Clay Aiken on Proposition 8
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarI never thought I would come across smart political analysis from Clay Aiken, and in all places – on the Perez Hilton blog. But read this:
I will say that I am QUITE disappointed that Prop 8 passed in the first place. I could argue all day the myriad of reasons that I believe the US Constitution provides for equal rights for all people. And, as much as it is their right to have a differing opinion, I think that some of the arguments coming from the anti-gay side are stupid, hypocritical, and even contradict themselves.
That said, I can’t say that I am too upset by the CA Supreme Court’s ruling. While it is disappointing that same sex couples in CA will have to wait longer to have equal rights, at the same time I worry that a different ruling from the court would have caused far more trouble than good.
Proposition 8 was the recent vote to amend the California State Constitution to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman.
The California Supreme Court had earlier ruled that same sex couples could marry, but after voters changed the state constution, they (correctly in my opinion) ruled that such marriages were no longer allowed.
The bottom line is… no matter how much I hate it…. Prop 8 passed with the majority of the public vote. I don’t agree with them. I don’t think it is right, but it happened. I don’t think I would be comfortable allowing the courts the power to override the will of the people.
And this a key principle – that Judges should not make laws, and over-ride the will of the people.
Yes, I know the argument can be made that had the courts not struck down segregation in the south we may still have Jim Crow laws in place. However, (A) segregation was instituted by the states based on public opinion and not necessarily by an official vote and (B) the US Supreme Court struck down the practice of segregation. It didn’t overturn a specific vote.
And Aiken demonstrates the difference between over-turning other laws, and a law put in place by popular vote to amend a state constution.
I strongly believe that the next time that Californians go to the ballot box to vote on legalizing same sex marriage, the tides will turn. I truly believe that the majority of CA voters will support the equal rights of all people next time they are given the chance. While the CA Supreme Court may now be composed of justices who believe that same-sex marriage should be legal (remember they are the ones who made it legal in the first place), what happens when the public votes for same-sex marriage to be legalized, yet the CA Supreme Court is made up of justices who feel it should be illegal? Will they then have the power to overturn the vote? Its not a precedent I want set.
Bravo.
As much as I disagree with Prop 8, I don’t want to give the courts the power to ignore the will of the people. Because I expect that one day, even in North Carolina
, the majority of voters will allow me the right to get married, and when that happens, I don’t want nine justices being able to change the outcome.
Aiken may not realise this, but he is effectively quoting Justice Scalia. Scalia points to how much better it was women got the vote by way of constitutional amendment, rather than have the Supreme Court declare they are now voters.
Thi even ties into Roe v Wade. One can be pro-choice but also anti Roe v Wade. One of the reasons abortion is such a heated issue in the US, is because the public and the legislatures had the decision taken away from them by the Supreme Court.
Related posts:
- Courts should not decide
- Gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional
- Marriage Bill does not have the numbers
- Legal to sack a hottie
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Now, what does Ruben Studdard have to say?
I understand the sentiment, and I agree with you, DPF, about the precedent that would be set by courts overruling.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Don’t worry about Roe V Wade DPF, as long as the Supreme court maintains it’s conservative majority it is simply a matter of time before they overrule Roe.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
“as long as the Supreme court maintains it’s conservative majority i”
Do you know who appoint the justices? did you follow last years election?
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I do Sonic, however, clearly you know fuck all about the Supreme court.
Appointments are for life Sonic, B Hussein Messiah Obama cannot kick off the ones he does not like, so just in case you are still struggling with this I will repeat it for you.
As long as the conservatives retain their majority….
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
It never ceases to amaze me how backward a ‘developed’ country can be.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
So they conservaitives have and have had a majority yet Roe and wade is still in force, yet Bruv says “s long as the Supreme court maintains it’s conservative majority it is simply a matter of time before they overrule Roe.”
How much time mate?
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Why does the state have anything to do with marriage at all?
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Maybe if the queers were not so anxious to shut down everyone else’s views on the issue, (ie Carrie Prejean) they might have won the ballot in California this time.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95743
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
The voice of hate complaining about hate!
