Proposition 8 Ramblings

2008 November 20

I figured I’d preface this post with Keith Olbermann, who said it best. As you likely have heard, proposition 8 in California passed. It is:

a California State ballot proposition that amended the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. It overrode a decision of the California Supreme Court from earlier in the year, In re Marriage Cases, that had recognized same-sex marriage in California as a fundamental right by overturning the California Defense of Marriage Act. The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 was “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.” The entirety of the text to be added to the constitution is: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

From Wiki

I’ll warn you in advance that this post will be rather disjointed, since I have several somewhat related points to discuss. I’m really surprised that a state as liberally minded as California could pass such an amendment. I suppose my comprehension of this is a bit skewed since I cannot see why the idea of same-sex marriage is so disturbing to people. Its not as if anyone is being forced to marry someone of the same sex. In fact, this is the business of those choosing to be married and not affecting anyone else. This ties in with abortion in that it is the conservatives, who constantly talk about the government keeping out of other’s lives, wanting the government to check personal choices. Apparently the libertarian thinking relates only to money and the like.

Regardless, there were some interesting statistics involved in the vote:

ABC News exit polls found that blacks voted in support of Prop 8 and to ban gay marriage by heavier margins than other ethnic groups. The exit polls indicated that 70 percent of black voters supported Prop 8, while 49 percent of whites and Asian Americans voted for it and 53 percent of Latinos supported the ban.

I found this to be the most interesting. The fact that people who fought so hard for civil rights in this country, who saw an African American rise above all the racial bias and bigotry to take the highest seat of power in the United States, voted in such numbers to take rights away from another group struggling just as hard is astounding.

Reading WordPress several days ago I found the posting of another blogger, a conservative blogger, with a rather audacious idea: Legally end marriage. That may sound crazy, and if I still had the link to the blog I’d post it, but consider this: Marriage is a religious institution. It has been taken up as a legal term and is used as a legally binding contract. But what if we removed the word “marriage” from the legal books and left it to religions? What if we changed our wording to “civil unions” through the legal system. That way we could allow civil unions for anyone who wanted to get one and let religions handle the marriage world by themselves. Separate church and state, religion and government, as Thomas Jefferson suggested in his letters so many years ago.

And also, since some people at least are aware of my distaste for local radio station AM1500, KSTP talk radio in Minneapolis, I thought I’d discuss something I heard on the show “Garage Logic” two days ago. Host Joe Soucheray was talking about this:

A Stone Age burial in central Germany has yielded the earliest evidence of people living together as a family.

The 4,600-year-old grave contained the remains of a man, woman and two youngsters, and DNA analysis shows they were a mother, father and their children.

“Their unity in death suggests unity in life,” researchers said in Tuesday’s edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

From MSNBC

He went from talking about this, a scientific finding that suggests that nuclear families existed 4,600 years ago, to suggesting that throughout history no society has ever accepted same-sex marriage. In other words, using this science to support the passing of proposition 8 and thus the outlawing of same-sex marriage. But is our society the first to ever try to allow same-sex marriages? A book by Andrew Sullivan would suggest otherwise:

Same-Sex Marriage in History

One of the recurring clichés of the same-sex marriage debate is that the very notion of such a thing is a radical departure from anything entertained before in human history. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. In many cultures and in many eras, the issue has emerged-and the themes of the arguments are quirkily similar. Same-sex love, as Plato’s Symposium shows, is as ancient as human love, and the question of how it is recognized and understood has bedeviled every human civilization. In most, it has never taken the form of the modern institution of marriage, but in some, surprisingly, it has. In seventeenth-century China and nineteenth-century Africa, for example, the institution seems identical to opposite-sex marriage. In other cultures (see the debate between Brent Shaw and Ralph Hexter) the meaning of same-sex unions remains opaque and complex. In Native American society, marriage between two men was commonplace, but its similarity to contemporary lesbian and gay marriages is far from evident. And today in a number of foreign countries, laws extending civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples have been or will soon be enacted. Judge for yourself what this might mean for our current convulsion. One thing emerges clearly: this issue is not a modern invention. The need to balance human dignity and social norms is as old as civilization itself. Although much of the past history of this debate has been buried until recently, it has begun to emerge again with all the passion that now crackles through modern Western culture.

My suggestion to Soucheray would be to do your research a bit beforehand. It seems a bit preemptive to dive into a conversation on a publicly available media source without examining the background of your suggestions first. Although, I must say that the majority of the “information” provided on AM1500 is not news and shouldn’t be taken as so. It is just the punditry of uniformed individuals ranting on the topics that annoy them and not adding any truly worthwhile suggestions in return.

