In 2000, voters across the state passed (by a majority of over 61%) Prop 22, which said that marriage was between a man and a woman. That just wasn't good enough for some judges, though, was it? No. These activist judges came together to castigate the California public for being so closed-minded and to go over the heads of the voters because, after all, these 7 people clearly know what is best for the state. This ABSURD decision by the court has resulted in gay marriage becoming legalized (if only temporarily) rather publicly, with celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres marrying her partner in a ceremony she shared with magazines and her viewers.
Allowing Prop 8 to be defeated doesn't just give same sex couples the right to wed, however. It gives the state government the authority to sue churches and arrest ministers who decry gay marriage or refuse to allow the ceremonies to take place in their churches. It allows the state to tell children all about marriage and same-sex marriage, regardless of the parent's wishes in the matter. It allows the state to arrest wedding photographers, caterers, deejays, and other professionals who refuse to serve at same-sex ceremonies because of their own personal religious beliefs for committing "hate crimes."
And although only voters in California get to decide the issue, this is not an isolated law. If gay marriage is recognized in California, couples from out of state who marry in California have to be recognized as married everywhere in the United States, so that, theoretically, these same problems can arise nationwide.
Before you all label me as a bigot or a homophobe, let me say right now that I know many, many gay people, have a lot of gay friends, and am of the general feeling that, hey, if you fall in love with someone who happens to be of the same gender, who am I to diminish that love? I wish that more companies would give gay workers insurance benefits for their same-sex partners, and feel that hospitals and other institutions should recognize the role that one half of a same-sex couple plays in the life of their partner. I am all for not only allowing but actively promoting civil unions as a method of obtaining these civil rights for gay couples.
But gay MARRIAGE...?
Marriage is sanctified in the Bible as being between a man and a woman. As one of my friends so often says, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." It is the opinion of many that the main purpose of a marriage is to produce children (Gen 9:7) and provide stable homes for them. Same-sex partnerships do not naturally produce children, and while (relatively) new science and modern technology has made it possible to become pregnant in a non-traditional method (without having heterosexual intercourse), it is proven that children reared in non-traditional homes with same-sex partners for parents often have more problems with emotional stability and adjusting to "normal" relationships and family structures.
Prop 8 is NOT a measure that is designed to attack gay couples, or take away the rights that they are already given under California state law. In fact, California already grants same-sex couples all of the rights that it can grant to a married couple, it simply hasn't given it the name "marriage."
While I think that it is for each person to decide his or her own life and lifestyle, and for each person to love someone else without interference from the government, I don't believe that it is the place of the court or the place of the state government to tell me how to practice my religious beliefs or how to raise my children. And that is exactly what Prop 8 would be doing -- giving those rights to the state and not to the people.
Posts
7 comments:
I'd like to throw some info from another source that says kids raised by gay parents aren't necessarily any worse off than those raised by a heterosexual couple. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm Check it out. :) Nice blog.
Thanks Amy! I totally read that article, actually, but if you read the content of the paper that I linked to my blog, you'll see that the author did research about the validity of such indidvidual claims, and found that the faulty psychological research conducted really couldn't be counted on...
In your last paragraph you said that marriage was sanctioned by The Bible. Yet further up, you said you believed gay couples should have more rights. Homosexuality is condemned in The Bible. That is the whole problem with this issue. People pick and choose what they want out of The Bible. You can't argue a Biblical sanction if you aren't arguing a Biblical sin as well.
You've noticed that I refrained from passing a biblical judgement on homosexuality. Correct. The thing is, homosexuality IS viewed as a sin. It's mentioned as detestable and despicable numerous times, and the Bible clearly states that people who engage in sexual perversions (which includes sodomy in its biblical definition). I'm not passing judgement precisely because I don't want to be labeled as a homophobe or a bigot, but when you get right down to it, it IS a sin. However, the right to pass judgment on that sin is God and God's alone, and so I reserve judgmenet. Committing a sin doesn't make you a BAD person, it just means you've made BAD choices.
There is one thing I do not understand about the entire thing and perhaps you can clarify: why do voters get to determine a minority group's fundamental civil rights? When you write about the clear rejection of gay marriage in 2000 by California voters not being good enough by some judges, I don't understand why it should necessarily be an issue posed to the electorate at all.
