Colin Powell endorsing the ultra-liberal Obama, same-sex couples looking for marital equality, minors still able to get abortions without parental consent in California while thousands of other women kill their babies for the mere inconvenience of being pregnant, biblical literature being considered as hate speech, Oprahisms, Obamaisms, and the list goes on.
So what does the Christian do? I’m not talking about the Christianity club members who are just content in paying their dues while not participating in their “club” activities, but those who are committed to Christ in word and deed.
The church has been quiet way too long and if there is going to be any change in our society that change must first come through the individual, then through our actions as we speak out on issues that will affect our lives daily!
Politicked is a catch phrase I found while surfing the net and means “ticked at Politics.” I found a pretty good article from mega-pastor Ed Young in Texas on his blog titled “Politicked.” His sermon reminds me much of my own mega-pastor Miles McPherson and his educating the body of Christ into getting involved with politics. It’s so refreshing to see our pastors involving themselves with issues that affect us and spending time informing and motivating Christians in being active participants in our voting process.
No more contentment in just attending church on Sundays - if even that! No more contentment in being called a Christian for treating people nicely. It’s time to come out of our comfort zone. It’s time to take a stand - on something that means anything to us!
The lastest bit of politic news that’s ruffled my feathers is the ‘no-surprise’ announcement by Colin Powell that he’s endorsing Obama. There were rumors out that he was already working with Obama. He showed his ultimate discontentment with the Republican party by turning his back on McCain and going for Obama for what - economic reasons? I don’t think so. I think, although he won’t admit, it’s because he’s just thrilled a black man other than himself is running for President! Check out a couple of my fellow Christian blogger’s rants on Colin Powell here: La Shawn Barber and Independent Conservative.
(Update 10/29: Adding WakeUpBlackAmerica’s blog article on Colin Powell.)
At first I wasn’t voting for anybody, something I’ve been back and forth on for sometime. The only thing I knew for sure was that I wasn’t voting for Obama. I’m not completely sold on McCain’s economic talks, but when Obama told Joe the plumber he wants to “spread the wealth around,” that convinced me I’m not sold on his economic salvation plan either. And since I’m already against Obama’s pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, questionable friendships, questionable 20 year history with TUCC, his Christianity club membership instead of Christian commitment, and much much more, then it has become clear to me that my vote is going for McCain.
In fact I’ve already mailed in my yellow permanent mail in ballot with my vote. And here are the major issues that I voted for California.
McCain for President
Yes on Prop 8
Yes on Prop 4 (parental notification for abortions)
So folks, there it is: I’m black, female, and four of my five kids are voting for McCain. And everyone else in my entire family is voting for Obama. My kids and I are not persuaded by the Obamamania which is catching a lot of folks, and if the elections were to be held today, Obama could possibly win.
But I pray. I hope. I trust in God.
And there’s still hope for McCain.
That’s my rant for the week.
Coming next: it’s getting close to that time of year again and yes - (no)Kwanzaa time!
My writings on that in detail!
Colin’s endorsement was no surprise since he agrees with a lot of Obama’s policies. I could care less about endorsements for any of them at this point. They do not determine how I vote. I try my best to stick with the issues, skip political ads if at all possible and hopefully hear from their own mouths what they will support.
I actually did not need the moral/social issues to not vote for Obama. One primary acceptance speech convinced me that he is a socialist. I do not remember when this was other than it was the week that they had the Texas primary. I was working late at home that night. All I had heard was rhetoric about Obama. A lot of stuff. I decided to listen to him myself to see what he had to say. The only thing that I remembered hearing from him was that he was against a lot of the tax breaks that businesses were getting and that he was going to tax the rich. The two things I heard scared me so bad that I knew I would never vote for him.
The first one was dealing with creating green jobs. I got concerned about this because (1) no government created any jobs other than government jobs, and in the context of saying that he thought that businesses were getting too many tax breaks the only way he could create these new jobs is to penalize businesses that do not. this was not specifically said but these are the only two options to get businesses to create jobs, unless he is going to start another government program for job creation like The New Deal.
The second issue he mentioned was his universal health care program. He said that businesses would have to either (1) provide private health insurance or (2) they would have to pay into the government health care plan. Again business is being forced to do this. If people really think this will fix our economy and health people get better health care he is sadly mistaken. Businesses that are barely making it will shut down and those jobs will be lost. As we know insurance is very expensive. Since the government would be in charge of health insurance they will have control of what health care we get. Older people are having problems finding doctors because they are refusing to take Medicare patients. Another business decision being forced by the government. What will happen if doctors decide they do not want to work in this system? Will they be forced to stay in the profession?
I think you see where I”m going with this. At little news as I have watched the past few months (I don’t have cable) even I heard about what happened to Joe the plumber. That horrendous treatment of him should scare the crap out of every freedom loving American. If we cannot ask questions of our political representatives without being vilified by the media and other political figures we have already become a totalitarian country without the official designation. Obama’s answer should be what is being attention to, not the private life of Joe the plumber.
Prayer is our only hope at this point. Again even though I care about the moral/social issues I would not vote for anyone that held the same views I did on the moral issues that stated the policies that Obama stated that day. If that type of person was the only option for voting in someone that is for God’s standards I would stay home and not vote. I will not vote for anyone that will have government running every aspect of my life. Immigrants are risking their lives trying to come here to escape those types of regimes.
By: Pamela on October 20, 2008
at 5:34 pm
Great rant! Actually, that was too well written to be a rant ;-).
“four of my five kids are voting for McCain.”
More proof that you are a great mother!
A close friend who is black jokes that she would do more good by not voting. When she votes (Republican) it energizes lots of family members to cancel her out.
By: Neil on October 20, 2008
at 5:58 pm
So what does the Christian do? I’m not talking about the Christianity club members who are just content in paying their dues while not participating in their “club” activities, but those who are committed to Christ in word and deed.
We have lots of Christianity Club members indeed!
Well Said.
By: Edgar on October 20, 2008
at 7:41 pm
Pam, well said! You’re right about the moral/social issues. There’s much more involved, otherwise, Jimmy Carter would have been one of our greater presidents. Moral and social issues is a start but not a precise barometer. Godly character is a must - that is a start. You must be able to trust someone first, and Obama certainly has done so many things to question his CHARACTER that he struck out on that for me. McCain, although he divorced his wife and married Cindy, (I don’t know the specifics) but he expressed his greatest regret in divorcing his previous wife. Other than that, his character just speaks much more volume than Obama’s. But when it comes down to it, I just don’t know who to trust when it comes down to the economic health of our country.
Neil, I wish my politics WERE a good sign of my motherhood!
But yes, the family problems this has caused. My mother and I are extremely close until we start talking about Obama. Talking about Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde! (Uh, the both of us! lol!)
Edgar you are so right that we have lots of Christianity Club members!
If I were to meet Obama face to face, the one question burning in my mind the most to ask him is why did he choose to be a Christian if any of the other religions can get him to God as well (which is what he believes)?
