Posted by
Playful Walrus on Monday, June 23, 2008 7:34:46 PM
I'm back for now, and I've filtered through lots of coverage of marriage neutering in California. Much of it I won't even address because it is repetitive or puffy and simply there to glorify the neutering process.
I want to start out with a couple of letters to the Orange County Register.
Scotty Roberts of Laguna Beach:
As a heterosexual, married male, I want to ask this question of those who are like me or who are religious: How will [same-sex] marriages affect, change, harm, enhance or do anything to you or your relationships?
1) State-issued marriage licenses have already been neutered, removing “bride” and “groom” and this dishonoring marriage, men, and women. I’m married, I’m a man, and I love a woman, and I hope that someday my daughter will get married – so that has an impact me.
2) The state’s official policy now is that reproductive-type relationships are no different than any other kind of relationship, even though this is demonstrably untrue.
3) The state’s official policy is now that the kind of sodomy that has done nothing productive for society but has spread disease and caused injury is equivalent to coitus, which, by contrast, is how we all got here.
4) The state’s official policy in this case is now that men and women are entirely interchangeable, even though the state fails to apply this in practice in other areas.
5) Children will no longer have any right to having both a mother and a father.
6) My vote has been invalidated.
7) It is now possible to get judges to overturn the will of the people to force the issuing of state-issued licenses.
Will you be penalized or taxed?
We will all be penalized as marriage is further devalued, as is masculinity and femininity.
The reason this institution came into being was to protect and give legitimacy and security to vulnerable mommies and children. Other than this, it is simply a statement to the world of mutual commitment between two people. I see no reason why any two unrelated individuals should be legally prohibited from doing such a thing.
I see no reason for the state to license non-reproductive-type relationships as marriage, or the compelling reason to overturn the vote of the people.
Kenneth Burke of Anaheim:
[Same-sex] marriage in California has been legal for two hours as I write this. There are no reports of earthquakes or tsunamis, the sun has not burned out, and the Earth has not tilted off its axis.
None of those things happened under Nazi Germany, either, or when someone pours used motor oil down a storm drain, or when someone steals something from a store. They didn't happen when we went into Iraq.
There are some immediate effects – couples can no longer be recognized as “bride and groom”, for example, which is sad. But the most profound effects will take longer to kick in – a drop in marriage rates, an increase in illegitimacy, more children raised without a mother or without a father, skewed marriage statistics in regards to fidelity, domestic violence, and more.
I found this morsel in the Los Angeles Times:
In San Bernardino, staffers at the Hall of Records quietly removed their suddenly dated bride-and-groom souvenir glassware. Inside a display case, a few groom-groom and bride-bride photos soon complemented those of happy heterosexual couples.
But in Oakland, Louis Timphony, 59, and James Gormley, 63, leafed through a booklet titled "Your Future Together," a keepsake courtesy of the Alameda County clerk's office.
"I hope they get this updated," Timphony said after noting the sections on genetic diseases and family planning.
So sad.
Los Angeles Times staff writer Duke Helfand checks in on the religious take.
Some note that the Bible depicts man-lying-with-man as an "abomination," while others say it speaks of God's love for all people created in his image.
That’s not a contradiction.
Nonsense, says the Rev. Mel White, a former Fuller professor and evangelical author who married his partner of 27 years in a ceremony Wednesday at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena.
White calls the Bible a living document that must be understood in its historical context -- a view shared by reform-minded clergy and theologians from other faiths.
Early Jews and Christians, White said, defended a heterosexual ethic to ensure the continuity of tenuous tribal communities. These religious pioneers, he added, had no way of foreseeing modern advances in psychology and other fields that would reveal homosexuality as an orientation rather than a choice.
"The Bible says as much about sexual orientation as it does about toasters or nuclear reactors," White said. "We have to grow with the times."
This is clearly someone who doesn’t see the Bible as the Word of God. The Bible not only condemns sexual activity outside of marriage, it presents marriage as a sacred thing between a man and a woman.
Conservatives in the three religions largely interpret the passages the same way. There is nothing wrong with being gay, they say. Acting on homosexual impulses, however, is another matter.
"The church says that homosexuals should be treated with love and respect, but redefining the natural and divine institution of marriage is simply something we are not able to do," said Father Marcos Gonzalez of St. John Chrysostom, a Roman Catholic parish in Inglewood that serves 9,000 families.
Right.
But other clergy criticize what they see as a selective analysis of the texts. Jesus condemned divorce and remarriage, they point out, but that hasn't stopped many Christians from splitting and remarrying.
Christians do all sorts of things. That doesn’t mean two men can make holy matrimony.
The Old Testament not only denounces adulterers and children who curse their parents, it demands the death penalty for both. It prohibits sex between husbands and wives during menstruation, even though theologians acknowledge the practice occurs without any formal reprimands.
Context, context, context! The homosexuality activists love to try this, but it doesn’t hold up. When you take the Bible as a whole, homosexual behavior is wrong, then and now.
Los Angeles Times staff writer Maura Dolan has this interesting note:
Supporters of [neutered marriage] have asked the California Supreme Court to block a November ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriages.
How tolerant of them,
In a legal brief filed late Friday with the high court, the gay rights groups argue that the initiative is a "revision" of the state Constitution, which would require involvement of the Legislature, rather than simply an amendment, which can be approved by a majority vote in an election.
Huh? No, it is an amendment.
They will stop at nothing.
Here are some letters to the Los Angeles Times:
Stephanie Campbell of Costa Mesa:
The California Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage does not confine religious people to the sanctuary.
I beg to differ… if I am still allowed.
The examples portrayed in Marc Stern's Op-Ed article are misguided. If Catholic Charities chooses to avoid anti-discrimination laws by stopping adoption placement, that's its decision.
Yes, and if Gitmo detainees decide to starve themselves because we won’t give them anything but pork to eat, well, that’s their decision, too.
Religious freedom does not give such organizations the right to violate discrimination laws.
I see something in the Constitution about religious freedom and property rights. I don’t see anything in there about having to pretend that the voluntary relationship between two men is the same thing as a man and a woman.
And this ruling does not give same-sex couples the right to force religious individuals or organizations to act out of accord with their faith.
Can I quote you on that in the future?
I suggest Stern substitute "Jewish" for "same-sex" and see if his opinions remain the same.
Yes, well, “Jewish wedding” isn’t an oxymoron.
Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of the Interfaith Alliance in Washington:
He would rather see the government impose one religious view of marriage on a religiously diverse nation.
No established religion has a history of recognizing anything but the union of a man and a woman as marriage. And one need not be religious to agree that state-issued marriage licensing should be kept to something uniting the sexes.
For the good of religion and for the good of the nation, government should stay out of our temples, synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras and churches.
And judges should keep their hands off of my ballot.
Los Angeles Times staff writer Jason Song checks in on the City of L.A. mayor's contribution.
Mayor [Tony Villar] will officiate at his first gay marriage ceremony today at Los Angeles City Hall, his office announced.
Why would anyone who takes marriage seriously want a known adulterer to officiate?
The ceremony will join movie producer Bruce Cohen, whose films include the Academy Award winner "American Beauty," and art consultant Gabriel Catone.
What a shock that the producer of that movie is a homosexual guy.
Just another great day in the neutering of marriage licensing and the mockery of marriage.