In the end, I hope that the passing of proposition 8 does not discourage the people in the GLBT community. Keep fighting the good fight and do not go calmly into the night. I’m sure you won’t. I was heartened this last weekend seeing a rally up in the Great Cold North of Duluth, Minnesota. I know that whatever the setbacks, people with a goal and a desire, especially one with such a deep place in the heart, will never stop.

7 Responses leave one →
  1. 2008 November 20

    Maintaining civility within diversity requires citizens who respect those who differ from them. Requiring such respect is good for the nation. People who (within the law) choose different beliefs, morals and lifestyles, must be asked to live in harmony. We have made great strides in promoting respect through civil rights on race and gender, and through special laws protecting the disabled. We should not be disrespectful of anyone for matters related to their nature or how they were born. These cannot be chosen or changed.

    What greatly concerns me is the inclusion of sexual preference into civil rights and diversity training curriculum. This is dangerous to liberty. Civil-rights battles should be restricted to matters of nature, not lifestyle. The referendums on the ballots in several states confirm that Americans do not want the sexual lifestyles of others forced on them as normalized for everyone.

    Like all civilized people, we have laws restricting some types of sexual behavior. Rape, incest and all sexual contact between adults and children are rightly illegal in our nation. Beyond these restrictions, consenting adults are free to live their sexual preferences. But to ask our nation to make new, special laws for these preferences is to force the lifestyle choices of others on everyone. Americans do not want this to happen. Sexual preferences outside of heterosexuality are not matters of nature. Heterosexuality is a matter of nature because without it there would be no human race.

    People should be asked to treat respectfully those who choose different sexual lifestyles. But when these lifestyles are forced on others as is happening in Massachusetts, liberty is wrongly threatened. Forced affirmation and endorsement of lifestyles you disagree with is not freedom. There is an important difference between required respect (which is necessary) and forced affirmation or indoctrination.

    In a free and diverse nation, tolerance is a safeguard to civility. But tolerance that asks for more than respectful treatment of others, is not only deeply misguided, it is a form of intolerance. If we don’t respect this distinction, the liberty of our nation will be threatened. We will be under the tyranny of tolerance and no exception will be tolerated!

    Parents and teachers in public schools in Massachusetts are feeling the destruction of liberty as their children are facing forced indoctrination of the homosexual lifestyle. Elementary-aged children are being sent home with diversity packets without parental consent and parents are being forced to comply. Business owners and doctors are also being forced to affirm homosexual preferences that violate their beliefs and morals. This is not tolerance, nor is it respectful. It is coerced approval of the lifestyle choices of others. Discrimination (in actual civil-rights cases) injures people for what they are by nature, not for lifestyles they choose. It is a threat to liberty to start protecting lifestyles with special laws and forcing those lifestyles on others.

    People who chose a homosexual lifestyle once said they only wanted to be left alone to live they way they desired. In a free nation, this would be a fair request and could be enforced with existing laws. But the radical homosexual community does not want tolerance and freedom to live their preference. They want forced acceptance and indoctrination on everyone (even our children) to normalize their sexual choices in society. If the nation goes the way of Massachusetts, liberty will be profoundly disrupted, chaos will follow and the great progress we’ve made would be unnecessarily threatened.

    I regret that some readers project hate on me for my position on gay marriage. I view the hate aimed as expressive of the frustration brought on by the homosexual lifestyle. My heart goes out to those who feel such bondage and then convince themselves they have no choice but to remain in it. Their redirected anger aimed at me is the cost I absorb for being willing to address the subject. Since I am obviously not able to offer a full explanation of my thinking in the limitation of a 750 word column, I offer a few more thoughts.



    Sexuality is common to humanity by the Creator’s design. God created humans male and female and his original intention was for heterosexual marriage. This is clearly the predominant practice throughout history (without it there would be no human history). Yet Christian teaching also recognizes that we are all fallen beings.

    All people enter this world as sinners who are capable of distorting every part of God’s will. Distortion of sexuality is one expression of our sinfulness. We have all been sexual deviants—if only in our thoughts. We all need God’s grace and forgiveness. We are all continuously capable of being tempted toward deviant sexual behavior.



    We also must acknowledge with humility and repentance that we face a national crisis related to sexuality. The statistics are alarming. In what we pledge as one nation under God, there are over half a million registered sex offenders. How many unregistered ones are there? Equally alarming, in these United States, we generate an annual multi-billion dollar pornography industry. How many lives are damaged by this widespread reality? The majority of marriages are troubled. Christians must view all of this as a call to ministry– not condemnation of people. Whatever struggles we face, they are our struggles together.

