California Supreme Court Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ban
I am disappointed in people.
If your religious convictions are so strong that you would rather deny a right given to you to others, then you are not a person I want by my side.
I will speak to Christians now:
Your faith dictates that homosexuality is wrong. In the bible, it only states homosexual sexual contact is wrong, but that love between members of the same gender is not only okay, but encouraged. "Love thy neighbor..."
In addition, granting marriages to homosexuals has nothing to do with sex, and definitely nothing to do with lust. People, straight, gay and bisexual are already having sex, so keeping them from marrying isn’t going to stop that. It's an issue of love.
These people want a given right to equality.
Why do you care? What is it to you? They want to enjoy the same legal right and legal recognition of your love that you now have. They don’t want to take away yours. They don’t want anything from you.
Why would homosexuals marrying have any effect on you at all?
Here's a hint: It wouldn't.
A larger issue now, is that our laws actually support the marginalization of homosexuals. California state law (among others) support gays being second class citizens. This is the problem with voting on human rights issues.
In the 1850s, if there was a proposition that said “Are you for the abolition of slavery?” It would have been defeated easily and swiftly, and I would be in manacles still today.
This boils down to the debate of Vox Populi v Vox Dei or The will of the people v What is right (The will of God)
Just because the "Will of the People" (majority rules) is something heinous and disgusting, does not make it right, nor should it be allowed. This is one reason we have judicial oversight in our government. However here, the system failed. The oversight did not help the minority, and thus Vox Dei failed.
What does that say about the law? What does that say about us?
How can we have a state constitution that actually denies equal rights, just because the majority thinks so? Who can be the voice of the voiceless if both the legislative branch and judicial branch works against them?
When both the people and the law support injustice, it's time to examine both.
When Humankind learns to be both human and kind, we can all coexist.
Posts
I will attempt to answer your question with my question:
ReplyDeleteWhy should the government intervene at all with what a church is allowed to do (marry a couple) and not do? Why can't the couples in question, who love each other and I suppose want so benefits for it, because no one is stopping them from being together, just apply for a civil union?
I think most people will always maintain that a marriage is the sacred bond between a man and a woman, and maybe that's for antomical,biological, pro-creative, etc, etc etc... So, as mentioned, if the homosexuals want benefits of being together (cause let's cut to the chase, this is a money issue) along with the ability to be together (cause they have always been allowed to live and love together), then why is a civil union such a bad idea?
Equality. I agree that the government should stay out of marriage, but as long as marriage is a legal institution in the government, things need to be equal.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's not just about money, its about recognition of love.
The only reason the goverment intervenes in marriage is to give benefits to those who are together. Homosexuals can attain that through a civil union. It's actually very easy. Marriage between those of the same sex is not the same. It won't be. It isn't. We can put a pretty "veil" over it and say it is, but that proves nothing.
ReplyDeleteNow, hypothically speaking, if a man and another man (or two women) decide they want to marry, is it for love or benefits? You can have a "Civil Union Party" and it basically be the same thing. Here's the hypothetical- After thjat what is to stop a Brother and Sister from getting married? How about a Cousin and Uncle? Now those are extremes, but the question is, there is a system designed for these situations, why is it not being used.
Some say marriage is too sacred a word to hand it over to anyhting that doesn't have the potential to be counterproductive to the human race.
I am all for equality, of course I am. And there is something designed for homosexuals, they shuld use it and live happily with it and reap the benefits of it.
Plenty of religious institutions who lable themselves as "christian" not only embrace their gay/lesbian brothers and sisters, but assist in their plight for equality. I don't care if Jim Bob's church refuses to allow a gay couple to wed in their chapel, when there's others that would if the law would allow them to do so.
ReplyDeleteMarriage happens in many different cultures, religions, and countries for that matter. So, your argument is definately unfounded. Christianity is not the only religion that can tie the bond between two human beings.
I think your "seperate but equal" stance was what the equality movements of the '60s was about. It isn't equal, just because it's seperate.
No one tells me who I can marry, and no one should tell my gay next door neighbor who she should marry. There is no real argument, other than backwards christianity winning again over the constitution.
So once again, why can't homosexual couples just apply for a civil union, stay together, which is what they are anyway, and still recieve the same benefits?
ReplyDeleteI really don't understand what the gigantic argument is about.
I believe the argument is that it creates a stigma of inequality by labeling the union of two souls differently regardless of orientation.
ReplyDeleteStan, there's a new movement of "straight-supremacy", obviously that you're taking part in. If civil unions aren't a big deal, then why is the idea of marriage so ridiculous?
It is what it is. And a civil union is not a marriage.
Also, check out this link.
ReplyDeletehttp://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/would-gay-marriage-help-the-state-economy/
Okay, fine, I will chime in and bring some sense to this convorsation. Although, Calvin did tell me there was no need. we are all arguing about this issure but no one has gotten down to the root of teh weed that is the gay marriage debate. First off, Let me say that this is (in philosophy) EXACTLY the same thing as the struggle for women's sufferage, the civil rights movement, and every other time a group of people in this country had to fight for their basic human rights. Saying that gays shouldnt have the right to be married is exactly the same as saying blacks cant marry or interracial marriage is abhorant. (both we have done in this country) Stan, for you to argue against Gay marriage saddens me. Someone who is in the military and representative of a newer generation should never harbour the old, less civilized, ideals of the past generations. This nation is moving toward 300 years old and we were foundaed on the ideas of Liberty for all and Equality in the eyes of the government. Often, however, it seems we are going backward on those fronts: losing ground to the socialist mentality of firced equality among classes, races, and creeds. We choose our supreme court justices based on race and we deny gays the legal recognition of they pure and beautiful love. All your arguments on the morality of the subject are mute. It is not the government's job to decide what is moral thad that which is not. They exist only to ensure the freedom and safety of our citizens. And to say someone cannot marry the person they love and have dedicated their life to is neither in the interest of the nation's safety, or the individual's liberty. I am minister. i have the freedom to choose what wedding ceramonies i perform and those that i dont. My church also has the freedom to choose what weddings may and may not take place in it's walls. We will never be forced to like the idea or agree with it. We will never be forced to take part in a gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteNow, to the heart of the matter. A marriage should only be the business of those in the marriage, their church, and God. There should'nt even be a legal marriage between straight people. And hold on Stan, before you start in about tax breaks and emergency situations, there are other ways of taking care of those problems. youc an incorporate for god's sakes, power of attourney, oh and do away with the income tax all together. That would fix your tax problem right there. The point is, this thing is nothing more than a proodish obsession with sex. if it was only gay women that wanted to get married, this nation would hardly make a peep in protest and most of us woudl ready for the upsomig onslaught of lesbo weddings and honeymooons in our towns and resorts with open arms, a bottle of lotion and a box of tissues. You think this gay marriage thing is heated? wait a few years til it switched to polygamy. That will be interesting to see.