This week the Crown goes to the Massachusetts State Legislature for voting down a proposed ban on Gay marriage 157-39. The proposition would have forced a vote in the 2006 elections to decide whether Gay marriage should be outlawed in exchange for Civil Unions, you know take away homosexuals rights but give them a token right to keep them happy. Civil Unions are an atrocity and are a clear segregation of homosexuals. Basically you are telling them that they are good enough to get some of the benefits of marriage but they are not good enough to be married. The worst part is that all of the arguments that I have heard against Gay Marriage have nothing to do with the constitutionality or legality of it but with the "immorality according to God" of it. Since when was "God" supposed to be involved in any decision making on the Governmental level. The U.S. Constitution very clearly states that no law will be made regarding religion. Period. To say that it should be illegal because "God" says so is to say to all those who do not believe in God or who believe in a non Judeo/Christian/Muslim God that you voice does not matter and we will force you to believe in the way of our God. And I don't want to hear this crap about well the majority of this country is Christian and so we should follow that. Wrong. While the majority of this Country is in fact Christian the Constitution is clear is saying that the Majority does not rule the Minority. We all have EQUAL VOICE in government. I am very happy to see that Massachusetts is setting an example and standing up for the rights of homosexuals everywhere.
The Dunce Hat goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who this week vowed to veto a bill that
would legalize Gay Marriage in California. He is basically saying here that he does not care what the officials elected by the people think or what the Constitution of the United States says about equality. He would rather stick to the RNC's agenda than stick up for the rights of the people of his state. Well if I know Ca. Then I think that when it goes back it will be voted through so hopefully someday soon I will be giving the Crown to them, but until then the Dunce of the week is good ole' Govinator.
7 comments:
It's sickening the way government representatives are using God these days. They're even going as low as to use churches to up their voting numbers when election time comes around.
Besides, I never thought God would say that being gay was wrong. It's just the way people are interpreting the bible, to suite their own purposes.
Ideals, Morays, Traditions, Customs, Laws, Religions - they are not separate things.
They were all created by human beings to serve human beings.
They function to stabilize groups of people - guiding, and restricting their behavior within predictable patters.
The ability of one person to predict the behavior of another is fundamental to the establishment of trust, and trust is the only reason why anyone would allow themselves to accept a peice of paper in exchange for a good or service. Trust is the only reason why any one of us would labor for weeks at a time without first receiving compensation. Trust is the reason why we don't all carry six guns strapped to our side instead of wearing our business suits.
And as we all know our money states in God We Trust right on it - so the idea that laws, and God are separate is poppycock.
However our money also states that we live in a secular nation, and one person's GOD (i.e., good), may be another person's Devil (i.e., evil), and so your points are extremely valid.
Where do we draw the line?
Thou Shalt Not Kill was translated, and instituted into our criminal codes making the sin of murder a crime - but that doesn't mean that there's something less functional with the laws. The law works well.
Thou shalt not steal also has its represntative within our criminal codes.
I suspect we can agree that in general stealing, and murdering are activities if allowed to become a normal activity would deminish the general level of trust within a society, and would result in a disfunctional society. One in which the fruits, and labor of the many would fall prey to the ruthlessness, and ravages of the few. Society would fall apart.
Instead of putting forth the argument that religion, politics, and laws should somehow be separate, which clearly wasn't ever the case, nor can it be - why don't we look at the functionality of the laws?
How do marriage laws function to stabilize a society?
How will the marriage of homosexuals hurt society? Some feel that the great ancient book of their religious beliefs forbids homosexuality - perhaps rightly so. For those who feel that the Bible should be the most important consideration in making any laws they have a reason to want to prevent homosexual marriage because it legitimizes immorality.
Then there are those who have other ways of determining what the social good should be - they will decide in their way as to whether homosexual marriage challenges their ideal social order.
There simply is no way to separate religion from politics, and politics from law.
I for one, and this is my quasi-religious belief speaking = don't see a problem with homosexual marriage.
I just haven't figured out how it would hurt me, or anyone else.
I suspect it would actually stabilize society more than it would hurt it. It would create laws which would be useful in protecting legal rights for more people, and would therefore create a greater level of trust between people. Which is what we need to generate a less exploitative soociety.
