I have been in the San Francisco area for several days. My trip coincided with the thirtieth anniversary of the assassination of Harvey Milk. The atmosphere would have been somber simply about that, but it was poisoned even more by the passage of Proposition 8, the reprehensible "amendment" to the California constitution that sought to prohibit same-sex marriages.
The Religious Right was the overwhelming reason that this pernicious proposition gained its narrow majority. The only real argument raised was that same-sex marriage was incompatible with Bible teachings. Although made with differing levels of overt homophobia and distaste, the claim was uttered by Charles Colson ( who claimed failure to pass it would be "apocalyptic"), Rick Warren ( absurdly characterized by the media as a"new evangelical") and, well, even Fred Phelps. These literalist-when-it-suits-them stalwarts have used any opportunities over the years to create a Scriptural justification for viewing the gay and lesbian communities as immoral. They should never have been allowed to get away with claiming to have clean hands when their justifications helped lead others to acts of violence. Of course we don't know the stories of most of these victims as well as we know those of Milk, Brandon Teena and Matthew Shepherd. The absence of a feature film, however, doesn't make the pain any less for those who have shared it in real life.
People in California have already done many of the right things to try to deal with Proposition 8. Several lawsuits have been filed to overturn the measure as an illegal "revision" of the Constitution by majority rule. Revisions are major changes in the document that require action by a two-third vote of the legislature. The Proposition 8 backers contend that since the change is only one sentence, the measure was a simple "amendment" which can be accomplished through initiative. This bean counting approach is ludicrous. "Slavery will be permissible" is even shorter; but would anyone seriously contend that the state of California could pass that by 50 percent plus one of the voters concurring? Here, the California constitution has been interpreted by its Supreme Court to require civil marriage for same sex couples based on twin core principles: equal protection of the law and the fundamental nature of the right to marry. Two central values cannot be curtailed by majority vote whether the change is attempted by one or 1000 sentences.
It looks like oral arguments before the California Supreme Court will occur in the spring. With any luck that will put an end to this mischief.
But is there even more to do, Jay? I'd like your reaction to these lawsuit and then perhaps we can look at some other ideas up folks' sleeves.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Husband,
"And as for your race comparison, both orientation and race are innate, immutable characteristics, whether your black friends like it or not. Perhaps they'be been taught differently (often by their Church), but that still doesn't make it true."
There is an inherent fallacy in your argument here. Whether or not one accepts the premise that people who are gay were born that way, homosexuality is a behavior. A person who is born black has no choice about the blackness of their skin. There is no choice involved as to being black. A person who IS homosexual and does not act upon their homosexuality is not necessarily known as a homosexual. A black person need not "act" upon their blackness in order to be seen as black.
This is all aside from the mere fact that homosexual behavior (notice my wording there) is a sin according God's word. It is no different than any other sin, mind you. But it IS sin. The very fact that we are ALL born into the Adamic nature (the sin nature), doesn't make one person's expression of that sin nature any more or any less sinful than the next person. That sin needs to be dealt with the same way as any other sin.
As for the notion that since other sinners are not restricted from marrying, that homosexuals should not be either. Well, that's just ludicrous. You want the sin to be dealt with by allowing that person unfettering access to committing that sin? OMG, are you serious?
TomWins,
You are absolutely ignorant about law if you think that morality cannot and is not legislated. If our legislatures did not create laws concerning morality than things like suicide, drug abuse, prostitution and pedophilia would all be legal; the government would never pass a law telling you or me or the fellow down the street that its a crime to drive a motorcycle without a helmet or what speed we can drive our cars; nor would they ever be capable of establishing ethics rules or regulate any number of behaviors.
You also have little clue about what Jesus would want us to do. The very Lord whom you correctly indicate wants us to care for the widows and orphans (in the book of James) also said that those who do such wondrous things would still be cast away from His kingdom...why? because He never knew them (Matt. 25). You see, as much as Jesus cares about helping the sick and feeding the hungry, He is more concerned about the eternal souls of people. And a person living in unrepentant sin is in dire straits with or without a full stomach or nice warm clothes on their back.
John Manuola,
Amen Brother!!
"You're a group of Christian-based, conservative organizations with several million dollars to spend. Do you: feed the hungry? Clothe the poor? Don't be so naive! You blow the millions on a series of slickly- worded, logic-bending ads espousing a widely-discredited theory that one can be "cured" of homosexuality through counseling and prayer." - Mad Magazine, a 1995 issue.
It is far-fetched, to say the least, to propose that Chuck Colson and Pastor Warren's Biblically correct view against homosexual marriage "led others to acts of violence". The hearts of the malefactors of these ruthless murders were sick. No one got inside their bodies and orchestrated these despicable acts. It was their OWN FAULT; so don't go pointing fingers at the aforementioned folks because they weren't found guilty anymore than pro-lifers as a whole are guilty in the death of abortion doctor George Tiller (despite what the Dept. of Homeland Security wants you to think).
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.