Along these thoughts, I keep thinking back to the Civil Rights movement in America. In the situation of educational segregation in Kansas, did Kansas ask the voters, "should black and white children have equal educational opportunities?" No-- and likely if they had, voters would have said no. Instead it was up to the court to protect the fundamental rights of a group of people discriminated against.
I agree that judges shouldn't "legislate from the bench" but I'm concerned about the idea that it seems like Yes on 8 proponents are blurring the lines between what should be decided in court and what should be decided by the American people.
Your comments about the Bible (although I disagree with them) are fine. I mean, if you want to get into the nuances of it, it's a sin to eat shellfish. It's even described as an "abomination" as is sodomy. So next time someone uses the justification of judgment against gay couples as it being an "abomination under God" they better check their dietary habits among a list of about a zillion other things.
The funny thing about the Bible is people take it literally when it was never meant to be. For example, I know all the Bible thumpers love to talk about the book of Revelation (some even used it to come up with bogus emails about Obama being the anti-Christ...I received one, from a cousin, no less). In reality, according to Biblical scholars the book was most likely written as a story of encouragement to the Christian church during the time of Nero... Nero was symbolically the anti-Christ in the book. Clearly, I'm not accusing you of such thinking -- but, I'm pointing out how troublesome referring to the Bible is for cues on social norms and judgment about an activity. A lot of it was parable and most things described as an "abomination" or everyday things we do today (especially if you're a female...when's the last time you went into a separate home from a male family member just because you were menstruating?).
I honestly think that eventually Americans will come to view Constitutional gay marriage bans much in the way we know view former miscegenation laws in which blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. I have a hard time discerning real differences there-- and from some research I've done it looks like most of the same justifications were used in recent decision by the California court to overturn the 2000 decision (namely the equal protection clause).
I take issue with the current Republican party because they're no longer the party of keeping government out of your life. If they were actually still that party, I may not as certainly call myself a Democrat. But the attempt of the conservative movement to reach into people's personal life from marriage to abortion is troublesome to me.
I also take issue with the idea that clergy would have been able to be sued under Prop. 8. It simply isn't true and was a very exaggerated threat by the proponents of 8. My father (a Lutheran pastor) and I had a long chat about the subject. The truth of the matter is that he doesn't HAVE to marry anyone currently. He could say no if you and Joe the Plumber wanted to get married and he didn't want to-- with no reason provided. The law would prevent the state from discriminating but cannot possibly regulate private churches on who they choose to marry-- and quite honestly I don't think that many conservative churches run the risk of having waves of gay couples wanting to be married in their churches. Why would anyone want to be married in a atmosphere of judgment and hatred? And I don't mean in general- I mean in respect to their lifestyle.
Lastly, the issue of it being taught in public schools (I glanced at the link you provided to the Yes on 8 article). I suppose it's true. If a teacher in a public school did a lesson on marriage (which I don't remember taught) they would have to state that men and men can get married-- as well as women to women, etc. However, due to our lovely Bakersfield home, I know a lot of (not the brightest) folks who fundamentally disagree with the idea of evolution. Yet, it's taught as a theory in public schools. Those parents have to then teach their children within the home that evolution is not true- and that God created the world in seven days. It would be a similar thing in this case. Not all parents agree with everything public schools teach. They can rectify that in the home-- like perhaps many do from evolution to sex education.
I don't think you're a bigot. I don't think you're a homophobe. I don't want to tar and feather you. I just honestly think you don't get it. I too have gay friends and talking to them today has been heartbreaking.
Anyway- I honestly would appreciate a reply about the idea of it being a voter issue. It continues to baffle me.
I'm new to reading your blog, and I have to ask you do you personally know any homosexual couples raising children? I ask you this because my uncle and his partner have been together for over 30 years, and they are raising two wonderful children whom they adopted together. My uncle's are better parents than the majority of heterosexual parents I know, and their children are growing up happy and marvelously well adjusted. I suggest maybe you talk to some children who were raised by homosexual parents first before you quote some bogus article.
I do indeed know gay couples raising wonderful children, just as I know heterosexual couples who raise children who are rather messed up.
I'm not saying that your uncles will raise bad children, but I'm saying that psychologically it is statistically proven that children raised in same-sex parent households are GENERALLY plagued by more emotional and psychological problems that children raised in heterosexual couple homes.
This doesn't mean that there won't be children who had a traditional family upbringing that now need help for emotional issues, and it doesn't mean that ALL children who had two dads or two moms will need to have a therapist on speed dial. It's just a statistical generalization.
Post a Comment