devil is really working overtime because he knows his days are few. Lift up your eyes for your salvation is drawing nearer. Father I pray that your love and your light would shine brighter in these dark days. May your children be the witness we are called to be. In loving the sinners but hating the sin. God help us.
Rom 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
Rom 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.
Rom 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
Rom 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Rom 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
Rom 1:29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, God‑haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
Rom 1:31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Rom 1:32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Report comment to moderator
JVREED1962 post 296,
I always find these kinds of posts easier to interpret if they are preceded by:
I believe that …
Any time someone tries to “prove” something with Biblical quotes, they have a tendency to founder on the question of how reliable we should consider that portion of the Bible.
When you say you believe this because of these Bible verses, as stated, unless you lied, this in unquestionably true.
Report comment to moderator
I find it weird when people pray in blog posts. Seems like it should violate some commandment to not make worship a spectacle which I vaguely remember from Catechism.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe
Free markets don’t bring happiness
http://tinyurl.com/2vg22g
Nor does it encourage human development i.e creating an environment in which people can develop their full potential and lead productive, creative lives in accord with their needs and interests.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
nor does it create the best quality of life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index
Consistently in the top 10 of each survey is the Scandinavian countries whereas in the heritage rankings they are in the mid teens to mid twenties. The fact that both laissez faire and social democratic states can be found in similar ranking position indicates there is not one correct ideology. I would suggest good management and natural resources are more important. Since I value equality of opportunity and quality of life more I prefer the social democratic ideology but perhaps you have different values.
Report comment to moderator
JREED1962, the Christians here understood your post and the point you were making in your initial paragraph. Don’t let anyone try to intimidate you or make you feel you did something wrong by posting what you did.
I’d bet there were those who either failed to read the verses, or having done so, willfully turned their back on them.
Report comment to moderator
JReed, thank you for the thoughtful and painstaking collection of Biblical verses that are very relevant to this thread.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt: 269
Your really ought to read a few historys of the early Catholic church, say up to the 1800’s. Admiration? Give me a break.
I guess they did get rid of most of the witches though.
Report comment to moderator
scdude, you are no match for Peter Leavitt, good luck you will need it -
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!