Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

GAY MARRIAGE: Respect voters’ moral values

Letter by Will D. Edwards, Spanaway on Aug. 5, 2010 at 1:20 pm with 37 Comments »
August 6, 2010 9:14 am

Re: “California judge OKs gay marriage” (TNT, 8-5).

The article states that the California voter-approved ban on gay marriage was based on moral disapproval of gay marriage and was repealed because of this. If I am not mistaken, almost all of our laws are based on moral standards. The question is, who states what the moral standards are?

The only moral source that is unchanging is God’s word’ all others made by man will change from person to person or generation to generation or what country you live in.

If we are going to repeal laws based on morals, then the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote will have to be repealed. That was based on a moral conviction that men and women have a equal right to vote. Then there is the 13th Amendment in 1865, which is based on the moral belief that all people are created equal.

I could list many more laws that were based on moral beliefs. Are they all to be repealed because some are listed in the Bible? The voters of California stated their moral values and it should be respected.

Leave a comment Comments → 37
  1. colsprague says:

    Moral disapproval is an inappropriate basis to deny constitutional rights.

  2. tomwa007 says:

    Which God and whose morals are you speaking of, only yours?

    150 years ago the Christian God at the time (since his morals seem to be change as interpreted by the church of the day) said it was morally wrong for African slaves to marry since they were not true humans.

    50 years it was immoral and forbidden for inter- racial couples to get married.

    Sorry but things change and unless this country becomes a theocracy, you can not legislate what is moral.

  3. Sumner401 says:

    Moral disapproval is an inappropriate basis to deny constitutional rights.

    And that is why prop 8 was over turned.

    All men are created equal……
    It means something or it doesn’t, personally, I think it means everything.

  4. Kevindot1 says:

    Thanks, Sumner401. I agree with you. That pretty much ends Will D. Edwards’ argument.

  5. Will, you state that “The only moral source that is unchanging is God’s word” and then claim moral superiority on granting equal rights for women in our secular laws. How quickly people forget that those who opposed women’s rights when the ERA was passed and when voting rights were granted were the Christian right who touted the Biblical statements about women being unequal to men and how women should submit themselves to the domination of their husbands. (Many of the denominations still preach this and will not let women be the equals of men in their churches). How quickly you forget, dear Will, that the Christian right in my parent’s generation used the Bible as the basis to deny equal rights to Blacks, saying the Bible said that Blacks were not the equals of Whites because of the sins of their forebears. Declarations of rights grew out of Enlightenment philosophies, in great part constructed by atheists, humanists and deists. Progressive Christians determined that the Bible was wrong when it called for women to be inferior and Blacks to be inferior.

    What is certainly hypocritical is to state on the one hand that God declares everyone to be equal,except for whatever group the Christian right decides to attack at any given time. Sometimes it’s women, sometimes its Blacks, right now it is gays. The next generation or the one thereafter might actually be able to make statements like you did and say that morality triumphed when gays were given equal rights.

  6. I hesitate to get into yet another discussion about the Bible and Christianity with you tuddo, and in fact, I won’t. You had a crappy experience in the church, and much of what you write is true of some misguided churces within the Christian religion. Broken people get a lot of things wrong, no argument from me.

    But many intelligent, “enlightened” people continue to believe in the God of Christianity, the Trinity and explore the scriptures regularly. They are not ignoring what appear to be contradictions, but accept in whole of scripture as they continue to explore. People from every walk have attempted to use the Bible to their own advantage. Blame them, not God.

    It’s a religion of faith, which transcends the intellect. It’s about a relationship with a living God, a God of grace and redemption. It’s about accepting a God to big to be crammed to fit into your brain, or mine.

    Christians have worked FOR human rights throughout history…for the abolition of slavery, for a woman’s right to vote, to feed the hungry and empower the powerless.

    I hope you can get over your bitter and warped view of people of faith.

  7. beerBoy says:

    Christians have worked FOR human rights throughout history…for the abolition of slavery, for a woman’s right to vote, to feed the hungry and empower the powerless.

    Christians have also worked AGAINST human rights throughout history.

    There is much to admire within the history of the Church but there is also much to abhor.

  8. How can you be so philosophical and understanding when it comes to issues concerning the church, yet so closed minded regarding your personal issues and “crappy experience(s)” with schools, teachers, the 60’s, unions, abortion, and liberals, just to name a few, sozo?

    Your mirror awaits you.

  9. Publico says:

    I love it when people write letters and use God or the Bible for the basis of their argument. Yeah, really. It is an instant sign that the conversation is an infinite dead end.

  10. Sumner401 says:

    I hope you can get over your bitter and warped view of people of faith.

    I wonder if you can get over your bitter and warped view of people that you don’t agree with?
    You, more so than most in my view personify what is wrong with self proclaimed christians, your elitism is why people have what you call ‘a warped and bitter view”.

  11. Hear ye! Hear ye! Let’s start with our country’s history and the crafting of the Constitution. More research folks on the men and their values that wrote our document and many of the previous comments die in the sand. If you’re not up with the Consitituion, and haven’t read and know the spirit of the writers, there is no point to discuss this.

  12. sozo, I do not have a bitter and warped view of people of faith. I do look askance at those right wing Christians who pick and choose ways to defend hatred and discrimination from a text that is about love and equality. I experience joy from my association of people of faith in my very frequent church going and membership in a group of believers who understand that the misuse of the Bible and the teaching of Christianity, including the wrongful denial of equal rights of gays and lesbians, is wholly incompatible with the teachings of Jesus. You keep asserting that I blame God. No, I blame humans for claiming that God wants them to claim superiority over other people, for claiming God somehow wants to deny the benefits of marriage from loving couples, that God somehow declared that gays in a committed relationship were inferior, when God never did, even in the Bible.

    The only reason I even talk about Christianity or God in these discussions is because other people bring it up as some kind of reason to ignore the Constitution and the reasons why this great country of liberty and equality was founded. In many forums I have asked the same questions that the judge asked: does gay marriage negatively impact our society to the point that we should restrict the inalienable right of marriage to them? does gay marriage negatively impact society or individuals outside the relationship of the two people involved to the point that we should not grant them the benefits of equality in the 14th amendment? The trial record shows that the judge earnestly sought those answers, and it was found that the proponents of restricting equality under the law absed their whole rationale on fabrications and fear, not on any facts or evidence. Gay marriage does not negatively impact society or other individuals, and is in fact a benefit to society.

    If you don’t want to have a discussion or argument about Chrisitanity, then stop bringing it up and urge others to stop bringing it up where it does not even apply – to secular laws and Constitutional guarantees.

  13. foresttnt says:

    Just because enough people voted to enact Prop 8 doesn’t make it moral, lawful, or constitutional. There is a system of checks and balances in our government for a reason and Prop 8 is a perfect example. When one part of our system gets it wrong there is another part to remedy it.

    I would also like to point out that a TON of the anti gay pro Prop 8 folks out there spouting off about how God detests this and God detests that are using the religion argument for political purposes but that does not mean they are Christian or a true representative of what a follower of Jesus does and is. I love Jesus, I also love gays and will never believe Jesus would want me to do anything different.
    For all you that disagree, take a look at the sinful nature in yourself and work on that before you act morally superior to the chosen sinner group of the day. True followers of Jesus know that we ALL fall short but will be forgiven for our shortcomings…..ALL of us; even the ones you choose to detest and marginalize the most……..actually, especially them. Think about it.

  14. Polago, when I look in the mirror, I see a bundle of paradox, a complex human being whose experiences, yes indeed, have shaped how I view the world. But my experiences are not my only guide. I am often conflicted, and I’ve made some lousy choices along the way. I’ve never sanctioned the “brand” of Christianity that so offends tuddo and others, but I also refuse to dilute what I understand as moral teaching just so it accommodates everybody in their search for happiness.

    As for bringing up religion, I generally do so when the door’s been opened by someone else, in this case the letter-writer. Or when the subject itself is one that the church has struggled with forever.

  15. I’m surprised that the letter writer didn’t call for the repeal of the 14th Amendment since the equal protection clause is what the judge’s decision is based upon……

    And…..morals derived from religions are usually clan-based (treat your family and your clan well: kill and burn all of your enemy, their women, children and flocks). This is why the Sermon on the Mount is such a amazing document.

    The one moral value that is most consistent across religions and philosophies is the Golden Rule. Preventing two people who love each other from marrying is hardly an example of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

  16. The same guy who delivered that Sermon on the Mount said that divorce was wrong. He also spoke of throwing people onto a slag heap on Judgment Day. You’re sure you want to cite him as a source of wisdom?

  17. beerBoy says:

    As an agnostic Deist I reserve the right, just like most believers, to pick and choose what I consider is most important to pay attention to.

  18. beerBoy says:

    But…….Jesus never said anything about homosexuals……

    Apparently the “Christians” who cite their faith as a reason to oppose same-sex marriage are actually Paulists and/or Leviticans.

  19. beerBoy says:

    And…..the Golden Rule is about the only thing that is consistent across religions and philosophies so there is good reason to believe that it truly is the foundation of what we consider moral behavior.

  20. beerBoy says:

    Marriage in Christ’s day was different than it is today. Women were property and enjoyed no rights. (Thus the original meaning of “rape” is equivalent to theft. To rape a woman was to take from another man what was rightfully his) Men could divorce their wives on a whim and leave them without any recourse. To cite the Bible as defense of “traditional” marriage is to defend a version of marriage we currently consider quite loathsome.

  21. I knew why Jesus said what he did about divorce, bBoy — again, as I’ve said before, he was actually a “real” feminist by contrast to the ersatz feminists on stage in our culture.

    And he had something to say about sexual immorality, which one might assume included homosexuality given the fact that he was quite familiar with Mosaic law. The “law” that he attacked was that which had been corrupted by man.

  22. “one might assume”

    You know what they say about assuming making an ass-out of u and me…..

    He also was pretty strong in his criticism of the Pharisees and their literalist interpretations of the Mosaic Code.

    BTW……are you saying that good Christians must keep all of the tenets of the Mosaic Code – I thought the New Covenant had changed that – or just those tenets that “one might assume” Christ thought (but didn’t say) were important to keep?

  23. No, I am not saying that, but I am saying that the spirit of the law remains intact.

    Christ assaulted legalism, and rightly so. He did not wipe out the laws originally given to the “children of Israel.” He was, in fact a good Jewish boy, and many who followed him were also Jews. The only ones who hated him were the ones who’d corrupted the law, usually to their own advantage. The Bible is clear that THIS conduct angers God…then and now, I “assume.”

    This is why you will not hear me argue with you when you criticize practices and policies whose roots are power and greed … both things that the Bible says God “hates.”

  24. dewilson says:

    Sozo – You are just all over the place with this God meant this and Jesus meant that… For every citation in the scriptures, one can find conflicting ones, or conflicting “interpretations” and/or revelations, e.g, the New Testament’s tenets revisionism of Old Testament tenets…it just goes on and on with broad variations among versions and denominations, Catholic, Protestant, Morman, Baptist, Quaker. In other words, one can find whatever one wishes to in a vast array of “scripture”, therefore while some passages offer wisdom and insight, none can stand as authority except for the “authority” granted by the reader. The subject of slavery is a good example.

    Once again, the bottom line is that the courts have no business imposing laws upon the public based upon religious “moral codes” these are all relative to someone’s version of their faith’s mandates, which those of other faiths may well not observe or object to.

  25. Relax tuddo. I told you before it’s kind of a waste of energy for you and I to continue this discussion, especially in a public forum.

    As for your final paragraph, laws are rooted in “somebody’s” moral code whether you like it or not.

  26. jandkgibbs says:

    One thing you never hear in this debate is a discussion about the act itself? Is this really about rights are getting the public to agree that the act itself is morally OK. I for one would like to hear what the majority of the public actually think about this question.

    In our politically correct society it is hard to talk about this. But we are adults here and when you boil down all the chatter about rights and privacy it still comes down to a discussion about our societies acceptance of homosexuality, bestiality, bisexuality, asexuality and polygamy, just to list a few. Will these forms of sexuality be the next in line wanting societies acceptance? Where does it stop?

    It’s a slippery slope here folks. I still question which one of these acts do we want to support as a society. It’s must be all or none. If society says yes to all then we are at the bottom.

  27. Excellent question, jandk, but you watch it get shuffled to the bottom of the deck in this forum right quick.

    See the real meaning of the word “progressive” is not about whether we like or dislike progress, though progressives want you to think that.

    If you are at all familiar with Saul Alinsky, you will know that what is actually meant by the word is that we will slowly, one baby step at a time, insidiously make the changes in our society that we want to make…in “progressive” steps if you will — until we have things exactly how we want them.

  28. Right now, they will laugh at you for suggesting that anyone would ever seek to have bestialitly sanctioned, or polygamy, or marrying your sister … but these very things are found on that slipper slope you mention jandk, and who knows which of them we will next be asked to bless.

  29. jandkgibbs says:

    Sozo, your insights are on target . Yes, I read the Cliff Notes version of Saul’s Rules for Radicals.

  30. beerBoy says:

    The slippery slope argument…….tell me, just how can an animal be a consenting adult?…….if it can’t there can not be bestiality based marriages which are contracts entered into by two informed, consenting adults.

    And, regarding incestual weddings – if there is no evidence to support a genetic weakening of the offspring of incest – then there is no Public good to be defended by maintaining the taboo through legalities. If, however, there is evidence that the children of siblings are at risk of real genetic damage then the taboo can be maintained.

    I find the notion repugnant but I also believe in equal protection if there can not be demonstrated a definite reason for the ban beyond traditional values/morals.

  31. beerBoy says:

    Why is it that the right rim are popularizing Saul Alinsky while I never, ever read anyone from the Left referencing him? The only way that I am aware of Alinsky is through the posts of those teetering on the Right Rim (though many have fallen off the ledge and are in free fall in their delusions) The Right needs to a boogey-man made of straw to hold up to scare people and as an easy demonisation by claimed association.

    All they have to do to dismiss a Liberal’s argument is say “Saul Alinsky tactics” – the Leftists are left scratching their heads wondering who the heck this Alinsky guy is and the Righter gets pings of approval from their fellow free-fallers.

    Sozo – you claim to not be a Glenn Beck fan yet you keep bringing up some of his most favored talking points……how is that?

  32. I don’t watch Glen Beck’s show. If my comments reflect some of his thinking, so be it. I’m sure he’s not the idiot you all make him out to be.

    About Alinskyism , of COURSE you don’t hear the Left speak of it; a key component of the teachings is working steadily and silently from the inside out… small “progressive” baby steps towards the goal.

  33. from p.10 Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

    “A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.”

    Alinsky wrote Rules for radicals whose anger was prompting them to take violent actions, urging them instead to go undercover.

    The tactics were based on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on “gradualism’ [read [pogressivism], infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.
    Gramsci aroused Stalins’s wrath by suggesting that the primary assault should be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish.

    Sound familiar?

  34. of COURSE you don’t hear the Left speak of it; a key component of the teachings is working steadily and silently from the inside out..

    Excellent example of closed, circular logic. Your thesis can not be questioned by any contrary evidence because you have declared the contrary evidence as supporting evidence. Lewis Carroll had nothing on you.

    I guess this is why you have an issue with “intellectuals” – they insist upon empirical evidence and fact-based rhetoric.

  35. Tactics don’t belong to one side or another. This is why it is incorrect to support the Israelis based upon anti-terrorism: both sides employ terrorism.

    I suggest you research Leo Strauss’s teachings and his influence upon the neo-cons for an example of “Alinsky-type teachings” being utilized by the Right.

  36. I don’t have trouble with intellectuals bboy; I have trouble with pseudo-intellectuals.

  37. Roncella says:

    Sozo, For anyone who has read Saul Alinsky’s writings most could see many of President Obama’s polices and statements fall right in line with Alinsky’s teachings.

    Its always interesting how those who attack and seem to hate Beck really can’t call him out on much of his claims and reports as he has done research on them before releasing the information. Has he made some mistakes, no doubt he has, who has not ever made mistakes in reporting ?

    Much of his show is replaying statements made by the people he is referencing not anything he has said about them. Go figure……

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0