    

For someone tempted by homosexual desire, the answer is not: “You must become heterosexual.” The answer is the same for all sexual temptation: Resist temptation and obey God. The same message applies to heterosexual temptation. Those who treat homosexuality as unrelated to choice promote the bondage and hopelessness that leads to despair. Inadvertently they promote a message lacking truth and compassion. They also degrade human dignity by defining it based on impulse. 



    Remember: Many have left the homosexual lifestyle and found forgiveness and freedom (see: http://exodus.to/ and http://www.harvestusa.org/ )



    Steve Cornell
    http://www.thinkpoint.wordpress.com

  2. 2008 November 20
    saratoday permalink

    Thanks for this good post. I used to think that being in favor of civil unions but not gay marriage was a cop out, but recently I’ve been thinking that it may be the better solution. If marriage is “sacred” (one of the major anti-gay marriage arguments) then how can we make any laws about it at all? The state should only regulate civil unions for the purpose of social legal benefits. Leave marriage to the churches.

  3. 2008 November 20

    Steve Cornell – “But to ask our nation to make new, special laws for these preferences is to force the lifestyle choices of others on everyone. Americans do not want this to happen. Sexual preferences outside of heterosexuality are not matters of nature. Heterosexuality is a matter of nature because without it there would be no human race.”

    First, homosexuality is NOT a “lifestyle choice”. The vast majority of the scientific community agrees that homosexuality originates in a mixture of genetics and pre-birth environment. See my blog post discussing the scientific evidence here at http://tomsissues.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/is-sexual-orientation-a-choice/

    Second, there is a strong argument to be made, in light of the current hypotheses surrounding how proclivity for homosexuality survives in (many) species, that without HOMOSEXUALITY there would be no human race! The hypothesis is that the proclivity for homosexuality hasn’t “selected out” of society-based species because the inclusion of non-genetically-competitive males in the family group provides a distinct competitive advantage for the kids with a gay uncle.

    Not even so far as being a theory, of course, but interesting food for thought!

    “But when these lifestyles are forced on others as is happening in Massachusetts, liberty is wrongly threatened. Forced affirmation and endorsement of lifestyles you disagree with is not freedom.”

    What, specifically, are you talking about? How is the homosexual lifestyle being forced on you? I’m not even going to comment on the absurd “indoctrination” comments …

    “For someone tempted by homosexual desire, the answer is not: “You must become heterosexual.” The answer is the same for all sexual temptation: Resist temptation and obey God. The same message applies to heterosexual temptation. Those who treat homosexuality as unrelated to choice promote the bondage and hopelessness that leads to despair. Inadvertently they promote a message lacking truth and compassion. They also degrade human dignity by defining it based on impulse.”

    Okay. So, if we hold a vote and from this point forward you are forbidden from marriage, you’d be okay with that?

    Let me restate the above in a different context:

    “For a white man tempted by desire for a black woman, the answer is not: “You must desire white women”. The answer is the same for all sexual temptation: Resist temptation and obey God. The same message applies to white-on-white temptation.”

    It misses the point entirely, asking one group (interracial couples in my statement, homosexual couples in yours) to live by an entirely different standard (no marriage allowed) just so they don’t offend your sensibilities.

  4. 2008 November 23
    lonepair permalink

    I guess I don’t find it surprising that this went the way of religion, and I suppose in all truth this was the essence of my post: the same-sex marriage debate is, at its heart, a religious debate. Not that I’m making a hit on religion; I can see a need for it in society and can understand why people believe so firmly in what they believe in. What I’m saying is this: sometimes one has to put the religion aside and see things from a different perspective.

    I am a self-described Agnostic and a Biology graduate from the University of Minnesota. I have no concerns about homosexuality as being the so-called “downfall” of humankind. In fact, most scientists highly agree that the existence of such a “lifestyle,” to use a very limiting term (though I refuse to use the word choice), is based upon genetics. If one looks at homosexuality as an evolutionary scientist, as I tend to view things, it would appear as if this genetic adaptation would be yet another population check. This means that since a man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot procreate, that is one less person entering the world. This may seem a bit harsh, but often times science is thus.

    The debate spawns out of religion since those who believe that the bible says that homosexuality should be outlawed feel that same-sex marriage goes against the fundamentals of what marriage is. I simply suggest giving the term “marriage” to the religions and removing it from legal proceedings and contracts and replacing it with the religio-neutral term “civil union.” This by no means forces people to become homosexuals or to believe that homosexuality is right. You keep your own beliefs, but leave them out of others’ lives. People are people, no matter what lives they lead. Shouldn’t we all have the same rights?

