Open season on Mormons in California?
posted at 8:15 am on November 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Mormons have been under attack in California since the passage of Proposition 8. The LDS church backed the winning measure that restored the “one man, one woman” definition of marriage to the state constitution after the state Supreme Court overturned it as a statute. From profane billboards to violent protests, the anti-8 demonstrators have focused their ire on Mormons, and now two envelopes of white powder have turned up in the mail at the Mormon Temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City:
The FBI says a letter containing a suspicious white powder sent to a Mormon temple in the Westwood area of Los Angeles was not hazardous.
The temple was evacuated Thursday while a hazardous materials crew tested the substance and determined it was non-toxic.
A temple in downtown Salt Lake City received a similar envelope containing a white powder that spilled onto a clerk’s hand. The room was decontaminated and the envelope taken by the FBI for testing. A spokesman for the Salt Lake City Fire Department says the clerk showed no signs of illness, but the scare shut down a building at Temple Square for more than an hour.
It was depressingly predictable that the fringe of the protestors would eventually move towards terrorism. They’ve assaulted old ladies and threatened more violence, all because they lost on a ballot proposition. In fact, they lost by over 500,000 votes and almost five percentage points, 52.2% to 47.7%. Of California’s 58 counties, only 16 of them carried a majority of voters opposing it. It wasn’t just the old ladies and Mormons who opposed Proposition 8.
I have no problem with gay marriage, as long as the recognition comes through legitimate political means — either through referendum or legislative action. California voters have now twice stated by referendum that they do not want to grant government recognition of marriage to same-sex couples. That’s a pretty clear message that the people of California do not want a public policy that gives official recognition to same-sex couples, outside of partnership contracts.
This fortnight-long temper tantrum certainly won’t help the anti-8 cause when the inevitable referendum appears to reverse the constitutional amendment Californians added in this election. I’d expect to see that on the ballot every two years from now on, but if its backers keep acting like lunatics, they can expect to lose by greater margins in the future.
Update: I should address a few points in the comments. First, the reason I support the legitimate process of referendum or legislative action is because they won’t produce nutty results like polygamy or “interspecies marriage”, as someone accuses me of tacitly endorsing. How many people would vote to allow polygamy or adult incest? 5%? Judicial fiat, on the other hand, can produce some very strange results.
Also, recognition of marriage is already public policy. No one has proposed any laws barring two consenting non-related adults from cohabitating, nor should they. This isn’t a federal question, but a question of what types of relationships will get state recognition, and that’s an issue legitimately resting with the electorate.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
There could be a national referendum on heterosexual marriage that “takes” my marriage away…
…but all it will take away is the label. Before the eyes of God I will STILL be married to my wife.
And having a label taken away is no reason to knock ANYONE down.
BTW – Prop 8 CAN’T, by definition, be “at odds with the state constitution” since it is a constitutional amendment.
And no equality or freedoms (or even marriages) were harmed or taken away.
Only a government sponsored label was “taken” away.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 11:56 AM
very true, as we have seen, and Stanley Kurtz has documented, in the netherlands. its one of the main reasons for gay marriage, the other is to outlaw christianity, because opposing gay marriage would then be ‘discriminatory’ and a crime.
right4life on November 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM
I’d be knocking old ladies down too.lexhamfox on November 14, 2008 at 11:50 AM
more tolerance and LUV from the wacko left.
right4life on November 14, 2008 at 11:59 AM
If you have children, you know this is a critical moment in the cycle of misbehavior.
Our problem? No grown-ups in the USA with the gonads to speak up.
jeff_from_mpls on November 14, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Another adult heard from – Bravo. This could easily be applied to the extended tantrum of the baby boom, which is how we got here in the first place. I, of course, MO.
BTW, If you don’t believe that the rabble is being roused, check out the handy map of tantrum locations published this morning in Pravda (and just in time for your busy weekend schedule):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/11/13/MNIQ144185.DTL&o=1
warbaby on November 14, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Sorry, you fail…the word has been recognized by society, not just churches, for thousands of years. It is not a “church” word. They don’t own the word, anymore then the gays own the word. It is societies definition, and it has been unwavering for centuries…before the Christian church, before the Jewish faith, before faith itself. It is society, from the beginning of time, that has deemed that a normal “union” is between a man and a woman. Therefore anything other can’t be called the same. No more than a biologist can’t say a bird and a dog are the same.
Right now, the term “Civil Union” fits…marriage does not.
right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 12:00 PM
blockquote>I’m actually in Arlington, just a couple minutes away from Grapevine. It really is a nice place. When my parents came up from Houston because of Hurricane Ike, I took them to Grape Fest.
