While we were getting our minds blown over Barack Obama becoming president-elect, in California others were getting their minds blown in the worst way.
Proposition 8, a measure amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage, passed.
Anyone who has read this blog for a while knows I'm a Liberal proponent for civil rights issues and I consider the acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals a civil rights issue. I'm pro-gay rights. What two consenting adults do is of no business of mine.
I was happy that gays were finally allowed to legally marry in my old state of residence. A pair of my good friends there, two Lesbians were getting "divorced" at the same time the court granted gays the right to marry and we joked about the irony. But now it isn't funny. This is a constitutional amendment taking away someone's rights to legally be bound to the person they love, to join as one family and all the state/federal rights that come with it.
I realize that not every one shares my views on homosexuality, especially within the black community which is amazingly intolerant when it comes to gays and lesbians. Many black ministers were looming figures during the Prop 8 fight. It's sadly ironic when black people start talking about infringing upon the rights of others. It was not too long ago when it was a regular debate as to whether or not the Negro had a soul. If we were more than three-fifths of a person. If we could drink from the same water fountain. If we could marry outside our race without fear of lynching. If we were more than beasts of burden meant to serve our white masters. If we were the living contradictions of being too dumb, violent and docile to survive.
And you can pull out the Bible and turn to Leviticus, but I will feel nothing. There is so much in Leviticus we pick and choose to follow. Never mind that historically many used the same Bible to justify our enslavement. I believe the references and allusions to homosexuality in the Bible should be taken into context. They are a reaction to the Romans and Greeks of the time. Their elite, politicians, wealthy, philosophers and military leaders were notorious fornicators with everything, from young boys to animals. If you were a Jewish philosopher/religious leader being oppressed by the hedonists of the empire, you'd write rules against their behavior too. But there are gay people on this earth because God created gay people. Allowing them to marry doesn't destroy marriage. Divorce is the number one and sole killer of marriage. All gay marriage does is further normalize and equalize homosexuality and that is what this is about.
Much as letting me drink from the same fountain or have a hamburger at the counter meant there was no difference between myself and the white woman sitting next to me. Letting gays marry means that homosexuality is not some one-dimensional, hedonistic, sinful rot based on nothing but illicit choices and prurient desires. No. It is so glaringly ordinary people courted each other, fell in love and and wanted to solidify that bond.
No church has to marry anyone they don't want to marry, but the state has NO RIGHT to infringe on the rights of homosexuals and I don't buy the false argument that this will open up some Pandora's Box of men marrying their Doberman Pinschers and horses or polygamy. This is still marriage between two consenting adults. But I know that doesn't matter to those who don't want the normalization of homosexuality in the same way those did not want (and still don't want) the equalization and normalization of black people.
Basically, "we" have a lot of nerve when we call for the limiting of someone else's rights. Especially when there are so many black people who are gays and lesbian who don't feel the love and support of our community. All because we are so wrapped up in one passage in Leviticus and not the numerous others we ignore (shellfish, anyone?), not the other parts of the Bible we ignore, not acknowledging that we cherry pick and interpret as we choose in an effort to do to others what was done to us.
Make us not human.
I'm not gay, but I know that it's going to take straight people and others like me to shove this country into that "more perfect union" promise. I'm human, we're human and homosexuals are humans and they're not going anywhere. Proposition 8 was a setback, but change is coming. Like it or not. The AIDS crisis brought homosexuality out of the shadows and into the mainstream as a life or death matter. Now the movement continues as a matter of acceptance and dignity. I'm sorry. I can never identify with the regulator, the conservative, "the morality sex police" when it comes to a majority-minority fight. My heart is always with people being oppressed. It's always with the underdog.
Change is coming and I have a feeling the tidal wave will not start with the states or the courts, but with the US military. We're fighting two wars and suddenly leaders find themselves dancing around "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because they can't afford to lose a soldier or Marine. Despite the status quo fighting it, I don't see that rule surviving the Obama Administration. And just as when Harry S. Truman integrated the military it eventually lead to the integration of the country.
Change is coming. Tuesday night was just another case of two steps forward.
One step back.
87 comments:
I usually don't comment on blogs, this is the most amazingly gogen argument that I have heard in a long time. Being a Black lesbian I get it on bothe sides. I even dated a woman that feltthe need to point out to me that our homosexuality was wrong according to the Bible. WTH? That ended quickly. I am amazed that intelligent people can make an argument against other's having rights. Amazed but not surprised.
Brilliant, Snob. You have written a lot of things I've been thinking. But this non-issue (it really isn't an issue to me) of giving gays equal rights infuriates me. I thought that perhaps there was a chance that people would actually be decent human beings and say NO TO PROP 8!
Ugh. Two steps forward and a HUGE step back. My family and I are absolutely pro-gay rights.
I'm disgusted that this actually passed. Makes me sad, too.
The passage of Prop 8 and similar measures in other states is the one thing that dulled my joy in the Obama victory. I know that this will eventually be overturned, but I'm appalled that it ever passed in the first place.
Good for you Snob. It hurts me that none of my gay friends texted me any "WE DID IT!!" euphoric messages Nov 4. I know that means they feel punched in the gut right about now.
I will turn my focus to the share of responsibility for this that falls on my fellow progressives, and why we didn't try harder to fight this bigoted legislation. We could have all made some phone calls to voters in California. I cannot speak to black homophobia as I'm not of that community. I can only speak to the apathy and overconfidence that prevented more of my liberal friends from taking their power and defending the rights of fellow citizens like we should have, with political organizing.
We took Obama's message about taking nothing for granted to heart in regards to his candidacy. It's a real shame on all of us who believe in equality that we didn't do the same with Prop 8 in California.
Hi Snob,
I'm now officially embarrassed to be a Californian. I expect this kind of stuff from the fly-over states but California?
This Prop 8 thing is one of the reasons I HATE religion. The world would be such a better place if public displays of religion were made illegal.
There is hope though; a bunch of different organizations and City Attorneys are suing. So let's hope the courts can correct this craziness.
And one more thing: they are trying to blame the passage of Prop 8 on African Americans. Apparently (according to exist polls) 7 out of 10 African Americans voted for Prop 8. There is just one little problem though. African Americans only make up 6% of the total population so there is no way African Americans put this over the top. But ofcourse it is ever fashionable to blame bad things on us.
monie: We're a convenient scapegoat, but California has a history of being amazingly intolerant despite it's Liberal/Democratic Party leanings. People tend to forget, not all of California is LA and the Bay Area. A lot of it is in the Inland Valley, Orange County and Kern County where I lived. A lot of those people are conservatives and/or Republicans.
Fact is, the bigots were MOTIVATED to come out and stop what they thought was a threat on marriage. The non-gay, but gay-friendly left didn't take the threat seriously. Heck, even some gay people didn't take the threat as seriously, assuming the interest in the election would drum up enough support at the polls, but with Cali being such a solidly blue state there is a good chance a lot of progressives may have stayed at home, twiddling their thumbs, knowing an Obama victory in California was assured.
The defeat of Prop 8 was not.
I realize that I'm going to painting the proverbial target upon myself but here goes:
Proposition 8, in no ways tells gay mean and lesbian women that they can't be together, adopt children, or use other surrogates to bring children into this world. All it does is affirm the definition of what "Marriage" is. Look it up in the dictionary. By definition it is between a man and woman. Anything else is not marriage. Whether or not you approve of homosexuality should not mean that it's okay to change the definition of marriage for everyone else.
That being said. I think it is important to point out that the book of Leviticus was written a long time before the Roman and Greek Empires. Everything but a monogamous marriage between one man and one woman is discussed as being God's perfect ideal. t is our choice to choose other arrangement and pay the consequences. Just look at the world to see what it is. we have so many divorces and broken families because we, as a culture and nation, don't hold marriage as sacred anymore.
Leviticus is in the Old Testament and it's not the only book that has passages in the Bible that tells us not to live that way. By the way eating shellfish was never called a sin and we know now that the if you don't properly store and prepare shellfish from the regions in which they lived, you can die if you eat it. How did they know it was bad for them to eat it? God told told them it would be "well with them" if they heeded Him. He is saying the same thing to us today.
In addition, I realize that a lot of this a reaction to persecutions of Homosexuals. In no way can you honestly get that it's okay to kill and persecute homosexuals or enslave anyone because you think you are better than them.
According to scripture, homosexuality is no worse than any other sin (ie lying,stealing, murder) although sometimes we act like it is the worst possible thing. God may have called homosexuality an abominations ( remember the act not the person) He also said a liar will not tarry in his sight. And who has not told a lie? Sin is sin. and we are all struggling with something. Jesus is the only way to get free. God has a standard. I can't look down on anyone because I'm trying to meet that standard - Jesus Christ is that standard.
I don't think its fair or right to equate homosexuality with being black. They are not the same thing and no one is saying that a gay person has to leave their lover, just don't call it something it isn't. In California, we have "domestic partnerships" which means they have the same rights as married people do - legally. There is no need to change our definition of marriage to give homosexual civil rights.
I never saw such a push against a proposition before in all my 33 years. And it was close. To be that close I am sure some gay people voted for it too.
