Loading ...Last night I was involved in a heated debate on a talk radio show about Proposition 8 which was voted on last Tuesday in the state of California.
For those of you not familiar with Prop. 8, it provided for the following:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
- Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
- Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
The vote then passed in the state which has caused an uproar across the Gay Community and the Liberal circles.
It is claimed that the thought of taking away the right to marry from the Gay community is taking away their rights. However, I would beg to differ.
The very definition of marriage as defined by the dictionary, is the union of one man and one woman.
Marriage is a sacred gift from God and should be instituted only by the church in the first place. Last night on the talk show debate the host then proposed to me that if marriage should only be run by the church, then the Government should no longer recognize it because of its duty to Separation of Church and State. Let me remind you, that no where in the Constitution is this separation talked about.
The next argument that the Gay and Liberal communities argue is that if gays are not allowed to marry we take away their rights to benefits. This I agree with, there should be provisions set in place by the government for these couples to receive benefits, but it should not be under the blanket of marriage.
I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this subject, please leave comments!
on 
on 
Marriage is a sacred gift from God and should be instituted only by the church in the first place.
Um, no, marriage was around *long* before the “church” even came into being. The Bible may have codified it as a part of Christian doctrine, but marriage is in no way a “creation” of any god. It was purely secular until the church hosed it up (not unlike many other things the church has touched, sadly).
Let me remind you, that no where in the Constitution is this separation talked about.
The First Amendment specifies “…that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Therefore, any law that codifies an act that is purely religious in nature, as you contend marriage is, does establish a religious predicate, and would therefore be unconstitutional. That is as patently “separation” as you can get.
Alexa,
If you were like myself, and believed that the Bible is the inspired words of God, you would see my point on marriage being instituted by God in the book of Genesis as pertaining to Adam and Eve, the first human beings to walk the earth.
Second, the First Amendment is talking about not making a National Church because they were afraid of having another “Church of England.” That does not include any laws that favor, a religious statute.
So I understand where you are coming from. Its your beliefs and people need to respect that, however, it should not be left up to anyone to decide if its right or wrong. It’s ridiculous to me that someone can sit there and tell me for instant, that me and my GF of three years cant have the same rights as a man and women have. Marriage or no marriage Gay people will still exsist. And still love one another as any straight couple would. This topic shouldn’t be even up for debate. This world has so many problems, that seriously this shouldn’t be one of them. It’s amazing that we live everyday lives..we work, we pay taxes, we eat and breathe the same exact way and yet we are treated as if we are disgusting and perverted. Its really sad. That people would even have to argue this. Let it go already. You know back in older times. Black people couldn’t sit in the same place as white people. had no privileges…and why. because the color of their skin? Wtf. I dont know. Now we have a black president. And thats awesome! One day I believe people will wake up and say…”Oh yeah, they are people to, lets treat the as equals”
We were all created equal right? yeah.
If you were like myself, and believed that…
Like yourself and believed. As in, it’s a PERSONAL opinion. As the many couples in California (and other states that are being affected by similar issues, or unfortunately, as someone in the - forbid I say it - “Bible Belt” - won’t get to see that day for a while) are entitled to their opinions as well.
But to say they’re not entitled to equal rights as a heterosexual person? My two cents. “Gay Rights” is a touchy subject. Because what makes a female-females relationships rights any different than Joe and Sally? We’re all American citizens and all have the same unalienated rights; sexual orientation has nothing to do with that. As far as “benefits”, if I had a domestic partnership and weren’t eligible for the same healthcare as Mrs. Jane Doe, how’s that any different than a racial hate crime? As a domestic partnership you didn’t break any laws. Church should be left in Church; where the beliefs aren’t considered taboo and contradictory. And the government should be more concerned with issues of legal natures. Like the discrimination against my hypothetical domestic healthcare. If they REALLY want to do something about it.
Jenn,
Like I said, this post is hard because I do have many Gay and Lesbian friends. I do believe you should have rights entitled by marriage, just not under the blanket of marriage. Honestly I believe the government shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage, or should have ever had anything to do with marriage.
There are two fundamental holes in your arguement:
1.That is true, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like “right to privacy” or even “right to a fair trial.” Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?
What the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says is:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a “religious liberty” exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
case in point marriage tied to the bible…
2.Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of one’s knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one’s native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of one’s viewpoint. Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one’s beliefs.
Now my question to you, are you saying that judges have never legislated from the bench instead of actually reading the Constitution and studying the background of the laws as it pertains to the First Amendment?
Call me confused. I’ve tried to find solid arguments, from those who support Prop 8, how legalizing gay marriage will negatively effect them. Other than not being alligned with their own religious or personal beliefs, are there any economic impacts on them or society as a whole? When I had to vote on Boat access in FL last week, I thought I’m not a boater what do I care. So the second question was, how it going to effect my wallet. I understand the financial relief it would bring gay couples if Prop 8 failed, but what about it’s supporters. Is it just another feather in the cap of the religious right? Do their taxes go down? Did they get a get into heaven free card? I’m still confused!