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 12:00 PM
JetBoy, first of all, We voted in Ca. once. The Gays lost. The reason why they were given the right to marry. Was a Judge that had no regard for our voices. Decided to flip us off and overturn our decision. If they can make it legal without messing with an important piece of History. Then I would be ok with that. Problem is, they have been teaching this in school. Even before it was over turned, they have been teaching about gays. If they can stay out of Grade Schools, and quit confusing our children. Then that would be ok with me. But, in San Fran, is different story. They don’t care what they do in Public places. Glad I don’t live there. Jerry Brown who wrote up the proposal, did a half ass job. What the news don’t say is, there are hundreds of gays against prop 8. They feel bad enough that they cannot come to terms with who they are. They don’t want to take away from others. They don’t want backlash and hate thrown at them. It is happening here right now. The Gays are acting like a bunch of mad lunatics. Showing their true colors. Placing white powder to a church. They Lost! That old lady, as you argued on the other thread. Did nothing wrong! She wanted to stand up for what she believes in. She didn’t have hate as you stated. Too bad her followers didn’t join her. Would you stand up for something you believe in? She did. That takes courage. They had a right to disrupt others, but that is ok? They had no right to do what they did. Should show you that those men, Probably would do the same thing to their own mother. They should go to Watts or in Oakland. Protest to the people that voted it in. I feel that there could be a solution. But, they wanted to mess with an important part of History! Not accepted. I was going to vote No. But my son talked me out of it.
sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Looks like S.F.Gate telling protesters where to target their rage. It’s going to get worst here before it gets better.
Sanjoboy on November 14, 2008 at 12:05 PM
While we agree on the assessment of the current situation, and while I agree that “marriage” is not SOLELY a religious word…
…neither, though, can one extricate religion from the word ‘marriage’.
And I think the other point is also valid – if the word ‘marriage’ legally changes to include same-sex unions…
…then it will only be a matter of time to make that very short walk toward penalizing churches for not marrying homosexuals.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 12:07 PM
The “winners” just don’t seem happy at all!
baldilocks on November 14, 2008 at 12:08 PM
I just moved to the Dallas area this summer (Plano). It’s a really great area (but a big secret–surprisingly–to the rest of the US). 4th largest metro area in the US, good climate, good economy, no state income tax, low housing prices, tons of things to do, friendly people, formerly good sports teams (oh well), etc. Almost everyone I’ve met is a transplant as well, so I really don’t understand why others haven’t picked up on this area.
‘Course I’m one of the legal immigrants that people down here want to “kill” because I’m a political moderate.
jim m on November 14, 2008 at 12:08 PM
The book was better. I thought the idea was lame in the movie, but much better rationalized in the novel.
Anna on November 14, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Sorry..I failed at nothing. I never said the churches started or owned the word marriage…I said they’ve always recognized it and it’s been a part of biblical teachings, not as a word but as a concept. I agree that the definition of marriage is a societal agreement..my point is that the for language purposes the church uses the word “marriage” and if gay activists have a law which says “marriage” is also between the same sex, they then can attack the churches definition of marriage.
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Do Gay Rights Exist?
Where do rights come from?
Some say from government, others say from God.
If rights come from government, then rights are subject to the whims of those who control the levers of power. In a democracy there are no rights without majority support. Gay rights do not enjoy a majority; therefore, gay rights do not exist.
If Thomas Jefferson was right when he wrote: “We hold these truths to be self evident… that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…” then rights are granted by God, and are absolute.
When Gay activists claim they have an absolute right to do that which God has absolutely forbidden, they are making a religious argument. Absolute rights are dependant upon the existence of God. In this scenario, “gay rights” constitutes an obvious contradiction.
The further America drifts from her moral roots, the more expendable your rights become!
The Rock on November 14, 2008 at 12:14 PM
I’ve been sarcastically asking this question since the temper tantrum started. Black and latino support for Prop 8 is (mostly) religiously based as well. But I think that we all know why the protesters aren’t down in front of Crenshaw Christian Center on Vermont Avenue or COGIC on Crenshaw Boulevard or in front of some Catholic church in East LA showing their displeasure. They’re scared that they’ll get their a**es kicked–at the very least. Mormons won’t do a drive-by.
baldilocks on November 14, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Paradise except for the Dallas Cowboys…PRISON TEAM!! hehe..oh how I love to rile Cowboy fans. My brother being one of em!
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 12:15 PM
When did “love your neighbor” morph into “let you neighbor have his way all the time?”
Sounds like that’s what you came here for.
baldilocks on November 14, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Good-now the FBI can be involved and arrest these domestic terrorists…
NRA Lifer on November 14, 2008 at 12:18 PM
That is why it is important to keep this out of the “church” and in society. Society has always demanded that marriage be between a man and a woman.
No one from the gay side has yet answered the question of what is so important about changing a thousand year old definition, when they were given their own word(s) that is just as powerful…civil unions.
right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Wileygirl- that’s why it’s great to have so many transplants in the area. A bunch of us go to a bar with the NFL package and root for the Bears on Sunday (who are, unfortunately, not any better than the Cowboys).
jim m on November 14, 2008 at 12:21 PM
If you don’t agree with what I am shoving down your throat…then you are hateful.