Marcus:
This argument has a lot of holes, the main one being that Christian belief is not the basis of secular American law.
Marriage, as defined by local, state and federal governments, is about property rights, tax designations, and power of attorney. You can quote Leviticus and believe in it as vehemently as you want, but your beliefs about ultimate reality should have no bearing on anyone else's legal property rights.
I completely agree with snob here: my being a black man informs the way I see power relations between minority and majority groups. It's would be mighty myopic for me to worry about discrimination against young black men and not concern myself with discrimination against women, or discrimination against gay people or discrimination against the poor.
We gotta do better.
First, let's get a few things straight (no pun intended--you're not going to hell because you're gay. The glorious thing we were all given when we came into existence was freedom of choice. So if you like being gay, go ahead and enjoy it. Now here's the tricky part. Basically, there's polarity throughout the universe. Positive and negative, male and female. When our souls entered these bodies that we now have, we were suppose to fulfill the missions as partly designed by our bodies. I believe people are prohibited from doing this by two factors, which basically cause homosexuality. Spirits play a big role in our development on earth. Some of these spirits are negative in nature (demonic) and some of them used to be human and now are refusing to enter the light, based on fear or their own personal reasons. I think these spirits attach themselves to humans and live most of their time vicariously through them. When you see that guy on the bus talking to himself, you can bet he's talking to a spirit. Although this used to be considered foolish superstitution, the old timers had it right long ago. Full possession by spirit is extremely rare. However, a spirit can actually influence someone to have sexual desires for the same sex. Secondly--and this is a school of belief-- another way homosexuality develops is when a person still retains elements of a past life. For some people, remnants of a past life are particularly strong. A woman, for instance, can still identify with being a man in a previous incarnation and desire having sex with another woman. This is my opinion and it's also shared by many. What to do then? Personally, I would try to fulfill my purpose of coming into my body and seek a professional to remove any attaching spirit or have past life regression therapy. Gay people shouldn't be judged. They're not sinners. If they want to marry, let them. Freedom of choice, remember. Perhaps one day America will give them that right, but it doesn't look like it's going to occur soon. And Snob, I would argue that cherry picking the Bible is a good idea because there are so many inaccuracies in it. There's some light there, but you'll have to wade through a lot of distortions. The reason I speak with confidence is because I encounter the spirit world regularly and I'm not crazy. Several years ago I went on a quest to learn more and I found many answers. I'm still looking for more.
Marcus,
First: was Leviticus talking about homosexuality or pedophilia? Do you even know? Most religious people are such lemmings that they are unable to read the bible and understand the context in which it was written.
AND the bible has been tainted as it has been re-written an untold number of times. So basically if you, like all the other religious lemmings, follow the words of the bible you are adhering to the words of some goofball that re-wrote the bible to their own advantage.
AND the definition of marriage at one point excluded African Americans. So the definition evolves over time as we hopefully as a the nation mature and we decide that everyone deserves rights.
AND domestic partnerships DO NOT give same gender couples the same rights as opposite sex couples who are married. For instance spousal inheritance is not inherent in domestic partnerships. Also there are certain tax breaks that married couples can take advantage of the domestic partners cannot.
Thank you for this post. Most of the arguments I've heard against gay marriage go back to religion and...that's not okay. A lot of people seem unable to accept that we aren't living in a theocracy. Until then, I'll be living in a country that is convinced I must remain a second-class citizen. And to the proponents of civil unions and such? Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the eyes of the law. :)
marcus: Well, thanks for the extra Biblical history. But I think it's a mistake to get caught up in the "does racism = homophobia/bigotry" debate. They both involve ignorance and bigotry IF you believe gay people are persecuted.
Obviously ... I do.
My point was that they both Jim Crow and this Prop 8 debacle involve other groups infringing on the rights of them making this a civil rights/human rights issue.
And it does not change the fact that people have consistently used religion to defend their position. The Bible is also very explicit in the role of women (largely of women as property as that's simply how it was for centuries when it came to marriage) and many other issues most people don't even blink an eye at today. So I feel the comparison of slave owners using the Bible to justify the enslavement of blacks is apropos.
Re: They read the Bible and saw what they wanted to see/believe. The Bible can be a Rorschach test for many believers. Some read it and focus on feeding the hungry. Others push Prop 8.
Secondly, you are correct that the passing of the bill did not take away other rights gays in California have, but by saying they can't get "married" continues to make the point that gays and lesbians are not like "us," the so-called "normal people."
This is a "separate, but equal" situation. The government has NO right to say who cannot get married when it comes to consenting adults. To say, you can have marriage, but you can't call it marriage and it can't be like the marriage others enjoy is wrong. There's this prevailing attitude that if we call it marriage we can't say "you're different" anymore to gays. Marriage is so "wholesome" and ritualistic and mundane. Characteristics not assigned to gays. But you can have domestic partnerships, something like it.
It doesn't have all the same protections as marriage, but ... it's something like it.
How is that fair? How is that acceptance? It's a way to keep the opposition from complaining, letting them keep a thin wall between them and those different from them, but a wall IS a wall.
Like I wrote earlier, this proposition was really about fighting the continued normalization of homosexuality. That's the issue and the real fear. Otherwise, why would they have bothered at all? The "it's only semantics" argument cuts both ways. If it's only semantics why do straight people care so much to define marriage as being between a man and a woman? Obviously semantics is huge and the word "marriage" means something bigger than simply "spouse."
It's all about one side thinking homosexuality is immoral and should be marginalized and another side thinking homosexuality is a normal part of human sexuality and should be accepted.
And once again, black people who are homosexual have to deal with racism and being gay. Black people need to stop talking about homosexuality as if it's something white guys do on weekends. These laws affect OUR people too. So I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing the Civil Rights movement along side any discussion of other human rights battles. They're living and fighting both.
Human rights are universal themes that go beyond race, gender and sexual orientation.
And G.D., you totally got what I was saying. Black people need to realize when any minority group, ethnic, religious, whatever, is under fire we should be concerned. Nine-times-out-of-ten that either used to be us, could be us or IS us right now. Who are we to join in, pointing and snickering when tomorrow it could be all our heads?
G. D., my argument has nothing to do with "Christian belief is not the basis of secular American law." Grant it that the Bible does inform why I define "marriage" the way I do. But if you look up the definition in Webster's dictionary and then tell me that we would not have to change the definition of marriage if Prop 8 did not passed.
The question here: What is "marriage"? How is upholding the traditional definition of "marriage" discriminating against anyone if they still have the right to enter into binding "property rights", "tax designations", and give "power of attorney" to anyone they want. That is what we have in California. I know it's not like that every where else. Is it discrimination to say that a four-sided quadrilateral cannot be called a "triangle"? No. It is a "rectangle". No one is talking about discrimination or taking rights away. If gay people want to be in a "domestic partnership" (which is what we call it in California) fine. But it's not "marriage" according to the traditional definition which the majority of California does not want to change.
Draven, you come form a completely different world-view than I do, which why you and I disagree. We can both be wrong, but we both can't be right. So rather than go back and forth, I would like to know why you think the Bible is full of inaccuracies? If you are right, then I'm willing to admit that your world may be valid because the Bible completely contradicts nearly everything you stated about what you believe. I'm more interested in why you believe what you believe.
I do know that Leviticus was talking about homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22 which says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.") And it is not the only passage.
Now i have a question: how do you know that the bible has been re-written? How do you know it's tainted? If it truly is the word of our creator, shouldn't we follow it? How do you know it isn't? I've done lots of research and find it very reasonable to believe the God has made himself know to us through the scriptures. What have you read or studied that has led you to a different conclusion?
Historically, the definition of marriage never excluded people on the basis of race. True, during slavery, some slaves were not allowed to get married, but that was how people misapplied it. Those who prohibited black people from being married didn't think black people were human. It's not the same thing.
I have never studied the "domestic partnerships" laws in California let alone the rest of the union. But I do know they vary from state to state. In California, most if not all the legal rights of marriage is extended to homosexual couples. I shall have to study the issues in order to be more complete in spelling out what those issues are.]
Again, even ignoring what the Bible says ask: What is marriage?
Marcus Leviticus, I could go into a thousand reasons why the Bible is filled with errors and I'm sure you heard most of the stories. Firstly, the scriptures were usually written hundreds of years after the supposed events. Check any of the tons of books on this subject, and you'll know that the Bible we have today was written by committees of people who decided what and what not to put into the Holy Book. The Dead Sea Scrolls also reveal some of the history of the Bible's construction. If you a person who believes the book is completely inspired, then it's really useless arguing any point with you. I was raised a Seventh-Day Adventist and you don't get more legalistic and devout than that, so I know a little bit about The Word. Throughout my adult life, I was dissatisfied with what I had been taught because a lot of it didn't make sense. I studied Buddhism and other spiritual teachings later until I reached the point where I'm at now. I believe in God, the afterlife, Heaven and Hell. I don't believe in judgement nor that God sends people to hell. I think people can go there willingly and through trickery. And when they go there, it's not permanent. One can always return to the Light, which isn't always easy sometimes. Even the Light Beings that separated from God have the opportunity to return. Freedom of choice applies to everybody. I believe in reincarnation because energy never dies, it only changes form. Our purpose here is to experience things for ourselves, to create for ourselves and to evolve further and to know our true divinity nature once again. To boldly go where no man has ever gone before.
deviant, without the Bible, how would you know it's wrong to steal? Or kill? Why is it wrong to lie? Without the Bible, how else can you explain the "Declaration of Independence" and the thought that "all men are created equal...". Where did they get that from? I already know that someone is going to think that Jefferson and company got it from European philosophers. Ok. Where did they get it from?