It’s a funny old world right enough.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
big bruv I suggest you do a bit of checking, nothing like a threat to increase the numbers of supreme court judges as FDR threatened to do to have them change their minds.
Jim Crow laws in the Southern states of the USA, if only those hard working firearm loving whites had the vote think they would vote against Jim Crow laws today
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Oh and Ratbiter, are you going to take up this special offer from your favourite website?
“DEAL OF THE DAY
Vote:Stunning Darwin-led-to-Hitler video – $4.95 today only!
Acclaimed DVD documentary, normally $25, will change your view of evolution forever
–WND
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Sonic
All they need is the right case to be presented to them, as yet it has not happened but you can be assured that when it does they will overturn Roe.
Hori
Nothing would surprise me with the corrupt B Hussein Messiah Obama presidency.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
“The voice of hate complaining about hate!”
Oh, so that’s the angle we’re going with today? Decided to give the insanity allegations a break for a while have you??
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
“All they need is the right case to be presented to them, as yet it has not happened but you can be assured that when it does they will overturn Roe.”
No chance bruv.
Allegations Ratbiter
I prefer the word diagnosis, and I present this thread as proof.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/06/joyce_to_ban_cellphones_in_cars.html#comments
madder than a sack full of squirrels.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Oh, my mistake. So we’re actually using mad and hateful today. Congratulations on such stunning originality. So brilliantly leftist.
BTW, those who seek regulation of cellphone use while driving should think about the company they share.
Sonic obviously agrees with it. Ain’t that something??
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Ratbiter, you might want to have a think about how easy it is to show just what a nutjob you are, all I have do is quote you,
For someone who revels in calling people names, you are easily upset when you get called names back, poor diddums.
Anyway I don’t believe in entering a battle of wits with a totally unarmed opponent, so I’ll cease “baiting” you for now.
xxx
S
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
“so I’ll cease “baiting” you for now.”
Wow, I’m so relieved to read that.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Calling an insane person insane is going to get you about as far as a conventional car whose petrol tank is full of water
On topic:
There any many arguments to distinguish most notable precedents from the case against Proposition 8, but the easiest is that if one is to overrule a democratic action, such as a referendum then there would need to be some pretty fundamental argument against it. Not being allowed to use a word (i.e. marriage) to describe ones union when one has access to a civil union, the same in all apart from name, clearly is not going to get near this very high threshold.
I would argue though that there are something’s which a singular state should not be able to put in by way of state referendum, as the Constitution should be able to protect those. In this regard the Jim Crow laws, even if voted for by a state should be held to be unconstitutional.
In regard to Scalia he is a hypocrite in regards to interpreting the constitution. Ignoring his decisions re gun controls (somehow reading that “militia right to bear arms” effectively makes any gun control law illegal, his decision in Bush v Gore shows he is very capable of finding an argument to suit his needs.
In a case one would think be about upholding a state’s mechanisms for ensuring the person who won actually got the most votes, which in this case allowed a manual recount where the vote was ridiculously close (327 votes decided the 2001 election) him and his conservative majority somehow read the mechanism breached article 2 of the constitution.
The desent by Justice Stevens pretty much sums up my view of the man.
“What must underlie petitioners’ entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Before this degenerates into yet another Bible bashing debate about gay rights or abortion or somesuch, I’ll get in a comment about the main point of Aiken’s argument (and I’m as surprised as anyone he was capable of making it).
He’s come down firmly in favour of decision making being left in the hands of voters. That’s also something I strongly support, having campaigned since 1999 for online referenda (and thus its increased use to permit people to have an ongoing say in their own governance).
However, there are a handful of issues where my belief tends to waver. These range from issues such as same sex unions – which seems to me to affect no one but those wishing to signify their relationship, but in which the majority decision, whatever it is, harms no one – to issues such as capital punishment.
With media consistently and untruthfully scaremongering over the “rising tide of violent crime” supposedly sweeping most Western nations, it’s likely a simple plebiscite on the restoration of capital punishment would result in its restoration in many countries.
That’s one example where I’d expect our lawmakers – who have the time and resources to properly analyse and understand such issues – to show some leadership.
