Thoughts, rants and commentary from a husband, father of five and professional web geek

A challenge from Keith Olbermann on Prop 8

Posted on November 12th, 2008 in General

Someone with whom I communicate on Twitter sent me this video because he knows my position on proposition 8. Anyone who reads this blog knows my position on marriage and if it is not blatantly obvious by this video, my position is contrary to his. He asked that I watch the video being a supporter of proposition 8. So I did, because as much as I believe, strongly, in the marriage covenant being between a man and woman I am interested in other people’s views on the matter, if for no other reason than to dispell some misconceptions about Prop 8, Christianity, religion and bigotry.

Have a look over this video. In it Keith Olbermann speaks rather passionately about his position on proposition 8 and his confusion over the people of California’s decision to protect marriage as being between a man and a woman. He asks some rather poignant questions that I think many people in the Yes on 8 camp have either evaded or turned into some form of personal attack. I hope that I can offer at least a glimpse into some of the reasoning that some of those that support prop 8 base our decision on. Understand that I do not feel in any way that I need to explain myself nor do I feel it my purpose to ensure understanding of my viewpoint. Keith Olbermann asks good questions. I wanted to answer them.

So many people have made their feelings known about marriage and proposition 8 without really addressing why they are for or against it. Some supporters of the proposition say that it is because gay marriage will teach our kids things in school that we have no right to protect them from. I do not agree with this as this measure was not at all about gay marriage but about protecting marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Many opponents to proposition have stated that it eliminates civil rights or discriminates against a certain group of people. I tend to not agree with this. There are plenty of circumstances in which a particular group of people are not entitled to the same eligibility as another group of people, even within the context of the constitution, that saying that this proposition eliminates rights or discriminates is simply rubbish in my opinion.

But even if what I think means nothing to you or if what I write in response seems like senseless dribble, at the very least, you will be treated to a very passionate display of Keith Olbermann’s feelings on the matter of opening marriage to people of the same gender.

  1. Why does this matter to you?
    As a Christian man I have to say that it matters because marriage is a covenant given to man and woman ordained by God the father as a gift to his creation. Woman was created from man for man - Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” [Genesis 2:18]. As a result of this creation God established that For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh [Genesis 2:24]. God does not make any provision for man to leave his mother and father and be joined to his husband. Plain and simple, it is not in God’s plan.

    But setting aside my spiritual beliefs, there is nothing at all that tells me that a man and a woman should united in marriage the way that my wife and I are. A man uniting with another man in matrimony cannot ever be attained in similitude to the way a man unites with a woman in matrimony. Other than the two being people, similarity of matrimony stops there. If it were an issue of sex then there perhaps might be some similarity between the two, but marriage, and prop 8, are not about sex lest it become about homosexuality, which it isn’t. A man, by his very physical natural attributes, cannot be joined in marriage to another man the way a man can join with a woman in marriage, nor can a woman be joined in marriage with another woman for the same reason.

    Lastly, it matters to me because by those same physical attributes men and women were naturally made for one another. Even if you are atheist you have to be able to look at male and female and know they were created to be (or evolved into being, if that is your way of thinking) made for the compliment of one another. Woman was made for man and man, for woman. It is plainly visible and unquestionably obvious.

  2. What if someone passed a law that said that you couldn’t marry?
    There are laws that say you can’t marry. You cannot marry your siblings, your parents or other married people. You cannot marry children. What is the point of this question?

    While I am on this point, why does everyone insist on making an association of same gender couples with African Americans? How the hell are these two groups of people similar? There isn’t a black person alive today that chose to be black before he or she was born. The struggle that the black community fought was not because of choices they made but because of the color of their skin, a condition they had no say in. Homosexual people, and those people that seek marriage between members of the same gender, cannot be compared to slaves, to minorities or to any other group in which the condition they suffered was outside of their control. If you are homosexual it is because you choose that lifestyle.

    If you want to share yourself physically with a member of the same gender so be it. I cannot, nor will I, tell you to do otherwise. I will pray for you because I love you, and though I do not condone that lifestyle it is not my place to tell you do to otherwise. I do things myself that I don’t agree with, and for that I repent. But in all cases it is my choice. People of the same gender that choose to become united in a formalized relationship choose to do so. Why would anyone expect that their choice should receive special privileges and rights?

