“Out here” in California much hubbub has been made over proposition 8, otherwise known as the “gay marriage bill.” The proposition is actually confusing – and its proponents want it that way. A lot of people in California apparently don’t know that gay marriage was already legalized here by a court decision back in June. This proposition doesn’t give the right – it takes it away, and the proponents are hoping you don’t realize this and vote “yes” – which is really a vote against same sex marriage as a “yes” vote nullifies the earlier court decision and amends the California constitution.
(PS – Pepperdine, although an openly christian university, was furious that they were mentioned in the recent tv ad and have since had their name removed from it)
I heard a radio ad yesterday morning from the “yes on prop 8” folks that was insanely insipid. The main point of the ad was that (paraphrasing) “if gay people have the right to marry that will impinge upon everyones right to get married.” Um… how? It is legal to drive a car – but you don’t HAVE to. It is legal to drink beer – but you don’t HAVE to. If it is legal to marry someone of the same sex – how will that affect your right to have a heterosexual marriage? Did it affect a man’s right to vote when women gained that right? This isn’t an either/or situation – heterosexual marriage won’t become illegal if prop 8 is shot down. Also – if it was going to affect us so greatly – IT WOULD ALREADY BE DOING IT since gay couples have had the right to get married in California (and have been doing so) since June.
The ad also warns that churches will lose their tax exempt status. Well, if that was going to happen, shouldn’t it have happened already since the devil came up and united Ellen and Portia in unholy matrimony? The sky didn’t open up and rain blood and the seas boil a month ago – so I think everything is going to be okay. (PS – several churches have already been caught openly endorsing McCain – a direct violation of their “right” to tax exempt status)
I don’t speak often about this – but I’m a Libertarian. The basic concept is that your personal freedom is absolute until it impinges upon someone else’s. This used to be the basic concept of our constitution I believe – I remember Mr. Johnson in American History class telling us “your freedom to punch ends where my nose begins.” That means Tom Cruise can make out with Clay Aiken in his mansion if he wants. It also means they can smoke a joint afterwards if they want. One day both those will be a reality – but our (California) society has chosen to tackle the more controversial marriage issue first. Oh wait – not really.
Since marriage has tax benefits that technically (to me) makes it a state sponsored business enterprise contract – NOT a religious ceremony. If you want to celebrate your business contract in a church with your family – go ahead – but since your “religious ceremony that god said was to be between a man and a woman” gives you tax benefits you have to look at the first amendment to the United States Constitution. There should be no special rights and privileges that are afforded one religious group. Since marriage comes with special rights and privileges (primarily differing and beneficial tax laws – specifically when selling a home – something more important in California than perhaps any other state) that makes it something that has to be separate from religion. That means the same rules that apply to something else state sponsored (like a driver’s license) must apply to marriage. Gay people can drive, buy a home, open a business, and many other things that require state and federal approval. If my gay friend can apply for (and receive) a federal student loan, he/she should also be able to apply for (and get) a marriage license.
The ultimate irony is that some christian denominations now even allow openly gay pastors. The Christians themselves can’t even come to an agreement on their treatment of gay people, and they want the rest of us (who’ve accepted our neighbors of homosexual orientation a long long time ago) to tell our friends, family and neighbors they aren’t allowed to marry.
You want to tackle a bigger problem in our society? Stop supporting underage pregnancy. Statistics don’t show that homosexuals (by virtue of deciding to be that way) end up in prison more than heterosexuals. However, statistics DO show that children born of underage mothers have a much higher risk of being delinquents and eventually full fledged criminals. But, if Bristol is doing it it must be okay. We’ve now got official christian (republican) approval on teen-motherhood as a “non-issue.”
“non-issue” is a direct quote by the way from the son of the father of the neoconservative movement.
Oh how the republicans have matured. Just eight years ago Rove sunk McCain’s battleship by spreading the rumor his “black” daughter was illegitimate. (she was neither black nor illegitimate) Now a 17 year old teen mother is a “non-issue.”
By the way – one of the reasons given for a “yes” on prop 8 (according to them) is that it will force schools to teach that marriage is between two people rather than a man and a woman. Ironic on two counts. #1 these are the same people who DON’T want to teach evolution in public schools and #2 am I the only one that doesn’t remember a single second ever spent in public school talking about what marriage was???!
Unfortunately this is yet another thing I have to put in McCain’s negative column. He already called for the firing of the SEC chairman on 60 minutes without knowing what he was talking about (and then AGAIN in the first debate!). Now he has openly endorsed proposition 8, while Obama has vaguely supported it.
Are we still a state (and country) of closet homophobes? I guess we’ll find out on November 4th.
In the end – if you really want to respect the biblical tradition of marriage (which I don’t) there are two things you have to do:
#1 Remove all interaction between marriage and state/federal law
#2 Do not allow divorce
Treat it like a baptism or a bris (I don’t recall a “baptism” tax break on my 1040) – then nobody will have any problem with you excluding gays.
except for all your lonely gay pastors at the “other” church down the street……
I’m all for gay marriage; everybody should be happy and carefree. Oh, you mean the “other” kind of “gay”.
The state sanctions the bonding of hetrosexual couples for one and only one reason: to produce new tax payers and/or cannon fodder. Marriage is by it’s nature a “queer” natural state to be in so I find it laughable that “gay marriage” is such an issue. Law was invented to protect the king’s property–not to grant “rights”; Just what does the non-normal couple get out of marriage anyway?
Count-da-money: Sire-the peaseants are revolting!
King Louie: Yes! They stink on ice!
When the smoke and mirrors are just ahead always keep a hand on your wallet.
more and more gay people are adopting. And the future of an adopted child is quite different than that of one that “went through the system.” So in a way it still provides tax payers for the state – or at the very least not the drain on the state that a institutionalized criminal does.
Although – just as heterosexual marriage has declined – homosexual marriage doesn’t really matter either – partners will live together whether they have a “certificate of authenticity” or not. I find it laughable because it shouldn’t be a big deal… so gay people can get married to each other… if you aren’t gay why do you care?
1. I said produce not provide, adoption is just a change of conditions–doesn’t produce anything. What is your point regarding institutionalized criminals?
2. I don’t care. My point is that the whole issue is just a distraction for the masses invented to move the spot-light away from more important issues. The free show is provided so you don’t feel the hand that is in your pocket “steelin’ ur cheez”. Lets just call marriage “bojo-bojo” and define it any ole’ way we want too–kind of like the meaning of “gay”.
Californians voted in favor of Prop 22 back in 2000 and it won by majority of votes. Proposition 22 basically said only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. This law was what the state courts overturned in June.
Now Proposition 8 seeks to make the same law part of California’s state constitution. If it wins in November then it will become part of the constitution.
I agree for the most part that as long as other people do not infringe upon my rights they can do whatever they please. But the threat that the defeat of this law will infringe upon my personal religious rights is very real. There is the possibility of losing tax exempt status for churches and anti-discrimination law suits being brought against churches. My church doesn’t need that. Should the ultimate undesirable things happen and my church lose its tax exempt status–that means that every donation that is made to help the church function and do humanitarian work will now be taxable by the US government. I will lose the tax advantages I have in donating to my church AND my donation to the church will be taxed by the government. Where is the fairness in that?
Gay couples already have all the same rights as married couples that protect them in civil unions in California.
Californians already voted this law in once before.
BTW, taking no stance on a measure is still taking a stance.
I don’t think chuches should be forced to marry people. It isn’t required to be married inside a church to receive the tax advantages… so I don’t see why a church would be required to marry anyone they didn’t want to. The marriage license doesn’t come from the church – it comes from the state. The church ceremony makes the union official in God’s eyes – not the Terminator’s…. Why a gay couple would want to be married in a church that does not support their lifestyle befuddles me… the American Red Cross has non-profit status… should I sue so I can get married at their headquarters (if they refused me)??
PS – if I wanted to get REALLY controversial I’d tell you about my view that churches shouldn’t have tax-excempt status anyway… but maybe I’ll leave bad-enough alone.
d’oh! I guess I can’t edit my spelling in these replies…. =(
wow, great post – and very interested to hear your Libertarian status. i think that’s where I’m at fundamentally, but i never got proactive on it. back in my former life as a member of the young republicans club at OU, there was a rogue group of libertarians that i really became interested in following, but i was already starting to get annoyed with politics in general so i ended up leaving it all behind. mr. johnson… yeah…
It’s not that a church would be forced to marry gay couples, but that they might lose their tax exempt status for refusing to do so. There is a slippry slope here. This could slide right down to changes in freedom of religion that individuals do not want. From my point of view, it’s best not to head down that trail at all and close off the entrance as quickly as possible. In order to protect other’s rights not to participate in religion, my right to freedom of religion must be protected.
