Another example of refusing to "live and let live" is a lawsuit against the Methodist Church by a same-sex couple demanding access to private religious property. Yet another is the case of a priest arrested for quoting the Bible in Sweden. A fourth is the story of a same-sex couple demanding in court intrauterine insemination—something not typically covered by insurance and certainly not life-saving in nature—which the court and press are calling "medical treatment." Again, rather than find someone who would comply, they sued, so that they could obtain that which is biologically impossible on their own.
The other problem with opponents of Proposition 8 is one of projection: the faults we see in others are usually our own. Those who immediately jump to emotionally-charged accusations are projecting their own emotions on others. It's far better to exercise self control, restraint, and reason. Oh wait. Those are traditional values.
An interesting—but ultimately specious—argument is that Proposition 8 "takes away" rights. The signature-gathering process started well before the court's decision, Proposition 22 was 8 years ago, and the California Supreme Court agreed that the original intent of the state's constitution was traditional marriage. It was only this most recent ruling that created this new right, and had the court followed the Massachusetts' court lead and stayed its ruling to give the legislative process time, this argument would be a non-starter. There would be no new right to be "taken away."
In one of the links below one of the posters correctly identifies that the People have a government, not vice versa. The court ignored that in its ruling that overturned both the original intent of the state's Constitution and Proposition 22. The government exists to serve the People, and the People are now engaged in a tug-of-war with the judiciary saying, "Yes, we really meant it when we backed traditional marriage." The institution of marriage predates our government. It can be recognized by the government, but is not owned nor created by the government.
If opponents of Proposition 8 (and Prop 22) are so sure that the public wants same-sex marriage, then they should just put it to a vote of the people, instead of having the legislature or the courts impose it. The savvy reader will, of course, point out that Proposition 22 essentially did this back in 2000, and 61% of the voters elected to preserve traditional marriage.
As an introduction to the whole topic of preserving marriage, especially for members of the LDS Church, I would point to the words of Elder Neal A Maxwell from 1979. He makes the important point that we all must be involved and knowledgeable, ready to speak in defense of principles:
"It is important for you to be philosophical defenders as well as practicers of chastity. Articulate advocacy is surely needed now with regard to some of the damaging balderdash we see and hear in the world pertaining to immoral life-styles."
"Austin Farrer warned, "Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned." (Light on C. S. Lewis, Harcourt and Brace: New York, 1965, p. 26.) Peter said, “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15)."Regarding the imposition of same-sex marriage by the court, these words seem fitting (also by Neal A Maxwell), both as words of warning and as a description of the same-sex marriage experiment:
"A wise French philosopher, Bainville, warned, "One must want the consequences of what he wants." The lines of another Frenchman, La Rochefoucauld, could have been spoken of this experimentation in non-family life when he said, "There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts.""The good news is that it looks like we only need a simple majority to pass the initiative amendment, per this article.
LINKS OF INTEREST
http://www.cacatholic.org/bishops-statements/a-statement-of-the-catholic-bishops-of-california-in-support-of-proposition-8.html
Catholic Church's official statement about Proposition 8
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage
LDS Church's official statement about Proposition 8
http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-08-05
Excerpts:
"The Swedish church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning reported that the prosecutor in this case, Kjell Yngvesson, justified the arrest and prosecution of Pastor Green on these grounds: "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but this is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible citations on this topic as he does makes this hate speech.""http://blog.heritage.org/2008/05/17/constitutional-amendments-only-protection-from-activist-courts/
"The issue of homosexuality has also become a test case for American civil liberties. Where homosexual behavior was once characterized as sodomy and thus criminalized, some now openly call for the criminalizing of all "hate speech" addressed to homosexuals. Earlier this year, the U.S. Senate passed a hate crimes provision attached to a defense appropriation bill. Sponsored by senators Ted Kennedy [D-MA] and Gordon Smith [R-OR], the law would have levied fines against anyone found to have committed a crime that is "motivated by prejudice based on the race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim." The provision passed the Senate, but died in the conference process with the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, the fact that the bill passed in the Senate sends the nation an urgent warning, and the logical jump from "hate crimes" legislation to codes against "hate speech" is small indeed."