    And lastly on this topic, Keith Olbermann said something that I find to be astonishingly stupid and offensive. He said that marriages between slaves were not recognized just like marriages today in California are not recognized because people are gay. Is he seriously trying to say that homosexual people are on par with the slaves? Seriously? If I was black I would be offended beyond belief. I am Mexican and I am offended by that statement. That was just wrong.

  3. Don’t you as human beings have to embrace that love?
    Human beings don’t have to do anything. But in this case I am not one to say that you cannot love someone. I love many men. Not in a sexual or physical way. I will not tell you that you cannot love someone of the same gender as you. And if you choose to love someone of your gender in a sexual or physical way then so be it. Again, I will pray for you because I love you. But I will not at all say that I think a man should be allowed to marry another man because he loves him. Love him if you want to. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
  4. This is what your religion tells you to do?
    (This question was following the statement: With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division and people pitted against each other for no good reason,).

    This depends entirely on the religion being addressed by this question. I am familiar with two religious theologies: Catholicism and Christianity, so I cannot speak for others, but there is nothing in the Christian bible that tells us to hate. There is nothing in the bible that tells us to pit ourselves against any person. We battle against principalities not people: For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds [2 Cor 10:4] and For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places [Eph 6:12].

    Make no mistake about it, if you are a Christian you are in this battle. But at the same time if you are a Christian then you are also in a battle to love everyone: You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD [Lev 19:18] while at the same time making sure that we do not fall into the trap of believing everything we see and hear: Let none of you think evil in your heart against your neighbor; And do not love a false oath. For all these are things that I hate,’ Says the LORD [Zec 8:17]. Even Christ Himself spoke these words: You shall love your neighbor as yourself [Matt 22:39].

    There is really no room to go into the topic of spiritual warfare within the context of this response, but believe you me, there are a number of spiritual wickednesses that Christians must be aware and must fight. Some are within our own Christian family. Some are even within ourselves. None of them are with a person or people though. We love everyone, hate no one and fight like hell for the salvation of all, praying without ceasing for those that we love, which all mankind. There is no place for hate in a Christian’s life. But like I said, I cannot speak for all religions. I do know that I do not hate anyone though, so this question of Keith Oblermann’s gets a resounding NO from me as an answer.

  5. Quote me anything from your religious … book … telling you to stand against this…

    2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;
    …
    12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

    1 Timothy 3

    Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

    Genesis 2:24

    Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

    1 Corinthians 7:2

    Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

    1 Titus 5:20

    Christians stand against any concept of marriage that is anything other than man and woman. Marriage is described only between a man and a woman in the bible. Anyone that tries to make marriage anything other than what the bible says it is is sinning and we are to rebuke the sin. Love the sinner not the sin. That is why we stand.

  6. … and how you can believe that and still believe the statement “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?
    The answer is simple. I want to be saved. I want to be righteous. Though I may not always achieve that status I want to attain to it. I want to glorify my God. If it means that someone in the body of Christ must call me out on my sin to the Glory of God so be it. That is what is supposed to happen. Love me enough to save me the way I love you enough to save you.

    I would rather you hate me and be saved than have you love me and be lost. I will love you because I want because I want you to love me. I will do unto you what I would have you do unto me. I will love you.

    Just remember that love does not equate to approval or agreement. I can love you, and you me, without agreeing with you or approving of your deeds. Such is the case in protecting marriage. I can love you if you are homosexual, I can love you if you are heterosexual, I can love you if you are bisexual and I can love you if you are asexual. But I cannot love the things you do if they are contrary to the Word of God.

I know that there are a lot of people that do not understand my viewpoint on this subject. There are probably a good deal of Christians that are totally at peace with opening up marriage to people of the same gender. I am sure there are atheists or agnostics that are for protecting marriage. Whatever your viewpoint, please understand that Proposition 8 was not about homosexuality or the taking away of rights. It was and continues to be about protecting marriage as being between one man and one woman. The text of the law, the law that was overwhelmingly passed in 2000 and summarily overturned by four of the seven California Supreme Court justices, has not changed and not targeted any one group of people nor has it served to eliminate anybody’s rights. It simply recognizes marriage as being between a man and a woman.

