(RSS)
The Bible Doesn’t Tell Me So
By Mark Calkins
While reviewing a daily devotional I came across this information posted by “Cathedral of Hope”: On Dec. 12, 1912, U.S. Representative Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia proposed a Constitutional Amendment that read, in part:
“Intermarriage between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians within the United States … is forever prohibited.”
This amendment failed to pass, although 90 percent of Americans at the time opposed inter-racial marriage. In 1958 the opposition was up to 96 percent. That year a Virginia judge explained the state law barring interracial marriages by saying, “Obviously Almighty God did not intend for the races to mix since each race was initially placed on a separate continent.”
The U.S. Supreme Court finally overturned those laws, but not until 1967.
Marriage, in its present historic form, has rightly been seen as a flawed and generally sexist institution. Many in the lesbian/gay community do not want to simply buy into an institution which has historically been based more on property rights than love.
It is no accident that the pastor or priest traditionally asks, “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?” Women were historically regarded as the property of men to be given and received. The whole idea behind a dowry was that a father paid a man to take his daughter off his hands. It is little wonder we want no part of that system.
So why do gay and lesbians need the state’s approval?
Well, in this country there are over 1,100 civil protections afforded legally married couples that are not available to same-sex couples. Britney Spears, who got married for 24 hours as a joke, received all of those protections, yet gay or lesbian couples together for 24 years get none of them:
• Hospital Visitation: Heterosexually married couples are considered next-of-kin for the purpose of making medical decisions, or even hospital visitation. With my own eyes I have seen long-term partners excluded from their dying lovers’ hospital rooms because they were not legally family.
• Ultimate Decisions: The legal protection of marriage is the only way to insure we get to make ultimate decisions.
•Health Insurance: Many corporate or government employees are able to provide health insurance for their husband or wife, but same-sex couples don’t receive this benefit. Even if a company does provide domestic partner benefits, the same-sex partner is forced to pay income tax on the value of the insurance.
• Estate taxes: A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her spouse without paying taxes. A gay or lesbian spouse must pay estate taxes as if they had received an inheritance from a stranger.
• Retirement Savings: A married person can roll a deceased spouse’s 401k funds into an IRA without paying taxes, but a lesbian or gay American who inherits his or her partner’s 401K can end up paying a tax liability as great as 70 percent of the money they spent their lives saving.
• Family Leave: Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers have no such rights.
• Nursing Homes: Married couples have a legal right to live out their last days together in a nursing home. Lesbian and gay couples have no such protection at the end of their lives.
• Home Protection: Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay for the cost of their partners nursing home care. Same-sex couples have no such protection. In addition, in Texas, even jointly owned homes have to go through the probate process if they are owned by same-gender couples.
• Pensions: After the death of an employee most pension plans pay survivor benefits, but they only pay a legally married spouse. The gay or lesbian partner of a life-long employee is left with nothing.
This list could go on, but I hope you see that this is an issue with significant implications.
I would remind you that these are civil rights that are being denied to American taxpayers. Regardless of how someone might feel about the religious issues surrounding marriage, this is a matter of discrimination. The only difference is that heterosexual couples walk out of church with about 1,100 government and civil rights and protections that the same-sex taxpayers don’t get.
That is discrimination and it has nothing to do with what the Bible says and doesn’t say about marriage. Using the Bible as an argument against marriage is troubling. Consider what the Bible says about marriage, Jesus says nothing of same-sex marriage. He does, however, speak of divorce and remarriage. Look at your Bible, Mark 10, and consider what evangelist Tony Campolo says: ” What do you do with divorced people who remarry? Do you accept them in church? I mean, while Jesus never speaks about gay marriage, he speaks very clearly about those who remarry after a divorce. I don’t know many churches that enforce a no-remarriage rule.”
Has the church said, “We have to be faithful to Scripture about marriage, except on the issue of divorce and remarriage?” Or do we extend grace? Because if we’re going to show grace toward people who are divorced and remarried, an area Jesus specifically called sin, then how do you not show grace to people in a sexual relationship that Jesus never mentions?
Jesus states in Matthew, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery.”