  5. 2008 December 16

    It grieves me to observe increased efforts to attack the credibility of the Bible. On the popular level, these attacks were aimed primarily at the assumed contradiction between the Bible and science. The misguided notion that the Bible requires a certain age for the Earth fueled these efforts to discredit the creation narrative. As with the recent wave of anti-biblical rhetoric, the assumptions behind the science vs. creation debate are based on superficial analysis. Yet the attacks beg the question: “Why are people so afraid of the Bible?”

    The first English settlers looked to the Bible to guide them. Woodrow Kroll, president and senior Bible teacher for international media ministry Back to the Bible, wrote, “The influence of the Bible on their literature, their music, and their lives came with them. Their Christian faith was as much a part of who they were as their audacious spirit.” His Web site, http://www.centerforbibleengagement.org, reminds of the central role Christian Scripture played in the founding and formation of our great nation.

    Perhaps this fact is behind the attacks against Christianity and the Bible. Evidently some feel that Christians have had their day as the reigning ideology. Whatever the motivation, there is a growing band of anti-Christian missionaries who joyfully celebrate the marginalization of Christianity. But don’t let them fool you into believing that they are safeguarding us from some sort of Christian imperialism. Closer to the truth, they despise the influence the Bible carries on the moral conclusions of voting members of this nation. Because the Bible doesn’t support their desired lifestyles, they increasingly see it (and those who take Scripture seriously) as enemy No. 1 to their cultural agenda for reshaping American life.

    The tone of condescending ridicule aimed at the Bible has been common fodder for late-night comedians, and the media. What is more disturbing is the number in ordained ministry and on seminary faculties who encourage people not to take the Bible seriously. This reminds me of the New Testament warning that “a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear. They will reject the truth and chase after myths” (2 Timothy 4:3-4). Many of these ministers insist upon some sort of allegiance to the Bible even while they discredit it as a reliable moral guide for life today. With all their doubts about the integrity and reliability of the Bible, I honestly wonder why they don’t get another book to teach and follow.

    The latest wave of anti-biblical rhetoric suggests that the Bible is not a reliable guide for marriage and human sexuality. The Dec. 6 Newsweek cover story is a sad example this kind of superficial and biased misrepresentation of Scripture. The argument usually follows a similar pattern of listing strange laws meant to govern Israel as a nation and bad examples of main characters of the Bible. These things are lined up to make the closing argument: You cannot look to the Bible as a reliable guide for life today. Some critics are more misleading by suggesting that the Bible promotes slavery, oppression of women and genocide. These accusations are rarely based on careful historical research of ancient Near Eastern contexts. Most often they are taken out of context and manipulated to serve a biased agenda. When this kind of analysis comes from religion editors like Lisa Miller at Newsweek it is less surprising than when it comes from religious leaders who should know better.

    I am not suggesting that everything in the Bible is easy to understand or accept. It is not easy to read about God’s judgments, but perhaps our perspective misses the greatness of his mercy in allowing any rebellious creatures to live. Although we do not understand all the laws meant to govern Israel as a nation, we do know from repeated emphasis in the New Testament that believers today are not under those laws. The fact that the Bible reveals main characters violating God’s original plan for marriage and sexuality supports the authenticity of the text. It also reminds us that we are all sinners who have not lived up to God’s clearly outlined plan for marriage and sexuality. This plan was revealed in the first two chapters of Genesis and authoritatively reaffirmed by Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6). It is based on the way God created humans, male and female, and remains the God-ordained plan for humanity.

    Steve Cornell

  6. 2008 December 23

    If you can be biased, then I’m going to take a good crack at it.

    Sorry about your grievances and focused history lessons, Steve. Persecution comes with faith. The Christians aren’t alone, but the Christians also play a heavy hand in persecuting other religions. It’s in God’s will and you should only expect to meet an opposing logical force when faced with irrational (and ancient) ideals.

    If the Bible can’t support our current culture’s lifestyle, then maybe it’s time for us to move on. Why are we holding onto something that teaches love but breeds intolerance? Are people missing the point? Isn’t the old testament’s covenant different now that Jesus saved us? If we’re going to hold onto the old testament, then be prepared to follow everything.

    Literal metaphors aren’t metaphorically literal. It seems to me that all Christians do is divide and fight. Pick and choose. I personally don’t think that Matthew 19:4-6 has anything to do with Gay Marriage. It states that man leaves his parents and gets married to a wife. It doesn’t say that a man cannot marry another man.

  7. 2008 December 23

    One more thing to throw around in your noggin’ and consider. Is it ok to cut the left hand off of newborn babies because that’s what has always been done since the birth of a certain religion?

    Because it’s what has always been done (and has caused it to be a normal practice) and because that’s what some scripture said?

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS