I find it ironic that black Christian voters overwhelming supported Proposition 8. I’m trying to find a way to explain the sad irony of an oppressed people making history by electing the first African American president while, at the same time, opposing one of Obama’s key positions: his inclusivity and acceptance of same-gender loving people. Obama abhors gay bigotry, and yet his most ardent supporters overwhelmingly backed the California constitutional amendment by some 70%. These folks apparently reject the notion that any denial of civil rights can ultimately be used as a weapon against they themselves. That the language introduced to argue for the ban on gay marriage is identical to language once used to ban interracial marriage was either inconsequential or unknown to them. Nutty claims that gay marriage somehow undermines the sanctity of straight marriage is totally ridiculous. First: whatever you consider sacred is, therefore, so. If you consider a navel tangerine sacred, it is so. For you. But don’t rally the neighbors to force the local grocer to commit to handling tangerines differently.
I’ve never understood this fascination about what people do in their bedrooms. I mean, if you take sex out of the equation, gay people are, well, people. Just like everybody else. So why do we get so mad when we think that, retiring from our day, some people will be sharing a bed with folks of the same gender? Why do we even *care*? The notion of gay marriage being a threat to straight marriage is ridiculous. The sanctity of marriage was undermined and trashed by *straight* people. These days, people treat marriage like it is the same as dating, people having “starter” or “trial” marriages—all of which I find offensive, and all of which undermines the sanctity of the institution. People, so committed to one another that simply dating is no longer enough for them, who fight for the right to be married, who risk their livelihoods and, in many cases, their personal safety if not their lives in order to marry—I can’t imagine in what way that kind of dedication undermine the institution of marriage. But, to be blunt—who cares? I mean, seriously, why do I care what other folk do?
Personally, I don’t affirm gay marriage. I don’t believe that’s what marriage is about. But, like navel tangerines, that’s *my* belief. I don’t feel some compelling need to force people to agree with me or to live their lives the way I do. Moreover, there’s a terrible and slippery slope that begins with the denial of anyone’s civil rights. It’s quicksand: the more we do it, the easier doing it becomes. That people can’t see the connection between Prop 8 and The Patriot Act and FISA and Jim Crowe is utterly stunning to me, demonstrating how poor a job we do at educating our children, ourselves, not only about why America is great but about how easily the freedoms we take for granted can be stripped from us.
The religious right is most especially troubling because of the uniformity they demonstrate in falling in step behind religious leaders. It amazes me that they can’t see the connection between radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr and James Dobson, a comparison which will no doubt offend many of the faithful. But an extremist religious nut is an extremist religious nut. The goal and expression of their nuttiness differ, but the formula is the same: blind adherence to the guy with the microphone. You round up a random sampling of Christian conservatives—I mean, just grab 'em off the street—and most could not tell you, in any coherent way, why they hate homosexuals. Most would deny they hate anybody, but the expression of their faith, is, in effect, hatred. Some may quote a scripture or two, but most will just hand you a, “Well, the bible says…” and then ramble off Focus On The Family talking points. The overwhelming majority of these folks, and black Christians alike who supported Prop 8, are lemmings. They don’t read. They don’t question. Their main education about such matters comes from the guy with the microphone. And he, himself, is often just as uninformed as they are.
The notion that God is so weak that He needs our help to enforce His law is, literally, blasphemous. Beside the fact we are no longer under The Law but under Grace, something the religious right routinely seems to ignore as they go about their Old Testament methods of smiting the infidels. Regardless of what you believe, there is no biblical model—none at all—for Christians oppressing others or denying them their rights. Jesus never organized a boycott or urged His followers to vote down a ballot amendment. He never backed a political candidate or attempted to force Himself or His views or His values on anyone. Instead, He said, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock.” He told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Christians attempting to change or build the kingdom of the world in the name of Jesus really need to fundamentally asses whom it is they’re following. This is behavior Christ, in word and deed, clearly denounced. Which leads me to believe the lemming law: that the vast majority of Christian political activists—of any ethnicity—get their information mainly from the Christian right propaganda factories. For, if these folks actually knew Jesus, or, failing that, actually bothered to *study* Jesus’ life and His words, they’d find an enormous gulf between the things they do and the personal example of the Man they claim to follow.