True..this isn't a theocracy. I'm not saying that it should be. The Bible doesn't even say that the world should be a theocracy. I'm not appealing to religion or the bible...my basic point is asking "What are we going to define marriage to be?" And I hold to the traditional definition of marriage.
BTW, you guys can beat your heads till the cows come home, making unwinnable arguments and you'll never make any progress. If you adopt this way of thinking, we'll enter the Age of Aquarius, trust me. It's so simple and clear.
Let me begin by saying I don't give a shit what your bible says - stop trying to run MY LIFE with it. There is something called separation of church and state in this country.
Second, let me say that if two people of the same sex choose to enter into a contract with each other under the same terms that a hetero couple would, they should be considered MARRIED. So my lesbian friends in CA who have been together for 25 yrs, served in the Gulf War and pay taxes are NOT good enough to be afforded the same rights as me? C'mon, get effin real.
Stop trying to turn MY country into a theocracy and take away the rights of those who are "different" from you. Remember, YOU have been considered "different" since the first slave came over here and it's taken how long for us to get where we got on Nov. 4? Keep injecting that judeo/christian/islamic morality into the law of the land. One day you'll find yourself back on the plantation. Me? I'll be in Canada waiting to help you cross the border to freedom.
Draven, you are right i have heard many of the reasons to not trust the Bible. But let's take the Old testament. Current scholarship shows that of the books of the old testament found in the caves around the Dead Sea, they are almost identical to the Old Testament texts we have today. I want to know where you got your information as to how the Bible came down to us. I've read two very good books. Dr. Jame White gives a good guide to how our English translations came about in his book "the King James Only Controversy". I aslo reccomend Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ" where he interviews some of the greatest scholars alive today and asks them questions skeptics would ask about whether the Bible is valid and credible.
The Bible is remarkable: 66 book, over 40 authors, 1500 years to write it, on 3 different continents, and all telling different parts of the same story. I see no inaccuracy or contradiction. If you do...tell me where you see them, or are you just going off the word of others. Have you really looked for yourself?
Marcus, you can't get me sucked into a Bible debate. And you're using the straw argument on me. I never said the Bible was rewritten. I said things were put in and taken out. There's proof of that and you'll have to do a little homework to find out. If you can't accept this fact, then that's another thing. I think the Bible was man's attempt to know the nature of God. Considering the times, some of the things weren't too badly done. I don't believe, however, that God would ever kill every man, woman and child, goat, sheep and cow because they worshipped some wooden idol. I don't believe he's jealous and goes into fits of rage and strikes down masses of people when they offend him. That he opened the earth or sea to swallow up people because they didn't like his "chosen people." I think God would never tell Abraham to go and kill his beloved son to prove his devotion, then send an angel to save the boy's life at the last minute to scare the old man. I don't believe God would kick us out of The Garden because Adam disobeyed him by eating a piece of fruit. I don't think he would destroyed the entire world--save 8 people--to punish people for their wickedness, when he gave us the freedom of choice.
Okay, Marcus Leviticus, we'll respectfully disagree. Hold on dearly to your beliefs and we'll one day see each other in the Light and you'll remember everything that you forgot. Peace and light always
I think that Black Snob has hit the nail on the head as to why homosexuals did not want Prop 8 to pass. If we define marriage in such a way to say that their relationship is a "marriage", then homosexuality becomes mainstream. The thing is I voted for prop 8 not because I think I'm better than homosexuals. I'm not. They have every right to live as they see fit as I do. No more. No less. That being said...why should we change the standard? Why should legal definition of "marriage" change? Because we outgrew the traditional definition? I don't think so.
Marcus, I won't argue with a true believer. I admire your faith. I also have my beliefs and they are firm. I can co-exist with anybody. The problem I find is that fundamentalists don't allow people to see things differently. That's why the world is at war with itself. Keep the faith, my brother.
Snob. Thanks for writing this article. I was disappointed to hear that not only did Prop 8 pass, but that it was likely helped over the top by a record black turnout in CA that voted 69% to 31% in favor.
I just infuriates me when what I feel is pure hypocrisy, tries to get justified by either the Bible or the dictionary (which is written by people and is not the infallible word of God).
These same crappy arguments were being used against us not long ago.
What is the threat anyway? White people were afraid if they let us learn to read, write, vote,own property etc., all hell would break loose. Not so much right.
Heck if the institution of marriage can withstand Britney Spears' drunken 55-hour union or Pamela Anderson's many forays, I'm sure it can manage committed individuals who are so willing to be united in the eyes of the law that they're willing to fight for it.
I'm fine if certain churches don't want to allow gay marriages in their religious institutions. Fine. That's their prerogative. However, for the state to determine that some of its citizens aren't due equal protection under the law is unconstitutional and runs counter to the American ideal.
There is nothing other than 'tradition' that argues that marriage should be between people of different genders.
And it's an argument that breaks down pretty easily when subjected to logic and reason (which are not generally the favorite persuasion tactics of the religious fundamental set.)
The good news is that even though Blacks disproportionately favored prop 8, the young across all spectrums voted against it by a healthy margin.
So, it's just a matter of time. The arc of history is long, but it does fortunately bend toward justice.
Marcus,
Can't you see that every. single. argument. you're using to justify your stance on marriage was used to keep us as second class citizens for years? Scripture, "Tradition", Separate but equal.
I invite you to go back through your posts and just substitute black for gay and tell me if it doesn't sound familiar.
I'm not asking you to change your mind, just do it as an academic exercise and let me know what you notice.
Draven, I apologize for saying you said something you didn't say. My mistake. However, you said that things were taken out and thing were put it. The burden of proof is on you. I'd like to know why you believe that. I'm not making any assertion. I've studied it and looked into it and I don't see it. If you do, then you can give me an example. What do you mean when you say that? Establish it as a fact and i will accept it. As for the rest of your comment about how you don't believe God did the things it says he did is a totally separate question. Let's be careful and not mix terms. I think I'm reading you make the following arguments:
1. The Bible is untrustworthy because it contains inaccuracies, contradictions.
2. The Bible was written by men
3. You don't believe in a God that does what the Bible says He did?
Do i have it right? This is why I'm splitting it up like that...if you are right, then there is no reason not change the definition of marriage. If the Bible is right, God set up marriage and we'd be stupid to mess with it. That is what it comes down to: What authority will you submit yourself to? God or you. If choosing God's ways is a "theocracy" then so be it.
I have addressed my reasons fo believing the Bible on my Blog and I'm sure I will be writing more in the future, but if you are going to assert it's wrong, I'd like to know how came to that understanding other than, "I want to live the way I live without anyone else telling me what to do."
Dkan71,What logic? I'd love to see how it's illogical to hold that a marriage should only be between a "man" and a "woman". Just asking.
marcus: All I can say is times and definitions change in our law all the time. Just like they changed the three-fifths rule. Or how during Biblical times if you harmed a pregnant woman in a way that caused a miscarriage the worst you got was you paid a monetary fine. Or how for centuries (and this still happens in some places) if a man rapes another man's wife or female relative, he can turn around and do the same to another female relative as retribution. The "All men are created equal" eventually included women. We still use the word "race" wrong. Race implies that blacks and whites are different types of humanoids rather than both being humans.
Even marriage has changed. Marriage for centuries was about property rights. In some parts of the world it still is largely a financial decision with the woman as property. And numerous laws reflected the notion of woman as property. Many define marriage as an act between a man and several women. The original inception of the LDS church had to move to Utah because their lives were constantly under threat for this practice.
I think you have the notion of a Christian, faith imbued marriage twisted up to the government version of it which has nothing to do with religion. Allowing gays to marry doesn't change the Bible or what Christians believe or theology. It changes the law, which is to have no religious onus per the Constitution, to reflect the civil rights of homosexuals. That's why I said the church has EVERY RIGHT to decide who they want to marry, but United States government and its laws, which are supposed to be goddless, cannot. This would change the law's view of marriage NOT religion's view of marriage. Religion can keep its view. It never has to change. Hell, the Catholic church still thinks all of us are going to burn because we belong to "false" churches.
My larger point is how can you protect something that is only under threat by divorce and people who chose to live together rather than marry? That directly impacts marriage, the view of marriage, the opinion of marriage. Fewer people get married. More and more people get divorced. It takes away a lot of the seriousness of it all. Old lesbians getting hitched in Civil ceremonies is not the death of anything. But the fight against that gives the impression that millions want a religious perception to bleed into secular, civic life.
I know my history and the history of this country and when religion and government get together someone gets hosed. Today the gays. Tomorrow ... who knows? All I know is a long time ago a group of Calvinists and Puritans were so hosed they moved across the Atlantic and started a Revolution were separation between church and state was demanded out of FEAR that the government would no longer allow them to define their own lives.