If a church loses its tax exempt status, then my contributions are taxed two fold. One, because I lose the ability to claim it as a tax deduction so therefore my money given to the church is paid AFTER taxes. Two, any money given to the church would then be viewed as income and taxed by the government=double taxation.
BTW, my church is probably the only church in the US which does NOT have a paid clergy. We have church employees–lawyers, acountants, social workers that help the church stay organized and provide much needed services. But not one single church branch has paid clergy. All clergy is volunteer only, even the top leaders of the church. The missionaries you see in public pay for their own expenses in order to serve–same as the mission presidents who oversee them. Our humanitarian donations go 100% to the causes we support. Humanitarian work is organized and performed solely by volunteers with all donations going 100% to the cause. No other charity can claim that.
I don’t think many other churches can claim that either… and that is the heart of the problem…
Which is it – do you help everyone and welcome everyone, or do you not? (not you personally, but christian churches) Tax-exempt should be for those who help everyone. You can’t say “look, we don’t pay our people, we give 100% of our donations away and we love everybody and welcome them… ….unless they’re gay” and really expect your exempt status to stay untouched.
McDonalds can refuse to serve gay people (not that they ever would) because they aren’t tax exempt. Many businesses PROUDLY display the old sign “I reserve the right to refuse service.” By paying taxes they’ve EARNED the right to make decisions about who they want to give service to.
Now, I’ve already stated that I don’t think churches should HAVE to marry gay couples – but the onus of defending the slippery slope should be the responsibility of the churches that are already constantly testing the boundaries of their tax status… not on the unwashed (as in unbaptised) masses.
PS- do you actually need a building with a steeple to practice your religion? Nobody will ever stop you from praying before you hop into bed at night… I don’t think gay marriage will affect that…
PPS – 120 years ago the Pope was already making 504,000 british pounds a year. (and unofficial reports state his income today between 2 and 5 billion – with a B US $) Does that sound like an organization that needs to be tax exempt? Maybe we should have made Lehman Brothers tax exempt too…
Gay relationships are viewed the same way that all extramarrital relationships are viewed– as being against the commandments. Gay relationships are similar to people living together and not being married or committing adultery.
My church doesn’t say to gays, “you can’t some to church here.” They are welcome, they can attend any time they like. However, if those same people desire to participate in the same ordinances that all people have the option to take, such as baptism and marriage in the temple, they have to follow the same commandments. There is no discrimination in that.
If a church chooses to worship a chicken and if you desire to be a member of that church you have to worship the chicken too. People find the religions that suit them. If someone wants to be in a church that allows gay marriage they will find a church that supports it. But in no way should somone else determine the doctrine in my church. Doctrine should never be decided by outside people, only the leaders of that church.
People want to do whatever they feel like doing and call it good. If a commandment doesn’t suit them, they don’t want to feel what they are doing is wrong. Who does? But one can’t rationalize away the commandments of God just to suit one’s own personal feelings.
You are correct. A building does not define someone’s spirituality. If anything, the ideal would be that a person would keep that attitude of spirituality with them at all times. I go to church because that is where I receive instruction from the people who are chosen by the leaders of my church to give it. I do not have the authority to speak for God, but the leaders of my church do. I go there to recieve instruction from them. It is not a one time thing saying “here’s some doctrine, use it for the next several hundred years.” There is new revelation that is given all the time. I go to church to learn about these things.
the athiests (or otherwise non-christians)might win this fight
this is the most compelling argument for prop 8 I’ve seen yet!
Any individual rights that are not strictly mentioned in the US Constitution are left to be determined by the individual states. Californians voted for marriage to be only between a man and woman in 2000. The state courts said that the law was not in accordance with California’s state constitution. Prop 8, if it passes, will make the law part of California’s state constitution.
The people will decide this issue. If the majority of voters vote in favor of prop 8 then it will become part of our state consititution. If not, it won’t.