These religious folk who want to run around banning things: if they really want to uphold the sanctity of marriage, they should get a vote passed banning divorce. Jesus condemned divorce while saying nothing at all about homosexuals, and yet the divorce rate among Christians is nearly identical to that of non-Christians. Supporting Prop 8 on religious grounds is, therefore, hypocritical on so many levels, not the least of which is that the biggest threat to the sanctity of marriage—according to Jesus Christ—isn’t gays, it’s DIVORCE. Go ban THAT, and you’ll get my attention.
23 Comments
Amen. You've put into words exactly why I voted NO on prop 8, and still hope that the courts in California will throw it out.
The YES on 8 people ran a campaign based on fear, lies and hatred. The NO on 8 people never had a chance.
scrawled by Bill | November 11, 2008 10:35 AM
Faith is about the Kingdom of Heaven. Organized religion has pretty much always at least partially been about the Kingdom of Earth. Even when it doesn't start that way, it inevitably acquires characteristics of that...get a bunch of people together under a pulpit, and there's too much temptation to use the pulpit to bully with.
scrawled by Dave Van Domelen | November 11, 2008 10:57 AM
Oh, Priest, not you too.
The 70% from the initial CNN exit poll people are quoting is misleading. It was taken from a sample of 244 people. More recent exit polls, with a larger sampling, have surfaced putting african-american support at around 50%. Still very high and disappointing, but not as bad as 70%
In addition, black people actually make up about 6.2% of the entire population of California (according to the US Census Bureau as of 2007), and even if every black person who voted Obama also voted no on Prop 8, it would still pass by a narrow margin.
While I think Prop 8 is a law that deserves to be struck down, the whole "Let's blame the blacks for it passing" really pisses me off and it needs to stop. (Mostly because there's some underlying tone in there that has me hearing "Its all the niggers fault", when it was a collective stupidity involved. Now, that could just be me, but that's the sense that I'm getting from it.)
Frankly, the No on 8 people were woefully disorganized, while the Yes on 8 team was brutally efficient, brilliant in how they spread disinformation, and actually bothered to engage the black church and the black community while the No on 8 team assumed the black vote was a given (since they did have the public support of the NAACP).
The Yes on 8 team swiftboated their way to victory, in a way that would make Karl Rove proud. It was both elegant and disgusting, and the No on 8 people were inept against it.
Yes, there's plenty of blame to go around on this, but blame the right people, not just black people.
scrawled by Slick | November 11, 2008 3:05 PM
I think people were generally confused about how to vote on the matter. Just this last Friday, Bill Maher commented that "Proposition 8 was beaten". Well, no, it passed. But I've heard that same mistake made literally dozens of times by experts. It stands to reason that voters, who might not be as keen on the issue, voted "yes" thinking that meant they were for gay marriage when in actuality "yes" meant denying it. I'm not saying this is the entire reason why it passed, but it could'nt have helped.
scrawled by Trav | November 12, 2008 8:15 AM
I sincerely wish that more people payed attention to the last thing you said. Divorce is too common now, and nobody tries to stop it. Plus I get sick of hearing that civil unions are basically the same as marriages. Sounds alot like segregation to me. If it really was so equal, then why is it such a pain to call it the same thing. I'm glad you let it be known that what's sacred is completely subjective. We portray foreigners in some of our movies as "dumb savages" in terms of religion, but we get ferverous over something like this. It's like that one quote by Martin Niemoller that states:
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]
scrawled by E-Man | November 12, 2008 11:56 PM
As I recall opposing viewpoints rarely get posted on this site, but I'll give it a shot anyway. I am a black Christian Californian resident. Last week I was given the option to vote for or against an issue I am deeply opposed to. Of course I voted my conscience. The fallacy in your assumptions was that this was a majority Christian issue. If California tended toward the Christian right we would be not represented by the two ladies holding the post of US Senator. On the same ballot Prop 4 suggested the concept that parents be notified by doctors before their minor children get abortions. A Christian slanted vote would've slam dunked that baby into law but it was struck down.
