Prop 8? Your thoughts.

[TCups]

By the way, President Obama said repeatedly during the campaign that the definition of marriage was between a man and a woman.  I believe his black constituency supported this position during California's Prop 8 vote, if any of that matters for anything.

--------------

"Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King--indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history--were not only motivated by faith but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

--Barack Obama, "Call to Renewal Keynote Address," June 28, 2006[1]

__________

Or was that just Bravo Sierra?  Guess we will see.

[3n00n]

Certainly couldn't be'Adam & Steve' or 'Amanda & Eve',and I currentlyknow of no Witness that supports that concept!

`

So Michael, are you saying that yourKingdom Hall preaches these pactices?

[Hermie]

My alternative, should Prop 8 stand:

"Restore Marriage Equality Act", a Prop I'll submit if the courts uphold 8.


Section 1.
This measure shall be known as and may be referred to as the “Restore Marriage Equality Act.”

Section 2.
Article 1, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution, which reads:

“SEC. 7.5.  Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

shall be amended to read:

“SEC. 7.5 Marriage between any two consenting adults committing to live as one in love and life shall be valid and recognized in California.”

Section 3.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.





Also, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. I just find them to take Christianity seriously.

[TCups]

And when this Proposition referendum fails, as it will, again, we shall look forward to more rioting, violence, expressions of hatred and discrimination against the religious right. But most likely, political activist judges will be willing to step in, set aside the will of the voting public of the State of California, and impose the "right" to same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage.

Equal protection under the laws governing civil unions is wholly sufficient.  Employment and insurance benefits. Joint ownership of property, etc, are not the issue.  All the state sanctioned spousal social benefits can certainly be observed, under a civil union. And the great majority of Americans would or have already, accepted this.

But no, not enough by far apparently.  Acceptance, tolerance and equal protection under the law is not enough.  The voters must "approve of" and "officially sanction" same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage, and indeed, redefine the traditional sacrament of "Holy Matrimony" and thus remove any possible stigma of same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage or any responsibility for choosing that lifestyle.  Then, no doubt, it follows that we should teach this as a "normal" alternate life style to our kids.  News flash, sir:  the majority of Americans do not now and likely never will approve of and sanction same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage. Even one of America's most liberal politicians, now President, Obama, dared not openly say he supports same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage.  Everyone damn well knows why.  But perhaps he can be a bit bolder now that the votes have been counted.  You should write him a letter and ask.

And when the gay and homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual rights movement fail to gain the majority's approval legislatively, as they always will, then look for this issue to be forced by liberal activist judges, under the "due process" and equal protection clauses, no doubt.  Another of those penumbras, I guess.  So please don't worry too much. Ultimately, I feel pretty confident California will get what it deserves.  

As for me, I shall continue to teach my children and their children acceptance, tolerance and individual human dignity and responsibility.  But I will never approve of or sanction same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage since, in my opinion, it is amoral, socially destructive, and ethically unnecessary to achieve the stated goals of equal rights and equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians to cohabitate and exchange bodily fluids .  I will never approve of or sanction "defining deviancy down" and equating gay civil unions with holy matrimony between a man and a woman.  I shall steadfastly hold to the Judeo-Christian ethic I was raised by and taught to honor and respect.  

Or as Martin Luther said "I cannot -- I will not -- recant!  Here I stand."  Nail that to your inbox door and do please keep it in mind during your online "crusade" in favor of same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage.  That is pretty much what I think about California's Proposition 8.  And you are most welcome for my thoughts, since you asked.

[Big_Bill]

Well Garry,

Ask a Rabbi, Catholic Priest or Mullah concerning recognized marriages between concerning adults of the same *_*_*_*_*_*before you assume anything religious !

And as I said before, homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality will be gone now that your people are no longer hiding behind marriages with women, both lesbian and hetero*_*_*_*_*_*ual women, and conceiving children to further hide your shame.

Now that your out in the open, flaunting your abnormal life style,you will not and can not infect these children with you defective genes, effectively ending this abnormality in one generation !

So enjoy ! Be Fruitful and in a few years this discussion will be a mute point...

Thank you,

Bill

[TCups]

Yes.  Non-Christian men and women should be allowed to marry.  In churches, or in synagogues, or in mosques, or on the courthouse steps, or by a justice of the peace, or by the captain of a ship or by "Elvis" at funky little chapels in Las Vegas or common law marriage for that matter.  The issue is societal norms, not how and by whom couples are married.  The societal norm is that marriage is and should be between a man and a woman.  The biological reason and the advantage that confers to a society are rather obvious.  Homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality and same-*_*_*_*_*_* unions deviate from that societal norm and have a social stigma attached.  

What seems to be at question, at least in my mind, is this: should this be the case?  And if no stigma should be attached to same-*_*_*_*_*_* marriage, then shouldn't it follow that married homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual couples have every right to adopt or undergo in vitro fertilization procedures, propagate, raise a homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual family, and forward that lifestyle as a "normal" and equally acceptable alternative to the traditional family?  Traditional family values say "no".  Traditional Judeo-Christian morality says "hell no".  

