Thank you for posting a comment on this blog. For purposes of clarity, I have quoted your comment here:
"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!"
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!"
First of all, your bias, intended or not, is very clear. Let me 'splain...
1. The in re marriage case recently decided by the CA Supreme Court, The Court based its entire opinion on a legislative bill guaranteeing privacy to Californians and a circular argument that such privacy is being denied when a person asks a homosexual person if they are "married".
The legal problem with this argument is that the four judges who wrote The Court's opinion forgot that legislation in California is superseded by ballot propositions when there is a conflict of laws. The ENTIRE LGBT community is basing a "right" of same-sex marriage on flawed logic and incorrect law.
2. There is always a loser and a winner. People are fighting to get Prop. 8 passed because to change the definition marriage, not only in the way in which it was changed in California less than 4 months ago, is to deny the fundamental tenants of civilization as well as the first amendment of the US Constitution. Marriage has always been a union of man and woman. In diverse cultures and ages, this has and still does exist between a man and multiple women. Never, in the history of man, or nature, has marriage been between two persons of the same sex.
Considering that the Attorney General is a gay-lesbian alliance supporter as well as more than half of the CA supreme court, this isn't a fair fight, and the list of constitutional violations against supporters of prop. 8 are mounting. This isn't something that "religion" is mandating, yes, it affects the free exercise of religion in California, a direct violation of the US Constitution, and yes, this is something religion is heavily involved in. What is wrong with religion being involved? Unions and lobby groups pay for the electricity in Sacramento, why can't a religion try to stand up for its fundamental tenants?
As far as money, people donate KNOWING that they may lose. Every Saturday in fall, a college football team goes to their game for which they have practiced all week, knowing that they may lose. It is part of the fight. To advocate defeat, however, is only preparing for self fulfilling prophecy.
I personally have been walking precincts every week, and have found in my diverse community that it is about 50-50 for Prop 8. Too close to call.
Thanks for commenting, ignorance isn't bliss.
Posts
1 comment:
Great blog! It's great to see so many people getting off of the fence and speaking up in favor of traditional marriage. And, I LOVED the football analogy.
I hope that in the coming weeks more of the silent majority will realize the importance of saving our society's most foundational institution. Canadian scholar Paul Nathanson (who is a homosexual) has said, "Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival . . . every human
society has had to promote it actively . . . heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm that limits marriage to unions of men and women." He adds that people "are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it." (See Young and Nathanson, “Keep it All in the Family," The Globe and Mail 5/2/08, p. A17).
I realize that it seems to be human nature to avoid conlict. It's more comfortable to just say, "live and let live." But, I do believe that we are standing at a crossroads here as a society. Either we embrace, accept, and acknowledge traditional marriage as the foundation of a healthy society or we turn our back on it and let come what may. History tells us what will come, and it's not good. Studies of previous civilizations reveal that when a society weakens the sexual ethic of marriage, it deteriorates and eventually disintegrates (The History of Human
Marriage, Vol. 1-3, [New York: The Allerton Book Company, 1922]; George P. Murdock, Social Structure [New York: Macmillan, 1949]).
Why is it that so many people in our great country, are trying so hard to eliminate all that is good about it? I see our religious liberty at risk here; I see government reaching its hand into my personal belief system; I see government trying to teach my children what is right and wrong. Can you say socialism?
This isn't what my ancestors fought and died for. The least I can do is comment on a blog or two, or write a letter, or walk a precinct, or put up a yard sign. Maybe those are little things, but if everyone did a handful of little things, that would make a difference. Maybe all the difference in the world.
Post a Comment