But we're a relatively young nation, unscathed by a lot of the true ugly religious fundamentalism that plagues most the world. We're a country of laws and a lot of talk, so no burning effigies. No fatwas. No inquisitions. So far we've only tap danced around religion and state. But it's not good when people confuse rules of the state with rules of the Bible. Believe me, it wasn't that long ago when people accused women who wore pants of cross dressing and thought 12 was an acceptable age to marry off your daughter.
Our current definition of marriage "legally" doesn't allow 12 year olds to marry with or without consent from parents.
I just don't buy the definition argument. Especially when times change, meanings change and it would be the meaning of the state NOT the church.
Now if your church is considering Okaying gay marriage, then, I think you have a legitimate argument as that would directly impact your faith and dramatically alter the view of the church.
Marcus, I would agree with each of those points in some degree. Still, it's an exercise in futility in debating you on the Bible. You believed it's totally inspired by God. I studied it enough to know that many biblical stories are echoes of other cultural stories in other lands. If you can read it critically, you'll know it shouldn't be strictly relied upon to the letter of the law. Again, I admire your zeal. Keep trusting and praying. Faith is very important. I have more than faith. I have a knowing. I just know things and I'm very comfortable with it. Peace always, my friend.
The problem is that when scripture was used to deny black people person hood and human right...it was taken out of context and twisted beyond recognition. I have the perfect example slave masters loved to quote "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." from Ephesians 6:5. The problem is that they stopped. Look at the rest of the passage. Paul was not done with that thought.
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." Ephesians 6:5-9
Don't you see? If the slave masters had followed scripture there is no way they could have done to us what they did. The argument that the Bible was used to keep us in chains is wrong. It was misused. They lied on God. More Americans died in the Civil War than in any other war. What do you call that? I call it judgement for the evils this nation perpetrated. Further the kind of slavery that Paul was writing about was not the same as the slavery our forebearers survived. They can't be equated. In Greek, the word for "slave" and "servant" is the same. In Paul's cultural context, some slaves were treated as property but not because they were not thought of as human. It was on the basis of economics not racism. The Bible tells masters to treat their slaves as joint heirs as brothers. Again he was talking to the church and to the whole Roman-Grecco world. America considered itself a God-fearing nation so it should have done what God said to do. At the time of Paul's writing, the Roman Empire made no such claim.
One last thing, Mr. Marcus. I would recommend that you tune into Joel Osteen. I read all his books and record his programs all the time. Although he's a Christian minister, he mainly relies upon New Age beliefs and less on the Bible for inspiration. He's a fantastic speaker and I always get something from him. It's not for us to judge or dictate to others on how they should conduct their lives. Everyone has their own path to follow, so we should just let others be. You don't have to believe what I said about the spirit world. The key thing to note is the true nature of God. He won't get angry with you. He's not a lesser God that you can offend and make jealous. And he won't punish you for your sins. The spirit of God is infinite love and light. Peace always again.
Dear Black Snob,
You are so smart and I have enjoyed your blog. You also make a couple of great arguments as did Marcus. My main concern about allowing Homesexuals to "marry" Is what happens to the church. I could care less what people do in their private lives. I understand that I have no right to legislate that, but what happens to churches that oppose this? In New Jersey a church was taken to court for not allowing a lesbian couple to marry at their church facility. In Mass Catholic Charities had to get out of the adoption service. Thats not fair. Ideally giving others rights shouldn't take away from the rights of others. Religous insitutions have the right to exercise their faith. Maybe I'm going to far but could pastors, priest , rabbis be jailed for preaching from scripture? True our country was started for religious freedom and we do have this priciple of "separation of church and state" (not found in the Constituion but in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. He also made his own Bible) This separation of church and state was to keep the state from controlling the church but by no means should the church not influence the state. If we do change marriage to be between two consenting adults, which of course ingnores the Bible. Why can't we redefine it as being a group of consenting adults? What grounds would we have to stand on? Why should we ban marriage between relatives? Redefining marriage opens up a lot of questions.
One last thing, I believe that gays should have all the rights that heteros do . I'm not a legal scholar but I'm sure there are other ways too do this. As a black women I cringe at the comparison between the black struggle for equality to that of homosexuals. It just isn't the same thing. At first glance it is known that I am black. Decades ago that would prohibit me from going to certain schools, restaurants, etc. That is not necessarily true for Homosexuals. They can't say they have been discriminated in the same ways that black people have. I understand their need to want to normalize what they do , but that will require changing my faith and based upon the discussion between Marcus and the other commentor is not an easy thing to do.
anonymous 6:22 p.m.: I'm pretty huge (HUGE) on the Bill of Rights so I'm for the rights of gays to marry. But I'm ANTI making the church do a damn thing.
Religious beliefs are religious beliefs. Hell, beliefs are beliefs. You can not legislate human nature. And the nightmare scenario you're mentioning should not happen simply because you can say all sorts of things people don't like or even find inflammatory and offensive and not face any persecution because of the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.
You can't make a church marry anyone and why anyone would want to be married by a church who doesn't want them is beyond me. It's not quite the same thing but it's almost like black people suing to join the Klan. It truly makes no sense.
Now if the lawsuit is over renting the building, that's a different story. I don't know the legal issues ensnared there. But you can't make a minister marry anyone and you can't stop a church from preaching against homosexuality anymore than you can stop Rush Limbaugh from using "Hussein" over and over. You can't use the law to "fix" your church. If you don't like your church you have to fix it, from within, on your lonesome.
The rights of the church are protected. Always have been.
You will have members who may challenge the establishment (see the Anglican/Episcopal Church in America and their issues with ordaining women and homosexual priests), but those are IN CHURCH issues. No Anglican priest is taking the US church to court because they feel they were passed on a pastoralship due to gender or sexual orientation. The only thing churches are asked NOT to do is pick political candidates and tell their flock to vote for them.
Other than that, the government can't tell them what to do. Unless they're breaking the law, they have nothing to worry about.
Why is there a difference if the issue had to do with renting the building. It is still church property shouldn't the church have the right to say who should or should not use it?
anon: Well, that was my point. I don't know. Property issue was the ONLY issue I could think of where the government would ever be involved. But I still don't see how you could force the ceremony.
But that was the only thing I could think, granted, I know next to NOTHING about property law.
Your Snobness, if the hall is a public establishment, it can be sued for discrimination. Public restaurants, hotels and such are prohibited from using discrimination. If the enterprise is a private establishment, like a country club or dinner club not opened to the general public, it's allowed to set up whatever discriminatory rules they want to set up. A private establishment can exclude Blacks, Jews and Scots who wear kilts, if they want.
These Biblical debates will go on into infinity. People misinterpret and don't place the proper context ALL THE TIME.
Just for the record: JESUS did not say one thing AGAINST homosexuality. He DID tell us ALL to Love Your Neighbor As Yourself. Now when that day actually happens maybe He'll come back!
I live here in SF and I can tell you the No on 8 organizers did not do enough outreach, had a poor counterattack to the ads of the Yes on 8 argument and I know of no leadership in the No on 8 organization that had people of color at the table strategizing.
Black people only make 7% of the entire CA population so it really pisses me off to have this same tired conversation about how bigoted Black people are.
What about all the WHITE PEOPLE that voted Yes?
You can't show up in neighborhoods to convince people to help you on your issues when you otherwise ignore them except when you want something from them!
There is a greater argument about the lack of support by the major Gay Rights orgs (run by white men) to poorer people of color who are gay and gay-friendly in getting jobs and housing and treatment. AKA the REAL ISSUES.
At least in CA people still have Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships and can adopt children. If they want more then they are going to have to build alliances in a reciprocal relationship with everybody else or continue to face these battles.
Not everyone who supports Yes is homophobic either - it may very well be their belief. You have to meet people where they are.
amen, snob. amen.
(SIGH) I really don't know how to answer the whole Jesus never said anything about Homosexual arguement.(with out going to deep in to the Bible) To say something like that is a gross misinterpretation of the Word of God. All of the Bible is important not just the words of Christ. Christ does speak about sexual immorality so that includes homosexuality. And I don't hate gay people. I just don't agree with the lifestyle.
Again my main concern is the church.
i'm saddened that prop 8 passed...a similar prop was on the arizona ballot...i voted for it but as you may know, it didn't make it either...i just don't get it...everyone should have the right to be happy, especially in this country...
My, my, what a whirlwind of opposing views - good stuff! Snob, you nailed it... The Equal Protection Clause of our U.S. Constitution states: "no state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Seems perfectly clear to me. The Theocrats of this country will be dragged kicking and screeming into the real world eventually - the sooner the better. As to biblical arguments on the subject, they are not relavent here. We are a nation formed by our constitution - not the Bible. Sorry to burst Marcus' little bubble.
RollieB
I'm white and gay. It makes me uncomfortable to see the issue of Obama's victory linked in anyway to an argument for gay marriage.
Our nation's struggles toward civil rights never have, and never will, come in one big leap. That doesn't make each victory any less sweet.
Those of us who want marriage equality will wake up tomorrow and keep fighting. And we'll welcome all the help we can get.