So I guess the queation Aiken raises is: Where is the line between representation and leadership to be drawn? To me it’s possibly the most important question an elected person faces, yet it’s rarely debated.
[For more on crime statistics and the way they're (mis)used and (mis)reported I recommend "Inventing fear of crime: criminology and the politics of anxiety" by Murray Lee, published by Willan Publishing, 2007. ISBN 184392174X, 9781843921745]
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“Calling an insane person insane is going to get you about as far as a conventional car whose petrol tank is full of water”
Wow, that is such a superb analogy you should frame it and hang it on your wall. Next to the signed Perez Hilton photo.
“Where is the line between representation and leadership to be drawn?”
That is not the issue. The US supreme court is out of control. That is the issue.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
What in tarnation?
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Chronic talks crap and congratulates himself on how clever he is.
How refreshing.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I cannot marry a man and neither can any other man. No inequality there.
Having said that, the government should not be in the relationship busines at all. Marriage was in trouble as soon as politicians were able to define it. Leave individuals free to make there own relationship decisions, much like a contract, and the state merely provide a justice system to enable aggrieved parties to seek redress for any breach of that contract. If I was to ever marry again I would not seek the approval of the state and flag the marriage license.
And for the record, I am a hard core, born again God botherer.
It makes me laugh when so called libertarians campaign for gay marriagecivil unions. All they are doing is demanding politicians take even more power and control over our lives.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Marriage wasn’t having such a whoop up time since the church managed to get its claws into it either radvad.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
“I cannot marry an African-American woman and an African-American man cannot marry a white woman. No inequality there.”
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Who is Clay Aiken?
Edit: A simple Google search helped me. Sounds like another that belongs in this thread: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/06/do_celebrities_do_more_harm_than_good.html
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
“Wow, that is such a superb analogy you should frame it and hang it on your wall”
Glad you liked it, I wrote it just for you and your superb well thought out statements.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Ryan Sproull (1960) Vote: 0 1 Says:
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I cannot marry a man and neither can any other man. No inequality there.
“I cannot marry an African-American woman and an African-American man cannot marry a white woman. No inequality there.”
liar
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
“Maybe if the queers were not so anxious to shut down everyone else’s views on the issue, (ie Carrie Prejean) they might have won the ballot in California this time.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95743” ~Redbaiter
No, no, one queer tyvm. Everybody has the right to express their views, including to call whomever a dumb bitch for saying whatever, though that is a silly way to go about it. Also I think losing the ballot has far more to do with some American’s backwards views on this matter.
And radvad: gay marriage is about choice, if I or anybody else wants to marry another man the government should not stop me. The equality aspect comes from saying a Man-Women relationship > a Man-Man/Woman-Woman relationship. Saying you can’t marry a man either so its equal is just stupid and no doubt you know it.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
If certain religions refuse to allow gay marriage ceremonies in their churches, than all power to them. This is a separate issue to the allowing of two men to form a legal civil union, which they have every right to do, and I honestly can’t think of a valid reason why they shouldn’t. And I think a lot of the argument is a petty semantic one over the meaning of marriage. If it were me wanting to get hitched to a guy, I’d stick to the civil unions and develop my own unique ceremony culture.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
/quote # MyNameIsJack (593) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 1 Says:
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Ryan Sproull (1960) Vote: 0 1 Says:
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I cannot marry a man and neither can any other man. No inequality there.
“I cannot marry an African-American woman and an African-American man cannot marry a white woman. No inequality there.”
liar /quote
Thats just being obtuse on purpose, do you not understand the concept of a hypothetical statement?
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Putting to the side for one minute the fact that the government shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage, it should be a religious issue, there are other important issues in this post.
Justice Scalia has said: “A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless.” The same applies to constitutions. The idea that the majority can change the state constitution is silly, nevermind the fact that the state constitution can somehow overrule the US Constitution.
I don’t want courts setting law, and agree with DPF on Roe vs Wade, but this should go to the Supreme Court and be struck down as unconstitutional.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 7:41 pm
“never thought I would come across smart political analysis from Clay Aiken”
Really? So you know presumably little about Clay Aiken, and yet you’re rather surprised that he has an intelligent opinion on something? The kind of intelligent opinion that you then break into paragraphs and then stick “indeed” and “I agree” and “true” in between and then post on your blog.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Just thinking, would you support gay marriage if it meant you were able to see hot chicks kissing each other?
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
“I cannot marry an African-American woman and an African-American man cannot marry a white woman. No inequality there.”
liar /quote
Thats just being obtuse on purpose, do you not understand the concept of a hypothetical statement?
So I guess you and Ryan find Male and Female toilets as morally offensive as White and Colored ones.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Anyway, I think the real issue is the insistence by gay activists that it be “marriage” and nothing but.
From the polls I’ve seen from the US, most people actually have no problem if they were civil unions like we have in NZ. In fact, you could probably still have them in California even with prop 8.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Judges should rule on what the law actually says, not on what they would like the law to say. The rest is sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 10:40 pm
“In fact, you could probably still have them in California even with prop 8.”
Just checked Wikipedia, and no, civil unions aren’t allowed. There is a domestic partnership scheme though in which gays can receive almost all the benefits imposed by the state but are still banned from receiving any federal benefits. which can be seen by visiting the weblink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
Vote:June 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 pm
You know, gays talk a good line about equality, understanding, and peace – -mutual respect, and so-on and so-forth and then they go and create eightmaps.com which is a mashup with google maps which actually shows maps to the houses of the people who supported proposition 8 or donated money to it. They then go and harass them – even get them fired from their jobs –
•Margie Christofferson, a manager of a popular Hollywood restaurant, did not talk about her politics or her religion but quietly gave $100 to the Prop 8 campaign. Activists swarmed the restaurant, with a mob getting so out of hand that riot police had to be called.
•A man who wrote a letter to the San Francisco Chronicle supporting Prop 8 soon found that gay activists posted to the Web personal information about him and, as appalled Chronicle columnist John Diaz noted, urged “in ugly language, retribution against the author’s business and its identified clients.”
•In Los Angeles and Salt Lake City, someone sent mysterious white powder to Mormon temples, apparently to protest the Latter-day Saints Church’s role in passing Prop 8.
•In Fresno, police said the city’s mayor and a local pastor received death threats over their support for Prop 8. Vandals pelted the pastor’s church with eggs.
If any Christian group had posted online maps to the houses of gay people, my gosh what an uproar there would be about invasion of privacy, violation of rights and so on. These people would like you to think they’re all about equal rights and peace, but really they just want to get their way so they can act however they want, and when they don’t get their way they respond in truly appalling ways.
Let me tell you – the day same-sex marriage becomes legal in the US, that will be the end of America as we know it, and maybe society, too. Mankind will have given in to lawlessness and immorality.
Vote:June 3rd, 2009 at 12:14 am
“Let me tell you – the day same-sex marriage becomes legal in the US, that will be the end of America as we know it, and maybe society, too.”
I think you’re on the wrong website fletch, here’s the correct website for people like you to post their support: http://www.godhatesfags.com/
Vote:June 3rd, 2009 at 12:37 am
ophiuchus, I don’t hate ‘gay’ people. I just think that some of their actions are immoral (having sex with each other, etc). As a matter of fact, I saw a priest on TV the other day who when he talks to gays, tells them that he and they are very similar – they are both called to chastity.
I just don’t believe that people are born with a homosexual ‘orientation’ -there is nothing to support it. I don’t believe in them discriminated against, though. That doesn’t mean I support their pushing for things in schools etc..
Vote:June 3rd, 2009 at 1:30 am
Fletch, I can empathise with your viewpoint, yes you would consider immoral and unnatural as being a straight person, you would probably find their sexual attraction revolting.
In reference to Sodom and Gomorrah (the prime case study xtians use to deplore homosexuality) it was destroyed because of its inhospitality not its homosexuality, when two male angels visited the place, Lot takes them in, when the crowd swoops on them demanding he releases them for raping, he offers them his own virgin daughters instead! The same thing would’ve occured had the angels been women.