Because Christianity is just one of the many ways to God, then religion and church are just mere clubs!
By: Carlotta on October 20, 2008
at 9:22 pm
I respect that you phrased it like that, which is a fairly accurate description of what same-sex couples seek.
By: Phil on October 21, 2008
at 2:06 am
Hi Carlotta,
I just wanted to thank you from the bottom of my heart for voting to take away one of my rights. That was so sweet of you.
You know, you are lucky that I am the kind of person who would never, ever, vote to take away someone’s rights. You are also lucky that I support 100% the rights of all subordinate groups in this country. I teach about the problems these groups have had throughout the history of this country. I teach about your struggles as a black, divorced woman and what you have gone through in this country to get the rights you deserve (and were given to you primarily through the courts). I teach about the struggles of the Hispanic, Asian, Arabic, and all the other groups that have been persecuted throughout the history of this country. I also teach about their oppressors and those who have fought to take away rights or prevent groups from even getting their rights in the first place. I’ll remember you and will probably mention you specifically when I am teaching both about those who persecute and those who oppress.
By: Kevin Kaatz on October 21, 2008
at 9:24 am
Sorry Kevin that I will never, never ever ever accept gay marriage as a RIGHT!
No one ever has the RIGHT to make something that God considers an abomination to be RIGHT.
Homosexuality is a sin, an abomination, a perversion of God’s natural order of sex and to make it a marriage is so unthinkable it wasn’t even considered something to make a law against in our constitution.
I respect your right as an individual to exist, to be respected, to live without interference from others as any other human being lives. But marriage should be left as natural as it should be and all for the benefit of the family and for a solid foundation for any nation.
So yes, I’m very glad I’ve voted against it and my hope and prayer is that many others do the same to vote gay marriages out of California!
And as California goes … hopefully the rest of the nation will too!
(Something must be done about Mass. and Conn.)
By: Carlotta on October 21, 2008
at 11:04 am
It is a made-up “right.” No one is stopping Kevin from committing to another guy. All we’re saying is that the gov’t has no interest in regulating or encouraging such a union.
Overblown “rights” talk makes a great sound bite, but it is a disingenuous way to reason. There are all sorts of things we don’t have the right to do.
By: Neil on October 21, 2008
at 11:46 am
Hi Carlotta,
As you yourself have amply shown, your religious belief is used to persecute those who think differently. Your own God has stated that he hates divorce, but that hasn’t stopped you from condemning me. Oh, I know you will say that Jesus said it was o.k. in your case–but ask yourself–why does God hate divorce? I can’t find in the Bible where God hates homosexuals.
By the way, I assume you know your history and that the Bible was used to prevent people like you from marrying white people. So I would be careful with throwing around the Bible…
And Neil–I don’t know where you live, but I have a right to marry here in California. If you think it is a ‘made-up right’, then I suggest you pick up some current information on the laws in California. You may not agree with same-sex marriage, but it is real and it is the law. Like it or not.
And it is a ‘disingenuous way to reason’? I will be curious how you go about explaining that. There may be all sorts of things we don’t have the right to do, but I do have the right to marry. It is the law.
By: Kevin Kaatz on October 21, 2008
at 6:28 pm
Kevin:
I have never condemned you Kevin. I have said that homosexuality is a sin that you are guilty of being a part of and that’s it.
And yes, God will never say he hates homosexuals because he doesn’t. He hates the act - not the person.
I’m not getting dragged back into the “folks using the bible to justify denying interracial marriage” argument again. The bottom line is that God doesn’t condemn interracial marriage in both the Old and New Testaments as he does homosexuality. There’s no comparison here at all.
By: Carlotta on October 21, 2008
at 6:46 pm
It was made up by judges who ignored the will of the people and imagined something that wasn’t there. Hopefully the voters will rectify that once and for all.
The Bible is pretty clear. God hates sin - all of our sins. And it says homosexual behavior is a sin:
100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
Good points re. interracial marriage, Carlotta. Just because someone misuses the Bible doesn’t mean it is the fault of Christianity. You don’t judge an ideology by those that violate its tenets.
By: Neil on October 21, 2008
at 7:25 pm
Kevin, do you fight for the rights of those who want to practice polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia, incest, etc.? Or do you pull up the drawbridge once you get your “rights?”
By: Neil on October 21, 2008
at 7:26 pm
I know John McCain personally, my father is a long time friend of his and I first met him when I was about 12 (I am 34 now).
My dad is a retired Air Force General… and he currently works in the E ring of the Pentagon.
I would imagine that he has probably voted Republican in every election he has voted in.
Yesterday we were talking and he said that he was very disappointed in his old friend, Senator McCain, that dad thought his campaign had taken a turn to the dark side and that he also did not feel comfortable with Sarah Palin being the Vice President… to quote my father directly he said… “that woman is just plain dangerous”.
But to make a long story short, a man that has voted Republican in every election since Richard Nixon will be in this election voting for Obama in this election…
By: Paula Brooks on October 22, 2008
at 7:11 am
Paula, your dad believes John McCain’s campaign has taken a turn to the dark side so instead he’s voting for Obama?
McCains campaign = darkside
Obama’s campaign = ?
And Palin? My only gripe which is major - is that if she thought it special enough to bring her children into the world, she should think they are important enough to choose as her God given career to care and nurture them.
Other than that, she’s a very smart lady with great character and quite able to help lead a nation. Her two political burps so far appear to be the fact that she abused her power as governor (to get that evil brother-in-law) and used state money to bring her children along with her on trips (good mother, bad governor).
Now, if only Obama’s list was that short!
By: Carlotta on October 22, 2008
at 7:28 am
[Comment was moved from your original place due to it being off topic. - CM]
These might tick you off even more but I hope that you and your readers will check them out anyway…
– Two Looks at One-Issue Voting: http://www.notyourmamasreligion.com/articles_view.asp?columnid=3202&articleid=50711
– Quiz: Should you the pro-life voter vote for a pro-choice candidate? http://www.notyourmamasreligion.com/articles_view.asp?columnid=3202&articleid=50712
– Christian Worldviews on a National Scale: http://www.notyourmamasreligion.com/articles_view.asp?columnid=3202&articleid=50713
By: Kayla on October 22, 2008
at 10:59 am
I checked those out Kayla and no, those don’t tick me off at all. I actually agree with much that was written.
In choosing a candidate with the best qualities it may mean choosing someone that doesn’t agree with your issues.
My decision not to go with Obama was pretty clear cut. Obama has SEVERAL issues I don’t agree with while McCain does. They both proclaim to be Christians but I had a hard time deciding if I even wanted to vote for McCain because of a few issues I didn’t agree with him.
Neither one was rejected or accepted based on just one or two issues. It took much more about the both of them for me to come to my final decision in whom to put my vote towards.
I do believe that was the gist of your articles you shared.
