Currently, there are over 20 states with marriage protection amendments. There are also 19 states with marriage protection laws that are similar to the California law which was recently struck down. There are also a handful of states without marriage laws on their books.
The biggest argument against proposition 8 is that marriage is universal and should be for everyone. There are no rights being withheld from same-sex couples by affirming what marriage has always stood for. Never in the recorded history of man has marriage ever stood for anything but a union between a man and a woman.
We do, however, have recorded history where marriage was allowed between one man and multiple women. In the United States, this proposition was struck down by federal law in the late 1800s and then upheld as a constitutionally valid law forbidding polygamy in the 1878 case of Reynolds v. United States.
By eliminating marriage as it has always been, same-sex couples will have standing to sue both the government and churches for discrimination and the encouragement of discrimination via religious tax status. Additionally, same-sex couples will have standing to sue individual business owners who will not provide goods or services for same-sex weddings.
The problem is that there are no rights being denied to these same-sex couples.
Just like the secession, this great division of the states is being encouraged by a handful of people using a social issue to justify the attempted destruction of the nation. Just like the secession, those attempting to protect the constitution were criticized for standing in the way of progress.
It is in the name of progress that marriage is being extended beyond its historical definition and origin. As far as the destruction of the nation, if prop. 8 does not pass, there will be a direct conflict in rights; free exercise of religion and right to marry.
The Reynolds case showed that it was in the country's best interest to limit religion when religion called for a practice not supported by the populace (polygamy). Right now, gay marriage is not supported by the populace. If prop. 8 does not pass in California, there will be about 24 states which, through use of the courts, will almost instantly allow gay marriage.
In the day that gay marriage is supported by the populace, any religion not allowing gay marriage would then be subject loss of tax-exempt status, seizure of property, and elimination.
It is a shame that homosexuals are being unwittingly dragged into this battle to destroy the first amendment and tear down the US Constitution.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Considering that ProtectMarriage.com has decided NOT to appeal the ballot language, what chance do you really see for Prop 8 to pass? I just don’t see a majority of Californians voting YES on a proposition titled ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
Once the churches realize that Prop 8 is an almost guaranteed loser, are they going to do the right thing and let their members know?
If not, what happens after Prop 8 loses 40-60 (or worse), and then the members find out that the churches were privy all along to internal polling that predicted a crushing defeat? Do the members get their money back?
Or do they get stuck paying for ads that were run by a campaign that knew it was going to lose but ran them anyway!
Chino:
I have full control over the comments on this blog, because I find that too many people try to use blog comment interfaces to argue.
I will validate your talking point comment by not only publishing it, but responding to you.
Post a Comment