Except for the most legalistic and fundamentalist, few Americans believe that divorce is sinful - unfortunate, even tragic, divorced heterosexuals are not treated as sinners, even though these are words appear in red in the gospels.
We interpret these words because the world is different than the one in which Jesus spoke. That is how it should be, but why is that different from same-sex couples asking for civil rights for their relationships?
The whole issue of same-gender marriage is about justice and fairness.
Vote NO on 8 and really protect marriage.
Mark Calkins lives and works in Redding.
1,748 views
You rock!
Reply
There is a difference between falling into sin and repenting; (turning from that sin and asking for forgiveness) and wallowing in sin… staying in it and living it day after day, with no turning from it.
Vote yes on Prop 8
Reply
Well said. Thanks.
Reply
Thank you Mark for explaining clearly that this issue is too important for our families to ignore.
VOTE NO on Prop. 8
Reply
The joke says that if you want to stop gay sex, then you let them get married and the sex stops.
While the law of man allows the privilege of practing sodomy, the law of God does not. Two people who stay together to sexually interact don’t become a couple in the same sense as a married couple do. Hetreo couples who choose not to marry enjoy their companionship, but refuse to get married know that they do not deserve the same protections since their relationship is less than married. In college I dated 3 women who each had something different that I loved. Assuming it was okay with each of them, I do I have to choose between the 3. Why restrict my love and what adults might want to do?
Reply
Luke 20:25
/discussion
Reply
GIVE ME A BREAK! ELLEN & ROSIE ARE ENOUGH. LIVE AND LET LIVE, BUT WILL WE SEE YOU IN HEAVEN??
Reply
You’ve made some really great points, especially with the civil rights arguments, and I agree with those. Discrimination because of sexual orientation is against the law, which is likely why if Prop. 8 passes, it will be in court very soon. However, California is a community property state, and even in a heterosexual marriage, the remaining spouse is not assured full inheritance of all of the deceased person’s property, and some portion may be subject to taxes. Check with a lawyer and/or CPA to be sure.
Reply
In regards to the ignorant “sodomy” comment above, I have to tell you I had much more sodomy with my husband than I have ever had with my girlfriend. Get real. This isnt about perversion. Its about the legal right to enter into a contract. I know alot of perverse heterosexuals you will not see in heaven. However with your judgemental attitude, I really doubt I will see YOU there. Stay in your own bedrooms and out of mine!
Reply
Mark
Re: All the rights that you say are denied gays. Most if not all these so called ‘rights’ can be afforded without granting the privilege of marriage. And since you’re so adept at quoiting the bible,I Ieave you with the following:
1CO 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
1CO 6:10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
VOTE YES ON 8
Reply
Wow. I didn’t realize that there were still so many religious people. I thought we had decided to follow logic & reason.
Reply
KUDOS RYAN! WOMEN + MEN WHAT A NOVEL IDEA!!
SOUUNDS LOGICAL AND REASONABLE TO US.
Reply
Mark, Thanks for a very excellent read. There are countless Christians who can’t see logic, due to the blindness of their dogma. Enlightenment will take them more time. My gay son has been in a 20 year committed relationship. I am going to forward your article to him. It will make his day! Kudos to you.
Dorothy Nethery
Reply
Mark,
Thank you for your article! Always a heated topic. I could go on and on here but I prefer to make my statemement at the polls.
…and that would be absolutely, positively NO on Proposition 8.
-amber asaro
Reply
yeah, that would be…statement. ; )
Reply
Larry, sorry to see that you continue to use the Bible in your arguements. I could continue to use the Bible in response to so many of the post. I don’t and won’t…Jesus’ love has taught me NOT to be judgemental in my response. It was Jesus and HIS love that carries me through each day. I read post and editorials of people that take the “christian high road” with comments like “we will see you in heaven” and feel pity and pray. It is not for you to determine my future but between me and God.
Reply
This country was founded on two very important beliefs, One; seperation of church and state, and two; freedom of religion. The day the first government agency required a license and charged a fee for people to get married, the term marriage became a legal issue not a religious one. Remember seperation of church and state, vote no on 8.
