who reads this? by Andy J. Biery

Monday, November 3, 2008

California’s same-sex marriage ban amendment

Filed under: Politics — Andy @ 12:36 am

in the midst of my obama-bash i wanted to comment on this issue.

on May 15th of this year California’s supreme court declared a publically voted upon proposition banning same-sex marriage in their state as unconstitutional (their state constitution). 

understand whats really going on here: the court argued that withholding ‘marriage’ from homosexual unions denies them ‘equal dignity and respect’.  this had nothing to do with civil unions/domestic partnerships or rights confered upon(already allowed in california).  this has everything to do with demanding/forcing moral approval for these unions.  funny how Christians get accused of imposing morality on people but those supposedly “open-minded” and “enlightened” people get a free pass here. 

homosexual advocates are putting a serious test to religious freedom and our right to vote on our own morality-based laws in America.  David Smith, a leader of the Human Rights Campaign, (the largest organization that advocates homosexual behavior), said “Diversity of religious beliefs should be respected as long as they don’t influence public policy that should treat all people fairly.”

well Mr. Smith, who determines public policy?  unfortunately for homosexual advocates, its the public.  4.6 million Californians (61% of the votes) who approved Proposition 22, the state’s Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as the union of one man to one woman, made it public policy.  but a mear 4 justices overturned it.  judicial lawmaking at it again.

this is what anti-religious people have been trying to do for the past 80+ years going back to the Scopes trial.  when they can’t get their way through the ballot box/elected lawmakers, they go through the courts and try to find judges who agree with their personal ideals-and then force them on people.   they make up “rights” that dont exist in the constitution-like the “right to personal privacy”.  (the constitution with its often cited substantive due process clause protects FUNDAMENTAL rights-like those in the bill of rights-, but unfortunately its been stretched to include pretty much whatever made-up “right” the justice wants it to).  or they use other non-existant statements like “separation of church and state” which also is no-where in the constitution. or they use international law to validate their opinion.  seriously go read the constitution.  then try to understand what i’m saying.  if a town wants to ban a sexual act, then thats their own choice.  move somewhere else if you don’t like it.  and if we can’t ban sodomy anymore, then why are we banning any sexual act?   why can’t we prostitute ourselves or marry 3 people or have consenting sex with our cousins or dogs or between adults and children?  how come they aren’t protected under the same constitutional rulings?   give it time i guess, society isn’t enlightened enough yet.

so, as a Christian i do think homosexual behavior is immoral but i’m not a judge, God is.  so when it comes to these things here in America lets let the public decide, not a few judges who have to go far beyond the original intent of our consititution in order to invalidate the public. 

Current state of things: the Federal DOMA(1996) does not recognize same-sex marriages by any states and no states need recognize other state’s same-sex marriages

27 states have constitutional amendments banning homosexual marriage

15 (additional) states have statutes against homosexual marriage

4 states allow civil unions (connecticut, new hamshire, new jersey, vermont)

2 states allow same sex marriage (massachusetts and california–connecticut is soon to join based on a recent ruling)

2 states are undefined on the matter (new mexico, rhode island)

no states have ever legislatively allowed homosexual marriage 

anytime this issue is voted upon it passes overwhelmingly but california might be close.  Lets hope the people continue to speak out for what they want and send people who want to force their morality on others through the courts packing.

**special thanks to the Alliance Defense Fund (of which i give a great deal of money to) for a lot of the information i posted here**

15 Comments »

  1. “why can’t we prostitute ourselves or marry 3 people or have consenting sex with our cousins or dogs or between adults and children?”

    And one can only hope that he won’t dawdle and by the end of his first 100 we can partake of any pleasure imaginable. His newly appointed activist judges will be tripping all over themselves to legalize everything. It’ll be a moral firesale, anything MUST GO! I’m gonna marry a prepubescent sugar glider and teach atheism to preschoolers!

    Really I wouldn’t worry about this too much though. I’m sure the Islamic re-education camps will be fiercly opposed to anything the slightest bit homosexual. And when B. Hussein O. steps aside to let his Taliban “pal”s assume power they’ll all be exterminated anyway and it’ll be a moot point.

    http://us.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/02/poll.one.party/index.html

    Guess I should probly get back to work now. Cough.