In the meantime... Can we just please go ga-ga with Obamatude?
Snob:
As someone who went to law school you are, at least in my interpretation of certain cases, correct that it could make a difference if the couple simply wanted to rent the church. I KNOW it would make a difference if it was a public school -- but its possible it could make a difference with a church facility. I know if you let the Religious Conservative Right Prayer Group use your public school gym to pray, you MUST allow the Pagen Witches Coven to use the same facility. It would be a bit of interesting legal research to see what that Church case was based upon.
That being said --- thanks for saying what I've been thinking since Prop 8 passed. I think, as a Catholic, the church has the right to not marry a GLTBQ couple. However, I think as a lawyer that it is the States obligation to allow same sex couples the same chance at civil marriages/civil unions(aka marriage certificates) as heterosexual couples. It is a matter, legally, of contract rights. I, as a straight woman, can go see my husband(if I had one) in the hospital if he is sick and dying. My lesbian friend does not have that right. Its just a crappy mess honestly --- and I can't believe that people would want to deny folks those rights. From the biblical argument -- I'm not quite sure that's what Jesus the Community Organizer would do, in fact I'm pretty sure that is the exact opposite of what He would do. Two steps forward, one step back is exactly right.
Where do I begin?...
I hate the argument that uses the Bible as reasoning as to why 'gays' don't deserve the same rights as others. Although using the Bible has in the past been the foundation of laws/government, one has to believe in the Bible first.
I don't. I don't go to church. This is after being raised for over 20 yrs. in the Apostolic faith, having ministers in my family and having 2 generations believe in this doctrine.
Gays should be allowed to marry, to adopt and to do whatever their preferences are. A sexual preference doesn't make you better or worse.
We're making progress, but this results has pushed us back ages...
Snob,
Thank you for this cogent post.
I don't think there is such a thing as a "sexual preference." If you look at it that way it is easy to strip away people rights because you are viewing their behavior as wrong and also as a choice. If homosexuality is a strictly biological thing, then it is something that people have no control over, just like the pigment of their skin. How can you strip away someone's rights to "be" just because they are not like you, and just because you view them as different? If you do this, then it is prejudice.
ITA. So much.
I can't buy the religious argument because state definitions and laws are not based on the Bible. I'm borderline agnostic, so I really don't pay mind to that argument in general.
To deny rights to people because they're different is basically calling them sub-human and not worthy of the rights of "regular" people and it's completely wrong.
I wish I could have gone to a rally.
beautiful post snob.
as always, eloquent, smart and fair.
i spent the better part of my day reading all the comments (in between meeting) and i agree with you whole heartedly.
there is something wrong with those who cannot see change and accept it within the rights that this nation was supposedly built on. the belief of equality IS what this nation was founded on (allegedly). thousands of people have suffered and died for this belief. and to allow that belief to be put into the cold hands of a simple vote is inhumane and unfair.
i also would like to weigh in that African Americans who voted for prop should not be any more or less called out than a white person who did the same. It is way more complicated than the simple fact that we should "know better". You are talking to voting blacks who are about 2 generations removed from the civil right era and slavery is a story. Out right prejudice is not a common factor. There are also numerous other cultural barriers within the black community when it come to homosexuality. Though not right, it is far more complex than simply "knowing better." And to pick on a single group as the sole purpose of demise is ignorant.
as for the religious points...church and state should be separate. Debating the validity of the bible is useless. Marriage "defined in the dictionary," doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to human civil rights.
you cannot change some one's beliefs, as i believe the previous post have shown. the utter down fall of America is that this Proposition was put to a vote. The same voting that has given our nation a great name. And the same voting that has tore down our nation. People's rights shouldn't have to be put to a vote. It's as simple as that.
thanks snob. always a great read...every morning.
nice post, snob.
marriage is one area where theology and the government come together in a big sloppy mess. it's my belief that all unions - gay or straight - should be civil unions with everyone receiving the same rights, and marriage should be solely used to describe religious unions that take place in a church.
so if you want marriage to be just between a man and a woman and your church supports that? fine. if your church believes that marriage can apply to same-gendered relationships? fine.
either way, one person's religious beliefs shouldn't have anything to do with my legal rights.
and frankly, arguments regarding religious beliefs don't hold any water with me when we're talking about legal unions. because one has naught to do with the other.
and marcus: this is the one thing i'll say to you: i suggest that you do a little research on the rights and privileges afforded to heterosexual couples who are married versus same-gendered couples (and heterosexual couples) who aren't. you are incorrect that domestic partnership offers the same rights.
For the record, I make no "religious arguments" regarding legal unions or marriages. I'm a libertarian in this area and I bud out of these affairs. If gay people want to marry, I say let them eat (wedding) cake. They're entitled to feel just as miserable as the rest of us.
Okay...in no particular order:
midwesterntransport - I take it that you are not a resident of California as I, so why would you automatically dismiss my comments about what rights domestic partners have in California? 2 seconds on the internet would have led you to:
"A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple."
Read the article for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California
Shaun - you must agree that "change" is not always good. It's just "change". "marriage" is defined in the dictionary is a viable definition. If you speak English, this is the definition of a word in English and cannot be changed unless the majority of English speakers agree to change the definition. Slang words that officially enter the language is an example of this.
And in general:
I have just demonstrated that under the laws of my state, there is no reason at all to change the definition of "marriage" if the problem is that homosexual couples are denied the same rights as married heterosexual couples. The information that I have linked to above also says that we are the only state that has something like it. Let's be honest, Black Snob was right, proposition 8 haters do not just want the rights that come with marriage (they have those in California) they want the validity - the holy status. To get that they are willing to change the very definition of "marriage" and the institution the word describes. That is why I voted "yes" for Prop 8. Many of you who disagree with me and took the time to comment, don't even live in California. If you want to change the definition of marriage in your state...fine by me. But why would you wanna change it for me? What about my right? Oh, so the "needs" of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
I can tell by some of the comments made in response to mine, that not everyone understands my points: I, nor anyone who is a Bible believing Christian, would support hurting, persecuting anyone for any reason. God really hates that. No where in the Bible can you find anything that says that God hates homosexuals more than any other sinners...and we are all sinners and without Jesus we all destined to go to the same place. Some of written that it's wrong to reject homosexuality because of the religion, but we reject murder, theft, adultery, and lying due to religious sensibilities. Give me one reason why, if I'm bigger and stronger than you that it's wrong to belittle you, destroy you, and take everything you have? How do you know it's wrong. Ultimately, it's wrong because God said so. Cherry picking from God's standards is no standard at all. The folks who set up our laws originally had the Bible in mind, and unfortunately put it down when it came to how to deal with us, native Americans, and everyone who was different from
them. Their fault, not God's.
This is why it's important to defend the Bible's validity. If it's wrong about homosexuality, then why isn't it wrong about murder? Or stealing? Or loving your neighbor as yourself? Either the Bible, all of it, is the word of God or it isn't. And if we're making up morality as we go then we are going to be having problems (which is why the economy is going down the tubes; before you dismiss that idea, consider: would we be in the economic messes we are in if we had have done business the way the Bible tells us how to?). If you don't believe the Bible is an appropriate standard then what standard should we use? If we can find flaws, errors, and lies in it then I agree it should be thrown out like a bad movie. However, if it is true then we should follow it the best we can, trusting God to help us to do better. Therefore it's accuracy and validity is very important to this debate.
As Al Pacino said in the Godfather: "Just when I thought I was out, they bring me back in again!" Okay, one more time, Marcus, God doesn't hate anything. It's possible, that's all. Second, Christians cherry pick from the Bible all the time. You don't keep the feast days spelled out in the Old Testament anymore. I'm sure you eat "unclean" meats, etc. You don't honor the seventh-day Sabbath as dictated in the Bible. And puleeze, spare me the talk of how the redemptive blood of Jesus abolishes such rules. The New Testament doesn't do that, that's Christians changing the rules again to suit their needs. Keep the faith, my brother, and I'll see you in paradise.
Draven, you were definitely raised seventh-day adventist. A great deal of my family is of that. Ever read Galations? As to why many Christians today do not live according to the feasts and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament, I would suggest reading Galatians. Paul does a much better job explaining the point. Reject my understanding of scripture is yours or anyone's right. All well and good. Instead, give me a "better" understanding of what Paul wrote in:
"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." Colossians 2:13-17
Paul, who was about as Jewish as you can possibly be, was writing to Non-Jews. He was not saying not to follow the laws, only that you could not depend on them for salvation.
For the record, although it's not as sin to eat the things that dietary laws tells us not to eat, those thing do make me sick. And they made me sick before I knew the Bible told us not to eat them. He told the children of Israel not eat those things because He did not want them to have fun but so that they would be more healthy. Today, if we choose to eat (and who does eat the way we are supposed to, myself included) and live in a way contrary to what He said then we deserve what we get. Eating badly won't send you to hell, but it sure makes life more difficult.
I just love it when discussing the issue of "gay marriage" (I think that term is just as stupid as "illegal alien") people use words like:
- allow
- lifestyle
- preference
Cracks me up that people think that GLBT people wake up and decide to be second class citizens just like I must have woke up today and decided to be Black.