By: Carlotta on October 22, 2008
at 11:07 am
No one ever has the RIGHT to make something that God considers an abomination to be RIGHT.
I respect that you’re honest, and you acknowledge that your vote on this issue stems from your specific religious views, which you are willing to impose on other people.
Many so-called “Christians” in this debate feign respect for other people, even as they try knowingly to force them to adhere to religious beliefs that they do not hold.
By: Phil on October 22, 2008
at 2:31 pm
Phil, what you don’t understand is that EVERY single person acts upon their own specific beliefs! Every human being is a part of some “religious” system. Homosexuals who don’t ascribe to a belief in anything but themselves is “humanistic” or “atheistic” or “agnostic” but it’s still about placing your FAITH in something. That something for the humanist just happens to be themselves.
Do you see what I’m saying? You want to get mad at the Christian for having a faith in God to shape his OPINIONS regarding matters. Why should anyone else be free to believe what they want but the Christian can’t?
So anyone who goes to the ballot box does so with some belief system driving them and their opinions.
Get it?
“Religious” beliefs drives the Christian to vote on SECULAR issues!
Now that sentence I wrote I really should have said that nobody has the RIGHT to make something that the WORLD considers normal to become a RIGHT. The moral code is written upon our hearts otherwise, gay marriages would be normally rampant throughout the world.
By: Carlotta on October 22, 2008
at 2:39 pm
Phil, I don’t see the logic in the “you’re trying to force your religious beliefs on me” line of thinking. People seem to use that to attack the character of people they disagree with, as if the real immoral act is voting for something that agrees with your religious views. I find it to be a a smokescreen to avoid debating the real issues.
There is nothing immoral or unconstitutional in voting your religious beliefs. In fact, to do otherwise would make no sense. If you think you are in agreement with God on the morality of an issue, then how could you vote otherwise?
I am against murder and stealing, among other things. Do you object to my voting in line with those views, which just happen to coincide with my religious beliefs? Or do I have to vote the opposite of my religious beliefs at all times to win your approval? Must I be pro-murder and pro-stealing?
Many “Christians” actively vote for gov’t recognition of same-sex unions and unrestricted abortion, for example. They claim that their religion supports these views (I think they are demonstrably in error, but that is another topic). Do you reject their views because they are religiously motivated? Do you criticize them for “forcing” their religious beliefs on you?
Peace,
Neil
By: Neil on October 22, 2008
at 2:43 pm
Neil,
You state: “Kevin, do you fight for the rights of those who want to practice polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia, incest, etc.? Or do you pull up the drawbridge once you get your “rights?””
Gays and lesbians are naturally who they are–it isn’t a learned behaviour. They can’t be changed. They are being persecuted for who they are. Polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia and incest are behaviours–they aren’t who people really are. I’m sure you are familiar with the slippery-slope type of arguing and that certainly isn’t logical.
You state: “There is nothing wrong with voting your religious beliefs.” I agree with you. However, I hope you are around in 40 years when white is no longer going to be the majority in this country. I hope you are around when another religion starts to take hold and votes to take away your rights. We’ll see how you feel then…
And voting to take away a right of someone is anti-democratic. Who exactly is next in the round of taking away rights? In Arkansas, it is the straight unmarried person. And then who?
You also state: “It was made up by judges who ignored the will of the people and imagined something that wasn’t there. Hopefully the voters will rectify that once and for all.” I’d say that ‘equal protection under the law’ isn’t very imaginary–unless of course you disagree with that. And 90% of Californians were against interracial marriage–yet the Supreme Court went against the ‘will of the people.’ I bet you don’t like that finding either. Many minority rights are given by courts in this country–not by voting. And why do you think that is?
By: Kevin Kaatz on October 22, 2008
at 5:41 pm
“Gays and lesbians are naturally who they are–it isn’t a learned behaviour. They can’t be changed. They are being persecuted for who they are. Polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia and incest are behaviours–they aren’t who people really are. I’m sure you are familiar with the slippery-slope type of arguing and that certainly isn’t logical.”
Five problems with that.
1. It isn’t proven that homosexual behavior is innate.
2. Even if it was proven, innate does not equal moral. Alcoholics could make the same claim. Does that make AA a hate group?
3. Even if it was innate, you haven’t proved that the others are not. You are just prejudiced against them.
4. The slippery slope argument isn’t always a logical fallacy.
5. I wasn’t using a slippery slope argument. I am using the “cliff” argument, whereby the reasoning you use applies equally to these other groups today. You want to say that marriage is not just between one man and one woman. Therefore, it is open to all sorts of things. Who are you to judge and not make it open to other options? I find that to be very close minded. Where is their equal protection? Why are you taking away their rights?
Drawbridge raising is hypocrisy, Kevin.
“I hope you are around when another religion starts to take hold and votes to take away your rights.”
You missed the point - although kudos to you if you realize the danger of Islam. My point is that your anti-religious bigotry clouds your thinking on this and/or you use this argument disingenuously.
“And voting to take away a right of someone is anti-democratic. Who exactly is next in the round of taking away rights? In Arkansas, it is the straight unmarried person. And then who?”
Kevin, those emotional sound bites don’t work on me.
“I’d say that ‘equal protection under the law’ isn’t very imaginary–unless of course you disagree with that.”
You had equal protection. You were free to get married to someone of the opposite sex. If that option didn’t interest you, that isn’t my fault.
There is nothing wrong with interracial marriage, provided it is between one man and one woman.
By: Neil on October 22, 2008
at 7:09 pm
P.S. A 6th thing wrong with that: If homosexuality is innate and could be discovered in utero, it would quickly get aborted out of existence. I think that would be a immoral, by the way.
By: Neil on October 22, 2008
at 7:11 pm
Carlotta, great blog. I’m so glad that there are Christians like you standing for Biblical Marriage. I too have been posting a lot on Proposition 8 and the dangers of an Obama Presidency.
The LORD bless you.
Daniel
By: pastordanielbrito on October 23, 2008
at 12:36 am
Thank you Pastor Daniel!
I’m glad to be in the company of Christians such as yourself also working to get the word out on Prop 8 and Obama!
Thanks for stopping by!
By: Carlotta on October 23, 2008
at 7:21 am
Neil–I wasn’t referring to Islam at all. I was referring to various forms of Christianity that are on the rise.
You call what is happening in Arkansas an ‘emotional sound bite.’ I don’t know what you mean by this–there is an issue on the ballot that would make sure that all unmarried people would not be able to foster children. This will be written into the State Constitution. That isn’t an ‘emotional sound bite.’ It is a fact.
By: Kevin Kaatz on October 23, 2008
at 8:35 am
Neil,
You also state: “If homosexuality is innate and could be discovered in utero, it would quickly get aborted out of existence. I think that would be a immoral, by the way.”
Homosexual fetuses would only be aborted by those who believe that gays and lesbians should not have equal rights. Ask yourself–who would abort a gay/lesbian fetus?