So maybe it wasn't us illiterate lemmings who were primarily responsible for voting Prop 8 into law. Maybe a diasporic majority of informed folks declared with our vote that we were not ready to redefine an institution for a segment of the population who already have the same rights under the law.
Talk about swiftboating. The issue wasn't about civil rights. We already have the most comprehensive domestic partnership law in the nation which explicitly gives the exact same right to civil unions as marriages have. It was about forcing the mainstream to accept behaviour and a lifestyle that they find objectionable. Anybody still listening to Focus on the Family would've voted that way anyway. There were a lot of others who just thought it was wrong.
Personally, yes, I let the Bible lead me, the entire Bible, not just the red letters. Btw, who do you think Abraham was speaking to in Genesis chapter 18 about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? The Bible identifies Him as the LORD (YHWH). But we know no man has seen God the father and lived. It was a preincarnate Jesus. And yes He spoke quite definitively on the issue of homosexuality (and evil in general). Paul did too. It was a bit pompous of you, Christopher J. Priest to assume we don't know the reason for our position when even your initial point is misleading, if not outright false. Obama stated at both the Saqddleback interview and the second debate that he did not endorse gay marriage. I don't either. I don't support laws allowing theft because there are kleptomaniacs. I don't support laws allowing bigamy (3 or more consenting adults there) because there are people that want to have threesomes. I don't support laws that make divorce easy either. But I seem to be overruled in that category.
Deac
scrawled by Michael A. Daniels | November 13, 2008 2:02 AM
Priest, I truly love you writings on the subject of gays. I do not have the same beliefs as you but I feel respected when I read what you have to say. As a Catholic, I believe MY Catholic Church would have weddings for all, with the same respect and preparation as "normal" weddings. To me, that is the Sacrament of Matrimony! But I also believe in Liberation Theology and the most recent popes have condemned it. Too close to the commies.
The way to honor the sacrament of matrimony is to properly prepare for the marriage and to remove the focus on the wedding.
Slick: I live in San Francisco, in the Bayview/HuntersPoint hood (BVHP). I am active in a (mostly)faith-based group, San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP.org) Most of our LOCs are Catholic churches but a large group of LOCs are "black churches" (AME & Baptist). We now have a LGBT congregation - Congregation Sha'ar Zahav - and there has been conflict at the board level on this issue. The Catholic LOCs did not have an issue with "No on 8" but the black churches did. All of the "Yes on 8" that any of the people I talked to were in the BVHP. BVHP has the greatest AA population in San Francisco.
Besides the "church" part of the support for 8 one factor I became aware of is that many AAs HATE the gay rights=civil rights analogy. Every time I have had this discussion "passing" comes up. Let me tell you, my gay offspring can pass, my gay offspring's partner cannot!
This is a complex issue and my work on the "No on 8" campaign made it clear to me that most people have trouble with the following items:
1 - Civil Rights are rights that all have through civil law - civil rights referrers to MORE than the Civil Rights Movement
2 - Marriage Licenses come from CIVIL authorities, not religious. A wedding MAY be religious but to be legal the wedding MUST have the civil license
3 - Health & Family Living classes in California Public School include notice to the parents/guardians on how to exempt their children from these classes. No sex ed or other health ed takes place if parents/guardians have done their duty. Of course, this does not include history or civics classes....
4 - ALL of the first graders who went to City Hall for the wedding of their teacher had permission of their parents/guardians. The teacher did not plan this, it was done as a surprise for her. One parent had the idea to have the kids surprise the teacher and her new wife by having the kids throwing rose petals as they left City Hall. The kids didn't even miss class - it took place at lunch. This was not a "normal" public school, it is an art-focused charter school. Of course, in SF none of our public schools are "normal" in the eyes of much of the county....and that is the way I like it.