Don W
Reply
Mark.Your response to my post,and I quote,”sorry to see that you continue to use the Bible in your arguments”. Did you happen to look at the header on you piece? Just in case you missed it, it says “The Bible Doesn’t Tell Me So”, and you also quoted Mark 10. You really believe you can quote the Bible and at the same time take issue someone who does the same? You have to be kidding!
Reply
Mark,
You are correct that we should not judge one another, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 1:23. Everyone of us is a sinner in need of a savior. The wonderful thing about God’s salvation offered to us in the gift of His Son Jesus is that it is complete salvation. It does not just save us from the penalty for sin, but from sin itself. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9.
Is homosexuality a sin? The Biblical answer is a resounding yes. In Leviticus 18:22 we are told, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” That means it is sin. Leviticus 20:13 tells us that this sin, along with other sins of immorality, are some of the reasons that God destroyed the nations that inhabited the land of Canaan before Israel. When we look at this we need to remember that Jesus is the God of Israel, the God of the Old Testament. (See Ex. 24:9-11; John 1:18; 6:46; Ex. 3:13,14; John 8:58) Jesus said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15. Thus it is not surprising when there are statements in the New Testament such as, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” It goes on to list other sins and then refers to them all in saying, “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Romans 1:26,27,32.
Does this mean God doesn’t love you? Absolutely not! God loves you and hates the sin. The question is, which do you love more? It is not enough to believe, for the devils believe and tremble. The question is do you love Him enough to obey Him? We will all either allow God to separate us from sin, or we will allow sin to separate us from God. Will you choose to continue in sin, or surrender you life to Christ and make Him your Savior and Lord?
Reply
Thanks Larry. I don’t take issue with you…just pointing out that many times the same verses are used over and over again to talk about the gay issue and the Bible. There are more verses that talk about other issues and directed at the “straight” world of sex and marriage than there are gay. It amazes me that so many people quote those same verses and as I stated in the article, nothing is ever mentioned in the church about the number of people that are divorced and remarried — someting the bible also talks about, yet churches open their arms to these same “sinners and fornicators” to quote you. My point is that Jesus never mentioned homosexual relations. I also have to remember that He was ridiculed and shunned from the religious right also. Thanks again.
Reply
Randy - those same chapter you quoted from Leviticus states that women should not adorn themselves, cut their hair, or that people shouldn’t wear clothing of different materials. What about planting two different crops. Enough said.
Reply
Ryan,
Biblical Christianity is logical. If you want to see what man’s reason apart from the Bible does, just look to the blood that flowed freely on the streets of the cities of France in the French Revolution.
Logic says that a material universe formed as the result of purely physical processes could not have given rise to immaterial things. Logic says that if everything is simply the result of physical processes then, you are already programmed for everything you “think” and do, with no such thing as choice, for all of your choices would be foreordained from the inception of the universe.
Logic indicates there must be a more than material source to the universe if such immaterial things as numbers and love and honor and consciousness actually exist.
You can experience God for yourself if you really want. He says, “Ye shall seek me and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.” Put Him to the test. Seek Him with all your heart, and you will find Him.
Reply
Mark,
You specifically did not mention anything about the New Testament passages. They clearly condemn outside of the context of the other civil laws of Israel given in Leviticus. The adornment issue was also repeated in the New Testament in 2 Timothy 2 and 1 Peter 3. The wearing of jewelry as well as costly array is forbidden throughout scripture. It also is sin. If we would follow the other guidelines you mentioned in regards to the planting of crops as well as mingling of types of animals, our crops and herds would not be subject to so many of the diseases there are today.
Please respond to the New Testament passages of Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6. They are not bound in the context of Israelite civil law as the Leviticus passages are, yet clearly condemn homosexuality along with the other perversions of what God created. Remember God loves you and what He withholds is not for your good. He wants only what is best for you in light of eternity.
Reply
Gay people have the right to be as miserable & pathetic as the rest of us! No on Prop 8!