By: Kevin Kaatz on October 23, 2008
at 8:37 am
Hi Kevin,
I am not familiar with Arkansas politics and was not referring to that.
“Ask yourself–who would abort a gay/lesbian fetus?”
Virtually every pagan and fake Christian couple out there. They regularly destroy their unborn children because they have Down Syndrome (80-90%). They do it for gender selection, cleft palates, inconvenience, etc. What makes you think that heterosexual couples will not abort a potentially gay kid?
By: Neil on October 23, 2008
at 11:39 am
P.S. Just because people vote for rights outside the womb doesn’t mean they vote for them inside. No one is trying to destroy Down Syndrom children outside the womb, but inside it you are fair game. It would be the same for gays, I assure you.
It is part of the morally schizophrenic thinking of those holding pro-legalized abortion views.
By: Neil on October 23, 2008
at 11:52 am
Hi Neil and Carlotta,
There’s nothing wrong with people having, and acting on, specific religious beliefs. My point, in fact, was that there are lots of different beliefs that are held by lots of different people.
There’s a difference between holding a belief (or having an opinion) and trying to force other people to live according to my belief.
There’s nothing moral about trying to force other people to live by religious beliefs that they do not hold.
I believe it’s wrong to raise a child Muslim. (I suspect that you do, too, Carlotta–certainly, I can’t imagine that you would ever do that!) I also believe that it’s wrong to raise a child Christian. (I bet we disagree on that one.)
But if it came up to a vote? I would never, in a million years, vote to try to stop people who want to raise their kids Muslim or Christian. I’d be a horrible bigot if I did that, even though I would be, as you say, “acting on my beliefs.”
I think it’s wrong for people to get married before the age of 25. I think it’s wrong to donate money to missionaries so they can go to other countries and preach the bible. I think it’s wrong to marry someone you’ve known for less than a year.
Those are beliefs I hold. It’s not morally wrong for me to hold those beliefs. And it’s not wrong for me to act on those beliefs, if “acting” on them means that I don’t engage in the behaviors that I think are wrong.
But if I tried to use the force of law to make other people kowtow to my beliefs? Words wouldn’t be able to describe what an obnoxious, arrogant, detestable, and yes, immoral human being I was.
Do you agree?
By: Phil on October 24, 2008
at 1:48 am
Phil, for Christians to vote for Prop 8 is forcing their religion by using the “force of law”, and for you to vote against Prop 8 is NOT forcing the law on anything?
Your reasoning is flawed and let’s end this conversation right now on that issue. It will never make sense.
You’re simply tee’d with folks who want to make a stand in what they believe and no, we just won’t sit in our churches and say and do anything anymore.
By: Carlotta on October 24, 2008
at 7:41 am
Hi Phil,
“There’s a difference between holding a belief (or having an opinion) and trying to force other people to live according to my belief. ”
Agreed. So why are you trying to force us to live according to your belief that the normalcy of gay marriage should be encouraged and taught to children? All politics are about the ethical use of power. There is always an element of force (physical or financial or some other form). You can’t get away from that. It is just that some folks try to put “religious” in front of beliefs to dismiss them.
“There’s nothing moral about trying to force other people to live by religious beliefs that they do not hold.”
Then there is nothing moral about trying to force other people to live by non-religious beliefs they do not hold. See how you are just adding “religious” to try to dismiss views you don’t like? We’ve pointed out how there is plenty of non-religious reasoning to support our views. I’ve pointed out how you all don’t complain about religious people who agree with you. So how about some consistency?
By: Neil on October 24, 2008
at 9:19 am
Carlotta,
Do you really think that there’s no difference between voting on your own marriage and voting on other people’s marriages?
By: Phil on October 24, 2008
at 11:27 am
Have you read the text of the amendment? It has nothing at all to do with the educational process.
The only way your statement is in any way logical is if we adhere to a legal theory that anything that anyone doesn’t want taught in schools should be illegal. That’s ridiculous: can you see that? The same guideline (it’s not actually a law) that stipulates that children be taught “respect for marriage and committed relationships” also requires that they be taught about drugs and alcohol.
But it would be ridiculous to say we must ban wine so that kids aren’t taught to chug it in school.
If your concern is with school curricula, then go ahead and support a law that concerns school curricula.
Agreed. It’s the “forcing people to do things” part that we should all be fighting, instead of using slippery-slope logic to create a system where the state rips apart marriages, or discriminates based on gender or race, or tells Christians that they can’t donate money to missionaries.
You’re trying to rip apart marriages. Marriages of people who want to be married, at that. You don’t even know these people. It’s the height of arrogance.
Anyone who cares about the sanctity of religion in the state of California should vote “No” on Proposition 8. The more deeply-held your beliefs, the more important it is to fight the urge to allow the state to force people to live by religious beliefs that they don’t hold.
By: Phil on October 24, 2008
at 11:37 am
Phil, we are voting on the legitimacy of your marriage. Our country as a whole hasn’t been in the business of giving people the right to marry just because they desire it.
I’m telling you, letting gays get married is opening the floodgates to other marriages. Because then other folks will then begin questioning you all why you are not allowing them to have THEIR RIGHT to marry!
See what you’re about to do?
Marriage is very serious and has to do with the health and wealth of any country.
Lord help us if we don’t pass this proposition.
By: Carlotta on October 24, 2008
at 11:50 am
“Have you read the text of the amendment? It has nothing at all to do with the educational process.”
Are you seriously trying to tell me that it doesn’t have a direct impact on the educational process? Either you are being disingenuous or are highly unaware that schools will be required to change textbooks, teach that this is a normal option, etc. Sort of like the perversions going on at this school - http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78829
“It’s the “forcing people to do things” part that we should all be fighting,”
You missed my point. I was just showing how your original statement was illogical. All of gov’t is about force. Politics is the process (or at least it should be) about the ethical use of that force.
“You’re trying to rip apart marriages. Marriages of people who want to be married, at that. You don’t even know these people. It’s the height of arrogance.”
Do these sound bites actually work on people? I suppose so, but not on Carlotta and me. You can be just as “married” as you like. What you are equivocating on is your right to associate with whomever you like and gov’t recognition of that relationship.
Phil, I find your persistent religious arguments to be deliberately deceptive.
By: Neil on October 24, 2008
at 1:03 pm
Carlotta, You say: “Marriage is very serious and has to do with the health and wealth of any country.
Lord help us if we don’t pass this proposition.”
Well, um, how about your own marriage? Come on. You are divorced. Does that mean that you are causing illness and poverty to this country in particular? If so, then you need to concentrate on your own life instead of reaching into my house and taking away my marriage that is working quite well and is frankly none of your business. You’ve done this country grave harm (according to your own words) with your own divorce, and yet instead of fixing this harm you have done, you choose to attack others.
And I am curious–why will the lord have to help you if Prop. 8 fails?
As Phil points out, Prop. 8 is about taking away a right already given. That is all it is about.
