This post is a response to Looney's opinions on California's ruling on gay marriage. It is suggested you go read his post first.
I fully support gay marriage. Just because there's been no precedent in civilization doesn't mean it's wrong. With that sort of attitude, civilization would never advance.
And how exactly does this ruling "trash the Constitution"? All I see it trashing is the Leviticus book of the Bible. And by our First Amendment, church and state are separate.
Besides, wasn't the Old Testament kinda trashed by the New Testament? Churches seem to ignore parts of the Old Testament that don't suit them (claiming the New Testament trumps it), while upholding other parts of the Old Testament that does suit them. (Wouldn't it be nice if we could just pick and choose what laws we wanted to follow, and disregard the rest?)
Anyway, back on topic... I'm sure I could find many different sources other than Ephesians 5:24-25 that define marriage. Just because you choose to use the biblical definition doesn't mean everyone should.
By your definition, Poor ol' Drek and his wife aren't really married, and can't be. Please, don't take this as calling Drek's wife a man; but rather that their marriage was not a symbol of Christ. And I'm sure Drek would have a word or two about asserting the validity of his marriage.
Besides, from what I read into Ephesians 5:24-25, it's using Christ's love as an example or analogy... Not directly saying marriage is a symbol of Christ.
It all comes down to the simple fact that gays are people, too. There are certain legal rights given to married couples, and gay couples should have those same rights.
Perhaps you can tell I have a strong opinion on the subject of gay rights?
Friday, May 16, 2008
«Response to Looney on Gay Marriage»
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Some Rights Reserved
Well, the ruling trashes the constitution in that it states that there is a fundamental right to gay marriage guaranteed in the constitution. Since there is no such verbiage either directly or indirectly, this effectively means that the words of the constitution are utterly devoid of meaning. The constitution really is just the whims of those with power and merely a symbol of that power.
ReplyDeleteAs Thomas Jefferson noted, our rights come from our Creator, which was understood. Thus, the California Supreme Court, by declaring this right to gay marriage, has effectively stated that God endorses gay marriage. The justices of the supreme court have made a purely religious statement and declared themselves to be God's spokesmen.
This really got you ruffled!
ReplyDeleteI'm staying out of it, you know how I get....
@ Looney: There is the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
ReplyDeleteBut that can be interpreted in different ways...
And as far as Thomas Jefferson's statement... The main point was that rights are inborn, not granted by the government. However, again, that can be interpreted in different ways.
I'm not one to argue back and forth on the internet. You state your opinion, I state mine in response... Then we agree we have different views of the subject and move on.
@ Monique: It's one of my few "hot topics". (No, not the clothing store)
Marf, thanks. I would rather enjoy reading your blog. Sorry for being a bit uppity!
ReplyDelete@ Looney: I respect people with different points of view, and I enjoy reading your blog. No need to apologize.
ReplyDelete