I think it's hilarious that someone has to ALLOW another person to be happy and be with the one person that completes them and makes their life more worth living.
I guess you CHOOSE to be heterosexual, you CHOOSE to be male or female, you CHOOSE to be whatever color you are, you CHOOSE to have two arms, two legs, two eyes, etc.
Yeah, stupid gays for not choosing to be straight. Gosh, if only they would just stop having desires, a heart and emotions and just go live in a closet for the rest of their lives, then everything would be OK.
I don' eat meat. I don't agree with people's CHOICE to consume animal flesh or wear fur. I don't agree with everyone's religion. But Lord knows I don't work actively to deny another human being the ability to feed themselves, wear tacky fur and practice whatever faith they adhere to.
Snob made point after point about how racial minorities and women had to get permission to do everything from vote to own a house. And we all know how stupid that notion is.
The one thing I will echo that was brought up a kajillion comments ago is that the gay community does do a piss-poor job of diversifying itself. Gay people of color exist, but you wouldn't know it when you look at the ranks of HRC and see the face of the Prop 8 opposition.
Great, giant leaps have been made, but that doesn't mean oppression, hatred and bigotry ended when we elected our first Black president.
The struggle continues.
marilynjean echoed an excellent point Black Snob previously said:
"Snob made point after point about how racial minorities and women had to get permission to do everything from vote to own a house. And we all know how stupid that notion is."
Here is where I think the difference is. Men denied those rights to racial minorities and women, not God. God gave us all those rights. He did not give us the "right" to redefine "marriage". He defines what marriage is because he made us and marriage. The only way you can argue against this, is to set aside the Bible. I'm sure everyone agrees with that. So then everyone has to come to their own conclusion. "Is the Bible real? What will I do about it?"
Ok ,I thought I would just give up but if my brother in Christ Marcus keeps going I guess I should keep giving my opinion. (God Bless you Marcus)
Many of you have said that using religion as an argument is weak. Our law is based on common law which is based upon customs, social morays, and religion. Written law only caught up to what was going on for centuries. If we were to redefine marriage we would be ignoring a lot of history and tradition.
Many of you have wisely said that as blacks we should be careful when the rights of others are in danger. I agree and think that civil unions should guarantee gays the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Again my main concern is the church. This evening I saw a report on Fox news saying that there have been protest in front of a Mormon church which gave money for Prop 8. The church exercised its right to infulence the state. Just like it does with other social issues from abortion to censorship issues. The protesters also exercised their right to protest, which is fine but is this the fate of every church that stands against gay marriage.
The problem is that the issue really isn't about getting the same rights but about making what gays do ok to all people. The church in many ways is the biggest opposition.
Abortion is currently legal but I think it is wrong if it were to become illegal I would obviously still think it is wrong. These opinion are based upon truths. Truth never changes.
To my legally scholars no one has yet to answer my question. If we do disregard customs, religion (the Bible) as a guide to the definition of marriage then what is it. Why can't it be more than two people. Why can't it be relatives?? What grounds do you have to stand on ??
Marcus, I knew you were going to throw Paul's writings at me. That's the hallowed escape clause that Christians use. I can't convince you of my views and you'll definitely never change my perspective. Let me say, though, that when the "written code" was nailed literally or symbolically to the cross, it's funny that it only abolished the Sabbath and keep the other 9 Commandments active. That's a nice, juicy cherry, Marcus. Yes, I was raised an Adventist and like Paul said, I was a "Hebrew of the Hebrews." I left that dogma long ago and with no regrets, my friend (Yikes, I sound like McCain). I feel lucky that I don't think like traditional Christians anymore. Still, I respect your opinions and hope you stay in faith. Peace and light always
Marilynjean, I don't think gay people have much choice in determining their sexual orientation. In my previous posts, I gave two possible reasons for why a person may be gay. Since I can't prove it, it's only a theory, but I support it because I think the doctor who postulates it is very credible. I offer no judgment on a person's sexuality, whether it's gay or straight. I used to believe that homosexuality is genetic, and perhaps it is to some extent. I'm not totally sure, to tell you the truth. Look at me, I have MS, which is really referred to as a woman's disease because they get it 4 to 1, as opposed to men. While I'm not effeminate, many people have noted feminine qualities in me (No, I don't have a limp wrist), and so maybe there's a link there with the disease. Who knows what causes anything? Scientists now say criminals are born that way. I guess we can't escape our genes. That's why I believe two consenting gay adults should be allowed to marry, and I think one day that will happen. Many people aren't ready for it now, and if gay want to marry, they should start changing people's opinions.
Anonymous, I think the slippery slope argument itself is weak. We can legalize gay marriages, while prohibiting someone from marrying his goat or daughter. Second, when you say "truth never changes," it appears that you're looking at things in absolutes. That's fine but a lot of people don't see the world that way. What is truth today, may become a lie tomorrow. Every day I find some new medical or scientific fact replacing an old one. Hundreds of years ago, people sacrifice animals and fellow human beings to their gods. In these times, we know that this is wrong and we no longer follow such practices. If I lived in the 18th century, I probably could have married my 12-year-old cousin. Today I would be on "To Catch a Predator" and getting handcuffed by the police. It's not always good to see things in absolutes.
It's so frustrating trying to argue with religious fundamentalists because they're so *right* about what they know.
I guess they only way you'll see a different perspective is when it touches you personally and you see for yourself that two people of the same gender who want to have their union legitimized by the State and recognized fully by their families and communities is in no way a threat to your beliefs or your Church.
"I don' eat meat. I don't agree with people's CHOICE to consume animal flesh or wear fur. I don't agree with everyone's religion. But Lord knows I don't work actively to deny another human being the ability to feed themselves, wear tacky fur and practice whatever faith they adhere to."
Pray tell, who is preventing you from being gay?
Draven, that still doesn't answer the question. Was Paul wrong? Did he mean that now the sabbath was worthless. By your response, I think you reject Paul's epistles. Do you also reject the Books of Moses? Which books of the Bible do you follow? Jesus said that the sabbath created for man, not man for the sabbath (Mark 2:27). Considering that the Hebrew calendar does not coincide with our own identically, including how they count days, equating Saturday as the true sabbath is a stretch...a debatable matter. If I hold Sunday as more special than Saturday because that is the day that Jesus rose from the dead, why condemn me for that? Romans 14:5-8 says, concerning matters of taste and personal preference that God has not called sin:
"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord."
When Anonymous wrote that "truth never changes", the point is valid because if something is wrong at any time it's wrong today. Human sacrifice has always been wrong because no one belongs to another in the way that they have the right to destroy them. It's an absolute and it's in the Bible that God does not like it. When the "slippery slope" argument was made, I agree because, if the definition of marriage is so fluid then why do you have the right to tell Joe-the-Pedaphile that he can't marry a 12 year-old-boy? Why can't Mrs. So-and-so marry a goat? If we start calling same-sex-unions "marriage", those people who do the kinds of things that monogamous homosexuals abhor will feel left out and will eventually argue that they have the same "civil rights" to pursue their own ideas of what happiness is. We need to seek happiness on God's terms not ours.
Enslaving any race of people and breaking up their families is wrong and condemned in the Bible. It was wrong before America did it. It was wrong during the time America was doing it. And it's wrong to do it now. And it will be wrong tomorrow.
dkan71, I rally don't want to frustrate anyone. If you think I'm wrong in how I've interpreted the Bible, demonstrate it. Show that I has misapplied, misquoted, or misrepresented anything in your understanding. "Come let us reason together...." Isaiah 1:18
If you take issue with what the Bible itself says. That is an entirely different point. One that can be discussed and demonstrated that the Bible is what it says it is. Regardless, anyone can do or say as they see fit -- take it up with Jesus when you see him.
When Anonymous wrote that "truth never changes", the point is valid because if something is wrong at any time it's wrong today. Human sacrifice has always been wrong because no one belongs to another in the way that they have the right to destroy them. It's an absolute and it's in the Bible that God does not like it. When the "slippery slope" argument was made, I agree because, if the definition of marriage is so fluid then why do you have the right to tell Joe-the-Pedaphile that he can't marry a 12 year-old-boy? Why can't Mrs. So-and-so marry a goat? If we start calling same-sex-unions "marriage", those people who do the kinds of things that monogamous homosexuals abhor will feel left out and will eventually argue that they have the same "civil rights" to pursue their own ideas of what happiness is. We need to seek happiness on God's terms not ours.
Enslaving any race of people and breaking up their families is wrong and condemned in the Bible. It was wrong before America did it. It was wrong during the time America was doing it. And it's wrong to do it now. And it will be wrong tomorrow.
dkan71, I rally don't want to frustrate anyone. If you think I'm wrong in how I've interpreted the Bible, demonstrate it. Show that I has misapplied, misquoted, or misrepresented anything in your understanding. "Come let us reason together...." Isaiah 1:18
If you take issue with what the Bible itself says. That is an entirely different point. One that can be discussed and demonstrated that the Bible is what it says it is. Regardless, anyone can do or say as they see fit -- take it up with Jesus when you see him.
