I must admit that I have not followed the confirmation proceedings for the newest Supreme Court Justice well. If I had wanted to be informed I am quite certain that I would not go to One News Now or any other Right-wing source for my information. This article illustrates my concern well. The 'experts' say that Kagan will be a solid vote for "homosexual 'marriage'" without bothering to give any real reason for that opinion. I have a feeling that what they mean is that she will not cast a vote to infringe upon the liberties of a segment of the population that the Christian Right disagrees with.
The whole Christian Right is in uproar over the CA judge that overturned the Prop 8 amendment. So was Judge Vaughn Walker correct? I am inclined to think that he was. And if the case does make it to the Supreme Court I hope that they will uphold his decision.
I read some of the text of the judgement, it is long, over 130 pages, so I didn't read every word. I am going to touch on some of the things I did read.
First for the conclusion drawn by Judge Walker.
"Conclusion
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."
The portion of the US Constitution he refers to is the 14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If the law of CA recognizes marriage for heterosexuals it must also grant the same priviledge to homosexuals. The belief that homosexuality is sinful is a religious one. I agree with those on the right that homosexuality is wrong, but I don't want the government making moral judgements.
Part of the text in the judgement is:
"A state's interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose."
That is true.
The notion that homosexual marriage will degrade or in any other way affect heterosexual marriage is ridiculous. How can it affect my marriage? Homosexuals marrying will not change the commitment my husband and I have made. Homosexuals being allowed to have a marriage license and all of the rights, responsibilites, and privileges that go with it, "will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages".
There was one part of the argument against Prop 8 that I disagree with. "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful harm gays and lesbians." How is that? I've never harmed anyone who is homosexual. How can my belief that they are wrong for their sexual proclivity harm them unless they allow it to affect them? I know people who believe that somethings I do are 'sinful'. It does not harm me for them to hold that view.
So, to end. If Kagan would vote that a 'ban' on homosexual marriage is unconstitutional I believe that would be a good thing. If that is the only argument the Right has against her, it isn't much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Our government wouldn't have to decide if gays should be allowed to marry or not if instead they instituted the civil laws set forth in the Bible, which punish homosexuality with the death penalty.
The Bible does not punish victimless crimes. The reason why homosexuality is punished what may seem harshly is because God knows what school, TV, and many Christians try to deny: that according to the Bible (e.g. Romans 1), every single homo is a violent reprobate that cannot be reformed, but is rather becoming more perverted and violent as time goes on.
I don't think it is the job of our government to decide if anyone should or should not get married. Government according to God is set up "for the punishment of evildoers" (evil meaning harmful to others, not the more modern meaning of "wicked" or "immoral").
I wonder how many libertarian-minded Christians would actually want to trade our current, evil, oversized, abusive government that persecutes Christians for the civil laws set forth in the Bible, which promote personal liberty and property in ALL areas of life, and only punishes evildoers by fines (payable to the offended party, not the government), corporal punishment, and death penalty - never incarceration, never victimless crimes.
Zsuzsanna- I seriously hope you're joking, or that there is at least a thread of sarcasm running through your post. Do you seriously realize what you are advocating?
You are advocating the killing (at least, it appears so) of tens of thousands of free, independent, American citizens, merely on the basis of who they choose to have sex with.
Really?
Now I know, I know. It was a Levitical law. But so was stoning your son if he was rebellious. Are you prepared to do that? You have five kids. According to the Bible, you are supposed to kill them if they evidence rebellion against you. Are you willing to follow God in that? Furthermore, should we make that a civil law?
Of course not! Why? One, because it's just flat wrong. Two, because rebellion is a matter that should be taken care of at a family level (so long as the kid isn't out say, killing people, then it would be the domain of the government because the kid would be taking away the rights of another sovereign individual), at the heart. Sorry, but making legislation about something will not cure the heart problem- sin. It will not keep people from sinning. Now, you want to live in a country that punishes homosexuality with the death penalty- move to Iran or Saudi Arabia. Have fun with that. But America does not do that, and for a reason. We are a free country.
I see a couple problems with your definition of "government", and please allow me to tweak it. The American government, at least, is designed, not to "punish evildoers", but to dispense justice and to protect property from both legal and illegal plunder. Does a gay person exercising their rights as a sovereign individual (to have sex with whoever they want/get married just like every other American citizen) either a) infringe upon your property, or b) in any way, shape, or form, merit the justice of a free society like ours? Why is the bedroom the domain of the government? Perhaps in some OT theocracy, but not in America. America is a diverse nation, and her diversity is her strength.