I applaud Keith Olbermann for his video message. While I do not think it takes any guts whatsoever to use the liberal media to agree with the rest of the mainstream liberal agenda, I can say that his passion appeared honest and sincere. That is hard to find nowadays. It is something I wish more people had and something I pray I convey whenever I speak of my feelings. But neither his passion nor the protests nor the lawsuits not the continual comparison of homosexuality to ethnic heritage is enough, in my opinion, to convince the majority of the state of California to change the way we see marriage solely because a small population of people choose to do something outside the boundaries of marriage, as we see it, then expect the state to conform to their lifestyle.

As a Christian man, I try very hard to make sure I do things according to the Word that lives in me. Everything a Christian does is supposed to be done in love to the Glory of the Father. Love is the principle commandment given by Christ.

28 Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”
29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.
30 And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment.
31 And the second, like it, is this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Mark 12:28-31

It is by this love that I want to see all men and women saved. It is by this love that I confess my faith in the Lord Jesus. And it is by this love that I hold fast the gospel of the Lord. I do not judge you, I do not hate you. To the contrary, I love you very much.

8 Responses to “A challenge from Keith Olbermann on Prop 8”

  1. This issue is very personal to me because I have family members who are gay and who I KNOW DID not choose to be gay. I wittnessed it with my own eyes and it is not a choice. I am Catholic, and I believe we are all children of God. God does not make mistakes, PSALM 139; 13-16 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in that secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” I don’t question God’s works, he made my family members that way for a reason. Speaking of the commandments, you failed to mention THOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, yet how many people disregard this part of the bible and divorce over unfaithful spouses and not to mention the damage it does to children. No one is asking to change the definition of what the bible says…you can always believe and have those words to pass down to your children. No one can ever take your faith away. Every marriage is different, and half of the married couples don’t even acknowledge that God is a part of their union. Any spouse who cheats should get their marriage rights taken away since they are not respecting the sanctity of marriage and what it means according to the bible. How can u judge people based on their sins…let our God do that. I don’t recall Thou shall not be Gay in the commandments, but obviously adultery is a much bigger sin being committed than homosexuality yet the Christian community seems to overlook that fact. Californians are all very diverse do not share the same beliefs that Christians do. I would not like it if someone from a different religion was trying to change laws based on what they believe and what their god says. I have to protect my children from child molesters, rapists, murderers, drugs, etc. They can care less who marries who, all they care about is their foundation at home, their household, their mom and dad, or mom and mom, or dad and dad. Children accept love from anyone who will give it. I don’t need a book or a religion to tell me what’s right or wrong…God doesn’t want my religion, he wants me. He is in my heart and in my mind and he knows my thoughts and my desires and he knows the way I live. He is with me all the time. When I talk to our heavenly father tonight, I will pray for you and all my gay brothers and sisters in this world.

  2. Very well written Emma. I agree with many of your points to be honest. I do not believe that homosexuality is something that you are born with though. I have seen enough homosexual people that were once practicing heterosexual people turn back to heterosexuality to know that homosexuality is not a characteristic or attribute that you are born with. We can certainly agree to disagree on this subject.

    I didn’t mention the ten commandments because the subject matter was about marriage not sex. I agree that adultery is a violation of God’s commandment and that all too often we, as Christians or otherwise, choose to violate those commandments. Adultery is not the only thing God commands us to do or not do. There are nine others given to Moses from God the father along with the two that Jesus spoke in the scriptures I included in my post. I can recap the ten commandments if you like and point out that I, personally, probably violate at least five of those everyday. I am no judge and I do not judge.

    When you say that no one is asking to change the definition of what the bible says I would have to disagree with you. If the bible says that marriage is a husband taking a wife and someone wants to say that marriage is a husband taking a husband that totally redefines what the bible teaches. Perhaps that is just my opinion, but still I have to disagree with your statement here.