Hate and racism is always the sanctuary of the liberals.
right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Forgot to say, it should be kept out of Church. And the Government should stay out of it. Make a law for the Gays, and not meddle with the one that they tried to. There are many Churches here in Ca. that will marry Gays still.
sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 12:22 PM
At least not in cars, maybe a bike or two…
right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Please to remember that a few years ago when this same crowd was demanding civil unions, they assured us that Civil Unions would not lead to Homosexual Marriage.
Yeah, right.
joeinmo on November 14, 2008 at 12:23 PM
It’s sad that a formerly persecuted minority thinks it’s ok to persecute other minorities.
drflykilla on November 14, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Hey, non of this thar high falootin filoloshy stuff…you make too much sense…
right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Not very original. Just a knock off they picked up from their spiritual father Hitler scapegoating the Jews. Krystalnacht redux?
MB4 on November 14, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Why shouldn’t the churches be involved? When their very survival is at stake they should definitely be involved. The churches did not start this, the gay activists did. It is they who want to involve themselves in what people of Faith believe and it is they (the activists) who want those people of Faith to be punished legally for believing what they believe. The reason no one from the gay side can answer your question honestly is because it would expose their real intention…forcing their beliefs onto EVERYONE, including the churches..they can’t do that with civil union language..it has to be done with marriage language.
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 12:25 PM
You come in and drive by…now where is the persecution? How are the “blacks” persecuting the gays?
right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 12:26 PM
People, listen up – This lady is right here. Let it be known that it is the subversion of this definition (or any others for that matter) that will decay your rights. The term “Civil Union” isn’t what *they* want, nor is it equivalent in it’s “power” – it’s about something else, of which she (R2B) has hit right on the head.
I voted for 102 (same as 8) in AZ, it’s all about rejecting the subversion.
SkinnerVic on November 14, 2008 at 12:26 PM
And, if you back even further, the gays were denigrating the whole notion of marriage – laughing about how square and stupid and old-fashioned the idea was.
progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Sad to say, but that is basically the definition of “liberation” theology.
A form of which (BLACK liberation theology) is preached by hatemongers like Jeremiah Wright.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Pedophile priests?
unclesmrgol on November 14, 2008 at 12:28 PM
I wish I had time right now to respond to everyone, but this one caught my eye:
First off, I do not now, nor have I ever, condoned the mob action against that “little old lady”. I’ve repeatedly condemned it. But that “little old lady” is far from the innocent bystander many make her out to be.
I don’t want “gay rights”, just “equal rights”. That’s not a liberal lefty idea…it’s a very conservative value.
JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Yeah, I’m one of those hated Bears/Packer fans…the curse of relatives from Chicago and Kenosha…lol..actually..I’m now a Jets fan…I know I know…I’m a Brett Farve girl..can’t help it..and he kicked BUTT last night against the Patriots…awesome
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 12:30 PM
They are like little children who simply want society’s imprimatur on their hedonistic lifestyle. It appears they mean to obtain it by fair means or foul.
joeinmo on November 14, 2008 at 12:30 PM
I don’t want “gay rights”, just “equal rights”. That’s not a liberal lefty idea…it’s a very conservative value.
JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I agree on that too JetBoy! :)
sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 12:31 PM
I’m Mormon and I’m thrilled about the added publicity. I’m glad that when people think of “protecting marriage and family”, they are also thinking of “mormons”.
chansen9 on November 14, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Two reasons:
One, is that this law doesn’t need them. It is about the defining of a word, marriage, that word is “everyones” word.
Two, because it clouds the issue, they will want churches to perform marriages, and governments to perform civil unions. Separation of church and state thing. Marriage is not a “church” thing exclusively. The state (for whatever reason) legally sanctifies the marriage. Therefore it is a state matter.
The argument that marriage is between a man and a woman, is one that can be, and should be, argued outside of the church. There is very little (I know some…) dissension whithin churches.
right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 12:33 PM
How, exactly, does silently holding a cross make someone not “innocent”?
By the way, every time you add a “BUT” to your statements, you undermine what you were saying and, yes, even CONDONE what the mob did.
Again, marriage isn’t a right.
And they already HAVE the same rights and privileges that married people do (through civil unions).
I fail to see the big deal over not having a specific government label.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I heard that prop 8 has been taken to the CA supreme court.
They are looking at setting it aside.
It is going to be VERY interesting to see what happens if they do.
We are a triad, Executive, judicial and legislative.
We the people of Ca have gone the legislative route and won. Now the people that lost want the judicial branch to over step its bounds.
If the courts do over step their bounds, it will become very ugly here.
Every citizen should take note, because if it does happen,
that will mean we are not be ruled by the people but by the courts.
And that is the end of the form of government we were given by our founding fathers.