Also, I'd like to take issue with one of your comments in particular-
"every single homo is a violent reprobate that cannot be reformed, but is rather becoming more perverted and violent as time goes on."
They "cannot" be reformed? Really? Where does it say that in the Bible? I do remember Paul saying something about his being "the chiefest of sinners" (and he wasn't homosexual), but never is there any indication that there is no grace for certain individuals. Salvation is for all- not just people whose lifestyle we disagree with. I have heard of gays getting saved. It is possible. And if Christians would extend a little less of the chopping-block of hellfire and more of the grace that passeth all understanding, we might see more homosexuals actually listen to us!
First, and most importantly, in America we do not have a theocracy. A government based upon any religious system is a theocracy. I don't want that. I want liberty. Not just for those who worship Jehovah but for all men. Politically I cannot support punishing people for crimes that do not deprive another of life, liberty, or property.
I agree with you that homosexuality is immoral, an abomination in the eyes of God. I would also agree that spiritually speaking it is not 'victimless'. But according to the law (and by that I mean the Constitution) it is victimless, it deprives no one of life, liberty, or property.
Do you really want Levitical law instituted here in the US? What other crimes were punished by the death penalty in the Old Testament?
Disobedience to parents(Ex 21:17), murder(Ex 21:12), adultery(Lev 19:20;20:10), kidnapping(Ex 21:16), beastiality(Lev20:15,16), blasphemy(Lev 24:16), incest(Lev 20:11,12,14), witchcraft(Ex 22:18; Lev 20:27; Num 3:10), false prophecy(Deut 13:5), rebellion(Josh 1:18), sex with a menstruous woman(Lev 20:18), sabbath violations(Ex 31:15, 16:25,29; Ex 35:3), fornication-only if you are a woman though(Deut 22:21-24), worship of other gods (Deut 13:6-10;17:2-5.
In the New Testament, however, there is no call for punishment by death.
Romans 13 says that we are to 'obey the powers that be'. Here, in America, that would be the Constitution. Not the Bible, the CONSTITUTION.
We have freedom of worship, the Jews did not. We have freedom of association. The Jews did not.
I will agree that the personal accountability of the Old Testament is desireable and consistent with Libertarian views.
The issue with Proposition 8 is the law, not the morality of homosexuality, about which I am sure we agree-mostly.
Christ's sacrifice at Calvary and subsequent resurrection pays for the price of sin- ALL sin- and the redemption and renovation of sinners- ALL sinners.
Christ is able to redeem even homosexuals if they come to him.
I do agree with quick punishment. Prison is inhumane and degrading and destroys men, women, and families.
I am disturbed by your apparent lack of faith in the sufficiency of the Holy Spirit to convict men of sin, righteousness, and judgement and of the blood of Christ to redeem the lost.
Joyful Mama:
Excellent post! I agree with many of the points you made.
Zsuzsanna:
I am confused as to how Biblical law could best be implemented. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there
‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room
here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.
Blessings!
Heather
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp
Mmm... Plagiarism. Classy.
Kelley- that little list of "Laws" is actually quite common. I've seen it a few times, in books, etc. In fact, I don't think anybody knows who wrote it the first time...at least, not according to Snopes at least. ^.^ A charge of 'plagarism' really isn't proper here. :)
I certainly do not have the time or inclination to respond to all the objections brought up against my original comment.
Just a few things I'd like to say:
1. "The law of the LORD is perfect" - I am shocked that there are people who call themselves Christians on here who think that the US Constitution, or any law for that matter, is better than the law God put forth in the Bible, or that God was wrong when he decided what should be punished how. I have read Heather's funny little quip many times before, and it is so stupid. I guess mocking God and misstating/twisting what He said to make Him look like a bumbling old idiot is some people's definition of reverence. God doesn't change. The God of the OT is the same God as the one of the New Testament, and is also Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. It seems that some people think the God of the OT was a cantankerous old know-nothing who was much too harsh, but thankfully Jesus came along and straightened things out.
2. I was referring to the Bible's civil laws only. The ceremonial ordinances pertaining to foods, washings, etc. were "our schoolmasters" to teach us of Christ, and the NT makes it clear that they no longer apply because Jesus fulfilled the prophesies that they represented.
3. The death penalty for homosexuality is reiterated in Romans chapter 1, which is the NT, so it's not "just Levitical law". I guess if OT laws no longer apply today, we might as well get rid of the ten commandments, and all the other things taught in the Bible. Or do we get to pick and chose?
4. Our government allows, funds, and carries out the murder of many thousands of innocent lives daily (the unborn, unwarranted wars, etc.). Personally, I'd much rather those people were all left alive, and the only ones being killed were those that the Bible says to execute. It would add up to much fewer deaths, and it wouldn't be the deaths of the innocent.
5. Basing laws on Biblical principles is not a "theocracy". The vast majority of the Founding Fathers believed in a Creator, believed in the infallibility of the Bible, and that our freedoms were endowed to all human beings by Him. Any people who thumbs their nose at God's laws and thinks they can be "free" to live however they want and indulge in whatever sin they want is NEVER free. Sin enslaves. "Where the spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty." This explains why as we as a nation depart from God, our freedoms are being lost.
6. The Bible had three branches of government. The Bible was the legislative, and since the laws came from God and were perfect, nothing needed to be added or changed. Judges were the judiciary and interpreted those laws if cases were not clear-cut and needed further investigation. The people were the executive, which eliminated the need for a government police force.
7. I know that homos can't get saved because the Bible clearly says so. It really doesn't matter to me how many of them claim to have gotten saved. People also claim to have seen UFOs, Elvis, and Jesus in the flesh, but that doesn't make it true. Maybe they are just lying so they can be welcome in church and have easy access to more victims? What a thought! Every single person who thinks that homos can be saved thinks that in order to be saved, they would have to "repent" of that lifestyle, i.e. give up being a homo. That is works salvation. If you want to believe that they can be saved, as well as believe that salvation is by grace through faith ONLY, you would have to come to the conclusion that someone could be a practicing homo and saved.
8. I am not saying that anyone on here has to agree with me. I agree with the Bible (the WHOLE Bible), and that's all I care about. What I cannot understand is that people want to call themselves Christians, and claim to believe the Bible, when really they have "cut and pasted" their own view of God and His expectations of us based on what they have been indoctrinated to think is right in our twisted world. I make no apologies for agreeing with God. They didn't like Jesus too much either, which is why they killed him simply for SAYING things that went against the current societal grain.
I will not respond to this thread any more, as I have limited time. I don't want to spend it trying to convince people who won't even be convinced by God's perfect word.
1. In the country of the United States, yes, the Constitution pretty much trumps God's Levitical law. Sorry. That doesn't mean it's better, but that it is the supreme law of our land. I don't think God begrudges man the chance to make their own laws, especially since he didn't make everyone follow the Levitical laws- just Jews- and since the US was founded by Gentiles, I don't think we need to worry. ;)
3. The death penalty for homosexuality is not reiterated in Romans 1. It talks about homosexuality yes, but there is no (human) death penalty associated. Yes, they will be punished in the afterlife, but so will anybody who ever sinned.
"Basing laws on Biblical principles is not a "theocracy"."
Yeah, that's a theocracy. The Bible is a religious book, hence the laws within it are religious in nature. Religious laws make a nation a theocracy. Further, we cannot make laws based upon a religious view, as then we would be forcing said religion upon people who do not believe it. That is wrong, and unconstitutional. Period.
And if you want people to be free from sin, then stop trying to get the government to legislate your religion (which will do absolutely zero), and instead get out there and witness to people about it!
" I know that homos can't get saved because the Bible clearly says so."
Chapter and verse. That's all I'm going to say to this one.
And please don't draw question to my Christianity. Leave that between me and God. We've got a pretty good handle on it, trust me. ;)
Zsuzsanna,
I never said that a practicing homosexual can be a christian. I do believe a homosexual can be saved. I would expect the Holy Spirit to show them that homosexuality is wrong, just as I would expect the adulterer or liar or fornicator or whatever kind of sinner to repent of their sin.
A government based upon a religious system is a theocracy. The Bible is a religious text and therefore to make laws based on the Bible would be a theocracy.
I believe the Bible, completely. Romans 13 says that we are to 'obey the powers that be'. That would be the Constitution in America.
Are there legitimate (Constitutional) laws regarding mean ability to reproduce?
There are age of consent laws which are based on mean ability to reproduce. Are these laws unconstitutional?
If they are, we should strike them down first.
If they are not, mean ability to reproduce is an acceptible standard for consensual sex; meaning any sexual activity not having a mean ability to reproduce can be regulated by the state as nonconsensual.
@Liberty/Heather
You don't need to know who wrote it to know that you didn't. Though you really should disclaim quoted writing at all times, at least by using quotation marks, it seems even more imperative to do so in cases where the text in question is written in the first-person (as this one is.)
Passing another person's work off as your own, either implicitly or explicitly, is plagiarism, whether you like it or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
Post a Comment