And Neil–why on earth would you expect anyone to believe what the World Net Daily has to say on gay and lesbian issues? That’s like the Jews reading the Hitler Times.
I suggest you read up what the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell had to say about the lies put out by Yes on 8.
By: Kevin Kaatz on October 24, 2008
at 4:26 pm
Kevin, the greater number of single parents are in poverty because of having children with very little to no help in raising and providing for them. That’s a statistical fact! So why on earth would I want to encourage anyone to become a single parent?
It’s also a statistical fact that children fair better in a home with both biological parents. Even UNMARRIED families with both biological parents fair better than a divorced single parent family.
I’m sorry but I want whats best for families and will never encourage the self-servicing lifestyles of homosexuals who could care less for the children and think the world of only meeting their own selfish needs.
In support of banning gay marriage, it’s nothing against you personally so I don’t really care what goes on with you and your husband. I know what affects all of us generally and that’s what I’m active in trying to change.
Only bible believing Christians will understand what I’m talking about with that phrase.
By: Carlotta on October 24, 2008
at 5:07 pm
Actually, I do care about you and Doug. For the both of you to quit rebelling against God and change your attitude about your lifestyle (repent) and believe on Jesus Christ!
You see, it’s not up to the Christian to condemn you because you’re already exist in a state of condemnation by God. But as long as you’re living you have the opportunity to no longer be condemned and become accepted by Him.
That’s my message to you and Doug. Believe that there is someone mightier than yourself, quit your rebelling and believe in Him! God loves you so much He sacrificed His son for you. And the thanks He gets from you is constant rebelliousness?
I pray for you to have a change of heart Kevin.
By: Carlotta on October 24, 2008
at 5:17 pm
“And Neil–why on earth would you expect anyone to believe what the World Net Daily has to say on gay and lesbian issues? That’s like the Jews reading the Hitler Times.”
Hi Kevin - you probably figured as such, but that was more of a public service announcement rather than something I expected to persuade you. If someone wants to demonstrate that the public school was not pushing that garbage onto the kindergarteners then I will gladly be corrected.
By: Neil on October 24, 2008
at 6:00 pm
I appreciate your willingness to say incredibly offensive things as if they are reasonable.
I envision you saying the same thing to an interracial couple. “We are voting on the legitimacy of your marriage,” and then you’ll wink and add, condescendingly, “But don’t worry–I think your marriage is legitimate!”
Neil, the proposition is one sentence. It doesn’t mention schools. If you want to pass a law that will prevent schools from ever mentioning that gay couples exist, then go ahead and write one and lobby for it. But to say that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” has direct impact on the educational process is disingenuous.
The example you cite seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. Here’s a link to a local news outlet. (As far as I can tell, the abc7 East Bay News is neither a pro-gay nor anti-gay source):
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=6467358
…but even if the school did celebrate “National Coming Out Day,” it still has nothing to do with this proposition. If a school has the right to celebrate National Coming Out Day, this proposition contains zero language that would change it. If a school doesn’t have that right, this proposition also would not create it.
That’s what a “slippery slope” fallacy is: when a speaker (like you) claims that an action will get us from point A to point T, but you fail to make any logical link between point A and point S, let alone B, C, D…
The common link between proposition 8 and the story you cited is that both involve gays. But gays aren’t going to cease to exist if you vote against proposition 8.
By: Phil on October 25, 2008
at 1:31 am
Kayla, it’s not a one issue disagreement!
1. I disagree with Obama’s position on International Affairs. I can see Biden has repeatedly proven himself incompetent with respect to international affairs.
2. I disagree with Obama’s economic positions (Having the GOVERNMENT spreadthe wealth? I think not)
3. I disagree with his position on Abortion
4. I disagree with his position on the character of our country
5. I disagree with his position on stem cell research
6. I disagree with his position on universal health care
7. I disagree with his position on taxation
8. I disagree with his philosophy of Government and its role in the life of the citizen
9. I disagree with his choice of friend, mentors, and associates, and his refusal to be up front about those relationships.
This is not a “One Issue” objection to Obama.
I will grant you though, that most of my objections, if not all of them, come out of my Christian world view.
By: Melvin Jones on October 25, 2008
at 4:49 am
“If you want to pass a law that will prevent schools from ever mentioning that gay couples exist, then go ahead and write one and lobby for it. But to say that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” has direct impact on the educational process is disingenuous.”
No, Phil, you are deliberately ignoring the evidence. But thanks for tipping your hand. I am obviously not trying to say homosexual behavior can never be discussed. I just think the truth needs to be discussed - including the criticisms, the diseases, etc. - and at age appropriate levels. Those who think that this is good for kindergartners and 1st graders just provide more evidence for their pathology.
I know what a slippery slope fallacy is, and I have not committed it. It is a direct correlation that oxymoronic same sex marriage laws lead to the drastic impacts on public policy - see http://www.massresistance.org/ for more.
And I’m not trying to say gays won’t exist or shouldn’t. Remember, I’m the one who thinks it would be bad to abort a child because he might be gay. I’m still trying to find one of your straight pro-legalized abortion buddies who agrees with me on that.
By: Neil on October 25, 2008
at 6:46 am
It’s funny that you use the word “oxymoronic” in a sentence, and at the same time you say that a correlation “causes” (leads to) something.
By: Phil on October 25, 2008
at 8:00 am
Melvin, excellently said!
I tried telling Kayla the same thing but you broke it down. I just would have added that I disagree with Obama’s desire to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) also.
Neil, great comments - I love your support!
By: Carlotta on October 25, 2008
at 8:20 am
“It’s funny that you use the word “oxymoronic” in a sentence, and at the same time you say that a correlation “causes” (leads to) something.”
More word games. If the gov’t states that what used to be considered a perversion is now a civil right, then of course schools must teach that “civil right.” That is causation, not correlation. You’ll need to find another venue if you think people will buy the “it’s just a coincidence that they are exposing kindergarteners to this.” You lose more credibility with me with every comment you make like this.
Again, saying that gov’t is NOT a union of a man and a woman opens it up to all sorts of possibilities, and not just oxymoronic gay marriage. The gays know that. It isn’t a slippery slope to say that those who desire polygamy, incest, bestiality and more have all the rationale they need. It is just that the societal mores haven’t deteriorated enough yet. But the door will be open if Prop 8 doesn’t pass.
By: Neil on October 25, 2008
at 9:22 am
Thanks, Carlotta. I really appreciate your passion and focus on this important issue.
By: Neil on October 25, 2008
at 9:22 am
Neil, I get that gay civil rights are advancing. But by connecting every gay issue together, you are exposing your animus: essentially, you’re saying that gays must be opposed on all counts, at all times, whatever the cost. This referendum doesn’t mention or specify any curriculum issues.
It’s true that the state supreme court determined that marriage is a “civil right” for adult citizens in California, regardless of gender. This proposition does not change that. Your argument is extratopical. As Thomas Jefferson opined, civil rights are not defined by laws; they supercede laws.