Concerning Leviticus (another passage supposedly criticising homosexuality), there are many other passages God supposedly reckons we should not do, e.g consuming shellfish and shrimp, spitting, and women having their period. They are exactly in the same context since they all come from Leviticus. The thing is. The Bible, if true, should be read as a community and is meant to be discussed and debated by everyone.
Lastly: didn’t the guy Jesus Christ, son of God (if true, yes I’m an atheist), says, ‘”Judge not, that you be not judged.” And that is what you are doing (And what I’m also doing as well, mind you). Why do you turn a blank eye to the violent rapes, murders, greed and corruption that is occuring in the world and yet blame all this on two women or men wanting to get married? Indeed if you look at the bible, Jesus himself should be repentent for his sins too, he worked on the Sabbath after all. He tells people to welcome everyone regardless, but we, as a society founded on xtian heritage, have skewed the Bible and its supposed values to make it “You must welcome everyone, but…”.
Lastly think about it, its common sense. If marriage is a religious institution, then, logically, atheists and agnostics should be banned from marrying (yep that includes DPF) as well, for they aren’t Christian. Also with a rapidly increasing divorce rate and number of sham marriages, why do you reckon two loving committed gays should have less rights to express their love than say, a sugar daddy and his mail-order bride, or Britney Spears and Jason Alexander (whose first marriage lasted just 55 hours). Gays are also proving to be committed couples too. of the 1016 same-sex unions performed between 2005-2007, just 8 were dissolved. The institution of marriage is also certainly not under threst either: the highest no. of divorces occured in 1982, it has been falling ever since.
Lastly, I consider homosexuality a combination of genetics, environment and lifestyle. Some people may be naturally gay while others are trying to figure it out for themselves.
Vote:June 3rd, 2009 at 9:06 am
ophiuchus, you can try and rationalize Bible texts all you want if it makes you feel better. I think the Bible is very clear on where it stands on homosexuality. This is why the openly gay star of Lord of the Rings, Ian McKellen, admits to ripping pages out of the Bible when he stays in Hotel rooms.
Well, he may not agree with it, but at least he has the balls to admit what the Bible actually says; he doesn’t pretend that it doesn’t.
If you’re interested in Sodom and Gomorrah (which is where we get the word ‘sodomy’ from – no coincidence), MandM did a big post on it not so long ago.
Yes, Jesus did say to judge not, lest ye be judged, but that doesn’t mean we should just let anyone do anything should we? It certainly seems to be the way society is going though. For instance, should we judge paedophiles? It’s not up to me to judge them, but in civil society I have a right to protect my children from anything that might cause them harm. Homosexuality, I believe, is a disorder and harmful, so while I don’t judge gays I am against the lifestyle being promoted in schools and to children as though it is normal.
And it is harmful – studies have shown that the homosexual lifestyle can reduce life by up to 24 years –
Yes, that mortality rate is probably worse than smoking.
When Jesus healed people, he also said, go and sin no more.
You say the Christian way is “you must welcome everyone, but”…but that isn’t true. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says –
They are called to Chastity.
Marriage is not just the getting together of two people. It is a Sacrament, instituted by God. Part of that call of marriage is procreation of offspring. I have no doubt that two men or two women can have feelings for each other, but marriage should be between one man and one woman.
I guess it’s hard for me to articulate the why’s and wherefore’s of why, but you can read the testimony of Michael Glatz, a huge gay activist in the US who was the editor og Young Gay America magazine and gave up that lifestyle and became Christian. Maybe it will be easier to see where I’m coming from if you read the words of an ex-gay.
Charlene Cothran is another magazine Editor (Venus magazine) who found God and gave up the gay lifestyle. The magazine is now committed to God.
Vote:June 3rd, 2009 at 10:24 am
Fletch
Can’t actually be bothered writing an extensive reply as most of your arguments rely on taking a literal interpretation of the bible, which I have, and always have thought to be the most ridiculous thing one can do of a document drafted thousands of years ago by Sheppard’s, ever played Chinese whispers, pretty much that.
But anyway in regards to one of your so called scientific facts, the infamous Cameron study, a study more flawed in design than the EFB merged in an unnatural unholy union with NAMBLA.