I am just your basic middle-aged, straight, Catholic, female, San Franciscan, CPA, liberal, mother-of more-than-one, who is against abortion, who is pro-choice and will be active in groups like PFLAG and Fortunate Families (Catholic Families Advocating Respect and Justice for their Gay & Lesbian Children) after all of my offspring who need to come out have done so. Nothing weird there...
Oh..., and I still collect comic books....
Maybe I spoke too soon...
scrawled by Eileen | November 13, 2008 3:29 AM
Michael A. Daniels...
I'll ask the same question Olbermann asked: "What is it to you?" There are laws against theft because that harms others -- the two situations are not remotely comparable, and I'll thank you to not make such false comparisons in the future. Who is harmed if homosexuals are permitted to marry? As Priest points out, it harms your marriage not one bit. How are you harmed?
And by the way, 'because it makes me feel icky' is not an acceptible answer. 'Because I do not approve' is not an acceptible answer. Those are not good reasons for making something illegal... the only good reason for that is HARM. What harm is caused by George Takei (for example) being married?
scrawled by James Carman | November 13, 2008 5:56 PM
Eileen: I live in NYC, so I have a more distanced look on things. But I do have friends and family out there, so I'm slightly more informed than most out of staters. I least I like to think I am.
I'm not arguing with you about gay rights = civil rights, because I agree with you there.
My point is that the black vote is being treated as if it was the sole reason/biggest reason why Prop 8 passed, when it wasn't. You switch every black vote from Yes on 8 to No, and 8 still passes anyway. Peeling off black votes was more of an insurance policy by the Yes on 8 people, something to pad the score in their favor, just in case things were that close.
A lot of things went wrong for Prop 8 to pass, and placing the blame largely at the feet of the black community when their votes would NOT have swung the election towards "no" strikes me as...
...well, it strikes me as a lot of things, none of which I like. But mostly it strikes me as being an unbelievably stupid move. If the LGBT community is looking for support from the black community, this is the wrong way to go about it.
scrawled by Slick | November 13, 2008 11:52 PM
I doubt this is the ‘final word’ about this issue in California, or other states.. Hopefully the LGBT communities of color, especially those individuals of faith, will become more active about educating their peers and broader communities about the issue.. regarding the Bible, many people want to hold on to the hardline- stoning & head-chopping-justice of the old testament while ostensibly, as Christians, they should be about the messages from Jesus in the Gospel.. many (most?) conservative christians denounce any notion that the books of the bible have been altered at all over the centuries or that any of its transcribers struggled with the human ills of intolerance, bigotry, egotism, political opportunism, etc… any parallels with hardline Islam views tend to be ignored, mainly because, well, it’s Islam, and therefore “pagan/satanic/heretical, etc.”.. christians of color parroting the “white” religious right on abortion/gays and being hawkishly uncritical of the status quo in the middle east tends to be the trend, while quietly ignoring the fact that the most hardcore of conservative white evangelicals (and nowadays, many conservative catholics) have tended to be openly against civil rights initiatives, anti-labor unions, anti-gender parity, etc.
scrawled by christopher currie | November 14, 2008 1:21 PM
The success of Prop. 8 is certainly an act of God. The "Yes for 8" folks had to contend with a pro-gay opposition backed by Hollywood, several major corporations, a "No to 8" Republican governor, and a hostile mass media. From a human perspective, Prop. 8 should have really lost.
But God picked the one candidate (Obama) who would indirectly restore traditional marriage to California. Obama's presence on the ticket ensured a huge influx of Black voters, who think homosexuality is a sinful, unhealthy lifestyle. (Not surprisingly, Obama concealed his pro-gay beliefs when speaking to Black voters.) These voters feel even more vindicated after enduring blatant racism from "tolerant" White gay activists:
http://www.yrnetwork.com/jumplinks.aspx?goto=http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2008/11/n.html&ref=news
Am I the only disgusted by gay activists claiming to be "peaceful" activists (e.g., Dr. King) while acting like the KKK?
