Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

GALLUP: Trump Job Approval Rating Now at 34%, New Low

.

.
.

Monday, January 25, 2010

NO H8!

Pamela D. Hart over at The Oracular Opinion has a post up in support of equal rights for all citizens as it applies to marriage.  As I have noted in my posts on this subject, I strongly believe this is a civil rights issue.  It is unConstitutional and unAmerican to have two separate sets of laws for our citizens based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.  It. Is. Wrong.

No one whom I have ever spoken to who supports civil rights for people who wish to marry the person of their choice--no one has suggested that a religious organization should be forced to marry people of the same sex.  So that false alarm people set out as proof of the gays or the liberals forcing their agenda on everyone is just that--false.  There are plenty of religious organizations that already recognize civil rights in relation to marriage, so there is absolutely nothing to that unfounded fear. There will be no forcing of any church to do what they do not wish to do.

At one point, in the arguments against allowing gay marriage coming before California's Supreme Court one of the opponents was asked by one of the justices what harm, exactly, would befall heterosexual marriages should gays receive their civil rights.  The person arguing against civil rights for gays stumbled and then said--I can't remember the exact words, but they were something like--"actually, I can't think of anything."

He couldn't think of any reason a gay marriage would impact a hetero marriage because there isn't one. The only thing I can think of that has a negative impact on marriage is divorce.  Those whose focus is on denying gay people civil rights in marriage should change their focus and work on keeping marriages together. 

The Mormon and Catholic churches spent millions and millions of dollars on Proposition 8 in 2008 to reverse the California legislature's approval of gay marriage.  What a waste of money.  Those millions would have been better spent on counseling the millions of couples contemplating divorce, splitting up families, and affecting  the millions of children who are caught up in the rancor between their parents.  Instead those two organizations spent millions of dollars to deny American citizens their Constitutional rights. 

Both the Catholic Church and the Mormons are on the wrong side of justice and history. 

"The arc of history is long, but its bends toward justice."  MLK

Brava! for Cindy McCain for coming out and supporting equal rights for all American citizens!

And Brava! for my lovely niece, Sophia, for doing the same!








32 comments:

dmarks said...

Shaw K said: "The Mormon and Catholic churches spent millions and millions of dollars on Proposition 8 in 2008 to reverse the California legislature's approval of gay marriage. What a waste of money."

Their spending didn't matter much in the end, did it? It was strong support among California's African-American population for Proposal 8 that made a big difference (2 to 1), enough to overcome a strong white opposition to Prop. and pass it.

A California Black population that is overwhelmingly liberal, and has only a negligible proportion of Mormons and Catholics in it.

Shaw Kenawe said...

So you don't believe the Catholics and Mormons had any influence?

dmarks said...

I'd think they'd have little influence in a demographic sector that has a very small amount of adherents to either faith.

Especially when one of the two religions (Mormonism) only came out of a Jim Crow-like attitude (separate and definitely unequal) in 1978.

Arthurstone said...

The reason special interests throw money at wedge issues and the reason big-time corporate America is thrilled to bits with the Supremes latest is that campaign contributions have no effect on candidates and never influence the outcome of elections.

It's just a way to get rid of excess cash.

Right?

TAO said...

Corporations pay taxes so they should have freedom of speech...

Gays pay taxes so shouldn't they have the right to marry who they see fit?

Marriage is a form of expression....so let them have the right to express themselves...

Betcha Clarence would have a different logic on that one...

Shaw Kenawe said...

TAO,

I'm not going to bet against what you said.

TRUTH 101 said...

As one of the few openly Christian bloggers in these parts, it makes sense to me that the church and anyone of "morals" would want gays or straights to be in committed marriages rather then engage in unmarried sexual activity.

I don't ask anyone to deny who he or she is. And I wouldn't deny anyone any of the rights I have because they are not "like me."

Oso said...

Truth,
Much like pork, I am the Other Liberal Christian.

Jim said...

SK:  It is unConstitutional and unAmerican to have two separate sets of laws for our citizens based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.  It. Is. Wrong.

Most assuredly it would be. Just where is this other set of laws you speak of?

Is there another Constitution for incestuous couples?

Is there another Constitution for bestiality couples?

The Catholic Church believes that sodomy is sinful and I assume that is the case for the Mormon Church as well. It is well within their rights to oppose any law that they perceive to be harmful to the flock in gaining everlasting life.

Seems to me, IMHO, some here want "separate but equal" laws applied to Christians.

Shaw Kenawe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shaw Kenawe said...

JIM said:

"Is there another Constitution for incestuous couples?

Is there another Constitution for bestiality couples?"


What has this to do with same sex marriage? Please explain. There is no beastiality or incestuous issues in same sex marriages. Why do you bring those unconnected issues up?

JIM also wrote: "The Catholic Church believes that sodomy is sinful and I assume that is the case for the Mormon Church as well. It is well within their rights to oppose any law that they perceive to be harmful to the flock in gaining everlasting life."

