Democrats & Liberals Archives

Activist Legislators

We have heard a lot of complaints from the Right this year about “activist judges” (e.g., judges who don’t pretend that your mother is a neurologist), but the Schwarzenegger administration may have brought us a whole new category of targets for right-wing condemnation yesterday: legislatures passing laws.

Schwarzenegger was sent a bill to legalize gay marriage, and has announced that he will veto it. That is his prerogrative, but the justification given by his press secretary Margita Thompson was odd:

We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote.

California does, in fact, have such a system. It's called a democratic republic. That is our system of government. If anything, California is weird for having so many popular referenda. Having referenda doesn't mean that "the people" (that is, the ones who voted on the referendum) are always right.

I suspect that legislator-bashing may become a sign of the times. More and more state legislatures are going to pass laws legalizing gay marriage, so the old "activist judges" line won't work anymore. The new target will have to be legislators. Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute commented that Ahnuld was going to stop California's "runaway Legislature". Hot new right-wing meme?

Posted by Woody Mena at September 8, 2005 6:07 AM
Comments
Comment #78931

It’s all so ironic. Before Arnold announced his intention to veto the bill, his press secretary, Margita Thompson, issued a statement:

The people spoke when they passed Proposition 22. The issue subsequently went to the courts. The governor believes the courts are the correct venue for this decision to be made. He will uphold whatever decision the court renders.
[Source]

Yes, that’s right. The conservative Republican said that it was better for the courts to make the laws than for the legislature to make the laws.

Is there any principle involved here? Is there anyone who believes in the rhetoric of “activist judges” anymore?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 8, 2005 8:14 AM
Comment #78934

Somebody needs to explain to Goveronor Schwarzenegger that it is “We People” that vote these Fools into Office so that through Great Public Debate “We People” can find out what should be known by a Layman as being Unalienable Right Regardless.

If both political parties would pull their head out of the ground, he would know this. Considering he had to learn this to become an U.S. Citizen to get elected to Office one would think that he had enough “Common Sense” to do “The People’s Will” instead of dictate to “We People” what is Law.

Prohabition was found out to be unfisable to enforce, but is “Arnold” saying Americans did not have the unalienable Right to try? Maybe, we need to look at exactly who taught him what it is to be an American; however, his words clearly show why Our Forefathers were smart enough to say The President of The United States of America has to be Natve born and breed.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 8, 2005 9:01 AM
Comment #78942

“Considering he had to learn this to become an U.S. Citizen”

“Maybe, we need to look at exactly who taught
him what it is to be an American”

I disagree Henry.
I’m not so sure he was taught anything and I am almost positive he hasn’t learned anything about our govt.

Posted by: kctim at September 8, 2005 10:00 AM
Comment #78944

The GOP-funded recall initiative was bad enough, but all us Californians figured Schwarzenegger would at least take care of the budget. Boy, were we wrong. He had the same plan as Davis, but substituted a hike in university fees for Davis’ hike in vehicle registration fees. What a crock.

The best thing Californians can do is get rid of the referendum system. The mega-funded special interests have figured out how to abuse it, and now it’s worthless. It’s appalling all the bullshit corporate-sponsored initiatives I have to research every time elections roll around — or every time our clueless governor decides to call a $70 million special vote that the state can’t afford, rather than wait until the regular election next year.

Good editorial from the SF Chronicle,

The decisive “yes” votes were not plied with promises or reminders of campaign contributions. Pollsters and focus groups were of little use. The lawmakers who were wavering on AB849, mostly from suburban and rural districts, were well aware of the risk of voting yes.

It was as personal as an issue gets in public policy. The undecideds consulted their families, their friends, their ministers. They drew on their life experience as they plumbed their souls for guidance.

It was, more than anything, a vote of conscience. On Tuesday, 41 members of the Assembly approved the measure…

History is on the side of leaders with the courage to resist the political calculation of the moment to challenge the status quo on behalf of civil rights.

Schwarzenegger just failed the test.