Reply
Gosh, I had not realized there were so many gay folks out there, so i won’t quote any Bible verses. One thing I do know, God gave women one kind of body and gave men another kind. Seems there may be something out of order in the gay situation. I think they could be “partners”, and they could achieve all the legalities that marriage affords. Sodomy was not what God meant to happen. Well, you all can’t be convinced. So be it.
Reply
I will always favor civil unions for gay folks so they have all the rights of marriage but we are now caught up in a struggle with all the confusion of competing agendas. And I suspect even if prop 8 passes that will not be the end of the matter. No one will give an inch to accommodate the other. Such is the political landscape of today.
Reply
I wonder how many of you religious, holier-than-thou folks would feel if you had a loved one who was gay. What if a son, daughter, niece, nephew, aunt or uncle or heck, even one of your parents came out as gay? Would you love them unconditionally and want them to have the same rights as “straight” people, or would you ostracize them and beat them down just to make a point?
I have a gay family member. I voted NO on Prop. 8.
Reply
Michelle, of course I would love them. And I am definetely not a “Holier than Thou” person. And, of course, prop 8 will be overturned — as it was before. However, I still maintain that gays should be partners, not married. God made females and males in all our “critters” for a reason which some people cannot fathom.
Reply
I have an idea! it seems well established in the comments above that the definition of marriage is of a religous context. Therefore it makes sense that the government should not use the word marriage at all to make a union legal.
So why don’t we prohibit anyone gay or straight to use the word marriage for a legal union and designate that word for use only within a church that chooses to do so. This would ensure separation of church and state for this issue. Therefore all unions could be called domestic partnerships for legal purposes and everyone would enjoy the same legal benefits and rights without discrimination.
Very simple, huh?
Reply
Hmmm! I like: “Live & Let Live”! As long as someone is not commiting, rape, murder, child molestation or some such criminal activity why don’t we all just leave the judgements to God!
Reply
Randy wrote: >>Biblical Christianity is logical. If you want to see what man’s reason apart from the Bible does, just look to the blood that flowed freely on the streets of the cities of France in the French Revolution.<<
You cannot be serious! If you put the class warfare of the French Revolution on one side, and the Inquisition, the French wars of religion, the 30 Years war, the Crusades, the pogroms in Russia and Poland, and all the other blood shed in the name of Christianity on the other, I think you’ll find biblical Christianity awash in blood.
Of course, all of these religious arguments are predicated on the assumption that the Bible is more than a rather spotty work of history. Who cares what the author of Leviticus wrote? That was obviously a conservative set of laws that applied to a certain group of people 3,500 years ago, and even then it was not followed to the letter. And quoting Corinthians? Please! Paul’s letters are nothing but propaganda - one man’s interpretation of texts he had no direct experience of, based on a hallucination he had as a peddlar on the way to Damascus. And you take THAT seriously? In that case, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
Reply
Dom,
I responded to your comment on another thread with this, but I think it is pertains here as well:
It is interesting, Dom, that you would bring up the “Equal Protection” clause. It derives from the Jeffersonian notion that all men are created equal. Created. Not evolved, created. It is a philosophical notion rooted in Christianity. It’s counterweight is the law of the jungle - survival of the fittest - where the only rights you get are the ones you can claw from your opponent and physically safeguard against all comers. If the state does not derive its philosophy from religion, then it devolves to a philosophy of “might makes right”. That is why I find this talk about separation of church and state to be nonsense. The phrase does not exist in the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers would be perplexed by your interpretation. The Abolishinist, John Brown, was a devout Christian, as was the Republican minister, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Do you really believe that their world view was not shaped by their religion?
Let me clarify, that without a religiously grounded moral code, it is not rational that you should be richer than me, if I am bigger, stronger and I have a gun and you don’t. After all, how does it effect anyone else if I forcibly take stuff from you? -Matt
Reply
I have gay family members in our family and I LOVE them to death!! I would never wish any harm on them and I discussed this proposition with them and voted yes on 8 and they had no problem with it and we still love each other just the same and unconditionally!!!! So just because we voted yes, doesn’t make us gay hater.