More examples of God's work abound. One of the most vocal supporters of Prop. 8 is a pro-gay liberal Democrat, David Blankenhorn of the LA Times:
http://www.citizenlink.org/clcommentary/A000008240.cfm
Then, there were homosexuals who voted FOR Prop. 8:
http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14623
This doesn't surprise me. I met a gay bookseller who didn't want to "marry" and thus didn't share gay activists' goals. Homosexuals aren't monolithic, after all.
Then, there was the gay teacher who decided to get "married" to her girlfriend in front of her kindergarten class. This proved Prop. 8's argument that gay marriage would be taught to kids without parental consent:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000008437.cfm
http://protectmarriage.com/video/view/7
And there was the large donations from the Mormons, who felt even more motivated to support Prop. 8 after this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE
http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/condemnation-grows-for-offensive-no-on-8-tv-ad
Attacking someone's religious beliefs is a sure way to get on their bad side.
In short, it wasn't just Black people who got Prop. 8 passed. Instead, it was passed by a broad coalition that included virtually every race, gender, political party, religion, educational level, and sexual preference.
Only God could pull that off. Thus, he deserves all the praise and glory for such a miracle.
scrawled by Fred | November 14, 2008 6:34 PM
Ok, Fred, since you're obviously a supporter of Prop 8, I have to ask...
What do you actually get out of Prop 8?
At least with things like slavery, segregation, and the like, I can at least see the motives that come in addition to pointless hate (mainly consolidation of power), but Prop 8...
What the hell do supporters get out of it? What's the actual upside?
People won't magically stop being gay. And gay people won't stop falling in love with each other.
And when gay couple were allowed to get married, straight couple still retained the same benefits, straight people didn't magically turn gay, gay marriage was't taught in schools without parental concent (Also, to debunk your myth, the PARENTS of those first graders APPROVED of their children going to see their teacher get married. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Get better sources), children weren't psychologically or physically harmed in any way, families didn't mythically fall apart, any church that felt that gay marriage was against their religious doctrine had the right to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples and not be sued for discrimination (you know, actual separation of church and state), and California didn't sink straight into the pits of hell.
So, really, what's all the bluster about? What is there that's being threatened?
Also, on a semi-related note, any Prop 8 supporters need to stop whining about intolerance. You are not the victims here. Or are you just that stupid that you fail to realize what you've done? Gay people had the right to get married. It was an actual law that was written down in the books. You supportered a law whose sole purpose for existing, far as I can see, was to take that right away from them, not because it was harmful, but because you think gayness is icky. They have every right to be pissed as hell that it happened.
Don't you get that? You crossed a line here. That's like a slave owner saying to a slave "You're being intolerant of my ownership of you! The law is the law and it says you're my property, and so does God's will, now stop whining and be ok with it you intolerant jerks!"
Honestly, the official ballot title of Prop 8 was "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry". If you replace the words "same-sex" with "interracial", "jewish", or "muslim", you know what? It's exactly the same thing. What kind of God do you worship that this is what you believe in?
scrawled by Slick | November 17, 2008 5:11 PM
Slick, I just wanted to comment on your first comment (ugh, same word in the same sentence. Bad grammer, bad!). I don't think that Priest was laying the blame for its passing on black people, merely that he was disappointed in them that they didn't support it more, as it is a civil rights issue -- rights that black people fought long and hard for. So to see them deny similar rights to someone else is sad to see.
Though I admit I could be wrong as Priest hasn't commented as of yet, nor do I want to be seen as putting words in his mouth. That was simply my interpretation.
scrawled by Bryan H | November 18, 2008 10:43 PM
Dear James Carman,
Forgive me if I don't accept your gratitude as it was delivered on a false premise. The comparison between those two behaviours is obvious, they're both sinful. I don't have to get anything out of it to do what's right. It's its own reward. Abortion does'nt hurt me (physically)either, but given the chance I'll vote against this form of infanticide every time. Sin is sin, and despite the fact that the world gets more sinful everyday when given the chance to vote for what's right as they see it, they should do so.