    I agree with you also that there is no commandment that says thou shall not be gay but there is definitely mention of men not having sexual relations with men. It might not be in the ten commandments but it is definitely in the Word of God, as is adultery. Now I know the effect adultery has on families and relationships. But I cannot say, as a Christian, that adultery is a bigger sin that homosexuality. God does not have a grading system on sin. Sin is sin, from me swearing when I smack my finger with a hammer to someone killing someone else. Sin is sin. Praise God there is repentance of sin and forgiveness of sin through the blood of Christ. But though we are forgiven sin is still sin and never is one sin larger or smaller in scale than another. Again, this might be just my opinion but I have yet to read where God has placed a scale on sin.

    I wouldn’t like it if someone from another religion changed laws based on what they believe. I agree with you on that point. But isn’t the act of seeking a change in definition of marriage changing law based on a belief? Religious or not, is that not what those who would seek to open marriage up to people of the same gender are doing?

    Lastly, I will totally agree with you that no one needs a book to tell us what is right or wrong. And I would agree that God does not want religion. He wants our heart. He wants us to fellowship with him and he accepts everyone as they are. Our God is, if nothing else, a loving and merciful God. But he is not a tolerant God. Patient maybe, but tolerant, no. If we are made in His image, as His Word says, then we are to be the same way. Loving, merciful, patient. Christ said “Go and sin no more” no “Go ahead and sin all you want because I love you”. I know God loves me just as He loves all of His creation and because I know He wants my fellowship I repent, daily, because daily I sin.

    I covet all prayers offered to me and my family. I will pray for you and your family as well. And have prayed often for homosexual friends and family. I know that this issue has caused them great distress and discomfort. I know they are hurting over it. Yes, I pray for them. They need the prayer as much as the rest of us. But proposition 8, as I have said before, is not about homosexuality, it is about protecting marriage. If it was about homosexuality or same-gender marriage then the text of the law would have read that way. It didn’t. It was not about homosexuality. It was about marriage, the way California wants it to be.

  3. Robert,

    Thank you for your in-depth response to the Keith Olbermann commentary. It is heartening to see honest dialog on this very emotional issue. We obviously have very different views on this issue and I hope that I can give you some insight into my perspective as you have given me insight into your perspective.

    First of all, I admire and respect your faith. I must be honest that it is my goal to change your opinion on this issue or at least open your mind and your heart a little more to gay and lesbian couples and families. I do not think that you need to change your faith in order for that to happen. While I hope that someday gays and lesbians will be accepted by all religions, that is not the issue at hand.

    The issue at hand is whether gay and lesbian couples should have the same *civil* rights as heterosexual couples. There is both a *civil* and a *religious* component to marriage. We are not asking here for your church, or anyone’s church, to perform or recognize same-sex weddings. You are entitled to your freedom of religion and, just like many churches only recognize marriages by people of the same faith, no church would be forced to recognize same-sex marriages if same-sex *civil* marriages were legal. Sure, it would be great for gays and lesbians of faith to be recognized by their churches but that is a completely separate issue. In fact, many churches currently perform same-sex marriages in states that do not recognize *civil* same-sex marriages. It is simply wrong to impose your religious beliefs on others and not allow them to have a *civil* marriage just like it would be wrong for the government to tell you what religion to believe in. It is this same separation of church and state that allows for the religious freedom that we have in this country.

    It is important to note that Proposition 8 was very different than other same-sex marriage issues that have gone up for vote. This proposition took away rights that people already had. California’s supreme court had ruled that same-sex couples had the constitutional right to marry. Again, it is wrong that a simple majority can take away such an important right from a minority. There are 18,000 same-sex marriages that are now in question. Keith Olbermann’s question, “What if someone passed a law that said that you couldn’t marry?” was meant as a direct question, not a theoretical one. I do not know if you are married or not, but if you are, how would you feel if a simple majority vote had just put the legality of your marriage into question? Imagine yourself in that position and you will understand why there have been so many protests against this vote.