If California passed referenda banning interracial marriage, taking the vote away from women, or allowing the state to execute any person for any reason (thus ignoring their right to life)–would these cease to be civil rights because the Constitution changed? Or does the Constitution reflect rights that already exist?
Schools won’t lose the right to teach about gay marriage if Proposition 8 passes, either. The proposition doesn’t confer or take away morality. Parents will retain their right to pull their children from any classes that they have objections to, but schools will still be free to teach kids of any age that homosexual couples exist.
As far as the educational system in California is concerned, the status quo will remain the same.
You seem to be operating under this notion that schools can, and do, and will, teach about anything that is legal. In fact, some of the most important rights are things that are not taught in schools. All manner of worship, all different religions, all kinds of extremely important rights that are held by California citizens are (generally speaking) not “taught” to kids. Muslim marriages might be unacceptable to Christians, and I’m sure a lot of Muslim parents wouldn’t want their kids taught about Hindu marriages, but all of these things are legal in the state of California–and should be.
The state Supreme Court determined, essentially, that the state must have a compelling reason to deny a civil right to a class of citixzens.
I am a man. I want the same rights that the state grants to an adult woman who has had a hysterectomy. All adult women with hysterectomies in California enjoy the right to marry any adult man that they choose.
Until this summer, the state denied me that equal right. The only reason that the state denied me that right was my gender. (If you want to get technical, it wasn’t even because of my sexual orientation.)
But–if we’re talking about a woman who can’t bear children–how is her marriage different from mine? What quality does she possess that I do not, that should give her such drastically different rights?
Either you’re arguing for sex discrimination, or religious discrimination. Either way, it’s textbook bigotry.
By: Phil on October 25, 2008
at 10:35 pm
Hi Carlotta,
You say: “It’s also a statistical fact that children fair better in a home with both biological parents. Even UNMARRIED families with both biological parents fair better than a divorced single parent family.”
I wouldn’t mind reading those facts. If you could give a link to your sources, I would greatly appreciate it.
You also state: “the self-servicing lifestyles of homosexuals who could care less for the children and think the world of only meeting their own selfish needs.”
That is quite the assumption you are making about me. You assume I ‘could care less’ about children. I could say the same thing about you, but I wouldn’t dare because I don’t know you. I would be insulted from reading this, but I think I have moved beyond that here in this blog.
You also state: “Only bible believing Christians will understand what I’m talking about with that phrase.”
Come on Carlotta! I have spent my entire adult life studying Christianity. Just imagine for a second that I could become Christian (and it certainly is within the realm of possibility)–fill me in. I just hope you have enough faith in your lord in case Prop. 8 fails. I would not say to someone “well, only a gay man would understand what I am talking about” because that would indicate that everyone else couldn’t understand. But that wouldn’t be the case.
Hi Neil,
You state: “If someone wants to demonstrate that the public school was not pushing that garbage onto the kindergarteners then I will gladly be corrected.”
As I said, you should read what what the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell had to say about what is being taught in schools and what isn’t.
And you want Phil to go to http://www.massresistance.org/ to read up on something. However, you should know that mass resistance has been declared a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I don’t think anyone wants to be associated with a hate group.
Finally, you state: “Again, saying that gov’t is NOT a union of a man and a woman opens it up to all sorts of possibilities, and not just oxymoronic gay marriage. The gays know that.”
No, “the gays” do not know this. It is a ridiculous statement. Marriage has been redefined over and over again throughout the history of this country. I’m sure you know that woman in the 1800s could not get custody of their children if they got divorced. People thought that would lead to all sorts of problems. It didn’t. Marriage was redefined when blacks and whites were allowed to get married. People thought that would lead to all sorts of issues. But it didn’t.
So suggest that allowing another group of people to get married will lead to people wanting to marry their dogs, their mothers, their children is just ridiculous and it doesn’t say very much for the people believing that this would be the case. It is only scare tactics (and pretty lame ones at that). Luckily it doesn’t seem to be working.
By: Kevin Kaatz on October 25, 2008
at 10:46 pm
“But by connecting every gay issue together, you are exposing your animus: essentially, you’re saying that gays must be opposed on all counts, at all times, whatever the cost.”
You are exaggerating. I have just noted one connection, the indoctrination of children as young as kindergarten - you know, the indoctrination that the gay lobby planned all along but said wouldn’t happen - http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MattBarber/2008/02/13/unmasking_the_%e2%80%9cgay%e2%80%9d_agenda?page=full&comments=true
The rest of your bit was the straw man about marriage only being for people who can currently have children, and that is not an argument I’ve ever made.
I’m still waiting to hear why you pull up the drawbridge on those who want to practice polygamy, incest, bestiality and necrophilia, among other things. Why are you so bigoted and hateful against those people? Why do you oppose teaching kindergarteners how normal and positive those preferences are? Why do you trample their civil rights so? Why do you impose your religous (or irreligious) views on them? It is textbook bigotry on your part.
By: Neil on October 26, 2008
at 5:59 am
“But–if we’re talking about a woman who can’t bear children–how is her marriage different from mine?”
She is married to a man, meeting the definition of marriage. If they adopt, they can provide a mother and a father to a child - the ideal situation as noted by countless studies and common sense.
Your relationship does not meet the definition of marriage and you can never provide a mother and a father to a child. Never. So why should the gov’t recognize that relationship? Remember, we aren’t asking the gov’t to end your relationship, so your whole civil rights bit falls flat. We are just saying the gov’t has no need to regulate your marriage.
By: Neil on October 26, 2008
at 6:02 am
Kevin, I was amused by the video on your blog. Ironically, it lied when it accused pro-prop 8 folks of lying. We have demonstrated already how the judges’ actions have changed what children will be taught, yet the video said that we were lying.
Deception is foundatonal to the pro-gay movement. I encourage people to read this article by a man who left the movement - http://www.massresistance.org/docs/articles/new_oxford.html
By: Neil on October 26, 2008
at 12:41 pm
Kevin, you’re right. Completely forgot to add the link. Here it is: Mapping America. Look under the categories that start with “Family Structures and …”
There were tons of other researched data that showed that families fared better with biological parents as opposed to any other combination.
Kevin, I wasn’t wrong in what I said. You may have studied Christianity, but you don’t believe a lick of it.
My statement stands.
By: Carlotta on October 26, 2008
at 8:33 pm
Carlotta if Im not mistaken Ive never heard you say that divorce )or your divorce) was a good thing and you approved of everyone divorcing if they wanted to. I dont recall you marching or attending any divorcee rights parades nor voting for any legislation which would make divorce right.
If Im correct you still believe what the bible says about divorce even if your marriage did not meet the standard?
Thats the BIG difference Kevin and all the gay marriage proponents miss when they try to make false comparisons. Homosexual marriage cannot be argued against heterosexual marriage because it is in a class of its own. It is wrong in every aspect including emotional, religious, scientific, social.