Children deserve at least a chance to have both a mother and a father to raise them.  Each parent, mother and father, brings something unique and very important to the proper social and emotional development of a child.  Deviate from this and the chances for healthy social development of that child are significantly compromised.  Sure, death and divorce are realities.  And single parent families are an unavoidable consequence.  But is it optimal for kids?  No, absolutely not.  And every single parent knows this all too well.  

Choose homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality for yourself if you wish.  You have that right in a free society, and you have the right to expect civility, dignity, acceptance and tolerance for having made that choice.  But don't then expect to propagate it as the "norm" for American society. Do not expect our society must then also openly approve and put forward same-*_*_*_*_*_* marriage as a "normal" lifestyle to then be taught to our children as an equally acceptable alternative to traditional family values.  Our society says it is not so, and for good reason.  While one can "define" deviancy down, the consequences of deviancy remain and take a terrible toll on society.  There will always be a  stigma attached and it will not go away at the voting booth.

A mother and father are not, for example, free practice and teach kids polygamy, or incest, or rape, or cannibalism, or whatever as acceptable alternate lifestyles.  These are deviant and destructive behaviors of varying degree, and are not tolerated by civil society. So, in short, and being absolutely frank about it, consenting homo*_*_*_*_*_*uals may feel free to "blank" around with each other, just don't think they can "blank" around with traditional family values, teach our kids deviant behaviors by example, and then, expect or demand the right to gain loving approval from our society for doing so.  Sorry, it's a non sequitur.

[moe1942]

That issue and others like it separate the true believers from Christian impostors. Can't cherry pick the Word of God just  like you can't be a tad pregnant. Right now it is a Calif issue. It will come to your state though. Just like the weather, everything moves from west to east.

[TCups]

Don't confuse or necessarily equate "Christians" and "Moral Behavior".  I make no argument, especially politically, that all should believe as I believe, or that only Christians are truly "moral", or even that I am necessarily a good Christian.  I do argue that as a society, if we are to survive, we must practice moral behaviors and must have a code of ethics that underpins our society.  If conservatives remain content to occupy the "middle ground" and the liberal left continually pulls us to the left, then conservatism is continually redefined and the "drift" you speak of is inevitable.  Instead, Christian, or otherwise, let us as a society understand and clearly speak our own beliefs and their moral underpinnings.  "Man Up" and be willing to say, emphatically, what these principles are and why.

If conservatives remain passive, or worse, are "passively persuaded" to agree with what we know morally to be "wrong", then what follows should be apparent.  My moral compass says same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage is wrong.  I cannot and will not be persuaded otherwise.  I will say this as often, and as clearly as any on the opposite side of the issue say otherwise.  No empty accusations of "hypocrisy" or "homophobia" will change my fundamental beliefs on God and morality.  If it could, then my stated opposition on the basis of moral principle might indeed be hypocrisy.  

Morraly principled arguments need only be directed toward the behaviors, in this case same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage, not toward those who may not share the same beliefs or moral code.  Civil law makes no religious judgment about who are "true believers".  Howie asked about Prop 8, not about my religion, or his, or anyone elses.

[moe1942]

Morals and marriage have no common bond. The issue of marriage is always rooted, and argued using biblical teaching and writings, IE the Holy Bible. Christians and the bible are definitely linked, hence my reference to Christians. There probably wouldn't be any argument if the marriage issue was based on morals alone. I don't remember anyone using morals as an argument for steve and steve to marry or not. I personally feel the majority of people in this country are amoral.

[RJMcElwain]

grackledown - 3/10/2009 11:58 AM It almost sounds as if you would prefer a Theocracy. If this is the case you might want to try Saudi Arabia or Iran. Although I don't think the natives are very friendly to Christians.

As you know, the Constitution is very adamant against theocracies or any other combination of Church and State. However, what's interestingis that this prohibition was added to protect Government from the Churches, not the other way around.

[moe1942]

grackledown - 3/10/2009  11:58 AM

It almost sounds as if you would prefer a Theocracy. If this is the case you might want to try Saudi Arabia or Iran. Although I don't think the natives are very friendly to Christians.

Interesting interpretation of my comments.. Your opinion is noted.

[Hermie]

Marriage actually predates Christianity. Hate to burst your bubble there.

[moe1942]

Hermie - 3/10/2009  9:20 PM

Marriage actually predates Christianity. Hate to burst your bubble there.

Are you homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual?? If so you are in denial.

[Hermie]

Moe:

1. No, I am not homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual.

2. Since when does supporting gay rights automatically make you gay? You seem to be a very predjudical person.

Grackle: I was wondering the same thing myself, just like woodp3cker without the 3.

And I remember hearing the lack of occupation line from an episode of M*A*S*H.

[Gene_SC]

Gerit, lets not get to personal here. *_*_*_*_*_*uality is an individual right. Not that I agree with the issue but do not be pulling punches below the belt here.

Gene