ColdWarrior57 on November 14, 2008 at 12:34 PM
And you have it with civil unions…end of argument, all the protesters can go home, they have equal rights.
right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Yup. California Constitution, Art. 18, Sections 3 and 4:
Seems pretty straightforward to me…
unclesmrgol on November 14, 2008 at 12:34 PM
But you have the equal right to marry any member of the opposite sex you wish. I do not have the right to come and beat on you just because I have a strong desire to.
Its how one maintains a society. Norms for behaviours.
joeinmo on November 14, 2008 at 12:36 PM
My understanding is that AZ Prop 102 only prohibits same sex marriage from being recognized in AZ. The earlier Proposition, which failed in AZ, would have banned civil unions as well.
I don’t understand how someone can properly say that civil unions should be made illegal. Almost all of that stuff (with a few exceptions such as visitation rights at hospitals and some tax benefits) can be done by contract. Banning civil unions would, to some extent, require the state not to recognize a signed contract, which should bother people.
jim m on November 14, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Funny, if homosexuals take to the streets and attack innocent citizens, little or nothing is done about it.
If a regular citizen attacks an innocent homosexual on the street, its a hate crime and carries a heavy penalty.
Now tell me gays have less rights than the rest of the population…
RedbonePro on November 14, 2008 at 12:38 PM
for those of you that are not aware, the LDS church has a pretty strong PR department. They only win when they are in the news, regardless of the reason.
The homo anger/protests will only benefit the LDS church. The boys on bikes wearing white shirts will have a lot more business if the pillow biters keep this up.
yomomma on November 14, 2008 at 12:39 PM
You said that is what that “little old lady gets for going into a pack of wolves”.
You actually have bought into the idea that gays (I know you are) behave like animals…that they can’t control their actions?
You don’t “condone it” but that is what she deserved it?
right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 12:39 PM
You have equal rights: you can marry any woman who’ll have you.
Akzed on November 14, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Thank you for being one of the few conservatives to report this! The liberal assault on the right to vote and free religion is appalling, yet Republicans are completely ignoring it as the liberal media spins.
We need to go on the offensive as a party, and this is a prime case.
Dr B on November 14, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Brett is good. Bears fans have that love/hate relationship with the Packers cause the Packers have generally killed the Bears in the past.
I think I now also understand where your name comes from.
jim m on November 14, 2008 at 12:40 PM
But you have the equal right to marry any member of the opposite sex you wish. I do not have the right to come and beat on you just because I have a strong desire to.
Its how one maintains a society. Norms for behaviours.
joeinmo on November 14, 2008 at 12:36 PM
First, I am not Gay! Something has to be done to stop what is going on. No! they don’t have a right to beat on anyone. I stated that in my upper post. That is the one thing that angers me. The innocent ones that voted yes, have a right to say how they feel. Without being beaten. It is not norm behavior. I have a son who is gay. He is nothing like the ones that are acting like terrors. That is sickening. He was the one that told me. Mom, don’t vote no for them. We are gay, but we are no different then you or anyone else. They will take advantage of this, and think they have more control. Don’t let them ruin a law that is what formed our Country. We have the rights as everyone else that is married. What more do they want. That is how my son feels. Just like hundreds of Gays feel. Not all gays are for this marriage law.
sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Sure…”civil unions” = “marriage”….that’s equal?
Again, the mob didn’t come to her, she went to the mob. I only question her choice of venue. And by the way, she used the symbol of our Lord and Savior as a tool of judgement and of taunting. Yeah, real “innocent”…
As for the “but” part…I’m a big NY Jets fan, and if I say “I love the Jets, they beat the Patriots last night, BUT they played a great game themselves”…Because of that “but…”, am I now by default a Patriots fan? Hardly…
JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Less is more and more is less.
- Animal Farm
MB4 on November 14, 2008 at 12:44 PM
you already have “equal rights.” you can marry any person that your straight counterpart can marry. thats pretty fsking equal.
the difficulties come about when you say that you want to be able to marry “who you love.” No one has that as an absolute right. not even “breeders.” as a married man, if i fall in love with someone else in addition to my wife, I can’t marry her-even though we all consent.
yomomma on November 14, 2008 at 12:44 PM
The Bible doesn’t say that gays aren’t allowed to marry; it says that nobody should marry (I Cor. 7:8). Further, it also says that gays “shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 20:13).
For Bible literalists, rather than gay marriage, shouldn’t the debate be about where to put the extermination camps? For everyone else, shouldn’t the debate be about equality under the law?
hicsuget on November 14, 2008 at 12:45 PM
..I’m from AZ and Prop 102 was very specific..marriage defined as being between one man and one woman, while maintaining the current statutory law of the State of AZ, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex. The earlier props were too wordy and I’m not sure about the civil union ban..Prop 102 was kept very simple which helped it pass.