Heterosexual marriage is never wrong, but things people do< as married heterosexuals can be wrong.
For example: adultery, divorce.
But what people do does not make the institution of heterosexual marriage inherently wrong.
With homosexual marriage, even if the two people “love” each other and are completely monogamus, the marriage is still wrong because it is the product of sin.
In short, homosexual marriage is fatally flawed from its roots.
By: gcmwatch on October 27, 2008
at 12:35 pm
Excellently said pastor!
I’ve tried to make that same point to Kevin and other homosexuals who tried to even say I’m being a hypocrite by being a divorcee and still go against homosexuality. Sin is sin. I hate divorce and even if I was the cause of my divorce, I wouldn’t want to do it again, nor wish it upon someone else let alone form an organization to push my “divorce agenda” in support of it!
You are right that homosexuality is wrong in every sense of it’s being - spiritually, socially, scientifically and psychologically!
By: Carlotta on October 27, 2008
at 12:56 pm
Carlotta, save the Lord himself taking off their blindness, I doubt they will ever see the truth.
Such is the nature of sin and rebellion.
I pray that he does open their eyes. When he does they will see what I saw 18 years ago and run from homosexuality as fast as they can.
By: gcmwatch on October 27, 2008
at 1:06 pm
AMEN Pastor DL!
By: Carlotta on October 27, 2008
at 1:09 pm
Hi Carlotta,
Thanks for the link. Now I would like to give you the link to the American Psychological Association and what it says about gays and children:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html
Here you have an example of science saying that gays and lesbians and their children are just fine. I have a feeling our definitions of what science is are very different as well.
And DL–you misunderstand the whole basis of my argument about divorce.
And Neil, as I have said before, I absolutely refuse to read anything written by a recognized hate group, which is what Mass Resistance is. I wouldn’t dare point Carlotta to a study on black divorced women done by the KKK, so don’t point me to an ‘article’ at Mass Resistance.
By: Kevin Kaatz on October 28, 2008
at 9:21 am
Kevin, the gay lobby is one of the most viscious and hateful groups going. I’ll bet you read their stuff. Just because the PC police don’t refer to it as such doesn’t mean they aren’t haters.
Really, read the article then tell me where you think the guy gets it wrong. He seems to tell a very authentic story of what life in gay community is really like. If nothing else, consider it an exercise in knowing more about your enemies.
The truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth.
By: Neil on October 28, 2008
at 5:57 pm
Kevin, about those stats. The stats from Mapping America are compiled from federal data. I don’t worry to much about bias one way or the other with this data.
I do agree with the APA that homosexuality isn’t a psychological disorder nor a mental illness. Now as far as unfit parents are concerned, it depends upon our definitions of unfit parents. To me, a parent is unfit if they bring children and raise them up in an immoral household. The APA doesn’t agree with my definition. But the APA goes further and even declared:
Of course the APA is devoid of deciding the morality of a family if they believe that lesbian and gay parents parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents.
Interestingly, they gave no reference for that comment. The APA’s next comment completely contradicts the federal data that shows that environments for children in homes with two biological parents are more stable than families with only one biological parent:
So when scientific facts start contradicting one another, we then have to check out why and then decide if the data is reliable. For the APA to suggest that homosexual parents are better than heterosexual parents immediately lets me know that the APA could care less about immorality and true scientific data - in other words, this information has a certain ring of bias to it.
Now please explain to me why MassResistance is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
By: Carlotta on October 28, 2008
at 6:45 pm
Hi Neil,
There is a big difference between a group of people who are fighting to retain a right they have and a group of people who are fighting to take away the rights of a group.
Hi Carlotta. Here is the definition of a hate group according to the SPVL:
“The Southern Poverty Law Center counted 888 active hate groups in the United States in 2007. Only organizations and their chapters known to be active during 2007 are included.
All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.
This list was compiled using hate group publications and websites, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports.
Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.”
Also, you are confusing your moral ideas with science.
By: Kevin Kaatz on October 28, 2008
at 6:59 pm
MassResistance doesn’t appear to be doing anything any differently than what we are doing as individuals which is kind of scary. They are considered a hate group - because they are a group and saying the things they do.
Kevin, you think you can find me an example of an action of “hate” by this group?
Now you ended your last comment by saying:
No I’m not. Like I’ve said in other posts I’m a firm believer that God and true science never contradict.
The scientific data that shows BOTH biological parent households fare better with the children than ONE biological household. Homosexual parents could never be TWO biological household so will NEVER fare better than the best TWO biological households. Study the data.
So God knows best - of course because He created us. If we’d only run our families the way He has instructed us, then scientific data would be good news more often than bad!
By: Carlotta on October 28, 2008
at 8:07 pm
“There is a big difference between a group of people who are fighting to retain a right they have and a group of people who are fighting to take away the rights of a group.”
Hi Kevin - I sometimes wonder if you really believe what you type or if you are just good at parroting the propoganda the gay lobby is so clever at putting out.
I mean I know that the “rights” talk makes for a good sound bite, but what rights are we talking about? The right to relationships? You’ve got them. The right to be married? Uh, sorry, but you already have the right to marry a living being of the opposite sex of the same species under certain conditions (i.e., no incest, bestiality, polygamy or necrophilia).
Just because some rogue judges briefly assigned these “rights” to you doesn’t mean they are real.
“typically for their immutable characteristics.”
I’d love to see the science behind that. Again, it will be aborted out of existence if true. But it isn’t true, and all the surveys trying to prove it have been thoroughly debunked.
The APA is a joke. They lost all credibility in the 70’s when they bowed to political pressure on the gay issue. These folks need help, and the APA denied them that. The real research needs to be on how to help them, not how to pretend that it is immutable. But that’s the liberal version of love and compassion: Fake all the way.
By: Neil on October 28, 2008
at 10:11 pm
Neil, I didn’t know much of the APA at all until Kevin gave me that link. Seeing what they said about gay parents being better than their heterosexual equals convinced me that that organizaiton is WHACK!
I’ve lost all respect for that organization and Dr. Paul Cameron (Family Research Institute), whose article I had to retract because the APA supposedly dropped him (which they didn’t because he had already resigned a year before they did that!), I know was terribly maligned because of that organization!
By: Carlotta on October 28, 2008
at 10:18 pm
Carlotta–”Paul cameron was terribly maligned?” Well, I guess in your book so was the KKK?
By: Kevin Kaatz on October 29, 2008
at 4:09 pm
I would delete your inane comment but I’ll leave it so that you can truly think about what you wrote.
You have a PhD - please make use of it!
By: Carlotta on October 29, 2008
at 6:30 pm
You’ve said that several times. So, is it your idea that gay men should marry women? THAT’S the secret to a strong family? Would you want your daughter to marry a gay man? Huh?
Actually, who says I pull up the drawbridge? I support the value of equality in this debate. I believe that it’s wrong for the state to discriminate against any individual on the basis of (among other things) race, religion, or gender.