    At risk of putting words in your mouth, you may answer this question with something along the lines of, “we would still be married in the eyes of god and our church.” But, let’s think for a minute what you would not have without *civil* marriage. You would not be able to receive Social Security survivorship benefits. You could be denied visiting your seriously ill spouse in the hospital. You would have lots of extra work to do ensure the many legal protections you take for granted by being married. Even then, there’s the fear that you forgot some little detail and, at the worst possible time, you will not have the rights of a spouse and be left out in the cold. It is cruel to deny these rights to two adults who want to share their lives together simply because you have a different religious view than them. Your blog title is “One man’s voice” - how is it OK that your voice, your religion, and your opinion limits my rights? No matter how strong your religious belief is in this issue it does not make it right for you to take away the *civil* marriage of loving, same-sex couples.

  4. How is your or my marriage in jeopardy? What do you feel your marriage needs to be protected from? I don not or will not ever base my marriage on what a definition says, aside from your religious standpoint, what are you so threatened by? You say it is not homosexuality, but it is to you and everyone who voted yes on 8. They just want equal rights, to love and to be happy. I can care less what straight or gay people do in their bedrooms because that is the only difference between them and me. It is discrimination in my eyes. Anytime it is against a group of people based on race, religious beliefs, gender, sexual preference…it’s discrimination. Words on any paper or book don’t define my marriage…my actions do. It’s not a moral or religious issue…it’s about equal civil rights of ALL people. If my God is not tolerant with me, or he is angry because I have love and compassion for my gay friends-then so be it. God bless you. ;]

  5. @Bradley

    Thank you for your candor. And thank you for being honest in your intents. While I believe that both you and I have firm beliefs and rationalization for our own perspective I never count out another point of view without looking at first.

    You said “…is my goal to change your opinion on this issue or at least open your mind and your heart a little more to gay and lesbian couples and families. I do not think that you need to change your faith in order for that to happen. While I hope that someday gays and lesbians will be accepted by all religions, that is not the issue at hand.”

    If I have given the impression that I stand against homosexual couples or homosexual families then I have not conveyed my position on marriage appropriately. I have nothing against homosexual people solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. I do take issue with various people on various issues under various circumstances, but just because someone is sexually attracted to a person of their own gender or has homosexual inclinations does not mean that I do not like, do not value or do not accept them. From a religious perspective, any Christian that would not love someone because that person is homosexual is not loving in Christian love. Christ loves all people regardless of ethnicity, gender, age or what have you. You are right, and I agree with you, when you say that this is not the issue at hand. Perhaps this can be the subject of a future discussion?

    You said “The issue at hand is whether gay and lesbian couples should have the same *civil* rights as heterosexual couples.”. Actually, if we are talking about Proposition 8 then the issue at hand is whether the State of California should recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman. That is not about rights, not about sexuality and not about religion. It is about the definition of marriage as defined by the State. If this was about anything else it would have been spelled out in the proposition. It wasn’t. It has been made out to be more than what it was by many different people who have chosen to make it something it wasn’t. The proposition simply established a definition of marriage because the definition of marriage as it had come to be known and adhered to was called into question.

    You said “It is simply wrong to impose your religious beliefs on others…”. I completely agree with this statement. No religion has the right to impose it’s beliefs upon anyone. Religion, like homosexuality, is a choice. A personal choice that should not ever be thrust upon anyone. But please do not try to make Prop 8 about religion. It is not. Though many people believe marriage to be between a man and a woman do so because of their spiritual or religious beliefs this proposition brought none of that into it. There is no even an implication of religion based on the text of the proposition. Yes, many supporters of proposition 8 were from religious organizations. That, in itself, does not make proposition 8 a religion based proposition. And in fact, in many cases, religion was brought into the debate over proposition not by those that hold to their religious faith but by those attacking it in opposition of proposition 8.

    You said “This proposition took away rights that people already had.” Unless I am mistaken, and it is very possible that I am, the recognition of same-gender marriage was established within the past few months because four of the seven justices on the California Supreme Court decided for the state that the vote we cast as a state, as a population, as a democratic voice, was not correct. The state has already voted on this issue and spoke loudly and clearly in 2000. A handful of people filed lawsuits and the Supreme Court basically eradicated the vote of the people. If this was something that the people wanted then Prop 22 would not have passed when it did. And if it wasn’t what the people wanted then it would never have made it onto the ballot this year. So while I understand that there were marriages performed during a time when the courts overturned the people of the state I would not go so far as to say that rights had been taken away. In fact, the right of marriage has never been called into question in this case. Only the recognition of that marriage has been. And that is because the people were given a choice and we, as a people, voiced our opinion. If that is something that some people cannot tolerate either take away our right to vote or take the battle to a vote and win it.