I know this doesn’t really answer or help either side but the Truth is this topic should have never been brought before the people of Cali to vote on or cast their opinion because, as David stated, the concept of marriage was instituted by God and is His design. Now I don’t want to get into a discussion of whether one believes in God or not because that’s not the issue. The issue is really that no one outside the church should even conceive of entering into a marriage covenant. I don’t care who decides to commit to a monogamous relationship–this does not make it marriage. And were it not for the benefits associated with this legal, spiritual union, I don’t think very many homosexuals, of which I have many friends and associates, would care too much about being “married” in the sense of the term. Now we come to the real heart of the issue. So two thoughts: first, as stated above, God decides who is married and who is not–not the voice of the people. It doesn’t matter if every person in the union votes that the sky should be canary yellow; the sky is blue (let’s not get nitpickey and postmodern, deconstructional on that sentence–I’m just using it as a basic example). My point is that there is something greater than ourselves defining marriage. Second, and this closely follows David’s statement: I don’t necessarily believe that there should be a civil disparity in the benefits offered to unions outside the realm of marriage such as homosexual civil unions. However, this is dangerous, muddy water. Where does one draw the line when such an allowance is made. For example, should this then extend the same benefits to those who would argue that their relationship with their pet is of the same substance and devotion as a monogamous, human relationship? I know this might at first seem absurd but the definition can be applied: lifelong devotion to one, specific partner that excludes all others. Now that being said, I still believe such an allowance should be made but I fear the future repercussions of such a case. (The underlying reason I believe such an allowance should be made is that, if our country wasn’t so easily played by the government we would grow a backbone and fight to reduce taxes back to a reasonable level where such a tax benefit would be such a hot item; since taxes are the way they are, I believe it is in the best interest of the overall population to allow for every tax allowance and reduction that can be made.)
If you are going to make such a bold, exclamatory statements that the concept of marriage predates the Bible by such a “*long*” period of time that it should be obvious to all then please back that up with some credible source.
Alan, I appreciate your stance on this issue. However, have you considered how many homosexuals are active with the church. For these individuals, “marriage” in the religious sense has greater meaning and should fight for these rights with the Church, not the Govt. As for the more secular side, Civil Unions should be the focus and religion not even mentioned.
AND PLEASE, no more of these people marrying their pets analogies! Seriously, we are discussing HUMAN RIGHTS, not animals.
Steven,
Why should those analogies not be brought up? Could someone not say that the right to be with an animal is a human right as well as an animal right?
Steven,
I appreciate your response. First, just because a “church” or “denomination” in particular cases allow for certain things doesn’t mean it is right. There are cults that use the title “church” that are not valid representations of the will of God. Second, they should not fight for their “rights” within the church because they are contending with God on His way of things and are pretty much bound to fail. If someone doesn’t like how God is “running things” they must change-He is God and He does as He pleases. Third, on the secular side I’m not actually against homosexuals having rights simply because I am all for people keeping as much of their money out of the hands of Govt as possible. This for me is a totally different discussion. I realize it is not for many others. Some would argue that I’m now getting down to semantics but I assure you that my zeal for the clarification and sanctity of marriage is serious. However, I am also serious about beating back the greedy hands of federal govt.
As for my analogies, please describe to me how someone wanting to have a recognized relationship with his/her pet Guinea pig (one he/she loves, cares for, and would die for) is any different than someone so long as the definition of what constitutes said relationship is drawn ambiguously to only the human race. Why must it be different? This is still a “human right” because it deals with the desire of a human to have the relationship recognized by the state.
This may be a simplistic view but I think sometimes things are clarified by simplicity.The way I see it marriage is between a man and a woman; the ONLY union which can propagate the species. If a homosexual couple decides to cohabitate and build a life together they should have the legal protection of a domestic partnership which they have in California. After registering as domestic partners they can then go to any number of churches which will “marry” them so they can have a wedding and say they have been “married”. It seems that the terms “marriage” and “domestic partners” are legal terms designating a union between a man and a woman (marriage) and a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman (domestic partners). What is the big deal?
Simplicity, I’m all for that. Domestic partnerships and civil unions are certainly a great solution, and don’t require approval from the Church. As we all know, each couple (including same sex) have their own reasons for wanting to be married. I suppose wanting that dream ceremony is important to some, but most are just looking for equal treatment. Gays and Lesbians lack the protection and benefits conferred by over 1000 different federal provisions. I agree Christie, what’s the big deal?! Personally, I’d love to see my Father and his partner, my son’s teacher and her partner, and my best friend and his mate all receive what most of us take for granted.
As for the Pet analogies, I see your point. There is a “Human Rights” component involved. Do I think allotting rights to the LGBT group will make the other groups assume they are entitled to the same rights? No, because this issue has been involving Human to human relationships. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Prop 8 made any mention of Animals.
David, thanks for letting me take part in the discussion. It has been interesting to read everyone’s responses. I think it’s great that we can all agree to disagree and be enlightened to the views and beliefs of the so called opposition. Keep up the good work.
I enjoyed your point of view… finally someone said the right thing!
Would you mind terribly if I place a link back from my site at whiterabbitcult.com?