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 12:45 PM
The mob and that attitude makes me think of the Cartoon Rage Muslims.
MB4 on November 14, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Homosexuality and gay marriage contradict practically every major Christian principle, Ed. Part of the reason this nation is in a tremendous amount of trouble is because of pro-gay rights and the pro-choice platform… and all I can say is God help us!
apacalyps on November 14, 2008 at 12:47 PM
I am really sick and tired of the heterophobic behavior that is being displayed by the “protesters” in California.
Do the gays have a right to vote for SSM?
Yes.
Do they have a right to protest the outcome of Prop. 8?
Yes.
Do they have the right to terrorize people based on their beliefs regarding SSM?
No.
The line for ANY any group protesting a decision of any sort is drawn when they turn violent as the gay have over this ballot initiative. If they oppose it so vehemently, why didn’t they go and volunteer for the No on 8 campaign, and change minds through persuasion, not violence? With regards to JUST the violent ones, I say lock ‘em up…on second thought they’ll probably like it there, so we might need to have them do hard labor.
dglenn on November 14, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Actually it’s my dog…Wiley..grl for me..3 for me and my two dogs…how bout that breakdown! lol
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Please list and note every legal difference in California between a ‘marriage’ and a ‘civil union.’
Note every right that a “married” person has that a “civil union” doesn’t.
My understanding is that she was silent.
Thus you are equating the cross with taunting.
Interesting, VERY interesting.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 12:49 PM
right2bright,
I think you misunderstood what I meant. Gay activists (a formerly persecuted minority as they are mainstream now & seem to run much of CA) are persecuting Mormons, blacks, and apparently latinos as well.
Jetboy, so civil unions are not enough for you? So you are in favor of forcing your fellow citizens to accept gay unions as marriages just the same as heterosexual marriages? This is a farce because biologically and spirirually they will never be the same. I suspect that gay activists want to force gay marriage onto society so that churches won’t be able to judge them as sinners without being shut down. And then there goes the First amendment.
drflykilla on November 14, 2008 at 12:50 PM
*facepalm*
What a thought…being able to marry whom you love…
JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 12:50 PM
No.
The line for ANY any group protesting a decision of any sort is drawn when they turn violent as the gay have over this ballot initiative. If they oppose it so vehemently, why didn’t they go and volunteer for the No on 8 campaign, and change minds through persuasion, not violence? With regards to JUST the violent ones, I say lock ‘em up…on second thought they’ll probably like it there, so we might need to have them do hard labor.
dglenn on November 14, 2008 at 12:47 PM
I totally agree with that. They will cause their own demise. There are a lot of hateful people in Ca. The Gays that are doing violent acts are not sending a good message. Will cause backlash on them.
sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I think that your son has his head screwed on straight (no pun intended) and is probably much more representative of Gays than are the Cartoon Rage
Muslims FacistsGays.MB4 on November 14, 2008 at 12:53 PM
The fact that there was a mob at all is problematic.
There is a difference between a large, peaceful protest and a mob.
Adults need to be responsible for their own behavior.
Did she go in there knowing there might be trouble? Probably. Did she still have the freedom to be on the same public area as the mob? Definitely! Does the fact that she went in there knowing that their hate might boil over into violence absolve those adults of any guilt for their behavior? Absolutely not!
I’ve seen massive pro-life protests where pro-abortion people run through screaming, pushing and spitting on people. The pro-life folks are perfectly able to remain peaceful in the face of obvious provocation and even mild assault. The No on 8 folks aren’t out of control children. They are adults and they should be able to restrain themselves even in the face of such a terrible provocation as an old woman with a cross or 3 women removing some signs.
JadeNYU on November 14, 2008 at 12:55 PM
-sigh-
Yet another non-Christian telling Christians how to interpret the Bible.
1 Corinthians 7:8 doesn’t forbid anything. It is Paul’s own belief that being unmarried gives a person more time and energy to devote to God.
Here is the verse (bolded) in context (1 Corinthians 7:7-11):
One simply can’t read this and come away with a God given law forbidding marriage.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 12:56 PM
That’s not an absolute right. Never has been. There are restrictions placed on which individuals can marry by the government. Again I go to my previous example of someone who is already married wanting to marry another person because that is who they love.
sidenote: The irony here is that the LDS church is supporting this prop so strong, yet it’s defeat would ultimately lead to plural marriages. I guess those that think the LDS church only dropped plural marriage for statehood and would still be practicing it today have had their case weakened a bit.
yomomma on November 14, 2008 at 12:57 PM
You’re missing my point. The church can’t stay uninvolved when they are the ones who are being targeted by the actions of the gay activists. And they ARE being targeted..like I said previously, why aren’t the activists going after the black population who helped to push through these props..no, they go after the church (probably in part to fear of what the black community would do to them). And quite frankly, when it comes to moral issues in society, the churches should be involved, period. I’m so sick of hearing “separation of Church and State”…what a myth..never in the Constitution. That’s the problem with our country now. Our moral decay is detroying the very foundations of family and society at large.