No. It. Is. Not. They have no rights within our secular laws. They absolutely can tell their congregates not to engage in any activity they do not approve of. BUT THOSE RELIGONS HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL OUR SECULAR STATE WHAT ANY CITIZEN HAS THE RIGHT TO DO.

Christian, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindism, Buddhists, Bahais, and any other religion do NOT tell our secular government what is lawful or not.

We are not like Muslim countries where religion informs the governmental laws.



.

Pamela D. Hart said...

Shaw: Bravo to your Sophia! Wow, she’s gorgeous!


The only thing I can think of that has a negative impact on marriage is divorce.

This is the only true statement I’ve heard on the issue. I believe our divorce rate is about 40% for 1st time marriages, then it rises to about 67% for 2nd time marriages and up to 70% for 3rd time marriages [I'd learn after the 2nd time!].

I’ve heard one too many times that “marriage is sacred” so I want to know if it’s so sacred why do SO many marriages end in divorce? What are the vows “til death do us part” mean? Or “forsaking all others”? Do they MEAN anything? Obviously NOT with a 40% divorce rate!

So many people today just toss their spouse away like an old shoe then go get another one[spouse that is]. If marriage is so important, so sacred, so exclusive, then MORE people would treat it with RESPECT—along with their spouse! They have the audacity to want to deny gays the “rights” and “joys” of marriage yet they marry, divorce, re-marry, divorce and re-marry again! It’s like a darn game to some of these people. Yet a gay couple who is deeply in love and who respects one another can’t have the benefit of marriage?

The hypocrisy is astounding because there is NOT one RATIONAL reason to deny gays the right to marry. Also, I have yet to hear HOW gays marrying will affect anyone else’s life.

TRUTH 101 said...

Oso and I are Christians and it doesn't bother us.

I don't know why the righties insist on bringing beastiality up at evry opportunity. If I knew how to add links I'd add the post I did at American Nihilist on "Donald, the Buffalo Humping Moose."


Interspecies marriage. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Oso said...

yeah interspecies marriage is taking it a little far.
my ex was from a different tribe and it didn't work out.I can only imagine what it would have been like with say, oh, maybe a barracuda ?
Oh wait it was.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Oso: LOL!

Pamela D. Hart said...

Oso: I double that LOL!

Oso said...

Pam and Shawm
Thank you ladies !

Octopüß said...

T101: "Interspecies marriage. Tsk, tsk, tsk."

Watch yourself. As a former human to cephalopod transplant, you're on a slippery slope, my friend.

Oso said...

Octo,
I consider myself chastened and will do 10 Hail Mary's!

Jim said...

Just wondering where your limits are. And you still haven't said where this other set of laws can be found.

It may irk you to no end but organized religions have the same rights to voice their opinion on laws and to garner as much support to that opinion as, well, gay groups.

Every adult has the right to marry. Even gays. Just not same sex marriage. (BTW - do you know where in the Constitution that document bans same sex marriage? Or even mentions marriage?)

As I've said before in another thread that I don' t care if gays marry one another. I just happen to believe their divorces would prove to be very entertaining!

Octopüß said...

Jim: " (BTW - do you know where in the Constitution that document bans same sex marriage? Or even mentions marriage?)"

Jim, I hate to be the one who brings you bad news, but your logic is limited by your stubbornness. If the Constitution does does not mention gay marriage, you will have to refer to the 14th amendment which prohibits two classes of citizenship.

If you visit Daytona during Bike Week, please note: The logic police will give you no leniency or time off for having a pre-existing logic handicap. The Main Street bouncers don't like that sorta stuff.

Infidel753 said...

Strictly speaking there are not two sets of laws, in the sense that everybody, whether gay or straight, has an equal right to marry an opposite-gender partner. The point is that the present set of laws is discriminatory in effect.

If Bill can marry Jane because Bill is male, but Karen cannot marry Jane because Karen is female, then Karen is denied a legal right which Bill is allowed, purely due to the gender difference between them. That's discriminatory.

Notice that the issue has nothing to do with whether being gay is innate or immutable or whatever. The same issue applied before Loving v. Virginia struck down laws against interracial marriage. Back then, one could say that everyone had an equal right to marry a same-race partner. But if Frank can marry Jean because they are both white, but Ben cannot marry Jean because he's black, then Ben is being discriminated against based on race. The situations are exactly parallel.

The point is really about the right to marry the person you want to marry. The fact of that person being os a different race or the same gender may bother some other people, but it's none of their business.

Polls showed that a large majority of people favored laws against interracial marriage at the time they were struck down, but that was rightly irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant to gay marriage today. If a right is fundamental, it should not be contingent on majority approval.

Infidel753 said...

Religious individuals have as much right to influence the political process as anyone else. But government policy cannot be based on religious dogma; that would be unconstitutional.

