Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: God’s law is not in question

Letter by Roman Gutierrez, Tacoma on June 7, 2012 at 1:00 pm with 27 Comments »
June 7, 2012 1:00 pm

Re: “God outlawed homosexuality” (online letter).

No I’m not gay, although that should not matter. In fact I don’t have any close friends or relatives who are openly gay.

I support everyone’s freedom to have their own personal prejudice based on race, creed, gender and sexuality, as long as they stay silly thoughts in their head. I realize most intolerance is religiously based misinterpretation.

Neither I nor anyone else can stop anyone from their ingrained bias and prejudice. I do find it particularly interesting that some actually pretend to know what God is thinking; I don’t know what my girlfriend thinks, and she converses with me daily.

Luckily this is not about what the letter writer has decided God thinks. Nor is it about her own “personal” religious beliefs. This is about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Fortunately in this republic those two documents supersede any religious doctrine.

For those not quite familiar with the government of the United States, I urge you to put your good book down and read the essential documents upon which our country was founded. When you are done reading you may very well be shocked to discover that neither one of these documents mentions anything about following Judaic, Muslim, atheistic, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Sharia or Christian ideology. That’s not an accident, people!

The truth is that an individual’s interpretations of what God thinks about love in any form and more importantly someone’s “faith” are not the law of the land. And I actually thank God personally for this fact.

Leave a comment Comments → 27
  1. Fibonacci says:

    Don’t you know? Civilization as we know it will end if gays are allowed to marry. The sun will come up in the west, the oceans will dry up, volcanoes will blow all over the world, well you get the picture.

    My personal belief is that marriage is between a male and a female. But I DO have friends that are gay. They wear wedding rings and feel as if they are married. While I don’t think they are married, the truth is, they don’t care what I think. It is none of my business.

    I AM a religious person but am very glad that we don’t live in a theocracy, because–gasp–what if the official religion was not MY religion?

  2. menopaws says:

    Thank you for your letter. Amen!!!!!!!!!

  3. CrazyJim says:

    “most intolerance is religiously based misinterpretation“

    Lately I’ve never seen so many Christians being victims in this country if they have to adhere to societal rules that don’t support their religious dogma. They want to be the tail that wags the dog when it comes to what laws are passed so their religious sensitivities aren’t offended. And yes, they aren’t being very tolerant about it. Because they are the only ones here don’t you know?

  4. ErnestTBass says:

    So! What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

  5. stumpy567 says:

    You are absolutly right. The constitution or bill of rights make no mention of gay, straight, or otherwise predisposed sexual preference or religious inclination.
    It was probably not an issue when these documents were drafted. It was, most likley, not even given a thought because it was accepted that men would marry women at the time.
    Society may have evolved to accept other sexual preferences but heterosexual behavior seems to be dominant.
    Would you support a bill that allowed siblings to wed????

  6. beerBoy says:

    Would you support a bill that allowed siblings to wed????

    What does that have to do with this?

  7. Bandito says:

    “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

  8. ErnestTBass, what was the sin of the people of those cities – treating strangers and visitors with disrespect, one of the worst sins imaginable to the tribal societies of the Middle East.

    Cities in general were held in deep suspicion, and one of the morals of the story is that the tribal culture is far superior to the decadent and inhospitable city life.

    With people in general, but religions, especially, it is very important to create an “us against them” mentality to prove one’s own superiority and validate one’s own culture.

  9. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was:

    “In response, Lot refuses to give his guests to the inhabitants of Sodom and, instead, offers them his two virgin daughters to “do to them whatever you like.”

    Pimping out your virgin daughters.

    Next Bible question, please?

  10. Chippert says:

    The “followers of Jesus” tend to pick and choose which of his attributes they want to follow. Jesus repeatedly taught that they were NOT to become involved in politics or secular things. “Render unto Caesar” is just one of the places. He told them not to stand on the street corners and pray like the Pharisees (don’t make a spectacle of your religion), he told them to lay up their treasures in heaven, not here on the earth. He admonished them to set themselves apart from the world entirely. Even in his last days in the Garden of Gethsemane, he rebuked them for resisting the soldiers who came to arrest him. He never resisted an earthly law, did not attempt to change any law of the land. He did not tell any of his followers to do so either. In fact, he told them in his last message to go out into the world to tell them the good news, not force people to live as his followers thought was proper.

    So, Christians, are you trying to be truly “Christ like” as the name says, or do you just pick and choose?

  11. auwing1978 says:

    “Would you support a bill that allowed siblings to wed????”

    What would prompt you to as such a dumb question? Do you spend a a lot of your waking hours brooding about siblings being allowed to wed? I would be afraid to ask what other things you spend your time wondering about.

    Great letter BTW Mr. Gutierrez!

  12. “The constitution or bill of rights make no mention of gay, straight, or otherwise predisposed sexual preference or religious inclination.”

    It also makes no mention of marriage, which means it’s up to us to decide.
    Now, give one good reason, that isn’t a religious reason not to afford every single American citizen the very same rights.

  13. Bandito says:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;”

  14. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a right of personhood that predates the Constitution and is a basic human right.

    The right of privacy, also a basic right of personhood, covers any specific sex act that some people may find personally objectionable.

    The framers of the Constitution made it clear that the Constitution does not grant rights to the people or to the states. These rights aready existed. They clarified what actions could be taken by the federal government and states to infringe upon certain rights so that the country could work.

    The Constitution does not have to specifically grant the freedom to marry because it already existed. The states, not the federal government, have a right to restrict the right to certain marriages if they harm others, harm democracy or harm the indiviiduals engaged in such marriages.

    Already decided at the Supreme Court level is that states can restrict close relatives getting married because of proved harm to offspring and inheritance issues.

    Likewise states can restrict people too young to make contractual decisions from getting married. States can restrict polygamy because of harm to democracy and inheritance.

    None of those decisions were based on any religious argument. In fact, the Supreme Court said that religious arguments had no weight in deciding for or against marriage restrictions, only proved harm.

    We will see if any state can show that they have a legitimate interest in restricting gay marriages other than prejudice and intolerance. We will see if they can show that gay marriages harm anyone else.

    I doubt they will, since good science has shown that gay marriages and families headed by gay partners are just like other families.

  15. Harry_Anslinger says:

    Wow. The level of critical thinking and reasonableness in this letter and comments may have hit a new benchmark. Well done. Hope people reading actually learned something for a change.

  16. charliebucket says:

    well said tuddo.

    and well said roman, bandito, chip and others.

    frankly, as a Christian, I feel like I (and everyone) need to be protected from right wing Christians who want their beliefs as civil law.

  17. Anybody ever wonder where the good old American terms
    Spinster Aunt,
    Odd/Peculiar Uncle, or
    Confirmed batchlor refer to?

    9th Amendment states there are rights not mentioned in the Constitution and that not being mentioned does not lessen or demean those rights.

  18. slugoxyz says:

    Wow Tuddo. How objective and well written. You have no business bringing sensible logic to this forum. Just kidding.

    I appreciate learning on these things and Tuddo’s point of view is clear and educational. Thank you.

    Having said that – I still worry about the continued shift in social “norms”. I have no problem with anyone wishing to get married as long as it’s not incestuous (bad for the offspring) or contrary to laws of consent. My question is: if consent is a social judgment, what if that minority gains traction and moves that “norm”? I guess it depends what state you’re in but the marital age of consent is generally between 15-18 (although according to Wikipedia some states can waive the 15 if parents agree? Yikes). An animal can’t consent – right now but what if that minority (yikes) gains traction (who? The animals?)?

    I mean – I don’t care what you all do in the privacy of your own homes as long as you’re not hurting anyone or breaking too many laws but it seems we keep stretching those lines we’re forced to stay between. You can be pretty freaky and stay between the lines but it just seems that the wider we make them, the more people demand to reside outside of them. Am I wrong?

  19. slugoxyz, I think what you are seeing is overpopulation and squeezing people into smaller and smaller areas, not a higher percentage of people “outside the lines”.

