Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

PROP. 8: Moral society must legislate against immorality

Letter by Vincent A. Wagner, University Place on Aug. 9, 2010 at 9:04 am with 16 Comments »
August 9, 2010 11:14 am

The right to marriage may or may not be granted by the Constitution, but the right to redefine marriage certainly is not. Marriage is rooted in the public interest in procreation, in history and social science.

Homosexual “marriage” has not, is not and will never be necessary for the common good of society. Homosexual “marriage” has not, will not and will never serve the same purpose that God designed-traditional one man-one woman marriage does.

The constant push for homosexual “marriage” is political, not necessary. It is about forcing society to equate homosexual behavior with heterosexual behavior. Homosexual activists judges are using the homosexual agenda to undermine the Judeo-Christian traditional values this country was founded on to destroy it.

It is right that you can’t legislate morality. That is why it is necessary for a moral society to legislate against immorality. Since creation, civilized man has understood marriage to be between the male and female of the species, and any variance is viewed as immoral. California’s Proposition 8 simply said yes to what society has said for more than 5,000 years.

I can’t make you love me, but I need legislation to keep you from murdering me. I can’t make you be an honest person, but I need legislation to keep you from stealing from me. That is why Proposition 8 was so necessary. It is not “bigoted” or “hateful” to define marriage as the promise between one man and one woman.

Leave a comment Comments → 16
  1. Vincent, marriage has been redefined many times by the courts, by laws and by humans down through history. You lose that argument right there.

    You state: “Marriage is rooted in the public interest in procreation, in history and social science

    The trial sought evidence that gay marriage would harm procreation – no credible evidence was presented, and in fact, the opposite was shown by factual evidence. If you have such evidence of harm, the lawyers for your side need it desperately.

    You also throw the term “moral” and immoral” around like it should mean something in this case. Many people do not find gay marriage immoral or being gay immoral. The only basis that people cite when they do claim it to be immoral is religious texts that many people even in that same religion disagree with. The only time morality and the secular laws of the United States coincide is when the action harms society, or other people. Most people find picketing soldiers’ funerals with “God hates fags” signs immoral, divorce, eating pork, riding motor-powered vehicles or other things immoral, but the only reason to outlaw such would be if it actually did harm to other people or society.

    History shows that some former definitions of marriage, in fact, did harm society in some cases, and laws were passed to protect society. Marriage of close relatives was considered fine and dandy until science showed that it was a danger. Interracial marriage was not allowed as being immoral, but science showed that it was not a danger to society. The courts found that denying the rights of interracial couples was a danger to a republic that is founded on equal rights under the law, so the courts redefined marriage in that case. Marriage was redefined to outlaw plygamy, because the courts found that it was a danger to democracy. The courts did not allow any discussion or “morality” in any of those cases that redefined marriage, except to the point of whether or not such marriages were harmful.

    I don’t usually use the term “bigot”, even though it might fit in many cases. Webster says it means “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”. In this case. I think people who are objecting to this ruling are woefully undereducated about what our Constitution means, totally uniformed about the reasons the judge made his decision, and hopelessly and obstinately devoted to the idea that gay marriage is somehow dangerous to other people’s marriages in spite of a lack of any credible evidence to support their opinions.

  2. LuckyCharm says:

    “I can’t make you love me, but I need legislation to keep you from murdering me. I can’t make you be an honest person, but I need legislation to keep you from stealing from me.”

    And? How does the marriage of a same-sex couple harm you in any way?

  3. LuckyCharm says:

    “It is right that you can’t legislate morality. That is why it is necessary for a moral society to legislate against immorality.”

    Let’s say we agree that alcohol abuse is immoral — it is prohibited in the Bible. Should we then push for legislation denying the right of alcoholics to marry? What about adulterers? If a person gets divorced because of adultery, should he or she be denied the right to remarry? For that matter, should divorce even be legal? There is actually a movement to outlaw divorce, period, for any reason. After all, the vows say “till death do us part.”

  4. There is no need to redefine marriage, Vincent. Marriage is defined on Wikipedia as:

    “a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding.”