That is, if you favor a law prohibiting a certain kind of behavior, then just arguing that that behavior is taboo according to your religion is not adequate grounds for it. And bigotry doesn't cease to be bigotry just because it is derived from an anathema pronounced in some holy book.

dmarks said...

Infidel said: "Religious individuals have as much right to influence the political process as anyone else..."

Very good. I was thinking of saying something along that lines. You've covered two very important parts of the First Amendment: the establishment clause and the right to petition the government.

So, Shaw, there is a "RIGHT TO TELL" (caps from your comment on this), but whether or not the government can properly act on it is another question.

TAO said...

Dmarks,

If corporations, because they pay taxes have a right to free speech

Then why do religions/churches have a right to free speech when they are tax free?

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks,

Let me clarify my statement I wrote in caps: as individuals, religious people have the right to their political opinions, as do religious organizations. They do not, as an organization, have the right to impose their religious beliefs, customs, bigotry, etc. on our secular laws. The opposition to same-sex marriage is based on religious bigotry.

The Mormons and Catholic Church were heavily involved in defeating same-sex marriage for California in the 2008 election--The Mormon Church, if you will remember came to understand that African-American Mormons were equal in the eyes of their god only recently--in 1978. When President Spencer W. Kimball announced to the world on June 9, 1978 a revelation making Mormons of all races eligible for the priesthood, he ended a policy that for 130 years denied the priesthood to those having any black African ancestry.




Through Prop 8, the Mormon Church has shown its true colors as a political group with specific social ends. Political speech is fair and legal here; such speech under the guise of religion is not. The playing field must be leveled. Though many religious groups were involved in Prop 8, the Mormon Church made this a far more substantial part of its activities than any other.

Californians will vote on future propositions to correct this flawed amendment next year, and every year, until we achieve our rights under the state constitution. We must be assured that our advocacy organizations are on an equal legal and financial playing field as those of our opponents.

dmarks,

The African-American was 60% to 40%IN FAVOR of same-sex marriage until the Mormons and Catholic Church poured money into influencing the vote.

"Many people have commented that minorities voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8. This was especially disappointing given the history of bigotry and discrimination these groups have faced. This vote serves as evidence of the degree to which minority groups can be pitted against each other with misinformation and fear. Californians were 60-40 against Prop 8 prior to the Mormon tidal wave of money in September, 2008. Prop 8 demonstrates how readily money moves elections."

(This is why, IMO, the Supreme Court's decision last week is an insidious a ruling.

Jim,

Bringing beastiality and incest into the discussion is non-productive. First of all marriage is a union betwee two consenting adults. An animal cannot consent to a human wanting to "marry" it. The notion is just plain silly. And incest is prohibited in all cultures because of the inherent danger to a culture's gene pool. It does happen, but it is rare.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Jim,

To understand the dire consequences of an incestuous marriage, I suggest you read Oedipus.

Shaw Kenawe said...

I will continue to permanently delete commenters who post stupid, hateful rants, such as the one "Anonymous" and (L) did this morning.

dmarks said...

Shaw said: "(This is why, IMO, the Supreme Court's decision last week is an insidious a ruling."

Shaw, I may disagree with insidious things that people say, but I defend their right to say it.

Tao: The First Amendment makes no distinction as to who is allowed to speak.

There's nothing in the Constitution that strips away free speech rights for individuals who happen to be in organizations, nor is anything in the Bill of Rights hinged on whether nor not individuals pay taxes or not.

---------------
Addressed to readers in general: Isn't this probably the 4th or 5th name the "Obammy" troll has appeared under? Or am I undercounting....

dmarks said...

ha. Shaw nailed the Obammytroll's comment while I was typing mine.

TRUTH 101 said...

Octo has nice legs.

w-dervish said...

dmarks said... It was strong support among California's African-American population for Proposal 8 that made a big difference.

I don't think the facts don't support this assertation. "The state's Black population is 6.2 percent, and it accounted for 10 percent of the overall vote. In other words, blaming African Americans for the referendum's passage ignores 90 percent of the vote" (source: Why Prop 8 Passed in California: The Myth of the Black/Gay Divide: Institutionalized homophobia in American society is definitely a white monopoly).

dmarks said... There's nothing in the Constitution that strips away free speech rights for individuals who happen to be in organizations...

You are correct, there is nothing in the Constitution that that strips away free speech rights from individuals who happen to belong to organizations. But, as for the organizations, the Constitution does not grant them free speech rights. The Bill of Rights protects "individual rights", NOT group rights.

The reason behind the recent SCOTUS ruling had nothing to do with the "unconstitutionality" of prohibiting corporations from spending money on political ads -- the court ruled the way it did because GWB appointed two members of the fascist Federalist Society.

Truth101 said... As one of the few openly Christian bloggers in these parts...

From my blog -- "About Me: I'm a Liberal Democrat and Christian..."