    The rate of serious crime has actually decreased, but the percentage of petty crimes, edspecially minor drug usage, has increased. I think it is just easier to get caught in minor infractions.

    When the West was young, it was an outlet for society to send all the people who couldn’t abide by strict social codes in the East.

    Australia was an outlet for Britain.

    Couple the higher population and the closeness we all live in with instant media coverage, and I think we just see “weirdness” more often than we used to.

    btw, when some age restriction cases came before the Supreme Court, several states had to lower their ages and a few had to raise the age of consent. The lowering was mainly Eastern states that had based their original ages on menarche, which has dropped from 19 to 13 over 200 years. The raising was Southern and Western states who wanted quicker population growth.

    The Supreme Court did not define an exact age, but told the states they had to base it on current and relevant issues, like when a person is considered an adult for contracts or an adult for crimes in that state.

    I don’t think your concerns about animals is a real issue. It is not possible for some humans to give consent because of mental illness or severe cognition deficits, and no animal is anywhere near any human in cognitive abilities.

    Now, when the aliens arrive, the outer space kind, that will be an interesting test of all our “rights of personhood” issues.

  20. Siblings wed?

    The aristocrats used to do that all the time. They were quite religious.

  21. Agree with the writer 100%

  22. CrazyJim, there was an editorial column in either Friday or Saturday’s printed TNT explaining the difference between religious freedom (guaranteed in the constitution) & religious privilege (PROHIBITED in the constitution). I suggest reading it.

  23. charliebucket says:

    moo I read that article and it was pretty good, IMO. I think it didn’t go far enough to expound on a few points but it was good start.

    IMO, many people, too many, seem to think that not being able to do whatever (practice their specific religious beliefs) they want where ever they want without regard to others, is an infringement of religious freedom. I don’t. I also think one political party is simply throwing out that the other party is trying to take away religious freedom to see if it will ‘stick’ (as a political power move) and, sadly, it is sticking.

    I have never felt more secure in my constitutionally protected freedom of religion that under Pres. Obama and yet to listen to the republican party, they clamor he is trying to outlaw religion. The hyped up claims against religious freedom coming from the right are nothing but hyped, pandering politics. IMO.

  24. SafewayOrangeSoda says:

    Q: “So! What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?”

    A: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire”

    So- fornication and homosexuality.

    New Testament, yo.

  25. SafewayOrangeSoda, the preachers in the South in the 1950’s and 1960’s and almost all over the USA before that said “strange flesh” in that passage meant sex outside your race. They even testified in courts that the Bible said interracial marriage was a sin meriting death.

    Do you think they were wrong in that interpretation? Did God personally tell you that “strange flesh” meant another race like they claimed? Or did you hear your own voices telling hyou what that meant?

  26. SafewayOrangeSoda says:

    You’re even more of a moron than I have previously believed, and that’s pretty hard to top. Interracial marriage in the Bible is described, if you actually had any idea about what you’re talking about, in terms of “God’s Race”, which comprised the Jews, and the “Lesser Peoples”, or Gentiles. Marriage, and certainly sexual activity, outside of that group, was a generally forbidden practice. The term “strange flesh” in the Bible is not associated with it, and despite your apocryphal description of Democrat preachers trying to use it for political gain, once again you fall flat on your face.

  27. Safeway, I lived through the time I mentioned, sitting in sermon after sermon based on that passage. I went to a Southern Baptist seminary in the 1950’s that interpreted that passage and several other passages to mean that interracial marriage was forbidden. You can try to revise history by calling me names but it won’t alter the facts or the court records.

    Misusing the Bible’s teachings is a very convenient way for preachers to mislead their congregations and use the pulpit for political purposes that are totally against Jesus’ teachings.

    When gay marriage is the law of the land, people will revise their interpretations of much of the Bible’s passages they use against it like they have done with interracial marriages, especially since there is nothing to support their use of these passages the way they do, (unless you are a priest having sex in the temple) just like there is nothing to support any teachings against interracial marriages.

    Christians will realize that God made gay people in His image, too, and that any human who tries to speak for God and divine His will in these matters will always fall short.

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