Today I received the following from a Friend ...
"I am voting NO on prop 8. There shouldn’t be a law how people should marry. Prop 8 is unconstitutional and there are people that want to marry the same sex and we shouldn’t take away there rights. Most of my family is voting no on prop 8 including some of my co-workers from work.
People should re-examine on prop 8 and Vote “NO” on Prop. 8 ….please"
This is my response ...
My Friend,
"Thank you, for including me among those you’ve written to concerning this critical Proposition. You’ve been forthright and courageous in your acknowledgment of your position on the matter and I applaud that.
While I do not share your views, and will take some time to express mine, I assure you that I respect your right to Vote as you deem wise.
My Friend, I'm concerned about some issues implicit and explicit in this Proposition.
First of all it is necessary to deal with the real question we’re being asked. The proposition itself states simply, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” There is nothing new here. For centuries Civilizations of every stripe have given “marriage between a man and a woman,” special status and unparalleled protection and privileges. The reasons are simple. It is the only relationship that can propagate our species. And it is the relationship best suited for the nurture, development, and training of Children.
The Attorney General’s decision to add the proviso “Eliminates Right of Same-sex Couples to Marry,” as a preamble to the simply stated Proposition is inaccurate and misleading. This proposition is not about a “right.” Marriage is not a “right.” It is a relationship. It is a relationship of specific human entities. Marriage is a man and a woman bound together in a way no other combination of human entities can be bonded. And it has, in itself alone, the exclusive properties necessary to the propagation of our species. Furthermore it has responsibilities no other relationship can fulfill. I've already noted that no other relationship can perpetuate our species. No other relationship can care for and train human offspring as well as a Father and a Mother. Moreover no other relationship embodies the qualities of our Creator nor exercises His authority over all Creation as well as Man - Male and Female in a "one flesh bond" - can. For these reasons it is in our best interest as a species to provide this unique relationship with unique status, privileges, and protections. Civilizations both primitive and advanced have given it such status, privileges and protections. Our civilization, which has advanced beyond anything ever formerly achieved, would be taking a disastrous step backward to remove its exclusivity.
By introducing the word “Right” into the preamble to this Proposition the Attorney General has been dishonest. No rights will be violated if this Proposition becomes a part of the California Constitution. Homosexual couples are already free to co-habit if they wish. It is against the law to in any way interfere with that right. If a Landlord refuses to rent to a same-sex couple he or she can be sued. If a same-sex partner is hospitalized the other partner cannot be deprived of complete access to their partner at any point during the treatment of their loved one. Same-sex partners can designate their possessions to their loved one in a Last Will and Testament if they choose. Furthermore discrimination in the workplace – the marketplace for that matter – due to sexual preference can, and often is, punishable by law. The Civil Rights of homosexuals are as carefully guarded in today’s America as those of any other citizen. And if they’re not there is provision in the law for redress.
The question of Constitutionality is also a misrepresentation of the issue. Marriage is not specifically addressed in the Constitution. Only recently has there been any question how to define it.
Constitutionality is, however, a major issue here but for a completely different reason. Those who oppose the Proposition – who Vote No on 8 – ignore and neglect a major Amendment to the Constitution. Their rhetoric flies in the face of the FirstAmendment, denying certain Citizens the Freedom of religion and speech.
The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Christianity, along with Judaism, and Islam expressly declare homosexuality to be a violation of God’s will for human life and a perversion of human sexuality as well as a denigration of the persons engaged in it. To not only allow, but sanction and elevate to the status of Marriage, such behavior is to legislate against specific religions. Such legislation is expressly unconstitutional. There are to be “no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise.” In other words Congress – and all branches of government – are to “keep their hands off of” religion, its free exercise, and its pronouncements no matter how distasteful they may be to others. This same protection is, of course, extended to those who disagree with their pronouncements and have strong words of their own.
The Supreme Court of California overstepped their bounds and legislated from the bench when they legalized – legislated for – homosexual marriage. Legislation is the private domain of legislatures. What’s more their actions constituted a breach of the Constitution. By their action they set the stage for the silencing of those who are opposed to such an arrangement; who insist on the right of protest and disengagement from any civil activity promoting the cause of those who seek moral consent for homosexual behavior. You may protest, as others have, that this is an overstatement – fear-mongering. I know better. I was born in Canada. Today, in Canada, same-sex couples can marry. Pastors are being censured, and successfully prosecuted for opposing these marriages. Faith-based Social Service agencies are being sued, because they consider homosexual practices inconsistent with their religion’s values, and driven out of business by excessive fines and restrictions that run counter to the very reason for their existence .
A vote against Proposition 8 is support for the dismantling of Marriage. It is, as well, the only aspect of this issue that is, truly, Unconstitutional."
No comments:
Post a Comment