At times, I’ve felt nostalgic while writing about my seminary days and remembering all the friendships and good times I experienced. Then I come across story like this one and remember why I am no longer an evangelical Christian: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26891725 Here’s the deal. I understand how someone could argue that Scripture prohibits gay relationships, as I used to hold that position myself. And if that is your opinion, it seems perfectly reasonable for you to refrain from gay relationships and attend a church that only recognizes marriages between people of the opposite sex. So far so good. But I do not understand the urge to raise millions of dollars and hold prayer vigils to deprive others WHO MAY NOT SHARE YOUR BELIEFS of a right THEY ALREADY POSSESS as Californians. Do you have nothing better to pray for or spend your money on? Like, say, starving multitudes, hurricane victims, or REO Speedwagon tickets? Oh, I know—gay unions undermine “real” marriage, destroy the very fabric of society, blah, blah, blah. BALONEY (sorry for getting carried away with the caps here). My wife and I have been married 18 years, and in that time I’ve learned that the only thing that can undermine our relationship is the choices we make as partners. Think about it—maybe you’ve got a gay couple living down the street. Maybe, like some friends of ours, they’ve been together for over 20 years and raised a child who now has a family of her own. Well, that couple isn’t going away. They are part of the community, and the only question is whether or not we will afford them the same rights and protections that we “straights” take for granted. If that supposedly menacing couple was going to undermine society, they would have already done it—so having the state recognize their relationship changes nothing for the rest of us but means a hell of a lot to them. Oh, I also know—if we let gays marry, what’s next? People will start marrying dogs! I actually heard this argument recently, and frankly, this kind of “slippery slope” reasoning is laughable. When we have a significant group of folks wanting to wed their pooches, we’ll address that issue as a society (and I won’t hold my breath). The reality is that right now we have a host of friends and neighbors who are clamoring to retain the right to wed another consenting adult of their choosing. So let’s focus on that fact. Having unburdened myself thusly, I am off to make another donation to NO ON PROP 8. Please join me!
Friday, September 26, 2008
No on Proposition 8
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I noticed your blog mentioned Prop 8, and I wanted to respond with some thoughts on that. Prop 8 isn't an issue about "rights". It is about preserving the definition of "marriage" as between a man and a woman. Gay people can do what they want, and they can even enjoy many civil benefits through civil unions and the such. But that isn't marriage. Gay people should be treated with kindness and respect, like anyone. Gay people aren't the issue here nor the problem. The problem is that 4 arrogant judges in black robes sitting in their ivory tower overturned the express will of a clear majority of California citizens when they ruled by fiat and illegally legislated from the bench when they unilaterally redefined marriage. Prop 8 allows the citizens of California to say no to Judicial Activism and Judicial Tyranny. There are elements of the judiciary that are way out of control and are endangering the balance of power in our republic by getting involved in "legislating". This has got to stop. Voting yes on Prop 8 will help put those elitist judges back in their place and let them know they cannot arrogantly overule the will of the people in a matter as fundamental to the future of civilization as the bedrock institution of marriage. That is something important enough that it should not be left to 4 elitist judges to impose by fiat.
May I speak a word to my gay friends, neighbors, coworkers, and fellow-countrymen. You are a minority and I'm sure you recognize that. And that is ok. But please show kindness and tolerance for the rest of us and vote with us to help preserve marriage as between a man and a woman. I know you may not have any personal parochial interest in voting yes on Prop 8. But as your friend and neighbor, I'm asking for your vote to help preserve the definition of this institution that is so important. Thank you.
Sonamerica,
Gay marriage is absolutely about human rights, not the semantics of marriage. Our government is set up with checks and balances (which include the judiciary) specifically so that "the tyranny of the majority" cannot deny rights to minority groups. A generation ago, California law (as enacted by the majority) did not see fit to recognize marriages between whites and non-whites. So definitions of marriage have already changed with time and are changing again.
And I must say that your call for our gay friends and neighbors to show kindness to you by helping you deny them their rights is offensive.
To compare racism to this is a strawman argument. Men and women are different. And that diversity is important. Each brings gender-unique and needed approaches to the raising of children. The definition of marriage as between a man and a woman recognizes that important contribution by both genders in the raising of our future generations.
I have no problem with gay people having civil unions for civil benefits etc, and they can live and do as they want. But as a society we need to promote marriage of a man and a woman, because that institution is critical for the future survival of society. And this issue is important enough that 4 judges ruling by fiat must not be allowed to override the will of the people on defining this most vital foundational institution of society.
Strawman? "The future survival of society" is at stake according to you, and you accuse me of raising a strawman? You never addressed the original point of my post, which is that gay marriage cannot threaten heterosexual marriage. As I pointed out, if there is a gay family down the street, I am totally unaffected by the title of their relationship. Affording them the same rights as me in no way changes the status of my marriage or any heterosexual marriage.
The strawman is the idea that if we call a relationship by one name vs. another society will crumble. Gay couples exist and always have, and they haven't brought down society yet.
One other thing "sonamerica." I see you've been commenting with the same cut-and-paste argument on other sites that dare come out against Prop 8. Please refrain from leaving any more of your retread comments here, because I won't be posting them. Good day.
Post a Comment