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Ah, but you do have equal rights. You have the right to marry anyone I would have the right to marry were I still single.
And, for the women, they have the right to marry anyone my wife would have the right to marry were she still single.
And you can domestic partner with anyone I would if I were single.
Seems rightful enough to me.
I’ve already seen the slippery slope with regard to abortion — when something goes from a private right to a right paid for by the Government, and finally to a requirement that private persons and churches protect and enforce that right, even when doing so is against their moral principles. I am not about to let that happen anywhere else. The Court chose to manufacture a “right” out of whole cloth, and we private citizens have responded with an initiative changing the Constitution of the State of California to explicitly circumvent that change.
You cannot gore my ox without mine goring yours.
unclesmrgol on November 14, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Wiley–thought it was as in Wiley Coyote. We lived in AZ for two years in Ahwautukee (Phoenix). I noticed Grue lives in Tempe, close to where I used to work.
————————————————–
Some state laws prohibiting same sex marriage are written so broadly as to ban civil unions, or at least some of the rights (such as health care benefits) that would be part of civil unions.
Do you think that it’s right to have the government deny health care benefits to “partners” if the employee and the employer agree to offer them to a partner?
Do you think it’s right for the government to refuse to recognize part of a will because some property would go to a domestic partner?
BTW, California’s civil union law gives virtually identical rights to domestic partnerships as the people would have by being married, so that’s not at issue in CA.
jim m on November 14, 2008 at 1:00 PM
My kids have attended public schools in S. California for over a dozen years and I have seen what the liberal and gay mafia have pushed on our children. Aside from the political brainwashing, textbooks have been changed to omit ‘mother’ and ‘father’; sharing of restrooms for trans-gender students; groups like Gay, Straight, Trans-gender Alliance’ coming to schools to indoctrinate student to the gay lifestyle +/or recruit new members to the ranks of the Pink Hand, (the not-so-nice folks who are perpetrating violence against little old ladies and Christian churches).
If gay couples didn’t have every right we have under CIVIL UNIONS I would share your view, Ed. They have their ‘civil rights’, but there is no constitutional amendment demanding everyone accept gay couples as ‘married’ or accept their ‘lifestyle’.
They are marginalizing their efforts the more they protest, so, I’m sorry their dogma ran into their karma…NOT.
Christine on November 14, 2008 at 1:03 PM
I think that your son has his head screwed on straight (no pun intended) and is probably much more representative of Gays than are the Cartoon Rage Muslims Facists Gays.
MB4 on November 14, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Thanks, MB4. I cannot answer things for him though. He still has issues at times. But, there are some that are religious, and they have a right for what they believe in. He needs to realize this. It will take time on that one. We do argue at times on that. I love him.
sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 1:04 PM
I am gay and totally against these marches/protests and the gay leaders that are calling for them. I will also add that I am not necessarily for gay marriage.
Someone asked where from did gay rights come? The United States Constitution is there to protect the rights of every individual from the rule of the mob or what is known as majority rule. I find it a bit unnerving that a majority vote can amend the California state constitution and take away the rights of some individuals.
SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 1:04 PM
You clearly looked past and accepted all of the hateful words being used earlier.
I didn’t come for a fight. I came to defend my brother, my uncle, and all of the other homosexuals in my life.
Karen_VA on November 14, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Yet again, marriage is NOT a right.
And whatever state-given rights, responsibilities and privileges to married couples in CA is ALSO given to those in a “civil union.”
If you want to wail and gnash teeth, at LEAST get your facts straight.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Ha! Her name is Wiley Coyote..Wiley for short..she’s a shep mix that looks a lot like a coyote..and she’s very sneaky at taking her brother’s chewies..I live in Mesa. Az is pretty nice, if it my parents weren’t here I’d move to Dallas.
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 1:06 PM
…or is it the other way around? Yes, I got it backwards!
I’m NOT sorry their karma ran into their dogma.
DUH.
Christine on November 14, 2008 at 1:06 PM
My friend Nikki is in a long-term, stable polyamorous relationship. She does not believe that she was wired to love just one person. She would definitely like to see her love for her ‘wife’ and her ‘husband’ to be legitimized by a marriage certificate.
Most of the No on 8 folks feel perfectly comfortable delegitimizing her love at the same time they are demanding that the government legitimize their own love. So far, the only SSM-supporter here that I’ve seen even attempt to address this was Dave Rywall with his argument that polyamory groups and adult incest groups are so small that no one has to worry about that getting legalized. Apparently it’s alright in his mind to discriminate against a minority group as long as that group is really, really small. Of course, it completely ignores the fact that the fundamental question here is why gay marriage should be legalized but these others shouldn’t be.
