Dec 20 2008
The Right To Be Gay
Although Attorney General Jerry Brown on Friday asked the California Supreme Court to strike down the same-sex marriage ban, citing the theory that it is “inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty safeguarded by the California Constitution, supporters of the ban filed a brief that would erase the legal recognition of couples married before Election Day.
When will this madness end? There is no such thing as same sex marriages, based on the vote of the people, the people who voted for Proposition 8, along with the language in Proposition 8 which states, “Only a marriage between a man and a women is valid or recognized in California, which amended the Constitution of the State of California.
An individual liberty or liberty is defined as “a political, social, and economic right that belongs to the citizens (as individuals) of a state or to all people.” Brown feels that “There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes otherwise they are not fundamental rights.”
On that thought, would you say that abortion or racial profiling would fit into the category of an individual liberty that is being infringed upon by popular decision?
A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples which affords them the same “rights, protections and benefits and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law…” as married spouses. Domestic partnerships and civil unions, which are recognized by some states and countries throughout the world, go a long way towards recognition of same sex unions.
When a hand full of people, in comparison to the masses, wants to force a perceived immoral belief on another for the sake of inclusion when inclusion is granted to a great degree by Domestic Partnership laws, this is extreme behavior. To keep pulling the rug from underneath gays and their life style is wrong as well.
Decisive decisions are needed. If the domestic partnership laws need adjusting, to be more inclusive then make those adjustments. You can not gain inclusiveness through legislation. Ask most black people in America about that. If all the gay community wants is the same rights accorded “married, opposite sex people” then this should be addressed with the domestic partnership laws and not through the church which feels it is morally wrong.
To force your beliefs on other people and infringe on their moral codes is wrong and selfish. While the gay community has the right to the same political, social and economic rights afforded married couples, these rights should be decisively addressed through the domestic partnership laws.
And that’s the way I see it!!!
Ookay. Here we go again. The comparison of the right to marry someone of the same sex to the right to abortion or racial profiling is apples and oranges. Persons who wish to marry each other imposes no action whatsoever on the masses.
They are also not imposing their views on those who don’t wish to marry the same sex. You still have the right to marry heterosexually. When did that change?
And lastly, you were accurate in stating inclusiveness could not be legislated. The courts should stay out of individuals rights to marry whomever they choose, just as there should have never been a popular vote on it. We have no right to deny another this right…period.
You state it is morally wrong to force your beliefs on others, yet that’s exactly what Prop 8 and it’s supporters did. So, you are again correct. Prop 8 is unconstitutional and morally wrong!
I see a very real infringement of rights in the abortion and racial profiling controversies relative to same sex marriage. I stated a “perceived” immoral conflict in terms of gay marriages. If this ban were to be lifted and I, being a minister, a priest, clergyman whatever, refused to marry a gay couple based on my belief of “moral justification/my way of functioning in the world” that could open the door to any number of lawsuits just to prove a point. I still feel strongly that this is covered under domestic partnerships without the need to force this on religions that do not believe this should be in the first place, based on their religious beliefs the thing that is suppose to guide them in the world. Once you open the door you are inviting lawsuits based on non-compliance.
I say we start from scratch. Ban all marriages, and then see if we want the government to step in.
truth2U,
The government has already stepped in and are forcing churches to perform acts diametrically opposed to their beliefs and principles- such as allowing homosexuals to adopt.
Homosexuals will not stop until they have created an illusion that their unnatural behaviors are normal, even if that means the destruction of Christianity. Interesting they don’t go after the Muslims- don’t you think?