And Chris Currie, it would be my pleasure to compare notes with you some time on the authenticity of the Biblical manuscripts.
Deac
scrawled by Michael A. Daniels | November 19, 2008 10:15 PM
Slick wrote
"Honestly, the official ballot title of Prop 8 was "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry". If you replace the words "same-sex" with "interracial", "jewish", or "muslim", you know what? It's exactly the same thing. What kind of God do you worship that this is what you believe in?"
And what about Californians' right to have their vote counted and respected?
Back in 2000, a majority of Californians voted for a statute that defined marriage as one man and one woman. Case closed, right?
Wrong. A gay couple took the matter to the State Supreme Court, which decided to legalize gay "marriage" early this year. It didn't matter that judges aren't suppose to create laws from the bench. And the judges certainly didn't respect the votes-and will-of their fellow Californians.
In short, the California Supreme Court tossed out a basic right (voting) simply because the people made the "wrong" choice. You expect the KKK, Nazis, communists, bloodthristy dictators to gleefully trample on basic human rights. But a state court in the USA?!
Is it any wonder Prop. 8 got such staunch support from Black people, who've had to suffer through a century of voter intimidation and disenfranchisement? (BTW, isn't it interesting that gay activists like voter disenfranchisement when they benefit?)
As for the God question, I serve a God (Jesus Christ) who is about justice, goodness, love and truth. These qualities were absent when voting rights were trampled on to legalize gay "marriage" in California.
scrawled by Fred | November 26, 2008 4:20 PM
@Bryan H
I was about to comment on your equating civil rights to gay rights. But Tara Wall beat me to it in her commentary on the debate over Prop. 8 passing.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/18/a-marriage-mandate/
This excerpt sums it up:
"Most fervent - and troubling - of this debate though is the bubbling race war between white liberals and black conservative Democrats. Comedian Roseanne Barr (who knew she still existed?) wrote on her Web site this week: "they [black Californians] are just as bigoted and ignorant as their white Christian right wing counterparts." And she is just as ignorant as the activists who equate civil rights and gay rights.
Black civil and religious leaders - rightfully - have expressed outrage at the gay community's co-opting "civil rights" to include gay sex. Blacks were stoned, hung, and dragged for their constitutional right to 'sit at the table.' Whites - gay or not - already had a seat at that table. There is no comparison. Activists argue that, like skin color, gays don't choose their lifestyle. Even if, for the sake of argument, that were so, homosexuals are still "choosing" to get married. To compare voters denying what is not a right to blacks dying for what is - is beyond the pale."
Exactly.
scrawled by Fred | November 26, 2008 4:51 PM
There are two points I'll add to why many Black people don't buy the "gay rights = civil rights" argument:
1. There is no concrete scientific proof that homosexuality is solely the result of genes like skin color. Even some homosexuals acknowledge this. A great example is gay activist Peter Tatchell, writer of "Homosexuality: It Isn't Natural":
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5375/
http://www.citizenlink.org/turnsignal/A000007949.cfm
2. Since Prop. 8 passed, gay activists have been vandalizing churches, hurling death threats, and acting racist toward Black people.
http://www.yrnetwork.com/jumplinks.aspx?goto=http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2008/11/n.html&ref=news
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2008/11/19/are-white-homosexuals-protesting-in-black-neighborhoods/
These tactics remind Black people more of the KKK than Dr. King, who responded to his opponents in a loving, peaceful, and rational manner.
Given the evidence, it makes sense that many Black people like myself don't support gay activists' goals.
scrawled by Fred | November 26, 2008 5:03 PM
Fred?
The court system of the US has two major functions. First and foremost is to uphold the law, and decide if people accused of violating the law have done so. The second function is to allow citizens a path to challenge the laws as they are written, thus to ensure that laws aren't in conflict with each other, or with the letter and spirit of the constitution.