Either it’s o.k. to restrict which adult relationships the government defines as a marriage or it’s not. If it’s not, they might as well get out of the business altogether (my vote!) since it’s going to be incredibly messy trying to figure out if government benefits have to be extended to Wife 1, 2, 3 and Husband 4 or if it’s just one primary spouse that qualifies.
If it is o.k., then this protest is ridiculous and calling 8 ‘hate’ is pointless. Where they want to draw the line lost because they didn’t convince enough people to draw it where they wanted it. That’s not hate any more than wanting to draw it to include same sex marriages but exclude marriages of 3+ people or people who are related is hate.
JadeNYU on November 14, 2008 at 1:07 PM
They have the same rights as any one else does.
The NORM is heterosexual, not homosexual.
So they do in fact want SPECIAL rights.
I can appoint any one I WISH, to have control over my medical decisions if I am incapacitated.
The norm would be a wife/husband. If I wish to have some one else make that choice other then my wife, I CAN DO SO! That would not be the norm, so it takes extra steps, but I can still do it.
In the event of my passing, I can leave what ever I wish to ANY one.
ColdWarrior57 on November 14, 2008 at 1:10 PM
This reminds me, were the rules for establishing Domestic partnerships in California still in effect after the court ruling legalized gay marriage? (Family.Code Section 297-297.5) Those restrict domestic partnerships to same sex couples and opposite sex couples over the age of 62. Straight people are denied the right to domestic partnerships.
I think I’ll protest.
Bobbertsan on November 14, 2008 at 1:10 PM
The state has no vested interest in love. The state does have an interest in procreation.
The state also has the right to deny a license of marriage to those who do not meet the criteria – and those limits can extend to both gays and heteros.
When we begin to redefine legal language defining marriage, we create a cascade of problems with tax law, divorce law, adoption law, insurance law, education, and so on. A redefinition of marriage impacts a great deal.
There is a perfectly reasonable argument against gay marriage that has nothing to do with religion.
But when gay rights impact freedom of religion and free speech rights, then you have a constitutional crisis. Religious expression cannot be “less equal” than gay rights and vice versa.
That’s why the fight is already lost, because current anti-discrimination laws that protect gays fly in the face of equal protection for religious speech and expression.
Gay rights have already been made “more equal” than rights to speech and expression.
Take, for example, the case of the Christian photographer who was fined for refusing to photograph a gay wedding. Gay rights in New Mexico carry greater weight than religious objection, speech or expression – even though under the New Mexico statute, anti-discrimination applies to both gays and religion.
This is what is going to happen. Our laws are going to attempt to equally protect two opposing lifestyles or ideologies and therein render completely arbitrary what is and is not discrimination at any given time. Constitutional chaos.
That is the reality we face every time “gay rights” surface. Gay rights and anti-discrimination laws will begin to erode religious speech and deem it discriminatory hate speech.
Language matters. The “marriage amendment” group has the greater battle to wage, frankly.
nitzsche on November 14, 2008 at 1:10 PM
-sigh-
Yet another Kingdom of Heaven-er telling humans trying to exist here on earth how to run their country. When the Millenium comes, then you’ll get to drive. In the meantime, you’ll just have to put up with the secular American values of equality, freedom, capitalism, and individual rights.
Matthew 5 says, “blessed are the meek,” not “blessed are the zealots.”
hicsuget on November 14, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Dude, all you have to do is go and do a few google searches.
Here’s one:
http://www.polyamorysociety.org/
And how about NAMBLA?
I’d give you more, but my lunch is over, and I’ve got to get back to work. It is a large part of the left mindset to “push the envelope” on sex, just because they want to. They pride themselves on it. It is like a hobby with them. No, actually, more like a religion to them.
gxpgxp on November 14, 2008 at 1:11 PM
There is no such thing as “gay rights”. Period.
Marriage is a state issue. Gays have the same rights as everyone else. They just want new rights. If gays want to start talking about Equal Protection, then heterosexuals deserve Equal Protection in keeping gays out of bathrooms and locker rooms, since the split in those private areas is by sexual attraction. But gays never want to talk about that. They have the advantage of being in private places with people they are sexually attracted to (unlike the rest of us) but aren’t satisfied with that advantage and want to ratchet themselves up to get all sorts of new things that they want to call ‘rights’. Give me a break, already.
There is a long history of polygamy in just about every culture but no history, whatsoever, of ‘gay marriage’ and yet the gays want their form of marriage to be acknowledged as a ‘right’ and denigrate any polygamists who have much better arguments than gays do.
progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Yes, in California the civil union contract is the same legally as the marriage contract…it just allows for man/man, woman/woman or man/woman.
So you do now agree that civil unions are just fine? If not, why not?
Just because you like cats, you can’t start thinking all dogs, birds, snakes, are cats. There are definitions of words, that is why we have contracts. If a building was a car (because you wanted to have a different definition), then how could you ever get a “car” loan, it would be a “building” loan.
