On November 4th, Californians again will vote on whether to keep marriage defined between one man and one woman. If Prop. 8 fails, California will follow the State of Connecticut granting gay couples (plural) the right (singular) to marry. And my question is this, I thought state constitutions granted rights to individuals and not couples? Does any state constitution give “couples” a right to do anything? I'm no law expert by any means so please educate me.
However, I believe those that wish Prop. 8 to fail (a "NO" vote), the basis then of demanding that every "couple" be given the same right to marry is a loaded one. How could they possibly believe that a prohibition on SAME-FAMILY marriage or poligamy be constitutional?
And in regards to marriage rights, where in the Constitution--state or federal-- guarantees the right for everyone to marry anyone? Doesn't it only guarantee that the definition of marriage decided on by the people, will be applied to every person equally? The "Seperate but Not Equal" term (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka May 17, 1954) is totally irrelavant in this case of Same-Sex Marriage. The color of skin you were born with does not compare to one's choice of sexual orientation. There isn't enough scientific data to prove it either. But let's leave that topic for another day.
So, where does this "right to marry" come from? To quote from William J Federer, on his article, "Three Secular Reasons Why America Should be Under God", he makes the following points,
"Why is marriage so significant in the eye of the individual and the state? These ideas have origins. And they just didn’t pop into existence when the Constitution of the United States was drafted. Let’s go back a bit further, the Declaration states "all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men." In other words, rights come from God and government's job is to protect your rights. In his Inaugural Address, 1961, President John F. Kennedy put it this way: "The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God." But if there is no God, where can the rights come from except from the "generosity of the State." The State, then, becomes the new god. And what the State "giveth," the State can "taketh awayeth."And to add, Christians in favor of marriage rights for same-sex couples, really need to read their copy of the scriptures. Specifically the following scripture, 1 Corinthians 6:9,
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders,".Bigotry? Intolerance, by all means no! For one, on the surface, it's a matter of survival. As Justice Peter T. Zarella, a Conneticut judge who was in the minority in recent 4-to-3 decision, suggested in his dissenting opinion, “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry,"
What do you say? Thank you for reading. God bless. (Excuse any grammatical errors. It's late here on the West Coast!)
3 comments:
The individuals will have the right to marry anyone they like, regardless of gender. They don't want anything that you don't also enjoy, namely the right to marry the person that they love.
As we stand today the law allows a same sex couple in 3 US states to marry and receive the same rights and privileges as married couples of difference genders. By what constitutional or religious precedent do you seek to remove that right? That is what you are talking about, to say to a married couple that they are no longer married in the eyes of the law.
All this is secondary to religion though. The bible has so little to say on homosexuality that it is almost irrelevant. The words used were badly translated from Greek anyway. He didn't use the common Greek word for homosexuals but made up a new word. Some biblical scholars identify this to mean male to male rapists. That fits the biblical text.
Ordinary, loving, gay relationships were not considered bad or wrong in first century Greece. Instead they were normal and acceptable. It's really a recent interpretation of the last 500 years or so that labels gays as wrong.
Now if you were arguing that the state has no business interfering with marriage then you'd have a point. Why should marriage be state regulated or state supported? Why not leave it as a purely faith based ritual? However, as things stand, the state supports marriage so the state needs to treat all citizens equally. Why shouldn't they?
It's not a matter of not granting individuals anything heterosexuals enjoy, such as marrying the person they love, that's beside the point. What if Susie, who is 16, is absolutely in love with Tom, who's 41 and feels the same for Susie. And it's a consenting relationship that Susies' Mom approves? Why not grant them the right to marry? What if they were Stepbrother and stepsister? What stops a prohibition on their "fundamental right" to marry?
Regarding the three states granting gay couples the right to marry, scoreboard, 27-3. 27 states already have passed constitutional amendments to protect marriage and the majority of Americans in the other remaining states I'm sure will also support traditional marriage. It's an obvious total revision of what God has designed for the male and female biologically to do in order for society to advance.