JeromeProphet
www.jeromeprophet.com
JP,
You state that our money states "In God We Trust" on it. This has not always been the case, it was added in 1872 I do believe, as a result of the growing religouse trend during the Civil War. Prior to that all money read "E Pluribus Unum" or "Out of many one." Much more fitting for a country who's constitution clearly shows no sign of religion except to say that it will have no effect on government. Furthermore the Great Seal which was added over a hundred years earlier by our forefathers, somewhere around 1732 (I am not at my normal office so please do forgive if the date is a little off.) Besides the fact that it is a clearly Pagan symbol (both the all seeing eye and the pyrmids are Pagan and Masonic in nature.) but it says under it "Novus Ordo Seclorum" or "One Secular Government" Clearly stating that "God" of any sort, be it Judeo/Christian/Muslim, Pagan, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other, should not be in Government.
As for the laws regarding murder, theft and others that happen to be in the Bible. These laws have been around either written or unwritten for thousands of year before the Bible was ever written. They are considered fundimentals of humanity and civilisation, not religion. And if you want to really get in depth the Ten Commandments bear and eery resemblance to the Egyptian Laws of the Gods. Did I mention that I am a symbologists. ;)
CPH said...I have no problem with people choosing an alternate lifestyle, but there is no reason Christians should have to accept such behavior as a norm either. This is what allowing gay marriage would do. Perhaps we should just call all marriages "civil unions" from a government standpoint, and make the actual religious ceremony the marriage. This would allow gay people the civic benefits of marriage without stepping on the toes of those who are in disagreement.
First of all please tell me where in the Bible it originates Marriage. Yes it includes it, but it is not the origin of it. The origins of Marraige trace back to the Egyptian and Greek times. Both of which were okay with homosexuals, as a matter of fact in ancient Greece homosexuality was considered a norm.
So how would it be stepping on the toes of Christians to give Homosexuals the same rights has we have. Marriage is not a religous thing. You can go to a court house and get Married, you have to go to a court house and get a Marriage License. So when does it become religous and stepping on the toes of Christians? It doesn't, except for those who are to close minded and biggoted to see that it has nothing to do with them whatsoever.
___________________________________
Also said...Rejecting the concept of civil unions is very telling, as it shows that the real agenda is not the rights of a minority, but the forcing of a secular progressive agenda on the rest of society who many not agree with it.
Apperantly you did not read the entire post, because if you did you would have seen that I do not reject Civil Unions has a concept, but I reject saying that Homosexuals should have only Civil Unions while the rest of our free nation is allowed to have Marraiges. It is, as I stated earlier, a form of Segregation. You are segragating Homosexuals who wish to be married from the rest of society. As for wanting to force a secular progressive agenda. Where? I never said that people should be secular, I said the Government should, because it is how the Constitution of the United States says it should be. If you want to be Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Diest, or any other religion please by all means do so. That is you right in this country. But it is also the right of those who do not believe to not be effected by those religions. The moment that you include religion in Governmental decision making you are forcing those beliefs on others. Allowing Gay Marriage does not force you to believe in homosexuality or to attend the wedding or to in any way show support for it. Not allowing it forces homosexuals to not be able to express their love for one another, and not giving them the same rights has others have. Show me one reason that they should not be allowed that is not religous and I will agree with you. But it can't be shown because it doesn't exist. Therefore Gay Marriage should be legal. PERIOD.
blacksheep said "I never thought God would say that being gay was wrong. It's just the way people are interpreting the bible, to suite their own purposes"
the bible does say that homosexuality is wrong and punishable by death. Since the bible is the Jewish and Christian book of what God supposedly says, than apparently God does not like gays all that much if he commands his followers to kill them.
Thank you, APL. My knowledge in world religion is a bit lacking. I was going on what I've over heard, from people who do know about religions. Most of them stated that nothing in the bible said it was wrong to be gay. (Then again it's hard to tell which bible whey were talking about since there seem to be different versions of it). I was also going on my personal beliefs.
I never said it wasn't a secular government, it's just not a secular society. Politicians don't separate themselves from their religious beliefs, and values. Nor do voters.
If you read your history you'll note that there were few ancient egyptians, and ancient greeks included in the group who founded our government. Most were of the Christian faith.
And once again it therefore isn't possible to divorce oneself from religion no matter how hard one tries.
As for the benefits of homosexual marriage? I would expect it would confer the same benefits which heterosexual marriage does upon society.
Post a Comment