It doesn’t make sense, especially in a legal society, to have a these word meanings change whenever a group wants them to change.
right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 1:13 PM
To Christine, I can only wish that when I was junior high, high school or college, I had someone to talk honestly to about my sexual orientation. Its my belief no one can be indoctrinated into being gay.
SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Open seaon on Romney in California.
The Catholic church opposes same sex marriage, as do evangelical churches. The gay marriage initiative is the useful tool to redefine Romney
The big hit used against Romney in the primaries was the rediscovery of the evils of mormonism, which had nver been thought of during his father’s successful term as Governor in Michigan
Romney and Palin were the two viables left after the McCain debacle. Romney is excellent in live interviews and could be a great candidate post Obama radicalism
The left sees a way to control the image of a formidable opponent. They know they will have the willing silence of anti mormonists like Huckabee in this game
The left is moving to redefine their opponent
I give them credit for choosing the safest dog to kick
entagor on November 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Gays, married or no, aren’t going to procreate. Also, if procreation is the goal, could it not be achieved rather more easily by discouraging abstinence and college graduation rather than by preventing gay marriage?
hicsuget on November 14, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Believe it or not, personal beliefs do NOT rescind a citizens right to petition the government.
I have as much right to tell the government how to run things as you do.
Again, my personal beliefs do not invalidate me from my God-given right (see the Declaration of Independence) to petition my government.
It’s very interesting, though, that you would seek to subvert the constitution by removing my right.
Misquoting and misunderstanding scripture only makes you look more foolish.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Good point.
It is a HATE crime if a heterosexual does this , but if a homosexual that does it , then its OK.
What ever happend to EQUAL PROTECTION under the law ?
I guess we only protect the homosexuals and not the heterosexuals?
What did we do with that darn 14th ammendment?
ColdWarrior57 on November 14, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Excellent point, and that’s just it…a majority vote CAN’T amend the state constitution, much the way no vote could amend the US constitution.
And y’all, for the record, I too don’t even see myself having any gay marriage…personally, I think it’s a little goofy. And yes, here it is….BUT, no one in this great and free country should ever be DENIED that opportunity based soley on gender.
JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 1:18 PM
I’ll happily note, however, that there is one good thing coming out of this gaystapo rampage: The LDS church is getting known for standing up for morality and traditional marriage, despite the increasing persecution. So are the Catholics, I might add. One wonders why most Protestants are quiet, but that’s another story. Just to tweak them, it’s probably because Catholics and the LDS church are, well, actually united and governed so there really isn’t a chance for contradictory doctrine.
I expect a rather large upheaval. Particularly tomorrow–when the gaystapo strikes hard against the LDS church and a few others. I expect some people to be hurt, pretty badly. I also expect increasing attacks on LDS property and people–and if it doesn’t calm down soon, I also expect to see LDS churches burned down by the end of the month. I also expect a tragedy where some SSM advocate goes berserk and kills someone, probably by the end of the year. Perhaps a little old lady who doesn’t have the right, per Jetboy, to protest against the gay rights movement in a public square. More likely, though, it will be a random event.
Buckle up for the gay jihad, folks. Since not one governmental group has condemned any violence so far, I expect it to get worse.
Vanceone on November 14, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Go back to civics class because a majority vote in CA CAN amend the CA state constitution.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:19 PM
I knew the mafia had to be involved in this whole thing somehow.
Bobbertsan on November 14, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Progressoverpeace —— Marriage is a state issue, perhaps. However,the United States Supreme Court in 1967 did rule that state laws that banned inter-racial marriages were unconstitutional in the Loving vs. Virginia case.
As for keeping gays out of bathrooms and locker rooms, I guess that I can relieve myself in the street and change clothes when I need to out in the hall? You’re hyperventilating.
SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Vance, you write that as if you were hoping that it happens…
———————————-
Here are the laws in TX against civil unions, as an example.
Doesn’t it bother anyone that it appears that TX is refusing to recognize rights which may have been granted in a signed contract?
———————————-
CONSTITUTION
(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or simlar to marriage.
(Texas Constitution Art. 1, Section 32)
STATUTE
Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage or Civil Union
(a) In this section, “civil union” means any relationship status other than marriage that:
(1) is intended as an alternative to marriage or applies primarily to cohabitating persons; and
(2) grants to the parties of the relationship legal protections, benefits, or responsibilities granted to the spouses of a marriage.
(b) A marriage between persons of the same sex or a civil union is contrary to the public policy of this state and is void in this state.
(c) The state or an agency or political subdivision of the state may not give effect to a:
(1) public act, record, or judicial proceeding that creates, recognizes, or validates a marriage between persons of the same sex or a civil union in this state or in any other jurisdiction; or
(2) right or claim to any legal protection, benefit, or responsibility asserted as a result of a marriage between persons of the same sex or a civil union in this state or in any other jurisdiction.
jim m on November 14, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »