No gay marriage vote for Massachusetts
This leads to an interesting discussion on what constitutes a “right,” how does society reconcile conflicting rights and when, if ever, is a right subject to a popular vote?
Let’s look at other issues in this, and another, time.Is the right of “self-defense,” a votable issue? The 2nd amendment assumes it is not, that the right is there and personal, and that carrying firearms is one means to ensure that for the defense of not only the person, but of the free State. The personal right to self-defense pre-exists the US Constitution and was never a question in the minds of the Founders.
Is the right to own property, in itself, subject to a vote? If not, why may I not own slaves? A slave’s right to personal liberty conflicts with my right to own him. By law alone is slavery illegal, but is there an over-riding reason it should be?
In the same way, should the ability of two people of the same sex to obtain the rights and privileges society accords to heterosexual couples who have made certain commitments that meet the requirements of the state be subject to a popular vote? Some say no, that society must be essentially sexual orientation-blind in a similar way it must at times be color-blind or sex-blind. Some say yes, that society has an interest in protecting long-standing traditions.
But then, slavery is a long-standing tradition throughout human history, as is the ability of the state to restrict the ability of a person to defend himself and its ability to confiscate property at the whim of the monarch/oligarch/dictator.
Regarding same-sex marriage, if politics is the art of the possible, then same-sex marriage advocates must step back from calling a benefits arrangement “marriage.” Traditionalists must, likewise, decide if adding some tens of thousands of couples nationwide to various benefits packages is a net good or net harm or neutral within society.This assumes that the couples are commited couples, and not just boyfriends and girlfriends canoodling for a time; an enforceable marriage type commitment is essential, particularly regarding property division and child care in the event of a dissolution of the realtionship.
Unless we want to declare homosexuality a social sin and enforce legal proscriptions, as we chose to do with the vile institution of slavery, then we must figure a way to accommodate society to the make-up of its constituent parts.
There are no simple clear-cut answers.DEMOCRACY: THREE WOLVES AND A SHEEP VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR DINNER
That’s why we have a Constitution incl. a Bill of Rights. Our founding fathers also knew that pure democracy (i.e. mob rule) was a poor idea—in the present days of instant media saturation, even worse I bet.
I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea of Social Sin. For example: pornography may do some real harm; but giving censorship powers to government is worse.
Romans 1:24-27 ESV Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1Cor Ch6
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
6:11 And such were some of you:
Before we get to righteous, re-read that last line. Right between the old eyes with a two by four.
My Church has, like yours, done a piss-poor job of living like Christ-- but it has always held that the sexual sins are less deadly that spite, malice, and pride.
Live like Christ or glorify Christ. There is a difference.
I try and not be a finger pointer.
Sexual sins, spite, malice, pride. Explain more please.
I don’t believe the state has any buisness meddling with any marriage.
It’s a private contract and should be handled that way. For the state to attempt rp legitimize gay marriage is totally out of line.
Posted by Hammer
06/14/2007 at 08:49 PM
The government has no business getting into marriage in any way. It is a religious institution. If gays want to marry in their own church, let them. Christians should be bound by the rules imposed by their church based on their interpretation of scripture, and the government should have no say in that what so ever.
The down side of that idea is that I’d still be with my first wife, a woman who tried to kill me,(assuming she had not scored a hit by now) and may have done munchousen by proxy as well. I have been sick exactly three times in the six years since she divorced me, vs about three visits to the doctor per month, and several trips to the ER with various reactions to irritants. Fabric softener nearly killed me twice.Well done Mr. Christian and Jeremy. The most important key points in the “Gay Marriage” debate are that marriage is and has been a religious institution and that the 1st Amendment specifically prohibits our government from getting into the business of legislating religious issues. Given that background, I’ve often wondered why the issue is being fought in the legislatures and not the courts.
As a side note, how much did the Republicans pay Gavin Newsom to make a major issue out of gay marriage in the middle of an election year? Given the narrowness of Bush’s victory, it could easily have been the deciding issue. Virtually no liberals or Democrats will even consider the idea that Newsom’s actions could have thrown the election to Bush.
Secondarily there’s another concern. When a legislature circumvents the democratic process to tell people how they will live, there is a problem. This latest example from Massachusetts reminds me a lot of some we’ve had here in California. Folks, take it as a warning of how not to structure your state’s politics. California’s electoral districts were heavily Gerrymandered by the Democrat’s years ago. For decades, it’s been a regular feature of California politics that an Initiative will be placed on the ballot and approved or disapproved by the voters, only to have the state legislature reverse the people’s decision a few years later. Three in particular have always rankled me. They involved smoking, firearms and racial discrimination. Going strictly by the results at the ballot box, we would still be allowed to smoke in public places, have a relatively benign set of firearms laws and the state would be prohibited from practicing racial discrimination in any form, including racial quotas for university admission, etc. The people of California aren’t quite as strange as our reputation. The problem is that we lost control of our political process a long time ago.
Must be brief today: I agree with keeping marriage away from State sanction—also agree with defending it, in my Catholic Church (NOT the Govt.) as a sacrament involving one man and one woman.
Sins—malice, treachery, sex: Look at Dante’s Divine Comedy—sins like fornication, gluttony are the least serious—in Hell and Purgatory. The real deadly ones involve malice, spite, treachery, pride—ones that rot the core of what a human being is.