    And, in Merriam-Webster as:

    “1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex"

    Wikipedia states that, ""People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment."…..not just procreation.

  5. The Gooberment should get out of marriage all together. Ever herd of seperation of Church and State? The gooberment shoud remove all beifits for married people. As far as gooberment is concerned they should only see people and it should not matter their race, sex, or sexual oriantition.

  6. hensandducks says:

    By allowing all individuals to marry, all are guaranteed equal rights, such as the ability of one party to insure the other or the opportunity for one to visit his/her partner when she/he is hospitalized in an emergency situation. Or for a couple to pool their monies in applying for loans or purchasing homes. Or so that they can support one another in raising children— if one must work early, the other can stay home and provide breakfast. Etc…In these ways, among others, gay marriage is indeed, “for the common good of society.”

  7. In Iran they are about to execute a man for “sodomy”. Their president claimed that there are no homosexuals in Iran…….does that make them a “moral society”?

  8. I don’t know a single conservative Christian, and I know hundreds of them, who would sanction any sort of punishment for someone engaging in homosexual activity. Not a single one.

    It is a myth that conservative Christians in general wish any harm to come to gays and lesbians. Just as it is a myth that your average Christian wishes to see a theocracy based on Judeo-Christian principles.

    It is time for people to get beyond this stereotype and be as tolerant of conservative Christians as you are of mainstream Muslims, Jews, et c.

  9. sozo, you ahaven’t visited a lot of Christian churches that send money to Africa in support of harsh anti-gay laws on that continent. It may be true that mainstream Christian churches do not support harsh penalties, but Christian right organizations do. There is ttroubling and ongoing support by the Christian right for legislation in Africa that would require very harsh penalties for homosexuality. In Uganda, the current proposed law has life imprisonment for anyone who has sex with someone of the same gender; and severe jail time for straight people who do not out their LGBT friends, neighbors and relatives. The law witholds medical treatment for gay HIV patients. The law used to have execution for gays, but it has been modified after donor countries (like the UK and USA) protested.

    Although Rick Warren now says he does not approve of the harsh penalties in the bill, the Ugandan Parliament quotes him on his visit in 2008 where he said to that political body that homosexuality is exactly the same as pedophilia. They understood it to mean that he was in support of the penalties to be the same, and the penalty for pedophilia in Uganda is death. His ministry provided written material to the Ugandans that says the same thing. Why would he speak to the Ugandan parliament about their proposed law and equate it with pedophilia if he didn’t think he was providing support for a harsh anti-gay bill? Creation Ministries International, supported by a large number of American churches, continues to publish literature in Africa that equates homosexuality with pedophilia klnowing the harsh penalties in most countries for child molesters.

    Many American Christian churches continue to give money to the anti-homosexual leaders in Uganda and other African countries. Canyon Ridge Christian Church in Las Vegas, for example, a mega church, sends huge amounts of money to support political activites to pass anti-gay laws in Africa. They even proudly support the now-removed execution penalties in the former version of Uganda’s law.

    I am tolerant of Christians who abide by Christ’s teachings, but I will never tolerate those on the Christian right that use fear, false research and hate to further political vendettas against people they disagree with.

  10. tuddo, I will follow up regarding the things you’ve written here. Thanks for providing names and organizations.

  11. In just a couple of minutes I found these remarks by three of the Christian leaders who attended the Ugandan conference:

    “I feel duped,” Mr. Schmierer said, arguing that he had been invited to speak on “parenting skills” for families with gay children. He acknowledged telling audiences how homosexuals could be converted into heterosexuals, but he said he had no idea some Ugandans were contemplating the death penalty for homosexuality.

    “That’s horrible, absolutely horrible,” he said. “Some of the nicest people I have ever met are gay people.”

    Mr. Lively and Mr. Brundidge have made similar remarks in interviews or statements issued by their organizations. But the Ugandan organizers of the conference admit helping draft the bill, and Mr. Lively has acknowledged meeting with Ugandan lawmakers to discuss it. He even wrote on his blog in March that someone had likened their campaign to “a nuclear bomb against the gay agenda in Uganda.” Later, when confronted with criticism, Mr. Lively said he was very disappointed that the legislation was so harsh.”