    You said “Again, it is wrong that a simple majority can take away such an important right from a minority.” Why are votes decided on a simple majority basis? Because a majority is a majority. The only thing I see wrong in this whole thing is that four people were able to take away the will of millions of people in the state of California. How is that not wrong?

    You asked “…how would you feel if a simple majority vote had just put the legality of your marriage into question?” I would pissed off like you wouldn’t believe. There is no question that anyone would be mad. But some amount of sense needs to be applied to this question. If something you wanted to do was not allowed then by some chance it was allowed for a time and those that essentially made it disallowed once already said they would do it again knowing they have already done it once, how can you be surprised that their voice was spoken in the same manner again? This is not to say that those same-gender couples that got married did something wrong. I would probably have done the same thing myself. But a vote is a vote. The majority that elected the next president is the same majority that passed proposition 8. Not necessarily the people, but the 50.1%+ of the population that is needed in a democracy to get a law passed.

    You said “Imagine yourself in that position and you will understand why there have been so many protests against this vote.”. I understand the desire to speak out and protest. I do not understand the locations of the protests or the targets of the protests though. If you want your voice heard speak to those that need to hear it. Not the church, not the business district and certainly not the liberal media or the city that absolutely voted your way. Do what those that got this proposition passed did. Get your opinion on the ballot. Then get the ballot measure passed. It wasn’t the Mormon church or the Christian church that passed proposition 8 anymore that it was PG&E, Google or Apple that lost it. Money was raised and spent by both side of the aisle. In the end, the people spoke. Again.

    You talked about survivorship and marital benefits. I have to agree with you 100% on this subject. You are right. Couples united in civil unions or domestic partnerships are not afforded the same benefits of those people who automatically gain those benefits through marriage. However I do not see this as a limitation on marriage versus civil unions. I see this is as a shortfall on the part of our government to allow any person the right to appoint or designate appropriate parties to act on their behalf or receive their benefits as the discretion of the citizen. This should not have to be based in marriage, it should be based on choice. That would eliminate the need for people to get marriage for the purpose of receiving benefits. Yes, some people do this. Yes, that is wrong. But on this subject you are 100% correct and I cannot contend with you on this because I do not have anything to contend with.

    You said “It is cruel to deny these rights to two adults who want to share their lives together simply because you have a different religious view than them.”. Again I agree with you that religion is not something that should ever be thrust upon someone. But again, I have to say that the issue of marriage being recognized as between a man and a woman is not a religious issue just because religion has been brought to the forefront of the debate. There are plenty of religious people that voted against Prop 8 just as there were many non-religious people that voted for it.

    You asked “Your blog title is “One man’s voice” - how is it OK that your voice, your religion, and your opinion limits my rights?” It is not my voice or my religious views or even my opinion that limits rights. It is the collective voice of millions of people, independent of religion, that establish law. That is what was done here. My voice is only that of one man. I am a single opinion in a sea of other opinion. I am just one vote. In the case of proposition 8, millions of voices spoke out loudly. Collectively these voices stated the same thing they had in 2000: Only marriage between a man and woman will be valid and recognized in the state of California. That limits no rights. It establishes law. Just like the law that says a smoker cannot smoke in a restaurant that does not allow smoking, there is now a law, a constitutional law, that now says that if you are married and you are of the same gender as your spouse, you marriage will not be valid in this state. This was not my voice. This was the voice of the people of the state of California.

    Lastly, you said “No matter how strong your religious belief is in this issue it does not make it right for you to take away the *civil* marriage of loving, same-sex couples.” and again I will agree with you that religion is not a weapon and should not be wielded as such. Inasmuch as religion played a role in this proposition getting passed some amount of onus must be placed on four justices of the California Supreme Court that inflicted their beliefs on the people of that state of California. In all of this mess never has the decision of those four people been called into question. In a democracy, where the people decide, the people decided. Then four people took those decisions away from them and passed a ruling that in effect went against the vote of the people only to have the vote of the people come right back to them in the affirmative. So while I agree with you that rights should not be taken away because of religious, or even anti-religious, reasons, the rights that were granted were done so in a manner completely contrary to democracy. Prop 8 solidified the voice and choice of the people.

    Thank you once again for your candor and openness on this issue. Thank you for keeping it civil and not making it personal. I appreciate your viewpoint and I value the dialogue that we have opened.

  6. @emma

    Let me take a moment to address some of your questions. I have to say that I have not been questioned this much in this subject up to this point. Thank you for asking very direct and pointed questions and for keeping it civil. I appreciate that sincerely.

    You asked “How is your or my marriage in jeopardy? What do you feel your marriage needs to be protected from? I don not or will not ever base my marriage on what a definition says, aside from your religious standpoint, what are you so threatened by?”. My marriage is not in jeopardy because someone wants to redefine marriage. My marriage would be more in jeopardy of infidelity, distrust or death by boredom than it would be because a man married another man. It is not my marriage that seek to protect but marriage in general. I have five kids that are all hopefully going to be married someday. I have to think about them. I have to think about their kids and their kids’ marriages. 20 years ago the thought of marriage between two people of the same gender would never have been an issue. Today it is. What issues will our kids face 20 years from now? I know that we cannot protect them from everything and that there is a very good possibility that our American society will become even more liberal over time. But I do not, as a citizen with a right to vote, have to approve of that happening or help it happen.

    I am not threatened by anything. Same-gender marriage does nothing at all to my marriage or to me personally. I just happens that I don’t agree with it and I voted accordingly.

    You said “You say it is not homosexuality, but it is to you and everyone who voted yes on 8.”. This is not true. There are some people that would have you believe that but that is not the case. It is in fact the definition of marriage that was the issue. If the text of the proposition had anything even relating to homosexuality in it then it could have and should have been given a moniker of a “Gay marriage” proposition. It didn’t. I had everything to do with clearly defining marriage in the state of California as being between a man and a woman.

    You said “They just want equal rights, to love and to be happy.”. Homosexual people, much like Christians, politicians and many other groups of people, have the right to love and to be happy. Equal rights are not a guarantee and there are plenty of instances in state law and in federal law in which certain people are not afforded the same rights as others.

    You said “I can care less what straight or gay people do in their bedrooms because that is the only difference between them and me. It is discrimination in my eyes. Anytime it is against a group of people based on race, religious beliefs, gender, sexual preference…it’s discrimination.”. I agree with you, sex and the sexual habits of others are none of my business. Basing a campaign on sexuality however makes it someone else’s business by default. If anyone had had the sense to get a proposition put on the ballot that read differently than Prop 8 did the outcome may have been different. But very early on it became a homosexual versus religious issue and that was not ever the intent of Prop 8. And as for the issue of discrimination that you mention, I have to disagree with you in one context. Race and gender, like age, are outside of your control. Any decisions made against those attributes or concessions made for those attributes is discrimination. Because of this things like Affirmative Action and a retirement age are completely unjustified. Provisions and concessions are made for a group of people based on something that if provisions were made against them it would easily be called discrimination. But religious beliefs and sexual preference are both choices that are made. It is for this reason that prayer and creation teaching can be outlawed in school and people can get in trouble for citing the “Pledge of Allegiance”. No one speaks out against those discriminatory tactics because those are based on choices made by the people to practice their lifestyle according to their choice and other people do not want that choice thrust upon them. So I would disagree with you that it is discrimination when it is based on something you choose to do. I know you do not believe homosexuality is a choice. I will agree to disagree with you on that.

    You said “It’s not a moral or religious issue…it’s about equal civil rights of ALL people.”. I would concede that it is not a moral or religious issue. It is an issue of opinion more than anything. Put an another way, it is as if the state of California was asked if they believe marriage should only be recognized if it is between a man and woman. The majority believe it should. And if I remember correctly, men and women alike have the right to marriage in this state. We cannot marry our siblings, our parents or other immediate family members, we cannot marry minors and now, as per the constitution of the state, we cannot marry our own gender. Yes, people of the same gender can still unite in civil unions. Yet minors and siblings do not have that luxury. Are there rights any less important?

    You said “If my God is not tolerant with me, or he is angry because I have love and compassion for my gay friends-then so be it. God bless you. ;]”. If your God is the same God I worship his anger would be aroused from us not having compassion on people. Not just gay people, but all people. Old people, young people, black people, white people, homosexual people, as well as rapists, murderers, politicians, mean bosses, cheating spouses, pregnant children, prostitutes, preachers, swindlers, taxi drivers, auto mechanics and doctors. We are to love everybody. We are to have grace, mercy and compassion with everybody. But that doesn’t mean we need to agree with all people or accept the lifestyles of everyone. I can totally disagree with you and the way you live your life and still love you as a person. And I should.

    May God bless you richly and abundantly and pour out His spirit on your household. Thank you for writing with conviction and for keeping it civil. It is much appreciated.

  7. For the life of me I can not understand why no-on-8 proponents can not conceive of the idea of loving the sinner and hating the sin.

    Do none of them have kids who they love despite the things they do? Is the idea so foreign to them simply because whenever they’ve disagreed with another that disagreement simultaneously becomes hate on their part?

    It’s just bewildering to me. I love and appreciate gay people. They make up some of the most creative and wonderful people, but that doesn’t make God wrong when he defined marriage as the institution by which opposite sexes commit to one another. Adam was a man. Eve was a woman. Men and women need to marry to fulfill God’s first commandment: multiply and replenish the earth. It is not a pleasure vehicle, nor is it a tool someone uses to command respect. It is above all things the institution whereby we most closely symbolize the relationship we personally have with God.

    Speaking of parents loving their children … God, our heavenly parent, also loves gay people as much as He loves you or I, and yet does this mean we can do no wrong in his eyes? If he limits us or tells Israel that only the tribe of Levi can administer in the temple, does that mean he hates those of us who he limits, or hates all of use because he gives us all limits?

    In short, no-on-8 seems to have garnered most of it’s support on the idea that Prop8 was about hatred, and not just hatred but hatred against a people who were born with stronger same-sex inclinations than the average Joe. In other words the no-on-8 campaign success was built on a lie. We no more hate LGBT people than they hate their our own offspring when their offspring do things they disapprove of.

    And perhaps that’s the problem. Being gay in most cases means they don’t have offspring, or constantly interface with them, so without experiencing what it’s like to love someone of who’s action you disapprove they’re incapable of understanding how common that is. Children also struggle with that concept, never really experiencing what it’s like for a parent until they do it themselves.

  8. @davea0511

    Of all the things you wrote there is one that stands out to me in a profound way: “In other words the no-on-8 campaign success was built on a lie.”. I totally and completely agree with this. The text of the law as it was presented to the people transcends religion, sexuality and politics. It did nothing more that solidify the basis of marriage as it has always been and how the people of California want it to remain. Simply put, proposition 8 placed one more constitutionally recognized criteria on marriage that had been missing.

    There are a few things that I do not completely agree with you on. Specifically the bits about marriage not being a pleasure vehicle (it is a gift of God and brings pleasure with it so it can be a vehicle of pleasure as it pleases God that we marry) and the bits about homosexuals often not having offspring. There are plenty of homosexuals that have come from a previously heterosexual relationship(s) that bring kids with them so I do not think it is fair to say in a majority of cases that homosexuals are not accustomed to having children.

    I do think that proposition 8 was taken completely out of context by those opposed to it. I also think the Attorney General of California did the state a great disservice with his description of the proposition, using the words “Eliminates rights of marriage by same-sex couples”. While that may have been an effect of the proposition that was not the proposition. The proposition was to establish a clear definition of the criteria of marriage as it relates to people of the same gender seeking matrimony. There was nothing at all in the law that referenced homosexuals, homosexuality, religion or anything else.

    So I have to agree with you that the opponents of Prop 8 managed to gain a lot of support for their cause utilizing smoke and mirror tactics. They managed to totally overlook the real purpose of the law and make into something completely different and completely with their slant on it.

Leave a Reply

Back to top