Reply
There’s that tired old irrational analogy of the homosexual agenda as equal to the civil rights struggle. One’s race or gender is a condition, people, not a behavior. Sorry, no comparison. Homosexuality is a behavior that is tolerated by most, but when forced to elevate that tolerance to acceptance by those wishing to redefine and legislate their version of morality, most reasonable citizens say NO. As well they should. As they did.
Reply
Unabashed American and others, When this country was created, it was created by those who came here for religious freedom. If my religion was pro gay and yours is not, it shouldn’t matter because we are all here to be free and exercise what we believe. Rights in this country are not based on religious beliefs. Just because you have certain beliefs, it doesn’t mean that you should shove them down the throats of others. Its not that what you believe will send you to heaven and all others go to hell. So sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. Intolerance equals hate. Did you read my comments above or just ignore them??
To keep with the theme of making it simple and to reiterate, we should take the word marriage out of legal unions and leave that word and its definitions to the many religions within this country to define as they see fit. Any LEGAL union should be called a domestic partnership, not a marriage. Then there is no debate, right???? Please read our constitution and tell me where the constitution, NOT THE BIBLE, tells us who should be married and who should not. I challenge you. Remember, no bible quotes in your response………..just from the constitution.
Reply
Okay! Enough with this senseless bickering. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Maybe our gay friends should pressure congress to pass a legislative law , that a civil union between two consenting adults, is a binding relationship afforded all the legal rights as a married couple. I am a Christian. I do believe homosexuality is a sin. Just as two people of the opposite sex living together, without being married, is a sin. It is not up to you or me to judge, though.
Also, if you must know, I have had friend and family who were and are gay. I have held the hand of a friend as he was dying of aids. I have and continue to enjoy the family members I have who are gay. I love then all irregardless of their “life style”.
I also voted for Prop. 8.
God bless you all;)
Reply
I think the definition of “marriage” is long established as a joining of one man and one woman. Why can’t we just choose a different word rather than marriage and allow that to represent the joining of same sex couples. Then follow that with affording them the same legal rights as those who are married. I think many, many people feel that long committed gay couples should have the same rights. They just don’t want the gay community to re-define the long standing definition of “marriage”. I have a gay sister and I love her with all my heart and only want her to be happy whatever that looks like for her. I want her to have the same rights that I do and there is no question that she should. Just name the union something other than marriage. That word is taken. I honestly thought that the domestic partners took care of all this. I had no idea that the legal partnership didn’t afford same sex couples the same rights. I think that is where the problem lies. Not in redefining marriage. It depends on what the real agenda is, I guess. Some will still not be happy even if all the rights are extended to domestic partners. They will insist that unless it is called marriage it just isn’t good enough.
Reply
Kudos to you Mr Calkins. I recently got married to my partner of over 10 years. We are tired of being treated like second class citizens. This country was founded on religious freedom, and as such you, are entitled to your religious beliefs and I am entitled to mine. You cannot legislate something because you feel that it’s moral or immoral. In the 1950’s the majority of people considered it ok to discriminate because of race. Did that make it moral..no. The majority said it was ok. That does not make it moral. We are not comparing ourselves to the African American community, their struggle has been long and extremely unjust. You cannot however, help but draw some similarities. The majority does not necessarily equal morally correct. It is fundamentally wrong for one section of the population to enjoy rights that another secction of the population is denied. Whether you agree with my lifestyle or not, We are still citizens of the USA. We still pay our bills, taxes, mortgages, car payments, and have to worry about putting food on the table the same as everyone else. The very fact that I am not afforded the same rights as my sister ( who has been divorded twice) is simply unjust. People need to get off their moral high horse and realize that just because someone is different than they are, they are not less a human being or a citizen. It’s about time we are all equal. God Bless.
Reply
Thank heavens the majority of California voters realized that the supposed “right” to get married to the person of your choice is not in any way, shape or form comparable to the civil rights movement. Civil rights activists of the ’50s and ’60s were simply looking to exercise the rights they already had, according to the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to marry the person you choose–ask any heterosexual man who has been turned down by a woman to whom he proposed marriage.