    I realize this may seem like too little too late, but if you allow for these folks’ right to believe what they believe about homosexuality — which I know is difficult for many–I think their comments demonstrate that they are clearly not encouraging harsh punishment for gays and lesbians.

  12. And then there’s this statement from Rick Warren:

    “As an American pastor,” Warren said in his statement, “it is not my role to interfere with the politics of other nations, but it is my role to speak out on moral issues.” He told the Ugandan pastors that the bill was “unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals.”

    The bill’s requirement that Ugandans report any meeting with homosexuals to authorities, he said, would hinder the ministry of the church and force homosexuals who are HIV positive underground.

    He also defended the timing of his denunciation. “Because I didn’t rush to make a public statement,” he said, “some erroneously concluded that I supported this terrible bill, and some even claimed I was a sponsor of the bill. You in Uganda know that this is untrue.” He added, “I oppose the criminalization of homosexuality.”

  13. You did some homework tuddo and so did I. I continue to implore you to not presume the worst about conservative Christians.

    Is their conduct always above reproach? Of course not. Whose is? But when people are willing to say they erred they deserve the benfit of the doubt, and that works both ways for me.

    When Bill Clinton lied about his sexual misconduct in the White House, I thought him despicable. When he later confessed, it helped, though the fact that he sought spiritual advice and counseling from Jesse Jackson didn’t impress me much…you know the fella who accidentally broadcast what he’d like to do to President Obama’s,,,well you know. Sorry for the digression.
    It just all came rushing back.

    In any event, it sounds like these American Christians learned something vitallly important about dealing with African Christians who, you may have noted, often have a Minister of Ethics. Would such a cabinet post even be possible in the US?

  14. sozo, publically, they have made their apologies to the American press, (months and months after their deeds had been done, by the way, and only because there was a firestorm of criticism in the US). The anti-gay bills were printed in the agenda of the conference Warren attended and they were known to the three “missionaries” at the time they went to Uganda. I laughed when I first heard Warren’s statement about not getting involved in the political process. Why then, did he make his statements at a political rally for the bill? The agenda for the meeting of pastors was whether or not to support the bill, and he makes his lying statements about gays and pedophilia. That’s not getting involved? Privately, there is still hundreds of thousands of dollars going from these organizations to Uganda anti-gay leaders and churches.

    Warren is very smart. He knows the situation in Uganda, and that they rely on US churches’ dollars for much of their politician’s salaries. He knows that equating homosexuals with predophiles and using false research to support it will enflame the Ugandan public. Shocked, he and the other missionaries of hate were shocked, I tell you, that their hateful, lying words were used to support anti-gay sympathies! Believe that all you want. Since they are Christians they must be telling the truth, eh?

    Because of their stands against ordination of women priests and ordination of gay priests, several Episcopal diocese in the USA have changed their allegiance from the US Episcopal Church and count as their bishop one of the African bishops who support these harsh laws against gays, and they send their offerings to them. It is more widespread than I think you realize.

  15. Well, these people, if they are as unscrupulous as you say, will be held accountable one day. But I’ll say it again, believing that it is wrong to engage in homosexual acts does not equate with hating men or women who are attracted to the same sex. Just as one doesn’t hate the alcholic but wishes he/she wouldn’t drink any more. I realize you think this is nonsense, but it’s what many Christians believe.

    It in no way translates to wanting to criminalize homosexuality.
    It in no way translates into hating homosexuals and wishing them harm.
    It in no way translates even into refusing them equal rights.

    This reflects the views of all the conservative Christians I know who think that homosexual acts are anomalous. And as you know, there are tons of folks on deonminational roles who are ready to give their blessing to gay marriage.

    Those who are not, are not automatically filled with toxic hate.

  16. villager98 says:

    Mr. Wagner is a bit confused. He thinks we can’t legislate morality and then proceeds to insist that is exactly what we should do. Of course, he means we should only consider his version of morality.

    sozo has a rather lose definition of harm apparently. Just because we do not inflict pain and damage to one’s physical person doesn’t mean we haven’t done them harm.

*
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