Prior to the Supreme Court decision this year, the state provided a right to women that it denies to men: the right to marry a man. All adult citizens who are female enjoyed that right, but virtually no male citizens did.
Despite the excuses given, the state did not take into consideration any other traits besides “maleness” in making the decision for unequal treatment. Fertility, ability to bear children, ability to raise children, physical appearance, feminine/masculine behavior: none of these were taken into consideration. If there was some additional reason, besides the fact of their gender, that men were prevented from marrying men, it must also apply to women. This was not the case.
As such, the state was either enforcing prejudice and animus against a certain class of citizens, or it was engaging in unfair sex discrimination.
In the 1940s, the state of California allowed blacks and whites the “same” right: they could marry people of their own race. But that wasn’t really equal treatment, and it necessarily ended.
Now, when you whinge about bestiality and polygamy, realize that they’re unaffected by the standard of equality. I’m not arguing that “everyone should get what they want,” I’m arguing that “people should be treated equally.” I’m fine with animals being treated differently, as well as corpses. Nothing about “treating men and women equally” will suddenly imbue animals, corpses, or children with the right to enter into a contract in the state of California.
If the state of California permitted three-person marriages, then I would argue that they should be permitted for all persons in the state, regardless of gender or religion. But the state does not provide any means for multi-person marriages, and as such, the state is treating all persons equally.
If someone wanted to propose such an institution, I’d be happy to discuss the merits of it. But it would be a new institution, whereas a man who wants to marry a man is simply asking for exactly the same rights that a woman has.
By: Phil on October 29, 2008
at 8:12 pm
One final thought: It may be clear, from my reasoning, that I’d find it permissible for the state to deny marriage to everyone, because then the state would still be treating everyone equally.
While that’s technically correct, I think that marriage is important, and I certainly hope that California keeps the institution of marriage.
However, I’m afraid the “Yes on 8″ folks might find that their campaign has the opposite effect of what they intend. The state supreme court has already ruled that the state must provide a “compelling reason” to deny gay couples the right to marry. This one-sentence proposition contains no language that provides that compelling reason. Yet, if it becomes part of the state constitution, it’s unlikely that it will be found unconstitutional.
The effect of this contradiction may well be that the Supreme Court orders the state to stop performing marriages for anyone. That might seem unlikely, but remember: it’s the same court.
I’ve heard rumors that the Mormon church, always a little touchy on the marriage issue, is pushing hard for Prop 8 because it believes the state should have nothing to with marriage, period. I find that unlikely, but a court decision disallowing all civil marriage would certainly have that effect.
By: Phil on October 29, 2008
at 8:19 pm
Hi Phil,
“So, is it your idea that gay men should marry women?’
No, Phil. And I think you know what I meant. I’m merely stating what should be obvious: Gays have the same rights as straights: To marry one living person of the opposite sex who isn’t already married and who isn’t a sibling, etc. There are plenty of restrictions on marriage other than it being limited, by definition to the opposite sex.
You want to redefine the word so that the right becomes, “Marry whomever you want.” The problem is that opens it up to everyone to do everything. You are so selfish that you don’t see that you are wanting a radical exception for yourself but then raising the drawbridge on others.
“Prior to the Supreme Court decision this year, the state provided a right to women that it denies to men: the right to marry a man.”
I’m sad to say that some people actually swallow those rhetorical tricks. Of course, the right wasn’t to marry a man, it was to marry someone of the opposite sex.
And to expose another of your tricks, the “right” wasn’t whether they could marry or not, it was whether the gov’t would recognize your marriage. I am reminded by your lobby quite often that gays already marry. No one has denied you that right.
I just wish more people had some basic critical thinking skills to see through the deceptions of the gay lobby.
I keep waiting for you to explain how a gay couple can provide one mother and one father to a child - the obvious ideal. That is the reason the gov’t should only recognize traditional marriage.
And if you try to convince me that the sex of one’s parents is irrelevant, please complete the thought and explain why the sex of one’s partner is immutable. I have yet to see anyone, anywhere reconcile those polar opposites.
By: Neil on October 30, 2008
at 6:02 am
Hi Carlotta–that wasn’t an inane comment. The KKK and Paul Cameron are listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you don’t like that, then take it up with them. You don’t like the KKK for obvious reasons (and neither do I). Nor do I like Paul Cameron, but you think he has been maligned. I don’t need a Ph.D. to think that thought. No one needs a ph.d. to see the connection between the two. Paul Cameron is the KKK to the gay community. You are African American and you don’t like the KKK for obvious reasons. I am gay and don’t like Paul Cameron for obvious reasons. I also do not like the KKK for obvious reasons. But you think Paul Cameron is maligned, even though his ‘organization’ is a nationally recognized hate group? You see, I do not associate myself with any hate groups, nor do I support them or feel that they have been misaligned. Can you say that about yourself?
Skin color is not the only thing that people use to discriminate against other people.
By: Kevin Kaatz on October 30, 2008
at 9:05 am
Kevin, it was inane to put the KKK and Paul Cameron in the same sentence. The KKK is associated with hatred that was evidenced through their murderous past, their physical and verbal harrassment of blacks and Jews and anyone else that didnt’ fit their white agenda.
And what has Paul Cameron done? Merely suggest through research that the homosexual lifestyle is not very healthy for people to live by?
Dr. Cameron’s organization being listed as a hate group by the SPLC isn’t major in my eyes as that is an organization that doesn’t like Christian activity anyways! It has also labeled MassResistance as a hate group. No one has yet been able to convince me why these people are considered hate groups but still, Kevin there is no way on earth you can compare them to the KKK!
By: Carlotta on October 30, 2008
at 9:17 am
By the way, that’s the end of discussion comparing KKK and Paul Cameron. Take the conversation elsewhere!
By: Carlotta on October 30, 2008
at 9:21 am
Actually, I just explained pretty clearly that I’m not arguing for “marry whomever you want.” I’m just saying that the government should not provide something for one group of citizens that it denies to another on the basis of sex (or race, or religion.)
“Rhetorical tricks?” Are you saying that a woman didn’t have the right to marry a man? It really doesn’t depend on rhetoric, Neil. If it did, then perhaps you could explain the practical difference between “a woman’s right to marry someone of the opposite sex” and “a woman’s right to marry a man.”
Who’s engaging in rhetorical tricks?
Dude, my premise was that it is wrong for the government to provide a service to one class of citizens that it denies to another class of citizens solely on the basis of gender.
If the state gave cookies to every white person, and didn’t give them to black people–well, sure, black people could bake their own cookies. That doesn’t change the fact that the state would be engaging in discrimination.
If state marriage is as trivial as you seem to think, then it behooves you to vote “No” on Proposition 8.
If it’s worth discussing on a blog, then please stop pretending that the distinction between a state-recognized marriage and a private ceremony is immaterial.
Why is this ideal obvious? It should be immediately obvious that two good mothers is