If the real concern here were obtaining legal rights, gay and lesbian activists in California might be seeking out the kinds of legal support packages available to same-sex domestic partners in other states. Washington state offers gay couples a same-sex domestic partnership legal package which covers many (if not all) the rights Calkins mentioned in his article. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Washington) Washington voters freely chose to make these rights available to gay couples in Washington, as long as domestic partnerships were not given the name “marriage.”
But it seems that having all the legal rights simply isn’t enough for many gay couples. They insist on applying the name “marriage” to their unions, attempting to push the issue in the courts when it is rejected soundly by the electorate, and one has to wonder why. Does it perhaps have something to do with forcing heterosexual couples to recognize gay unions as equal to their own, regardless of the incompatibility of gay “marriage” with their religious beliefs regarding the sanctity of marriage as a covenant given by God? If so, how… intolerant of them.
Reply
It has do with being a tax-paying citizen denied equal rights . No heterosexual couple would settle for a civil union; why should same-sex couples?
Reply
Mary you said what I was trying to say……just much better. If rights were the only issue then a civil union or domestic partnership with the appropriate package of rights would be fine. I feel that people are using the issue of rights when they are really looking for a law which declares that same sex unions are the same as opposite sex unions. But that is like declaring that a woman is the same as a man and a man is the same as a woman. One is not better than the other but they are not and never will be the same…..even if we were crazy enough to create a law that said they are. Everyone should be free to be with who they want and it is up to them to feel good about it. They don’t need a law to say whether it is moral or normal or whatever. Just pick a word, any word…except marriage…and then define the meaning of that word and the rights that go with it. The word “red” describes a specific color and has for centuries. Should we change the definition of that word because we feel like it?
Reply
Dear Friends and Family, (from my nephew…)
As I’m sure you know, Californians narrowly approved a measure (Prop
on Nov 4th to amend the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
I realize I may be preaching to the choir here, but this issue really hit a nerve with me, and I need your help to change minds.
You have all been so supportive throughout my life and so accepting of who I am, and I truly appreciate that and am so thankful for having all of you in my life. I’m betting, however, that you know someone, or several people (friends, family members, co-workers, neighbors, or acquaintances), that may not be so accepting.
We’ve come so far in eight years. In 2000, voters in California passed Prop 22, which changed the family code (not the constitution) to define marriage as between only a man and a woman. That proposition passed with a 20 point margin. This time, however, we we only lost by about 4 percentage points. So the tides are definitely turning. But we need as many people as possible to talk to that 4%, as well as the entire 52% that voted for Prop 8 and let them know why this issue is so important, and why equality for everyone is so important.
Prop 8 should never have been allowed on the ballot. If throughout history, we made decisions regarding the rights of minorities by majority vote, and didn’t have the courts to protect these minorities, we would be living in a very different world. Women might not have gotten the right to vote or own property (they would still be the property of their husbands), our new President-elect might not have been born, as interracial marriage would still be illegal in many states (it was only made legal nation-wide in 1967), we’d still have segregation, maybe even slavery, as well as many other things that have since been found to be unfair, immoral and wrong, not by majority votes, but, in most cases, by the courts.
Unfortunately, propositions have been passed in many states over the past few elections amending state constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman. There was even one in Arkansas that passed on Nov 4th which prohibits unmarried couples (gay, straight, or single) from adopting or fostering a child. Although it was targeted specifically at gay couples, it affects straight couples as well, and especially affects the children, who, rather than having a loving home, will be forced to stay in group homes, or even end up on the streets.
The difference with California is that with the passage of Prop 8, it’s taking away rights that had already been granted to the citizens of the state by the California Supreme Court.
Those against gay marriage complain that “activist judges” are usurping the will of the people. Well, I don’t understand how you can call the conservative Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Republican governor Pete Wilson, an “activist” judge. In the opinion of the court, Justice George cited the Court’s 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp where the state’s interracial marriage ban was held unconstitutional. It found that “equal respect and dignity” of marriage is a “basic civil right” that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution.
Those in support of Prop 8 also argue that the bible says it’s wrong, and it’s against their beliefs. I have several major problems with this. First off, we don’t live in a theocracy, we live in a secular democracy, and there is no religious book that makes up the laws of our land. We have the constitution for that. We also have a separation of church and state, and freedom of religion, not just for the protection of the state and individuals from religion, but also for the protection of religion from the state.