People VOTED in favor of things like Jim Crow laws. You know, things that would have people like you and me and Priest drinking from separate water fountains, going to separate schools, sitting in the back of the bus and what not. Those laws, which, again, were voted on, were overturned BY THE COURTS because the courts, upon examination, found that the laws, as written and instituted, violated the basic rights that ALL human beings are entitled to.
That you fail to see any kind parallel is disappointing, to say the least.
Regardless, last time I checked, homosexuals were still human beings. They were granted the right to legally marry, which entitled them all the benefits of marriage, such as property rights, extension of insurance coverage, the ability to file taxes jointly, and things of that nature. Them doing that in no way infringed on the rights of others, nor did it cause any harm to "traditional" married couples or the children.
And that right was taken away from them by ignorant, pitiful individuals like yourself, who hide their homophobia behind their religion. It really is quite disgusting.
scrawled by Slick | December 1, 2008 5:15 PM
@ Slick
A few things.
First, marriage isn't a right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or California's constitution for that matter.
Second, Jim Crow laws were eliminated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was passed by Congressmen elected by the people:
http://www.africanamericans.com/CivilRightsActof1964.htm
If he hadn't been assasinated, John F. Kennedy (also elected by the people) would have signed the act into law. That honor instead went to his successor, Lyndon Johnson.
Bottom line unelected judges in the courts had NOTHING to do with ending Jim Crow in the U.S. I don't know where you heard otherwise, but your info is dead wrong.
Finally, domestic partnerships in California grant gay couple the very rights you mentioned earlier like joint ownership and insurance extension. The passing of Prop. 8 did not change this status quo. Hence, there are homosexuals like singer Elton John who don't think gay "marriage" is necessary:
"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/elton-john-where-prop-8-went-wrong
In short, the evidence does not support your stance on gay "marriage."
scrawled by Fred | December 6, 2008 4:30 PM
Slick wrote:
"And that right was taken away from them by ignorant, pitiful individuals like yourself, who hide their homophobia behind their religion. It really is quite disgusting."
The following video on "No to 8" protest has appeared on the web. Here is a link:
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/traditionalfamily/samesexmarriage.aspx?cid=4564&referral=I1108YT
Who is acting "ignorant" and "disgusting" in the coverage above? The praying Christians? Or the gay activists?
Just something to think about.
scrawled by Fred | December 6, 2008 5:04 PM
Newsweek article:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653?gt1=43002
scrawled by Christopher Currie | December 10, 2008 2:45 PM
There are major holes in the Newsweek "article" you cited. Here are some.
First, despite Ms. Miller's claims, Jesus Christ defines marriage several times as a union of one man and one woman. Here is one of the best known passages:
"He [Jesus] answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
Matthew 19:4-6
Second, the Bible refutes Ms. Miller's claim that the Apostle Paul condemned male homosexuality, not lesbianism:
"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
Romans 1:24-27
Finally, Miller brings up a stale argument used by past and present enemies of God. That't the myth that the Bible promotes slavery. This is refuted by 1 Timothy 1:8-10:
"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine"
God's Word clearly condemns slavery, which in His eyes is as sinful as homosexuality. However, like slave masters before her, Miller is too busy twisting God's Word for her own agenda to see the obvious truth.
What's sad is that Miller misses the underlying point of the Bible. God's Word is not His way of oppressing us, but instead freeing us from the slavery of sin: drug addiction, stealing, murder, homosexuality, racism. And this liberation is in the form of Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for mankind's sins and rose from the dead. Hence, Christ proved that He was the one who saves those who repent of their sin and receive Him as Lord and Savior.
In short, Miller's article is true homophobia by leading people toward destruction instead of the salvation and freedom offered by Christ.
scrawled by Fred | December 16, 2008 5:27 PM
@Christopher Currie
I forgot.
Here are some commentaries on the Bible and homosexuality you should find of interest.
*Joe Dallas:
http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2722173/k.B420/DG238.htm
*Dr. Al Mohler:
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2881
*Dr. Robert Gagnon:
http://robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm
Just something to ponder.
scrawled by Fred | December 16, 2008 6:00 PM