    Comment by Pshaw — Monday, November 3, 2008 @ 8:35 am

  2. “funny how Christians get accused of imposing morality on people but those supposedly “open-minded” and “enlightened” people get a free pass here.”

    Mmmmm, not if one entertains the notion that the “Christians” involved are just plain wrong. But that would mean questioning your belief system, accepting that all sorts of troublesome hypocrisy and moral ambiguities exist and that the Bible is, in fact, entirely fallible. And no one expects you to do that.

    Comment by Pshaw — Monday, November 3, 2008 @ 9:01 am

  3. edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/02/poll.one.party/

    Comment by Pshaw — Monday, November 3, 2008 @ 9:08 am

  4. Oh Mr. Biery haven’t we been down this road once before. You say that it is God’s right to judge, so why does it matter what other people do? How does a man marrying man have any effect on your life? It doesn’t. I just don’t get why it bothers so many people. Its not like it is going to change your life in anyway at all.

    Comment by tanabananarepublic — Monday, November 3, 2008 @ 9:17 am

  5. you all are missing the point here. this has nothing to do with what my opinion is, it has everything to do with what the public wants. if a town wants to make any crazy law, so long as it doesn’t violate fundamental rights, then its perfectly ok. STOP USING JUDGES TO SHOVE YOUR SECULAR AGENDA ON PEOPLE. WIN AT THE BALLOT BOX OR WITH ELECTED LEGISLATORS. WIN THE PUBLIC. GUH. IF WHAT YOU THINK IS SO BRILLIANT AND ENLIGHTENED THEN THIS SHOULD BE EASY????? oh wait some people actually do believe in God, however LAME that may be.

    if you do want to argue it though…
    yes, my personal opinion is to uphold the santity of marriage…less we end up making marriage nearly worthless like it is in places like sweden. if it becomes ok to marry a rock, why should anyone get married? get it? why do secular people care about this anyway? marriage is a Christian institution. let us have that. the rest of you can move to states that have civil unions and get your state benefits or whatever there.

    pat…places like cnn use polls to create news…polls can say anything you want them too and even if it was the perfectly unbiased poll, anything within the margin of error tells me nothing.

    Comment by Andy — Monday, November 3, 2008 @ 1:27 pm

  6. Andy, you’re just looking for a fight. ;)

    Second, I totally agree with you.

    Third, I haven’t read your blog in quite a long time, but I knew you would have some interesting posts around election time and alas, you did not dissapoint. I may join the discussion at some point, but then again, I may not. I have a cold and don’t have the energy to put forth some enlightening post. Just know that there are people out there that do agree with what you say and do stand up for the same things.

    Comment by Jen — Monday, November 3, 2008 @ 10:33 pm

  7. sorry pat the spam dealy on this thing likes to kick out posts with links. just post em w/o the html, i’ll look at the links.

    funny post, i like absurd comedy. but 100 years ago in America things that are deemed ok now were unthinkable then so who really does know what could happen in another 100 years, everything probably will be legal and “moral”. I’m about to start a book that deals with how neo-Darwinian thought has entirely revolved around removing God from all aspects of life. i look forward to posting about that when i’m done. :)

    also, i forgot to check back on the obama/crisis post reply you had last week, i responded now.

    Comment by Andy — Tuesday, November 4, 2008 @ 2:45 am

  8. I certainly don’t think believing in God is lame, and I’m not missing your point at all. People should vote for laws and not have judges blah blah that’s all well and good, and honestly quite boring to me. The main problem I have is your complete willingness to discriminate against a small minority of people solely because some book written over a thousand years ago by people who didn’t know much about anything and then translated by more people who knew just enough to be dangerous tells you they are “sinners” and “against god”. But we shan’t go there. Shall we look at just a few of your statements?

    “advocates homosexual behavior”

    Definition numero uno of advocate: to recommend publicly. Do you believe homosexuals are trying to convert? No? Try a different word next time. Yes? No comment, you speak for yourself.

    “if a town wants to ban a sexual act…move somewhere else if you don’t like it.”

    Well wouldn’t that just be grand for Andy Biery. And where? Somewhere like this? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto#Jewish_Ghettos
    let’s look at a highlight:
    “Jewish ghettos in Europe existed because Jews were viewed as alien due to being a cultural minority…in a Renaissance Christian environment. As a result, Jews were placed under strict regulations throughout many European cities”
    Well, that sounds awfully familiar! Does the word “oppression” mean anything to you? I thought Christians were out of the middle ages along with the rest of us??
    Are homosexuals not entitled to live wherever they want just like you? Do you consider the rights of homosexuals to be less important than yours? Should where a person lives be dictated by societies opinion of that person’s lifestyle? No? Then maybe we shouldn’t make laws that indirectly force people to move against their will, eh?

    “and if we can’t ban sodomy anymore, then why are we banning any sexual act? why can’t we prostitute ourselves or marry 3 people or have consenting sex with our cousins or dogs or between adults and children?”

    Where should I even start? Absolutely ridiculous questions. Did you forget what your entire freaking post is about? Why are we banning things at all? Um, people being able to vote about what’s legal and not legal? Remember that? From, like, the sentence before? Did you just word this wrong or what? Yes I see that judges made that sodomy decision in the link, but is it that hard for you to imagine people voting AGAINST a law that makes two guys doin’ it or getting married illegal without voting FOR laws that make sex with monkeys on the gradeschool playground legal?? And as far as your argument goes, so what if they did? Then that is the majority’s ruling whether you like it or not, right? So, according to you, move somewhere else. Start thinking, it’ll happen sooner or later. No idea what you are getting at past the sodomy link.

    “society isn’t enlightened enough yet.”

    Indeed.

    “really does know what could happen in another 100 years, everything probably will be legal and “moral”.”

    Now let ME make a prediction for 100 years from now:

    First, “everything” will not be legal and moral.

    Next, homosexual marriage will be legal in the vast majority of non-backasswards, sharia, fundamentalist christian, or communist governed industrialized countries (looking at you China).

    Last, people marrying rocks, people marrying siblings, people marrying dogs, pigs, cows or any animal will STILL NOT BE LEGAL.

    Another prediction:
    Marriage will enjoy a virtually identical status, respect, and sanctity as it does now.

    The ONLY reason this is even an issue right now is because the former majority is slowly becoming the minority. Otherwise, obviously, homosexuality would still be swept under the rug and pushed aside as “wrong” and people would be forced to pretend to be something they weren’t to have a normal life, the list of injustices goes on and on. I would like to live to see an end to it, I’m sorry that you wouldn’t.

    Comment by Pshaw — Tuesday, November 4, 2008 @ 10:45 am

  9. yeah we shall not go there. i do have a question, did your dad view the Bible as infallible?

    i dont understand your arguement against using advocate. nit picky if anything. seems to me they are trying to change public opinion about themselves?

    sigh comparing a race of people to people who have made a moral decision is laughable to me. but i’m sure its laughable to you to think homosexuality is a moral decision. i dont deny there are people born with some predisposition toward wanting sex with those of the same sex. But from there its a moral choice, do i give in to it or not? My faith teaches sexual restraint. the secular world does not. is giving in to all sexual desires good for humanity? I think it can be quite destructive, both individually and to society. i dont want to have to look up a bunch of stuff that proves homosexualily is destructive, because any life apart from God is destructive. This is where we differ and won’t find common ground. Its pretty obvious our views on the Bible and God define us greatly in everything.

    as for my questions after the sodomy link, what i was saying was the supreme court decision was poor because it does open the door to allowing anything and everything–it can be applied that way and someday will be used as reasoning behind striking down any sexual privacy laws. it was a somewhat facetious question in its wording.

    i bet people marrying animals will be legal–100 years is a long time. probably not inanimate objects or family members. hopefully.

    bold statement to say marriage will enjoy identical status to today. do we measure that by divorce rate? by the amount of other alternatives like civil unions? whether marriage and then divorce still requires huge financial obligation to the partner? i can see lots of places for decline, but thats probably just from my Christian perspective.

    i have no doubt Christianity will be continually shoved out of the mainstream in America, perhaps even to the point where any speaking out for Biblical principles and morality becomes discrimination.

    Comment by Andy — Tuesday, November 4, 2008 @ 4:38 pm

  10. “did your dad view the Bible as infallible?”

    He’s still alive, and he doesn’t take it literally.

    “i’m sure its laughable to you to think homosexuality is a moral decision.”

    Yup.

    “i dont deny there are people born some predisposition toward wanting sex with those of the same sex.”

    Hey Andy, your ignorance is showing. Ever occur to you that it’s not about the sex?

    “is giving in to all sexual desires good for humanity?”

    Does “giving in” to private consensual sexual acts between two people of the same sex WHO LOVE EACH OTHER necessitate an anything goes attitude towards any and all sexual acts? The answer is obviously no. Your question is meaningless in this context and unrelated to the issue at hand.

    “homosexualily is destructive, because any life apart from God is destructive.”

    This is so WRONG it’s sad. Many, many, many, many indivuduals, civilizations, communities, countries, you name it, survived and prospered so that you could be here to tell me that you can’t survive and prosper without god. Except, they did all of that with no knowledge of your god, or Jesus, or the Bible WHATSOEVER. Being generous your idea of God has been around 1% of the time humans have. Which means 99% of the time we didn’t need it to avoid “destruction”, whatever that means. Here’s another baseless and meaningless statement for you: heterosexuality is just as destructive as homosexuality.

    “open the door to allowing anything and everything”

    Ok, the door was opened, whoopty doo. Now to actually allow it all in you assume people are willing to allow anything and everything, which they are not, which is why we will always have laws forever and ever amen.

    “i bet people marrying animals will be legal”

    Then you are an even bigger fool than I imagined.

    “i have no doubt Christianity will be continually shoved out of the mainstream in America, perhaps even to the point where any speaking out for Biblical principles and morality becomes discrimination.”

    What are you talking about? I have no idea.

    Comment by Pshaw — Wednesday, November 5, 2008 @ 1:51 am

  11. Hey man, we are gonna disagree because I think the Bible is the absolute Truth and infallable Word of God. This is my faith. This is what I believe. I will never give it up. I would die for it.

    I pray for you and other atheist/humanists alike.

    Comment by Andy — Wednesday, November 5, 2008 @ 2:37 am

  12. So you give up and hide behind the Bible? Haven’t you ever found it a little TOO convenient that when you can’t justify something with legitimate reason or knowledge you can always justify it and your own ignorance purely with faith? Doesn’t that sound more than a little familiar and dangerous to you? Maybe some flexibility is in order to adapt to a world that is constantly changing whether you like it or not? If not then I’ve got 72 virgins for you if you just do me a few little favors.

    I’m not an atheist (well that depends on when you ask me, I guess), or humanist, whatever that is, but your praying will never drive me any closer when your unquestioned and outdated belief system is driving me so much farther away.

    Comment by Pshaw — Wednesday, November 5, 2008 @ 3:36 am

  13. fine, lets have this discussion. my bad for assuming it should stop there.

    to me the Bible and Jesus is the most legitimate reason anyone can have for any morality based arguement like this one. I know that bothers people who don’t believe to no end. and to call the teachings of Jesus Christ outdated is embarrasing on your part. please tell me what part of his teaching is outdated. TIA.

    what exactly are you? what do you believe? just believe everyone goes through life doing whatever then we die? just believe that we came from nothing so we go back to nothing? just try to be the most fit and survive(heh)?

    “Many, many, many, many indivuduals, civilizations, communities, countries, you name it, survived and prospered so that you could be here to tell me that you can’t survive and prosper without god. Except, they did all of that with no knowledge of your god, or Jesus, or the Bible WHATSOEVER. Being generous your idea of God has been around 1% of the time humans have. Which means 99% of the time we didn’t need it to avoid “destruction”, whatever that means. Here’s another baseless and meaningless statement for you: heterosexuality is just as destructive as homosexuality.”

    never said someone couldn’t survive and be prosperous in the world’s definition of being prosperous.
    see, this all revolves around you and i disagreeing on the existence of God. neither of us can prove the other wrong, certainly not in any scientific way(hell, no origin of life models can even be approached by the scientific method). i could just as easily argue that what your saying is just as much a faith as what i’m saying…

    and you are right, there isn’t any difference between hetero and homo sexual immorality. immorality is immorality.
    do i really need to define destruction? i guess i would to someone who doesn’t believe in God or consequences to immorality or any eternal judgement.

    Comment by Andy — Wednesday, November 5, 2008 @ 4:55 pm

  14. Can I chime in?

    1) Going along with the general trend of “I’m not hurting anybody else so leave me alone” justification, it’s really not too shocking to think that, although “marriage” to an animal may never make any sense, sex with one could become legal. Though somehow I have a feeling that even if no one else did, PETA would still object ;) Those people really know how to cause a ruckus.

    2) Merriam-Webster’s most relevant definition of discriminate: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit

    When two people are exactly the same and one is treated better than the other, that is discrimination and that is bad. I get it. But what about when two people are not exactly the same? Who gets to decide what “individual merit” even means when we all don’t agree? A homosexual relationship is not the same as a heterosexual relationship, and until we have a lot more gay marriages, if we ever do, it’s impossible to even attempt sociological studies that can corrolate the benefits or detriments of them for society. Isn’t that the whole point of couples being rewarded for getting married, that it’s good for our nation as a whole? Although honestly, straight marriages don’t seem to be doing much for us these days. Maybe I’m missing the point entirely. Obviously gay people are already capable of making a love-based commitment to one another until death, so there must be something in the word “marriage” that they really want, aside from or in addition to the government benefits. Whatever weight and meaning the word has has been assigned over thousands of years by a whole lot of people who participated in it, whereas homosexuality has been seen as kind of ok by significantly less than 100% of people for a couple decades – put this issue in a little bit of perspective.

    3) I hope that love would be the driving force between any two people who want to get married, whatever orientation they may be. Nevertheless, it’s silly to say that it’s not about sex. Isn’t it supposed to be the expression of love? Isn’t compatibility in bed one of those things that keeps a marriage going? I kind of think that wanting to have sex with the person you’re marrying is a factor.

    4) Maybe this has already been stated, but just clarifying from my entirely conservative evangelical Bible-believing Christian perspective:
    - We (people) are capable of loving each other because God first loved us. He is the only one who understands what selfless love is, and He is the only one who is able to give it completely. Being created in His likeness, we do the best that we can in knowing or unknowing imitation of Him.
    - We (Christians) recognize that God is in complete control of the universe, and that He has the right to be. He, through the Bible and through personal revelation, has declared to us the immorality of *all* sexual acts outside of marriage, specifically including homosexuality.
    - We (Christians) believe that if God has not provided us with a partner of the opposite sex to marry, then we should not be engaging in any kind of sex, ever. Although it sounds nearly unattainable, with the grace of God, people are able to do it, just as they are able to get through a million other handicaps or accidents of fate that make life quite possibly unbearable. The important thing here is that we believe no matter what happens here on earth, when we die, we will be in perfect harmony with God – the only perfect reward possible, which will more than make up for any and all sacrifices made. The other side of that is the destruction you were discussing, which I will step in and say is much more important in regards to a person’s soul than to his ability to thrive by earthly standards. I would define destruction as complete separation from God for all eternity. I can’t think of anything worse. The whole point of the gospel is to keep anyone from experiencing that.

    And, although I find myself capable of going on for hours on tangents related to this subject, I’m sure it’s mostly for my own edification, and now I need to go to bed. Thank you two for giving me a reason to think about what it is exactly that I think.

    Comment by Abbie — Thursday, November 6, 2008 @ 12:27 am

  15. Andy-
    Can I just say how proud I am of how you are standing up for your beliefs in a time like this and in a world like this.

    Comment by Joanna — Thursday, November 6, 2008 @ 8:19 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.