Marcus, it's really sad to see Christians use twisted logic in trying to justify the breaking of a supposedly sacred law--honoring the Sabbath day. Jews have been keeping the original Sabbath forever, and they don't use calendar arguments to justify violations of the rule. When you said he choose to keep Sunday because it's the day of the crucifixion, you only confirm that Christians conveniently change the rules and cherry pick themselves. The 10 Commandments were supposed to be an everlasting covenant, although it's funny that only one of them--the Fourth law--was crossed off. Puleeze, you can't win this, so I implore you to keep your rules and follow your heart.
Um, Jesus was resurrected on the first day of the week. For us that Sunday. It's not crossing off the fourth commandment. Your argument side-steps and doesn't even begin to address the points I brought up. What about what Jesus said. What about what Paul said. If you haven't thought about it or can't reconcile it with how you understand the 10 commandments...then just admit that rather than just dismissing my points. I gave my reasons, from scripture why it's valid to go to worship on Sunday and not Saturday. What are yours for not worshipping? Here is more: God told Moses that the sabbath was a sign to other nations that they are his. He said it was for them and their children. No where does scripture say that it was for gentiles living in a non-Jewish context. All you have to do is show that the scripture says that it does and I'll shut up. In fact scripture says opposite. And I provided the references. Where are yours? If you wanna hold Tuesday more sacred than any other day of the week, God honors that. In addition, under the strictist observation of the sabbath, you could not drive a car on the sabbath. I know of no Jewish community that teaches that. Let alone,back in the day, breaking the sabbath was a death sentence. Jesus dealt with all that when he was here. You can be free...but only on God's terms. If anyone wants to discuss what those terms are, I invite it.
10 minutes ago I caught my own error about the crucifixion day and I knew it would be the first thing you would correct. That's typical penny ante stuff. No, Marcus, I won't debate you further on the Sabbath issue and it's not a Jewish day. The 10 Commandments, if you are to observe them, were supposed to be a universal set of rules. Christians, including Paul, try to change doctrine to fix their own perception of things. As you can see, I don't think Paul was speaking God's word everytime he put something down on paper. Based on my premise, we have no basis on which to discuss the Bible. You accept it as a completely holy document and I don't. Anyway, I hope you keep studying and trusting in God. Peace, light and happiness always
Hello again.
I'm the original anonymous from this thread.
Draven7
When I said there are absolutes, I didn't mean everything is an absolute. But Draven7 you basically made my point. There are forces that change how we view certain issues. Twenty years age even the most liberal of people wouldn't not have believed that we could be having this conversation. Society changes and technologies, war, and social movement effect how it changes. We are a country that is home to many cultures many that don't have are values and social traditions. Lets say there is a culture that does marry children or has relations with animals (I can't name any but I know there but have been some somewhere). If they protest and their voices are heard would we be able to ban their practices. What ground would we have to stand on. If we change the definition of marriage once, whats to say that we don't do it again.
Again, with all the Christians I spoken with we all mostly agree. I don't care what goes on between two people in private and they also should be given all rights, but don't change the definition of marriage.
No problema, princessbutterfly. Peace always
Draven, obviously you consider the day of Jesus' resurrection "typical penny ante stuff" because you don't consider the Bible to be a holy and infalliable book. And because we can't agree on that, we can't talk about what Bible says and come to agreement. I just find it interesting at why you accuse me of cherry-picking if you don't think every word of the Bible is divinely inspired while I do. That is what I would call cherry-picking. If you consider the 10 commandment a universal set of rules then do you also believe that the should be followed? If you do, then do you think they were divinely inspired or just something that Moses pulled out of one of his orifices? Further, if you are not looking at the whole counsel of scripture how do you know you are understanding it correctly? If you are unwilling to discuss which parts of the Bible are true and inspired then we have nothing to discuss. But if you are willing to explain your point of view, I'm more than willing to hear it.
I have to second princessbutterfly's comments. I believe that gays should get the rights of marriage, inheritance, etc. but I do not want to see the definition of marriage changed.
I am concerned that ministers will be charged with discrimination if they choose to uphold a traditional marriage belief by denying gay couples marriage ceremonies in the church.
Just thought I would be honest.
Thank you so much for posting this. I needed so badly to read something positive like this - something that reaffirmed the message that one day, change would come - instead of all the sniping and finger-pointing and blaming that's been going on among the No On 8 groups since 8 passed.
We need to come together and fight for change, not let our movement dissolve into nothing more than vicious namecalling.
I hope you're right. I almost believe you are.
I just want to tell those who are concerned that if marriage by the state and federal government was expanded to include homosexual couples it WOULD NOT affect church rules. The government CANNOT tell a church nor make a church accept homosexuality or gay marriage.
If using the government to fix religion were an option the Womenpriests movement within and outside of the Catholic Church would simply sue the church for gender discrimination, but they can't because the government cannot and will not interfere with the church's rules on who can be a priest. The Catholic Church believes women can't be priests. The only way to change the rules is to appeal to the church directly. Not through the government. So the "definition" of marriage would ONLY change in government.
The same went for Mormons who originally didn't accept blacks as members or ministers. We couldn't sue to get that, the LDS church had to change on their own. Just like the LDS church had to outlaw polygamy on their own at the turn of the century. Much like the government wouldn't do anything if a minority was being discriminated against in a predominately white church, specifically the Southern Baptist Church which had nothing to do with black people for decades.
Government CANNOT change the church's definition or tell them what they can or cannot believe otherwise you'd have gay people suing churches for discrimination to alter the churches.
You can't.
Separation of church and state stops that. That's why I think the definition argument isn't valid. It doesn't change the definition for the church or the individual. Nothing can change the definition for the church BUT the church. It changes it for the government only and our government is supposed to be ruled by a "godless" constitution.
The only time a church opens itself up for litigation is under the most egregious circumstances, like how the Catholic church never dealt with their pedophile priest issues, or rogue fundamentalist Mormon churches who marry off young girls or practice polygamy. You're not breaking the law by preaching against homosexuality or gay marriage. The Bill of Rights covers the church's right to oppose it if it chooses to do so. Nothing will change that unless they change the Bill of Rights.
But if you start actively harming, harassing or intimidating gay people THEN there would be a problem. As long as everyone stays in their own sandbox and no laws are broken (re: vandalism, harassment, etc.), the church is protected and will always be protected. No minister will get in trouble for preaching against it.
I mean, this is an extreme example but the KKK is not an illegal organization. Neither is any white power hate group. They can write, preach and peacefully protest all the live long day PROTECTED by the Bill of Rights. They ONLY get in trouble when they threaten, intimidate, harass, hurt or kill someone. Other than that, they can pretty much do whatever they want. It's not against the law to hate minorities, Jews, women, ANYONE.
Like I said, an extreme example, but that should tell you something that if they aren't taking the Klan's free speech rights away and they're utterly repellent they're not going to take the church's rights away.
And people LIKE church.
Honestly, I CANNOT say that enough. Your fears really are unfounded here. Like the US government is no fan of the Nation of Islam, but they can't do anything to them. All the government can do is sit around and hope they'll break a law, like illegally stockpile weapons, a la the Branch Dividians. The government can't touch the Church of Scientology despite the many complaints people have had against it because IT IS A CHURCH and is therefore protected from things businesses can only dream to be protected from.
You're safe. The minister is safe. The only thing that can get a minister in trouble is if they endorse a political candidate and tell the flock who to vote for.
I realize this still won't be reassuring enough for some people, but if our country is willing to protect our hate groups, I'm pretty sure they'll continue to protect the churches' free speech rights considering the vast majority of the members of our government consider themselves to be the followers of some form of faith.
Marcus, the part I called penny ante that you missed the point I was making. You said you choose to honor Sunday because it's the "Lord's Day," the day Christ was supposedly resurrected on. That's cherry picking, deciding what day you want to honor is just that. I said it was penny ante because when I slipped a little and said Sunday was the day of the crucifixion, you jumped all over it. That's nitpicking, trying find to a weakness in my argument. It doesn't change anything. Christians make up the rules to whenever they see fit. Moreover, the 10 Commandments are universal laws if you're going to follow the Bible as a holy book. They were meant to apply to everyone, and it laughable that you assert that they were given to Jews only. Quite funny, really. Since I don't subscribe to either point of view, the Commandments aren't laws that I have to adopt. I see the Bible as a document with a lot of insight, wisdom and knowledge. Some of it inspired as any great literature and art is. You can write something right now, and if it's profound and enlightening, I can say that it's also inspired by God. God speaks to all us, not just the ancients. BTW, I see Christ as a miracle man with the highest state of consciousness. He could even be in the Godhead on the other side. At any rate, one day we'll know the answers and I don't lose sleep at night thinking about it.
Miss Snob, you lost me on the part about ministers getting into trouble if they endorse a candidate. They do it all the time and that's their right. They're still going to their tax breaks as well.
Black Snob, the reason why people are concerned that ministers can be sued for not supporting gay marriage is because such things have happened before. You have stated that the Mormon allowed Blacks and outlawed polygamy. These are examples of faith and practice being changed due to government interfereance. The federal government said to the Mormons that we will jail you if you continue polygamy because you are breaking the laws of the United States. I've studied some history of the Mormon church by looking at apologetic debates and this is a hot topic as to how valid some of the claims of the Mormons (which I will not get into here). For more see the work of Dr.Walter Martin who was excellent at witnessing and talking to Mormons with gentleness and respect. The point is that Mormons did not get rid of polygamy on their own. The top leader at the time "heard" from God and due to that "revelation" they got rid of polygamy after the government made an issue of it. Please research this if you don't believe me.