If you personally think gay marriage is wrong, fine, but you have no right to force your religious beliefs onto the rest of society. We are seeking equal civil rights and civil marriage. If a church doesn’t wish to perform gay marriages, they don’t have to, just as churches are not required to perform marriages they don’t agree with now. There are many churches/priests/rabbis that won’t marry people of different faiths (inter-faith marriage). This is their right, and part of their freedom of religion. But that same couple they won’t marry can still get married civilly and/or find a church that will marry them.
There are many Christians and religious folk that support gay marriage and equal rights for all. That’s because they realize you can’t take everything you read in the bible literally. If we did, and continued to make the “word of God” the law of the land, then there are several other things we’d have to write into our constitutions, especially regarding women, including:
- Unmarried women are not allowed to leave the home of their father.
- Married women are not allowed to leave the home of their husband.
- They are normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.
- They can not testify in court.
- They can not appear in public venues.
- They are not allowed to talk to strangers.
- They have to be doubly veiled when they left their homes
- Women are not to wear men’s clothing — it’s an “abomination unto the Lord.”
- An uncircumcised boy is to be abandoned by his parents and community.
- Stay away from those who worship a different god.
- Don’t let any strangers attend your animal sacrifices.
- Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed.
- Handicapped people cannot approach the altar of God. They would “profane” it.
And here’s a fun one… banning gay marriage doesn’t go quite far enough:
- If a man has sex with another man, kill them both.
I think you get the idea. Everyone is welcome to believe whatever they believe, and practice whichever religion they wish, but when they start trying to push their beliefs on the rest of society via law… well, that’s a very dangerous game to play.
If we continue making these decisions by majority rule, what’s next? Are we going to ban inter-racial marriage again? Ban people over 65 from marrying? Ban ugly people from marrying? Maybe blonde’s shouldn’t be allowed to get married.
I have a Proposition for the ballot in 2010: Let’s ban polka-dotted underpants. I probably won’t see them if you wear them, and they have no effect on my underwear, but the thought of them disgusts me, and I think they’re wrong, so I’m going to pass a law that prevents you from wearing them.
Seem far fetched? Well that’s how Prop 8 feels to me. Those in favor of it claim that gay marriage will “destroy the sanctity of marriage”. Really? How? We’re not taking away the rights of straight people to marry. “Traditional” marriage will still be alive and kicking. We just want the same legal rights as you.
If you’re so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, why aren’t you trying to ban divorce? About 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce, which often causes great hardship and turmoil, especially if there are children involved. Or better yet, why don’t you just ban marriage altogether… then there will be no divorce or gay marriage!
Look, I may never get married (as many straight people don’t), but it would be nice to know that I have that option, just like everyone else… and there are so many people who have been together for so many years that this means so much to. This is about so much more than just marriage, it’s about civil rights… and love.
So I ask you, beg you, to please talk to anyone you know that may be against gay marriage or on the fence about it, and stress to them that until everyone is equal, no one is equal, and separate is not equal. And please ask them to join us in our fight to overturn Prop 8, either in the courts, or with another ballot measure at the next election… as well as our fight for full equality nationwide… not just for the LGBT community, but for everyone, everywhere.
For more info, check out:
http://www.jointheimpact.com/
http://www.equalityactionnow.org/
Great quote from jointheimpact.com: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Gandhi
Reply
Les McFall has an interested way to deal with the exception clause in Matthew 19:9. He has written a 43 page paper that reviews the changes in the Greek made by Erasmus that effect the way Matthew 19:9 has been translated. I reviewed McFall’s paper at Except For Fornication Clause of Matthew 19:9. I would love to hear some feedback on this position.
Reply
I read the article. What about the Westcott-Hort translation? Doesn’t it comport itself closer to Erasmus than St. Jerome’s Vulgate regarding Matthew 19:9? Westcott-Hort also incorporated over 100 Greek manuscripts, versus 7 for Erasmus and about a dozen (?) for St. Jerome. -Matt
Reply