Naturally speaking, it's evident to the senses that male parts were made to fit into female parts. I know my Toyota keys will fit into my Toyota and not my brother's Chevy. If I try to force my Toyota keys into the Chevy ignition, I know one of them will break. I argue that homosexuality is contrary to the way the body was designed. For thousands of years, practically every religion and so-called, areligious culture, not just the Christians...has defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
My reply is somewhat of a post-modern deconstruction of your comment. And it's very hard for me to do that, because I'm a straight Biblicist. My standard is, and only will be what God has said in His word. However, at the same time, when the subject has to do with homosexuality, it's rather easy due to the obvious biological reasons.
YOU SAID: "The bible has so little to say on homosexuality that it is almost irrelevant."
Wow. That's an extraordinary statement. Are you a theologian? I ask in all honestly really because we can have a separate friendly exchange just on that unconscious assertion.
YOU SAID: "Why should marriage be state regulated or state supported? Why not leave it as a purely faith based ritual? "
True. I didn't mention that. My PoliSci professor, a liberal surprisingly, mentioned it the other day in class and said verbatim what you commented! Is this professor Jenny? JK!
Look, who isn't for being treated equally? I can argue that the idea of equal treatment has its origin from scripture. But back to Rights. If my girlfriend wanted to see me in the hospital, and say we've been together for 20 years, she still wouldn't have the same rights granted as the wife of the man next to me in the ER room, who has only been married to her husband for one year.
I don't hear "Girlfriend Rights" groups out in the streets arguing their case for equal treatment. What about my 12year old son? He feels he’s not being treated equally as everyone else by not being able to drive out on the public highways. He “loves” cars and NASCAR.
And I can't join the local golf club because I don't make enough money. Where are my rights there?
Silly?
You may say so. But I’m trying to illustrate my point of equality. And not for sake of making a point either.
Besides, the California Family Code already grants the same rights, protections and benefits as married couples do to registered domestic partners. So the No on 8 advocates are obviously throwing the public red-herrings, asserting that this proposition has nothing to do with the homosexual lifestyle being taught in public schools.
TAGQ asked about 16 year old Suzie and 41 year old Tom.. There are some differences in legal age between our nations. In England a person can marry at 16 so their relationship would be perfectly legal. I would not approve of it just as I would probably not approve of a same sex relationship as I am heterosexual and find the idea a bit distasteful. Of course my own tastes and prejudices are irrelevant to what is legal and what it acceptable to other parts of society that do not share my prejudices. Similarly step siblings are free to marry. I'm not sure if there is a prohibition against them in your state but if there is then how is this reasonable? The restriction on blood relatives breeding is based in biology and makes reasonably sense.
TAGQ pointed out that male and female genitalia appear to fit together well. That is certainly a truism. There are also other kinds of sex that don't involve the male and female sex organs in close contact. Is there some kind of moral restriction on oral sex that I don't know about? Is heterosexual anal sex morally wrong? What about masturbation (solo or mutual), is that wrong too? Besides which we're talking about marriage here and not sex. Oh a married couple certainly enjoy sex but marriage isn't a prerequisite for a sex life and gay sex is not illegal.
Marriage is a civil contract with religious overtones between two consenting adults who promise to remain faithful and share certain responsibilities. How can that be harmed by allowing the consenting adults to be of the same sex?
If you are basing your idea of marriage on biblical verses alone then I must point out that the consensus is that it is better not to marry (1 Corinthians 7) but OK if you can't resist sex. In fact the bible has more to say about not marrying than it does about homosexuality.
TAGQ mentioned rights for other people. The rights for family members to visit relatives in hospital are often relaxed to include a partner. Homosexual couples get treated differently because they are discriminated against. The change in the law to allow gay couples to wed would eliminate this discrimination. A child cannot drive because he or she has not received the proper training to drive and is ergonomically too small to fit in the driver's seat. Even mentioning such a silly idea show that you are dissembling. You have the right to join the expensive golf club, no-one is discriminating against you and denying you that right. The fees are irrelevant to the issue of discrimination.
Post a Comment