Excerpt:
The decision is a masterpiece of judicial activism. It is long on public policy preferences, and extremely short on law. Questions like what constitutes marriage are beyond the competence and expertise of judges. Decisions like these weaken the judicial system by causing the electorate to question the legitimacy of judicial decision-making.http://www.frc.org/marriage/redefining-marriage-will-affect-all-americans
The California Supreme Court's Edict Redefining Marriage Will Affect All Americans, and what may happen in the near future.
http://nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602030805.asp
Excerpt:
"It’s like this. The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage."http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/015/140dikiv.asp?pg=1
Excerpt:
"The 4-3 decision ripped away the presumed middle ground on the issue and (assuming the court grants no stay of implementation before mid-June) all but issues an invitation to out-of-state same-sex couples to migrate to California to be married between now and Election Day, November 4. This in turn makes certain that the federal courts will have the option of reinvolving themselves within a matter of months, regardless of the outcome of California's referendum on a constitutional amendment restoring traditional marriage."http://www.familyleader.info/archive/documents/2008/07/15/10%20Reason%20In-Depth.pdf
10 Reasons Why Marriage Should be Protected with a Constitutional Amendment
http://www.heritage.org/Research/family/wm1932.cfm
Excerpt:
"The court's decision does not expand marriage; it alters its core meaning. To redefine marriage so that it is not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers, and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose, remaking the institution into a mere contract between any two individuals."http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWYwM2I4NGIzOTk5NTUzYzZkYzFhZjFkYzZiMWQ2NzM=
Excerpt:
"Reasonable people of good will have competing views on whether and how state laws should accommodate same-sex relationships. Our own views on this matter are traditionalist. But in a representative democracy, everyone ought to agree that any changes should result from legislation, not from activist judges who twist and distort constitutional text to their own ends."http://townhall.com/columnists/AndrewTallman/2008/07/31/five_logical_errors_of_the_born_gay_ideology?page=1
Five Logical Errors of the 'Born Gay' Ideology
Excerpt:
"But strong desires do not justify behavior. Otherwise the study of ethics would be nothing more than the articulation of our impulses."http://patterico.com/2008/05/15/california-supreme-court-holds-that-gays-have-a-state-constitutional-right-to-marry/
Excerpts:
"It is never a good idea for a branch of government to claim ownership of a foundational social institution of civil society. The majority opinion equated Domestic Partnership with Marriage even though the former is an entirely state-concocted relationship status while the latter is an element of civil society that pre-exists government authority — indeed it pre-exists the state's constitution."http://www.setexasrecord.com/arguments/212614-legally-speaking-through-a-lens-darkly
"The constitution provides the framework by which society is self-governed. The People have a government, not the other way around.... Their [the court's] failure reveals that they chose to reject the state constitution AND the will of the People as expressed, constitutionally, in a direct vote on a statutory measure."
"Marriage is a social institution recognized, not owned, by the government. Couples enter the social institution, they do not reinvent it one private choice at-a-time. This institution has public meaning such that couples know what they are getting into or, at least, our marriage culture teaches what threshold these newlyweds have crossed when they walk through the doorway into marriage."
Photographer fined almost $7,000 by State of New Mexico for refusing to photograph gay event.
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4593
Alliance Defense Fund appeals fine for photographer
Excerpt:
"“The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood,” said Lorence. “Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate.”"http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11546874/
Lesbian Couple Wants Access to Religious Property for Civil Union
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-supreme19-2008aug19,0,2388017.story
Excerpt:
"In its second major decision advancing gay rights this year, the state high court ruled that religious physicians must obey a state law that bars businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation."http://www.nomcalifornia.org/site/c.htJSJaMQIuE/b.4312951/
National Organization for Marriage talking points about Proposition 8.
http://dennisprager.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/20/california_decision_will_radically_change_society
"Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison."http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGNmODNiMjI0MTQ1MTQwNGM4N2YyNmVhY2UyZTE0OWY=
Excerpt:
"In the meantime, what have we learned about what gay marriage will mean for gays, for marriage, and for the wider society? In just the last few months, a newly confident same-sex-marriage movement is becoming more open and revealing about the answers.http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF
Ruling by the California Supreme Court overturning Proposition 22 and imposing same-sex marriage.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/26/MNL011V2DR.DTL
Some history behind amending the California Constitution
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp
Excerpts:
"Once the principles of monogamous companionate marriage are breached, even for supposedly stable and committed sexual groups, the slide toward full-fledged promiscuity is difficult to halt."
"There is a rational basis for blocking both gay marriage and polygamy, and it does not depend upon a vague or religiously based disapproval of homosexuality or polygamy. Children need the stable family environment provided by marriage. In our individualist Western society, marriage must be companionate--and therefore monogamous. Monogamy will be undermined by gay marriage itself, and by gay marriage's ushering in of polygamy and polyamory."
"Marriage is a critical social institution. Stable families depend on it. Society depends on stable families. Up to now, with all the changes in marriage, the one thing we've been sure of is that marriage means monogamy. Gay marriage will break that connection. It will do this by itself, and by leading to polygamy and polyamory. What lies beyond gay marriage is no marriage at all."
No comments:
Post a Comment