For example, of his study, causes of death 89% were from AIDS. Saying a gay person has a 89% chance of getting AIDS would be hilarious but for the harm caused by such statements. Further the study was based on ‘Obituaries’ in a gay magazine, hardly a representative study. It would like be basing heterosexual mortality rates on a swingers magazine.
The main thing that anyone has proven in a study beyond reasonable doubt is people who are homosexual in nature are more likely to commit suicide. I would tender however this has more to do with how society, including you, treats them as second rate immoral citizens than anything else.
Finally making a morality decision in a separatist society based on two, out a hundreds of thousands, of lines in the bible which were written thousands of years ago, being in the same league as lines which are read to not allow blood transfusions and insist that the universe, including earth and us were created in 7 days, is beyond unacceptable. I look to the middle east to see countries still ruled by superstition and I would choose the wests path any day thank you very much.
Vote:June 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 am
I think issues such as that abortion is a form of homicide and that the judicial reasoning was not only unconstitutional but extremely poorly reasoned rate a bit higher than this one of the reasons.
Two comments on proposition 8.
One the government’s role is law, order, justice and defence. Legislating relationships does not fit into that mandate. Marriage was a common law/church institution centuries before it became a state institution.
Every adult citizen has equal rights to marry; the law does not say any man can marry any single non-related woman unless that man is gay. Legislating that a man can marry a single non-related man and that a woman can marry a single non-related woman causes inequality amongst the adult incestuous community and within the polygamous community. If you wanted proposition 8 to pass you cannot appeal to equality to support it and remain consistent.
Vote:June 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 pm
“Let me tell you – the day same-sex marriage becomes legal in the US, that will be the end of America as we know it, and maybe society, too. Mankind will have given in to lawlessness and immorality.” – ROFLOL. I live for this stuff.
I think that the church has some strange property right over marriage, and that this is an area of the law where the lines between the church and the state are thus blurred. I think that all couples (MF, FF, MM), if they want to have state benefits and all the other legal perks of marriage, then they should apply for a “state recognized union” certificate. The law would simply state that any two non-related persons of consenting age, witnessed by a person with the authority of the community to do so [insert list here, - e.g JP's, Bishops, MP's, Kaumatua, Mayors... list goes on].
This leaves the personal preferences of the celebrant, and of the church, and of every citizen out of the matter.
It also means that if I and my gay civilly recognized partner choose to call, in the private sphere, our relationship “marriage”, or say that our celebration was a “wedding”, and that we are “married” – then we have every right to use the word as we so please. It doesn’t mean that the church, or ignoramuses have to accept it as the sort of “marriage” they believe in – and in fact have not claim right on the state to force us not to. That is, because the term “marriage” has been moved (rightly) into the private sphere, claims to its meaning are in-themselves meaningless.
It also means that if a local church decides at the community level by majority, that their church, and willing bishop/pastor, will witness the state recognized union of a gay couple – then so be it!
If they don’t, well shame on them, but its their own authority to hold that view.
Vote:June 4th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Shame? You’re bandying about the word “shame” in regard to the church not recognizing gay union? That would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. And you’re right in saying that ‘gay’ marriage would render the term marriage meaningless. By calling something what it is not you take away all it’s meaning and render it to nothing. Reminds me of something Stephen Lawhead wrote –
To see evil and call it good, mocks God. Worse, it makes goodness meaningless. A word without meaning is an abomination, for when the word passes beyond understanding the very thing the word stands for passes out of the world and cannot be recalled.
A lot of gays don’t really want marriage – look at how many have taken up Civil Union in NZ – they just want to pervert it’s meaning.
Marriage is the best and safest place to raise children. Study after study proves that, and this was ratified by the Doha Declaration in 2004 on the 10th anniversary of the United nations Year of the Family. “A family composed of a husband, wife and children is the natural, basic element of a society and should be protected by society and by the State;”
NZ was one of the few countries that didn’t agree with that. Shame on us…
Vote:June 4th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Some really good posting Fletch. Couldn’t agree with you more.
Vote: