California Courts Impose Their Immorality
There is probably nothing to be added to the news about California’s Supreme Court overturning the will of the California people. What liberals can’t win in the ballot box they impose via the courts.
Californians passed Proposition 22 in March 2000, defining marriage as one man and one woman. This measure won with 61.4% of the vote. In real numbers, the spread between the yeas and nays was 1.7 million votes. That’s around two times the population of Delaware! The California Supreme Court said no to their decision.
Here are some widely varied stuff from around the internet.
James Dobson said in response to the decision:
“The will of the people has now arrogantly been declared null and void,” he said. “In so doing, the justices have undermined and endangered the basic building block of society, which has been honored and preserved in every nation on earth through most of human history.”
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins:
“The California Supreme Court assumed the powers of a legislative body by imposing same-sex ‘marriage.’
“This decision put marriage at risk all across the nation and again highlights the need for a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so that this divisive campaign for the oxymoron of ’same-sex marriage’ will be ended once and for all.”
From the decision:
…in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.
and a reply from Outraged Richard:
Except for the fact that there are innumerable studies and psychological, philosophical, and religious writings to show that children not raised in a loving home of a married man and woman is detrimental to them.
More from the Outraged one:
The error of equating race and gender discrimination with sexual orientation discrimination is an exceptionally glaring one. Race and gender are genetically and biologically based standards that establish a human being, while sexual orientation, or more precisely, non-heterosexual sexual activity, is an extremely vague characteristic that has no immutable genetic or biological foundation.
An American Indian or a female can never stop being of that race or gender, and because those are integral unchanging human qualities there should be no discrimination against them because of it. In contrast, sexual activity, especially non-heterosexual activity, is an action that is performed, like hanging tinsel, and is subject to the same scrutiny that other acts are under—some of which have been declared unlawful.
Some pages of note: Hot Air | Prop 22 on Wikipedia | Citizen Link | Protect Marriage (CA)
that's elbert
theconservativegeek
ttownjotes
Mr. Elbert, I find the premise of this post lacking support, but most importantly it is devoid of honor. You see Mr. Elbert morality has become so ambiguous and arbitrary to all who exist in society that what you see as immoral, I believe to be living my life.
The first misguided premise in your post and with most fundamentalist Christians is that you can’t believe that sexuality is not a choice. Just as you did not wake up one day in your formative teen years and decide you were going to be straight, neither did I choose to be gay. On the contrary, if there was any way I could be straight I would, but it is not a choice. The only decision a homosexual has to make is do they have the courage to come to terms with their sexuality or do you hide from who they really are.
If Christians like yourself actually agreed that sexuality of a human being is not chosen, but a part of who you are by birth just as your skin color, hair color, eye color; then you would be forced to accept that gay people are created by God, perfect in his image just as they are. Setting this aside for a moment, the main point of your message is how the California Judiciary placed a judgment against that which you believe yourself.
I see the justices doing their jobs as it is written for them to carry out. The state Supreme Court is set aside and above the Legislative process as a segregated function to protect its objectivity. The job of the judges is to hear those cases that cannot be determined by the lower court systems and also enforce the State Constitution. That demands from the Justices to determine when laws are passed that are unconstitutional. When either the citizens of California or the Legislature pass laws that subjugate any group of the population, it is incumbent on the states high court to make a ruling on the constitutionality of those laws. The California State Supreme Court rendered such a verdict that restores justice to a state that passed laws restricting the rights of a group of her citizens and thereby did what Lady Liberty ensured they should do.
You may not like what the court system did, but I suspect that you should see the righteousness in their actions. If you can not, I venture to say you are unworthy to call yourself a true Christian of Jesus Christ. Our savor never once isolated anyone, denounced them or denied them. He was accepting and loved all who came to him and true Christianity should be living by his example and let me be the first to tell you none of the people you quoted live a truly Christian life.
As for your quotes:
The latest polls from California show that more than sixty percent of all California citizens do not agree with this amendment. It is common when an injustice is forced on any populace that eventually the rest of the people in society learn from their mistakes. The climate is changing for the good of humanity and that will always go against those who perpetuate oppression. Always be on the side of right…even when that side is being oppressed. Eventually right will always win the day and history has shown us that many times over.
James Dobson – I am sorry to say this miss-led fundamentalist is a relative of mine and I cannot apologize to the world enough for the sadness he has caused and the hate within his heart. I have already argued against Mr. Dobson’s statements and nothing more needs to be said.
Family Research Council – Tony Perkins: It is ashamed that hate prevails in the hearts of so many who call themselves Christians. The church Jesus founded was entirely based on the principle of Love, Honor and Respect. Until we can find a way to give those to the people we do not agree with, we will never really give tribute to his church.
You can argue the Bible to me and I can respond verse by verse; so save yourself the time and effort. You can refuse to post my comment, but I am posting it on all four of my blog sites: http://www.tmdobson.wordpress.com. You may disagree with me and I am sure that you do, but that doesn’t make, what I say wrong. I will leave you with the words of Jesus Christ himself as he said those who call themselves believers will be the last enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Hate is not a Christian value and absolutely not one Jesus Christ taught. Please think about your response and I hope that I have given you something to consider as apposed anger you. We may all teach love to those willing to open their hearts to the lessons of life.
Your humble servant – Todd M. Dobson
This is a topic I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you and Richard.
I thought religious people liked the thought of monogamy and responsibility? Wouldn’t the idea of gay marriage lessen what is thought to be “revolting and disgusting” about their lifestyle?
I’m starting to think homosexualism is disliked just because it’s not normal, and nothing else.
I, personally, see no problem with it, it doesn’t affect me any my lifestyle. I feel people should be free to do whatever they want, barring harming others or restricting someone else’s freedoms.
I too, will have to disagree with you on this one, Elbert. With respect, as I do realize this is *your* blog, therefore, your opinion is the one that counts.
I just cannot imagine loving my children any less, or wanting any less for them (marriage, family, happiness) should any one of them ever tell me that he/she is gay. What does your Christian faith dictate you should do as a parent, if this situation were to be yours?
I do not believe homosexuality is a choice.
I need to reply to everyone, but the easiest place to start would be at comment #3 by laurel. I really can’t think of anything that would make me stop loving my children or wanting less. That would be cruel and make love conditional. Love can be tough but conditional it shouldn’t be.
I believe that homosexuality is a choice the same as any other sexual temptation thus it should be handled in the same way: resist. Is that easy? In any case, I’d safely say no. Is it possible? In any case, I’d safely say yes.
laurel, I hope I’ve responded to your comment properly.
update: I had to go back and edit my comment because I apparently can’t type.
Brian, monogamy and responsibility are virtues in Christianity. What is the problem with homosexuality is that it is the exact opposite of what was originally designed. I think that “gay” marriage will have an effect on society as a whole by not promoting the continued growth of a society. Muslims are thriving because they affirm families. That doesn’t condone how they treat homosexuals, which is flat out wrong. What is does say that there are things greater than ourselves. Continuation of the American society is important if we are to continue to be that city on a hill that Reagan spoke of. I just don’t see how affirming immoral behavior makes that happen.
Todd, you deserve a longer response than I can give right now. There is one thing that does need to be addressed. I get the impression that you might think that I hate homosexuals. Did I ever say that? I’ve worked around them, talked to them, etc., just like I’ve probably worked with and talked to other people struggling with sin, recognized and unrecognized. I get up in the morning and stare at a sinner in the mirror. My question is: why would I? I oppose prostitution. Is that a reason to hate a prostitute? I oppose being unfaithful to your spouse. Is that a reason to hate someone who is? I don’t like what they do but I won’t hate them. It would almost appear that if someone doesn’t agree with your ideas, that they in fact hate.
It’s a choice, anything else is a cop-out. There is no such thing as a biological homosexual. If you take a male lab rat and pump it full of estrogen (more estrogen by the way than a rat could ever ingest under normal circumstances) and then touch it’s hindquarters, I don’t doubt that it will lift it’s tail and arch it’s back to facilitate entry. You can do the same to a male human. The college professor who related this to my daughter was also outraged that his research was being skewed to obscure the fact that homosexuality is not biological. As for sodomy as a sin goes, all sin is condemned. The redeeming blood of Jesus Christ washes all of this away. If you persist in sin, any sin, despite salvation, you’re despising something that God holds precious. Homosexuality is not condemned any more than any other sin, but it’s regarded in the Christian world as being particularly pernicious due to the fact that it’s adherents nowadays claim that that’s the way God made them. This flies in the face of God. I could truly care less if that makes me a homophobe or not, so don’t take it up with me. I’m not a hater, nor a judge. Jesus never struck a sinner, why should I? I have some science to buttress my opinion, but more importantly I’ve got a higher authority. If you beg to differ, take it up with Him. I also have a strong Libertarian streak that states that everyone should be responsible for their own actions. I don’t feel that my personal spiritual beliefs are contradictory to that. Before you come into Christ you reap what you sow. After you come to Jesus you’re delivered from that. Why look back?
Swampcritter, your male lab rat story is most nauseating to read in the early morn’.
Ye Gads!
How many times have we heard the, “Our savor never once isolated anyone, denounced them or denied them. He was accepting and loved all who came to him…” argument for whatever behavior is being justified.
No, you should not love a person BECAUSE of their Sin, you should love them OUT of their Sin.
In other words, you should not love a person as they are but for who they should be.
If an alcoholic pedophile came to Jesus, Jesus would not of sat down with him and exchanged pedophile stories over a bottle of booze and then gone to the nearest park to leer at little children.
If he would have than he was a fraud. Indeed, from what we know of Jesus he would not have:
Matthew 18:6 - “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”
Many of the same arguments that are used to justify homosexuality can justify pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality.
“The first misguided premise in your post and with most fundamentalist Christians is that you can’t believe that sexuality is not a choice.” -Todd M. Dobson
Did the gentleman even read the post? Mr. Elbert quoted me:
“An American Indian or a female can never stop being of that race or gender, and because those are integral unchanging human qualities there should be no discrimination against them because of it. In contrast, sexual activity, especially non-heterosexual activity, is an action that is performed, like hanging tinsel, and is subject to the same scrutiny that other acts are under—some of which have been declared unlawful.”
This, at least in part, addresses the choice of sexuality.
Should literacy not be the first requirement to posting on these infernal blogs?
Where is the discrimination in the phrasing, “‘Marriage’ is the union of a man and a woman”?
Can’t that man claim he is a homosexual?
Can’t that woman claim she is homosexual?
Does the definition say that ONLY heterosexual opposites may marry?
Unless there is a third sex that the law ignores, where is the discrimination???
Race is immutable. The choice to go homosexual is mutable.