On top of that black people were barred from the Mormons because they were not considered human or worthy of salvation since the days of their Founder, Joseph Smith. They only started to allow Black people because of the weight of the civil rights movement in the 1960's.
I do not think that its good idea to assume that gay people will not be able to sue churches to make them accept homosexuality because it's already happening in the United Kingdom. I saw a story in the past few month. Look at this link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-417582/Vicars-sued-refusing-bless-gay-weddings-fears-Church.html
In addition, just recently, Bible Publisher Zondervan is being sued for their translation of the Bible because it hurts the feelings of the homosexual platiff named Bradley Fowler. His complaint is with 1 Corinthians 6:9 and how it lists homosexuality in a list of sins. See http://endtimespropheticwords.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/zondervan-faces-60m-federal-lawsuit-over-bible-homosexuality/
Fowler said that it's a mistranslation. Here is a list of several translations and how that verse is rendered: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9;&version=31;9;49;50;
Each translation says the same thing but not in the same English words. In the Greek the offending word is "aresenokotes" (Strong's number: 733) and the lexicon I own is "one engaging in homosexual acts, sexual deviant". As far as I know when the 1st Century readers read "aresenokotes" the understood Paul was writing about Homosexuals....what they do as being offensive not who they are or something that God cannot deliver them from. Here is the whole passage,verses 9 and 10 (NIV):
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Draven, I'm surprised that you said I jumped all over you. If you felt that way then I apologize. I think it's not correct to call me "cherry-picking" just because I look at the Old Testament the way Jesus,
Paul, and the first Century Christian church looked at it. If you disagree, prove they didn't and instead believed and taught the way you do. It's important to know what you believe and why because...If you are right and I am wrong then it won't matter because everyone will be in perfect paradise and in perfect communion with God and each other after we die and leave this plane of existence. The problem is that the Bible says that you are not correct. And if the Bible is right and you are not, then everyone who refuses to come to God through Jesus will end up totally and completely separated from God in the Lake of Fire. Really, really high stakes. People's souls hang in the balance. That is why I care...I don't want anyone to miss out on Heaven and the wonderous promises of God. I think you may wanna take another look at your beliefs and be really, really sure. In your position, I would not be able to sleep so soundly. I'm praying for you. I don't agree with all the seventh-day adventist doctrines, but on all that truly matters we agree. You really, really should take another look. And hey, why not do something really novel. Go to God and ask yourself. You will get an answer and it won't be the "course of miracles" text you will be pointed to.
I'm very sure, my brother Marcus. I totally know there's an afterlife. I have friends who are psychic and I've had too many supernatural events to validate happenings on the other side. I do believe in a spiritual plane described as Hell. I ain't going there. That's reserved for people under demonic influence, who go there willingly. God doesn't cast them there. As I said before, he's not punishing anyone and anyone can walk out Hell if they can find their way. Don't worry about other souls. Many of them will be fine. Stay in faith and peace always
We can sit around and argue about this issue for years and never see eye to eye. I guess we'd rather battle it out; to blame or accuse each others beliefs rather than look for solutions. But I understand why, it's easier.
Okay, here's one solution:
If the word "marriage" has so much religious connotations in it, why not strike marriage out of all government language and documents? Moreover, if there's supposed to be a "separation of church and state", why is it that both sides feel the need of government to define this somewhat religious term?
IMO, the government (local, state, and federal) shouldn't recognize any so-called "marriage" whether it be between homosexuals or heterosexuals. Its major responsibility is to enforce the rights of the two people in question, and get its money accordingly (taxes). Change everything to "Domestic Partnerships" or "Civil Unions", and let Religion continue to define what constitutes a marriage. [steps off soapbox]
On another note, one of the things I find is a little unfair is to look at the results by how each ethnicity voted. Blacks aren't a very prominent percentage of the electorate here in CA, yet there are some who point the finger of blame at the 70% of Black voters and accuse them of its passing. I honestly thought that age or campaign $$$ spent per county would've been a better indicator of the results but I guess the media found a sexier story w/ Blacks and Latinos as scapegoats.
OK black independent you have convinced this Black Christian Protestant. Strike the word marriage from government documents, IRS codes, etc. I'm fine with that (as if my opinion matters - smile).
Leave marriage to the religious institutions to decide and let the government recognize civil unions.
Now will these partnerships only be between 2 adults, or could more than 2 participate in a partnership? Not that is matters, I'm just curious
For that matter, what about corporations? Since legally corporations are persons then could I marry one? What about marrying Microsoft? In California, you could divorce Microsoft in that case, and get half of its assets. Anyone want to live in that kind of world?
I don't buy the false argument that this will open up some Pandora's Box of men marrying their Doberman Pinschers and horses or polygamy
Whether or not such a Pandora's Box would be opened depends on the rationale for legal recognition of same-sex "marriage".
Here is a list of reasons (none of them mutually exclusive):
1. Personal belief that same-sex unions constitute marriage
2. Belief that recognition would be beneficial to society.
3. Belief that gender discrimination is wrong.
4. Belief that sexual orientation discrimination is wrong.
5. Belief that people should be free to marry any consenting persons that they please.
Reasons 1-3 do not lead to support for polygamy, while 4 and 5 do.
Mr. Ejercito. You have made the following assertions and I would like to see justification. My comments are in italics
I don't buy the false argument that this will open up some Pandora's Box of men marrying their Doberman Pinschers and horses or polygamy
Whether or not such a Pandora's Box would be opened depends on the rationale for legal recognition of same-sex "marriage".
Here is a list of reasons (none of them mutually exclusive):
1. Personal belief that same-sex unions constitute marriage Why?
2. Belief that recognition would be beneficial to society. How?
3. Belief that gender discrimination is wrong. How does keeping the definition the definition of marriage constitute gender discrimination? (Keep in mind that domestic partners in California have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual married couples.)
4. Belief that sexual orientation discrimination is wrong. How does keeping the definition of marriage as it is, discriminate against anyone's sexual orientation? It has nothing to do with sexual orientation or preference.
5. Belief that people should be free to marry any consenting persons that they please. Why?
Reasons 1-3 do not lead to support for polygamy, while 4 and 5 do.
Therefore do you support polygamy. It it ok? If it isn't why isn't it? By your own words, you have 2 beliefs that lead to polygamy. How do you justify banning polygamy?
How does keeping the definition the definition of marriage constitute gender discrimination? (Keep in mind that domestic partners in California have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual married couples.)
If a man is allowed to marry a woman but a woman is not allowed to marry a woman, that is constitute gender discrimination.
The question is whether this is wrongful gender discrimination. For the record, I do not think it is wrongful, the state does have an interest in promoting opposite-sex monogamy, as it is the foundation for stable families. Others disagree, hence the debate over legal recognition of same-sex "marriage".
. How does keeping the definition of marriage as it is, discriminate against anyone's sexual orientation? It has nothing to do with sexual orientation or preference.
If the state treats some relationships different from others, that is discrimination. This is not necessarily wrong; the state has a compelling interest to promote opposite-sex monogamy for the reason I listed above. Others disagree, hence the debate.
Therefore do you support polygamy. It it ok? If it isn't why isn't it? By your own words, you have 2 beliefs that lead to polygamy. How do you justify banning polygamy?
I never claimed those were my beliefs.
Anonymous & Marcus: sorry I didn't get back to your previous post 10 days ago (been busy w/ work these last few weeks and checked this thread on a whim).
Of course it would be the state's responsibility to detail exactly what constitutes a "domestic partnership" or a "civil union". More than likely the definition would be lined out as being a union of 2 consenting adults. Polygamy would be a whole other issue since it seems to be a bit on the confusing side when it comes to current law.
Marcus, if you honestly believe that a corporation could/would physically give consent to a marriage, then yes, I suppose someone could technically "marry" a corporation in the scenario I proposed. Is it realistic? Probably not, considering for it to give consent the shareholders would have to vote on whether to "marry" (and what sane person w/ money at stake in a company would vote for something so ridiculously risky, given the end-result you stated?). However, since a corporation is really only a legal entity, and not a natural person like you or me, I would like to think that marriage would fall under that category of things that only natural persons can do under our Constitution (e.g. the right to freely exercise a religion, a belief, or have spirituality). But I'm a little rusty on the specifics of our constitutional law, so don't hold me to that.
Look, we see eye-to-eye when it comes to the definition of the word "marriage"; I also believe it's a religious term that signifies a union between a man and a woman. Personally, I'm just to apathetic about the cause to withhold certain benefits from a particular group of people. Besides, the underlying issue is the word "marriage" itself, which is why I can see a lot of religious people willing to give homosexuals those said benefits but be against "gay marriage". That's why I say strike the word "marriage" out any government language. IMO, it's kind of a bitter-sweet compromise, both sides wins and yet both sides loses.
Post a Comment