Posted by: American Pundit at September 8, 2005 10:30 AM
Comment #78945

kctm,
Now be nice. After all he is endowed by his “Creator” with the unalienable Right to be Ignorant. However, I must agree with you that his statement comes extremely close to the line of being stupid.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 8, 2005 10:32 AM
Comment #78946

Okay. I’m confused.
‘We the People’ voted AGAINST a law allowing recognition of same-sex marriages from other States BUT ‘We the People’ voted in Politicians who are trying to pass laws that go against the majority view????
‘We the People’ on BOTH sides will agree or disagree on the power of the Courts depending on the decision they make.
‘We the People’ will never agree on everything.
Majority Rules is not always the right way and neither are the other choices.
‘One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.’
Always has been and always will be.
Keeping the majority happy will most likely be the way to go for a long time to come. After all, the majority is who keeps the lawmakers in their jobs.

Posted by: bugcrazy at September 8, 2005 10:33 AM
Comment #78949

Everyday I wake up hoping that something that makes sense will happen.

I applaud Governor Schwarzenegger for ensuring that “marriage” will be defined everyplace in this country (except Massachusetts which is well known for it’s bizarre and almost repulsive level of liberalism) as a union between a man and a woman.

One does not have to be an American to realize that same sex marriages are a bane on society.

As I post this I realize in advance that I am wrong, am speaking out of ignorance and lack of understanding and, I have no link or reference to support my position. Therefore, I have no right to my opinion.

I know this because a liberal will post a response and tell me so. Then, that will be the end of that. I will be identified as just another lunatic right wing christian bashing a fundamental right of the citizenry.

Posted by: steve smith at September 8, 2005 10:38 AM
Comment #78954
As I post this I realize in advance that I am wrong, am speaking out of ignorance and lack of understanding and, I have no link or reference to support my position.

Good.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 8, 2005 10:52 AM
Comment #78955

Oh, you have every right to your opinion. But to have it taken seriously? I can see arguing tradition in terms of the gay marriage issue, but the end of society? On a historic basis alone, it doesn’t wash. There are many societies throughout history that have had practices which we would consider repugnant as Christians, yet have survived for long times despite them. Human Sacrifice, pedophilia, and sexual acts in religious services are but a few of these. I think American society will survive gay marriage.

If somebody wants to go to the justice of the peace and get this done, that’s their cross to bear, and if the kids ask questions, you can always tell them that marriage in the church, which is between a man and a women, is of greater sanctity.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 8, 2005 10:52 AM
Comment #78963

My use of the word “bane” was not used in the context of the end of society but as :

“A source of persistent annoyance or exasperation”

Posted by: steve smith at September 8, 2005 11:14 AM
Comment #78969

What gets under my skin about this issue of Gay Matrimony is two fold. The first is due to the fact of The Laws of Nature and the Evolution of The Human Race over time. By our Society calling the uniting of two Men or Women Marriage, we face the problems that plagued Rome long ago as well as express constent that it is ok for Nature to change how Humans reproduce.

However, we must give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser’s and allow Local Governments to establish the Rules and Regulation that allow our Citizens to live and work together to build a “Better Life.”

In keeping “Marriage” an act of a Church where in my personal opinion it belongs and having our Government establish Laws which allow our Citizens who are not related by blood to have the same civil rights as a Married Couple living and working together to build a “Better Life.” Maybe the rate of Divorce in the Country will go down.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 8, 2005 11:28 AM
Comment #78990

Regardless of my feelings on the matter, the California constitution pretty much requires the nullification of an act recognizing homosexual marriage: Proposition 22 defined marriage as heterosexual. Because it is an initiative, the legislature may not repeal or amend it, unless the initiative itself allows.

Article II, section 10:

(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.
Posted by: nitpicker at September 8, 2005 12:36 PM
Comment #78996
….By our Society calling the uniting of two Men or Women Marriage, we face the problems that plagued Rome long ago as well as express constent that it is ok for Nature to change how Humans reproduce……

…..Maybe the rate of Divorce in the Country will go down.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 8, 2005 11:28 AM

But, we can’t change how humans reproduce. We can legalize different acts until the cows come home. But we still won’t change how humans reproduce.

Its misleading to think that two people of the same sex can be “married” whether it’s legal or not. Calling a homosexual relationship a “marriage” won’t make it the same thing as a heterosexual marriage. The incidents and responsibilities would be different.

P.S.

The divorce rate among homosexual couples wouldn’t mean squat for the society as a whole. It wouldn’t make a difference whether it was 1% or if it was 99%. A homosexual “divorce” wouldn’t have anywhere near the impact on people as a heterosexual divorce.

Posted by: Darrius at September 8, 2005 12:47 PM
Comment #79029

Darrius,
Although evolution/addaptation takes Eons not years to happen, it is a fact in Nature that such things can and have taken place with reproductive systems. As far as the divorce rate. Making a Societal stand between Lust & Love and/or a couple getting hitched out of convenence or the fact that a couple wants to become Spiritually as One would send a very strong message to our Children’s Children. Because believe it or not, Human Nature takes a different course of actions in a relationship based on how a person gives it up for the very first time. Out of Love, Peer Pressure, Lust, or with a Friend; Human Nature and History has proven that it has a direct effect on All future relationship of that person.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 8, 2005 2:40 PM
Comment #79046

If the representative government of California sees fit to pass a bill that protects the rights a minority it should be signed into law or vetoed based on it’s merits, not because of how unpopular it might be with the majority.

Statesmanship begins when every now and then a simple elected official goes against popular opinion and defends the little guy not because the polls told him to, but because it was the right thing to do.

The Governor of California has just such an opportunity before him today. It will take courage for a Republican Governor to sign into law a bill giving gay couples the same rights that the straight majority has always had.

I guess that kind of courage isn’t in Sacramento today. The Governor is going to pander to his base and grab a few headlines. It kind of makes you wonder who the “girly man” is now.

Posted by: David at September 8, 2005 3:49 PM
Comment #79052

Ahhhhhh, the old Gay Marriage will mean the END of the “Sacred Institution of Marriage”!!!!
Let’s see,
over 50% Divorce rate
Domestic Violence
Incest
Pedophelia (normally a Hetero-sexual phenomenon!!)
Getting Married at the Elvis Chapel

I have a funny feeling that Gay Marriage is the least of “it’s worries”.

Currently in this country, “Marriage” is more of a civil contract than a religious sanctity — altho most people choose to get married via some form of religious ceremony, the rights and responsibilities I believe the Gay community is looking for is the Civil part of it.
Now we start getting into seperation of church and state.
Why should the state define marriage as being between one man and one woman??
What interest is it of the state to define that rigidly unless it is to comply with some religious determination/definition of it??
The state has CHOSEN to recognize that this NORMALLY religious action as resulting in a LEGAL CIVIL contract between two people that results in some expectations by each of the other — and that the legal system is required to ensure that both sides are treated equitably and fairly should that union dissolve.
The STATE should be BLIND as to the makeup of the two people that make up this union.
The STATE formally dictated that it was ILLEGAL for Blacks to marry Whites (goes against Nature don’t ya know!!)
The STATE eventually was forced to be BLIND to the color of the participants.
How is this different??
(as long as it is between two humans??)
I really don’t get it.
I know I don’t feel threatened ONE BIT by whether or not ANY GAY COUPLE chooses to marry or not, or are allowed to or not
IT DOESN’T REALLY AFFECT ME, NOR DO I SEE HOW IT COULD HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE “INSTITUTION” OF MARRIAGE.
IT ONLY THREATENS YOUR VIEW OF WHAT YOU FEEL IS RIGHT AND PROPER
TOUGH LUCK
IF THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY HURTING YOU, OR ANYONE ELSE IN SOCIETY THEY SHOULD BE FREE (IN THIS COUNTRY AT LEAST) TO DO IT.

SO PLEASE, FOR MY EDIFICATION (AS I MIGHT BE MISSING A KEY ELEMENT OF JUST EXACTLY HOW GAY MARRIAGE WOULD DOOM “MARRIAGE” TO POSTERITY) PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME EXACTLY HOW GAY MARRIAGE POSES SUCH A DIRE THREAT TO THE “INSTITUTION” OF MARRIAGE.
SERIOUSLY, RATHER THAN JUST CHANTING THE MANTRA OF “ITS THREATENS THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE”
PLEASE TELL ME HOW!!

Posted by: Russ at September 8, 2005 4:20 PM
Comment #79057

The homosexual movenment is not only after civil equality. They specifically have targetted the religious vocabulary of Marriage in an attempt to coerce societal endorsement of homosexual activity. This goes far beyond civil liberties striking directly into religious faith. The constitution provides that it is not to establish any church. The gay movement is attacking just that… our individual freedom to believe and practice our faith.

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 4:48 PM
Comment #79117

California does, in fact, have such a system. It’s called a democratic republic. That is our system of government.

Wow! A democrat that knows the word republic.


If anything, California is weird for having so many popular referenda. Having referenda doesn’t mean that “the people” (that is, the ones who voted on the referendum) are always right.

And the legislature is’nt most of the time.

I have a Brother-in-law in Sacramento. He’s told me about the legislature out there. Sounds like a they’re bunch of clowns to me.
So when did the will of the few start overriding the will of the many. California voters past a proposition banning gay marriage.
THAT IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Not what the legislature is trying to do. Schwarzenegger was right to veto it. It would be the same if the voters voted for gay marriage and the legislature tried to pass a law against it. He would be right to veto it. Even though the people would be wrong.

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 8, 2005 8:20 PM
Comment #79141

Just one question, if the homos can marry will they stop having their gay day parades? Because if they will I am in!

And if they marry will they stop bitching? Are all homos whiners? Is that a reqirement to be a fag?

How much attetion DIDN’T you all get when you were kids that you need to make up for it now?

When is enough going to be enough for you flamers?

The majority has spoken and said nay to the gays. Now can’t you all shut up and move on with your lives and stop making this such an issue all the time.

Because you know what your doing? Your all wasting everybody’s time. Your clogging congress and our court systems with something you have already recieved an answer about.

No you can’t get married here. Do you always have to have you own ways as well? To support gay marriage you either have to be gay or know a gay. Why do you all need to subject the rest of us to your grotesqe lives?

Posted by: don't worry about it at September 8, 2005 9:27 PM
Comment #79172

First of all, to Steve Smith: it saddens me to hear that you feel instantly that you’ll be attacked for your views on this issue. This is one we disagree on, to be sure. But your comments speak loudly that those of us who support gay rights are failing quite badly in our efforts to convince those who disagree with us. Indeed, I worry that these efforts are sometimes so heated or attacking that they have the opposite effect. Be at peace, my friend, there will be no such attacks from this post.

I would say that several recent posts speak loudly about what seems to be very negative attitudes towards homosexuals, fears about them I dare say. Fears that homosexuals feel a need to “subject” heterosexuals to “your grotesque lives” for instance. With all due respect, I would urge you to consider that extremely similar words have been written throughout history about Jews, Catholics, individuals of African descent, etc. My point is simply that prejudices born of such fear make for very poor public policy — and ultimately do almost as much harm to those in the majority as it does to the minority group being discriminated against.

I have had the privilege of knowing gay and lesbian individuals in my life — some as relatives, others as teachers, peers, etc. These have been good and honorable people, people whose lives and careers have been in pursuit of the betterment of humankind. I just don’t think that would be possible if it were true that homosexuality were innately evil or wrong. Do we benefit if we associate with drug users? Serial murderers? Serious criminals? Of course not. The wrongfulness of their actions pervades them, and we talk justifiably about protecting our youth from associating with “the wrong crowd.” If we allow ourselves to be influenced by criminals, our own character is diminished.

But the opposite has been true in my experience with gay and lesbian individuals.

What this leaves me with is the conclusion that gays and lesbians are discriminated against because of fear. Just as individuals of African descent, Jews, Gypsies, and a host of other minority groups have been discriminated against because of fear in the past. We now recognize that discrimination as wrong. I pray that we can do the same someday soon with regards our social prejudice against homosexuals.

Posted by: Steve Westby at September 8, 2005 10:58 PM
Comment #79187

Steve,

While i will admit that there are some who are fearful that is not the pervading climate of the opposition to the gay movement’s actions heretofor. As per the post directly preceding yours, i concluded it was a phony and did not represent a real person but rather one attempting to portray an anti-gay ‘persona’.

You have in your own mind, using your own criteria and reasoning drawn the conclusion that homosexual behavior. Other citizens have likewise reached different conclusions. That would be fine in a secualr setting except this topic reaches into the religious realm and our constitution grants each citizen the right to freely practice their faith without the state recognizing, approving or sanctioning religious Sacraments.

Let gay and straight couples register for civil partnerships with the state and allow each so inclined to receive what Sacraments their Church provides.

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 11:42 PM
Comment #79250
The homosexual movenment is not only after civil equality. They specifically have targetted the religious vocabulary of Marriage in an attempt to coerce societal endorsement of homosexual activity. This goes far beyond civil liberties striking directly into religious faith. The constitution provides that it is not to establish any church. The gay movement is attacking just that… our individual freedom to believe and practice our faith.

I’m confused. What’s the civil certificate you receive to show state approval of the union? Oh yeah: Marriage Certificate

What do they call a union of two people in Muslim countries? Marriage

What do they call a union of two people in Jewish countries? Marriage

What do they call a union of two people in Hindi countries? Marriage

What do they call a union of two people in Bhuddist countries? Marriage

What do they call a union of two people in Shinto countries? Marriage

Claiming that using the word “Marriage” is a way to undermine the church is ridiculous. Marriage is both a civil contract and a religious sacrament. Homosexuals want the civil recognition that Marriage implies (and the hundreds of legal benefits that come with it). Saying that they use that word solely to attack religion is absurd.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 9, 2005 3:37 AM
Comment #79271

nitpicker,

If the bill really is unconstitutional, that would certainly be a good reason to veto it. So why didn’t Ahnuld just say so?

Jo,

Your religious freedom argument is bogus. Your church is free to perform or reject any kind of marriage it wants. They can even put a sign on the door of the church saying, “No gay sinners allowed”. That is religious freedom. You just can’t make the rules for everyone else.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 9, 2005 9:02 AM
Comment #79279

You’re right, Woody.

Jo’s thinking is emblematic of a segment of the religious right. Essentially, they say that their religious beliefs require that our civil laws agree with their interpretation of their holy books. It’s not enough simply not to disrupt their worship; they must be allowed to decide the law. Otherwise, their rights are infringed.

It’s a mentality that makes more sense in Afghanistan than in America.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 9, 2005 10:02 AM
Comment #79348

Lawnboy,

let me replace a few words for you from what you said,

“It’s not enough simply not to disrupt their worship; they must be allowed to decide the law. Otherwise, their rights are infringed”.

How about this,”

It’s not enough simply not to disrupt their homosexuality; they must be allowed to decide the law. Otherwise, their rights are infringed

It works both ways sorry to say.

Posted by: Nathan at September 9, 2005 2:10 PM
Comment #79388

Nathan,

No. The laws as written prevent homosexuals from full lives as citizens. They do not prevent faithful from full lives as believers.

The laws as written “disrupt their homosexuality”, so the premise of your statement is invalid.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 9, 2005 3:47 PM
Comment #79449
I’m confused. What’s the civil certificate you receive to show state approval of the union? Oh yeah: Marriage Certificate

What do they call a union of two people in Muslim countries? Marriage

What do they call a union of two people in Jewish countries? Marriage

What do they call a union of two people in Hindi countries? Marriage

What do they call a union of two people in Bhuddist countries? Marriage

What do they call a union of two people in Shinto countries? Marriage

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 9, 2005 03:37 AM

You don’t think it has any meaning that all these religions/societies have a form of male-female marriage, but have no form of same-sex marriage?

The homosexual movenment is not only after civil equality. They specifically have targetted the religious vocabulary of Marriage in an attempt to coerce societal endorsement of homosexual activity. This goes far beyond civil liberties striking directly into religious faith. The constitution provides that it is not to establish any church. The gay movement is attacking just that… our individual freedom to believe and practice our faith.

Posted by: jo at September 8, 2005 04:48

What the gay-marriage supporters want is for society to look at homosexuality as acceptable. That is the only incident of marriage can not be conferred by a civil union. I have seen this discussion many times and looked at it from several different angles. Same-sex marriage doesn’t validate itself no matter what angle you approach it from, whether you take a religious point of view or not.

P.S.

LawnBoy,

The laws as currently written are not what is keeping homosexuals from living full lives as citizens. Their dedication to homosexuality is what’s keeping them from forming proper families, and thus from living full lives. In pursuing same-sex marriage they are trying to formulate families from pieces that were never meant to exist together as a family unit.

Posted by: Darrius at September 9, 2005 5:54 PM
Comment #79548
You don’t think it has any meaning that all these religions/societies have a form of male-female marriage, but have no form of same-sex marriage?

That’s not true. Four countries have same-sex marriage.

The laws as currently written are not what is keeping homosexuals from living full lives as citizens. Their dedication to homosexuality is what’s keeping them from forming proper families, and thus from living full lives.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t agree. It’s not a “dedication to homosexuality”. It’s an acceptance of themselves as they were born. I’m married to a woman not because I’m “dedicated to heterosexuality.” I’m married to a woman because I was born with a preference for women hard-wired, and I found a good one.

You would deny that same right and priviledge to people just because they were born differently than me. I won’t accept that.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 10, 2005 1:29 AM
Comment #79674

I would like to point out that some are talking about “gay couples” and “same-sex couples”. My point is that there is an unspoken assumption that there is some reason that marriage has to be limited to two people in the event that gays get the right to gay marriage. It is “discriminatory” to limit marriage to two people as it is to mandate that the partners need to be opposite sex. It is “discriminatory” to insist that the partners need to be adults. There are many aspects of marriage law which are “discriminatory” in some way. Not just the gender of the people involved.

Posted by: Jack Joe at September 11, 2005 12:25 AM
Comment #79746

LawnBoy,

Why has the the government stopped using “Holy” when referring to its matrimony?

What do they call a RELIGIOUS union of two people in Muslim countries? Marriage.
What do they call a RELIGIOUS union of two people in Jewish countries? Marriage
What do they call a RELIGIOUS union of two people in Hindi countries? Marriage
What do they call a RELIGIOUS union of two people in Bhuddist countries? Marriage
What do they call a RELIGIOUS union of two people in Shinto countries? Marriage

Why are the benefits and obligations of the union not! written on a civil marriage certificate?
Because Marriage is a religious Sacrament and the specifics are understood to be based in religion!

Marriage is a religious Sacrament that has been historically RECOGNISED by the government. What other civil contract exists which does not explicitly include any terms or conditions? Those performed by Justices of the Peace have no specific terms but that the couple themselves choose to promise each other in a NON-BINDING agreement. It has been historical Christian benefits and obligations such as monogamy, love, honor, affection, obedience and fidelity which have been entered into law. The state’s intrusion into the Sacrament of Marriage has accomplished what? A weak ‘union’ founded on the powers of the state which can be dissolved at any time for a multitude of or no reason at all other than the choice of the two people involved to dissolve their properly called PARTNERSHIP.


Woody,

Mormons are not allowed to perform polygamous marriage ceremonies. Why?


LawnBoy,

How is my desire to separate the state from our Church requiring civil laws to be in agreement? i have repeatedly stated that i think the civil law should grant the same civil benefits to gays as it does heterosexuals. Sorry i do not have your enchanting talent you of being able to read a persons thoughts and motives. Trying to logically follow your arguments have me completely befuddled.


Jack Joe,

Indeed, it is just as discriminatory to prevent Mormons their polygamous choices as it is to prevent homosexuals their choices.

Posted by: jo at September 11, 2005 2:49 PM
Comment #79759
What do they call a RELIGIOUS union of two people in Muslim countries? Marriage.

You’re adding the focus on religion. The point is that there’s also a civil contract called a marriage.

Stop trying to force your religion’s definition of the word on the civil law.

Why are the benefits and obligations of the union not! written on a civil marriage certificate? Because Marriage is a religious Sacrament and the specifics are understood to be based in religion!

No, because a Marriage Certificate is a certificate on a pretty piece of paper. The benefits and obligations are written in the law, not in the religion.

Marriage is a religious Sacrament that has been historically RECOGNISED by the government.

Your history is just wrong on this. Christianity did not invent Marriage. Marriage existed in different societies within and without religion for centuries before Christ.

Those performed by Justices of the Peace have no specific terms but that the couple themselves choose to promise each other in a NON-BINDING agreement.

Non binding???? It’s a legal contract! The marriage ceremony in a church has no legal binding. It’s binding only to the extent that the participants consider it to be binding.

It has been historical Christian benefits and obligations such as monogamy, love, honor, affection, obedience and fidelity which have been entered into law.

Is that how marriage in India developed? In China? In Papua New Guinea? In the pre-Christian world?

As I said, your understanding of the history of marriage is way, way too Christianty-centered, to the exclusion of facts and logic.

How is my desire to separate the state from our Church requiring civil laws to be in agreement?

I have no idea how you constructed this grammatically in your head, but the answer to the question I think you were asking is that you’re complaining about gay marriage by insisting that the legal word Marriage HAS to mean what it means in your interpretation of religion.

That’s not accurate historically, legally, or theologically.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 11, 2005 4:45 PM
Comment #79760
i have repeatedly stated that i think the civil law should grant the same civil benefits to gays as it does heterosexuals.

BTW, I’m glad to hear this, and we could end on a note of happiness here.

My complaint is your ahistorical insistence that Christianity defined “Marriage” and what the word means legally.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 11, 2005 4:47 PM
Comment #80033

Marriage world wide has historically been based in RELIGION—not necessarily Christianity. In America, that historical religious foundation was western Christianity. Ancient ‘secular’ pairing was neither exclusively life-long, nor monogamous. Such conditions up to modern times have only been applied via religion. Modern secular society is attempting to ‘adapt’ a heretofore religiously based ‘institution’ to secular civil regulation.

The record is already clear on the state’s inability to adequately maintain obligations of such an intimate nature as affection, respect, fidelity etc. The state has no legitimate role in the governance of these personal aspects of our lives except imo in the case of abuse. The parading of our private lives through the courts as seen especially in both politics and celebrity debases our whole society. Civil government oversight and regulation of property rights are just that, civil. The administration of these is more appropriately covered under contract law with requirments that each party actually be are of and comprehend terms and conditions. Health and saftey covered under civil law applicable to all be they in partnerships or single.

How each person or couple chooses to relate to another is best governed by those individuals involved with or without benefit of faith or religion, and without hinderance or interference of government. Our constitution provides for the separation of church and state, not the defining of church by the state.

Posted by: jo at September 12, 2005 9:15 PM
Comment #80103
How each person or couple chooses to relate to another is best governed by those individuals involved with or without benefit of faith or religion, and without hinderance or interference of government.

This I agree with.

Our constitution provides for the separation of church and state, not the defining of church by the state.
the gay movement is attacking just that� our individual freedom to believe and practice our faith.

These parts I still don’t understand. I’m glad that you would accept equal civil rights for straight and gay unions. However, I just don’t see how you can claim that allowing others to call such unions “marriage” deprives you of your personal religious rights.

Can you help me?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 13, 2005 2:29 AM
Comment #80111

LawnBoy,

If it is written into the law as a legal definition then all citizens are required to ‘recognise’ or conform to that definition. Just as happened to Mormon polygamy when it was outlawed by legal definition. To legally define marriage to include same sex or multiple partner ‘unions’ would require my church to conform to this standard just as it required the Mormons to conform.

Posted by: jo at September 13, 2005 3:18 AM
Comment #80112

No, Jo, you’re mistaken.

The law would require states to recognize marriages in other states. No church or religion would be forced to perform or recognize such marriages.

Churches can refuse to perform legal weddings today. That wouldn’t change if more pairings were considered legal.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 13, 2005 3:22 AM
Comment #80118

Furthermore, your analogy to Mormom polygamy is invalid. In order to gain statehood, Utah was required to ban multiple marriage. The Mormon church bowed to political pressure to stop recognizing marriages that were illegal.

This is the exact opposite of the case with legalizing gay marriages, in which churches would not be forced to perform marriages that would be legal.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 13, 2005 5:37 AM
Comment #80140

LawnBoy,

You are right about the Mormons. i was totally ignorant. Thank you for pointing that out.

i still think the state has no business regulating marriage and You cannot guarantee what will be done once the language is written into the law. Blacks didn’t get the vote at the same time they were freed.

Posted by: jo at September 13, 2005 10:27 AM
Comment #80147

Personally, I’m less worried about that slippery slope than I am about treating all citizens with equal rights. It’s interesing that the slippery slope example you used was of people gaining more rights over time.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 13, 2005 10:47 AM
Comment #80158

LawnBoy,

i am also for treating all with equal rights. This can be done in the civil government without having to define that which has historically been the realm of church. There is no legitimate argument for the insistence on the term ‘marriage’ to be included. Yes, it may take a little more work, a little more time and they might actually be required to work within the framework of our government. Neither would removing marriage from the claws of the state prevent gays from gaining further rights in the future.

Slippery slope vs mountain climbing… easy does not mean it is right.

Posted by: jo at September 13, 2005 11:37 AM
Comment #80261
Neither would removing marriage from the claws of the state

I really don’t understand what the strong motivation is for you in this debate. You accept the state having the power to define the rights and obligations of what we call marriage. You have no problem with homosexuals having equal access to those rights.

Yet you’ve argued for days and column inches here about the state using a word that has been used for centuries independent of religion.

There is no practical difference if the contract is called a Marriage or a Civil Union, but you talk about state involvement in Marriage as though it’s a significant-meaningful issue.

We’re already discussed that Marriage has existed for centuries within many different religious systems and especially outside religion. Historically and legally, no particular religion has a special claim on the meaning of the word more than any other.

So why does it upset you so much?

When the word used is a generic and old word, how does refining the related law “(attack) just that… our individual freedom to believe and practice our faith” or “subjugat(e) of American citizens of faith” or “switch who plays top dog” or demonstrate that “(t)here remains a semblence of religioous freedom in the nation despite the best efforts of the gay movement to thwart it.”

It’s apparent you believe this strongly, but I just don’t understand your anger.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 13, 2005 4:19 PM
Comment #80313

LawnBoy,

Although my religious roots are the same as western christianity, our histories differ greatly. While the west (Rome) went on to conqueor many cultures and lands, the east (my faith) went on to conform to many cultures in many lands. Today my own heirarchs must first be approved by Muslim government leaders, those in Jersualem must be approved by Jewish as well as Muslim governments. Russia is just starting to come out from under the communist take over of the Church there.

i suppose if i were a good Orthodox Christian i would ‘endure all’ and not speak up even while they nailed my priest to the door of our parish. Trouble is, i am American born and bred and have been conditioned to religious freedom not oppression.

i am slothful and weak and do not want what we have found here in America to be lost. i am used to the discrimination crossfire, being caught between western evangelicals most of whom deny we are christian at all and other faiths who because we are christian hate us yet know nothing of us. i do not want to share my brethren’s crossfire of being legislatively persecuted and killed by the Jews for not being Jewish and the Muslim’s commandeering our parishes as military outposts and killing us for not beign Muslim.

i do not want Orthodox Christians in America to be wiped out to a small enclave as has happened the world over. i am a western wimp of eastern faith.

Posted by: jo at September 13, 2005 6:08 PM
Comment #80334

Which branch of Orthodox Christianity do you follow? I have a Russian Studies minor and have been to any Russian Orthodox churches, as well as a few Romanian Orthodox churches and one Armenian church.

Was your comment from 6:08 PM a response to my comment from 4:19 PM? If so, I still don’t fel I have an answer.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 13, 2005 6:39 PM
Comment #80408

LawnBoy,

Yes, my 6:08 was responding to your 4:19. i am Antiochian Orthodox, see of Antioch— that would be Syria to you. It is mentioned in the protestant New Testament and in fact is the first multi-cultural see. Peter was our first Bishop but Paul was also bishop of Antioch simultaneously— charged with ministering to the Greeks (non-Jews).

i grew up in a multi-cultural family. i do not have the social skills for even rudimentary participation in western style dialogue whose aim is competition rather than communication.

Other cultures and languages have many different words for what is translated into English as ‘love’ or ‘marriage’. IMO, western culture will never hear, much less acknowledge, that others might exist beyond their own conceptualization of them. Built on its foundations of conquest, even tolerance is “My way or the highway” dressed up in fancy PC clothes.

Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to at least try to understand what i have been trying to communicate. This is the reason i am responding to you past the realization that my time here on watchblog is worse than futile. i seek peace and understanding; but, my weak attempts are misconstrued and used to further divide and increase hostilities. It is time to leave.

Here is a link to an article by a Russian Orthodox priest in Alaska. Fr Oleksa is an excellant speaker, a great story-teller and if you ever get the chance to hear him speak i think you would consider your time well spent.

Thank you again for your patience.

jo

Posted by: jo at September 13, 2005 11:42 PM
Post a comment