Posted by
Playful Walrus on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:03:42 PM
Lots of Prop 8 stuff in the Los Angeles Times today. Jessica Garrison reports on "two groups of African American ministers" holding competing news conferences to support or denounce Prop 8. I didn’t realize “African American” was a religion.
"Marriage is between a man and a woman," said Dr. Frederick K.C. Price, who leads the 22,000-member Crenshaw Christian Center.
I agree. Price is right on this. Last I checked, he was wrong about a of other things, but that’s another subject entirely.
A few miles away at Lucy Florence Cultural Center in Leimert Park, a much smaller group of ministers -- three, as it turned out -- spoke against the measure.
Yet that’s all it takes to get media coverage.
Among their arguments: that African Americans, given their history of discrimination, should not be taking away rights.
Okay, but Prop 8 doesn’t take away rights. What if a court gave me the "right" to beat my wife? Should African Americans not vote to overturn that court ruling because it would be "taking away a right" from me?
The California Supreme Court this spring legalized same-sex marriage. Proposition 8 would amend the Constitution to prohibit it. A "yes" vote on the measure means that the Constitution would be amended to disallow gay marriage.
Ugh. They keep using this misleading language. Marriage existed before marriage licensing. "Gay marriage" will NOT be disallowed. No SWAT team is going to break up ceremonies, no Marshall will evict someone so they can't share a life together.
But opponents of the proposition say they think that black voters may be more tolerant than many political professionals predict.
Tolerance – what the California Supreme Court did was intolerant. Tolerance does NOT mean sanction!
Outside First African Methodist Episcopal Church in the West Adams district on a recent Sunday, meanwhile, many parishioners said they plan to vote against the measure.
"The Bible says judge not, less ye be judged," said Archie Shackles, 55, a tenor in the First AME choir.
That is taken totally out of context and misapplied to this situation. We have self-government. It is up to us to make judgments, just as we ARE judged.
"I have more important issues to deal with."
That’s what the marriage neutering activists are counting on – you being too busy to care if your vote was usurped. There was a time when you wouldn’t have been allowed to even vote, and you don’t care that a court usurped your voting rights?
Sandy Banks had a column about the involvement of churches in the issue.
On stage sharing stories were lawyers with tales of Christian-owned businesses sued or fined for refusing to serve gay weddings, parents worried about what their children are learning in classes, an ex-lesbian grateful for being delivered "by love and the power of the heavenly father" from her sexual attraction to women.
We’re not dealing with pure hypotheticals here. We have been stung before.
Columnist Steve Lopez had a very unoriginal take on the competing press conferences. If the paper is going to recycle the same arguments, I will use the same answers.
Off the top, I could name six dozen greater threats to children's futures than the prospect of same-sex people committing themselves to each other in love, especially in South Los Angeles.
There is no "love" test for getting a marriage license. Yes, there are other threats to the future out there. But the California Supreme Court made it necessary to deal with this particular threat now.
I always envy those who know precisely what Jesus would do.
If you haven’t already, accept Him as your Lord and Savior, pray, and study your Bible, and you’ll get a really good idea.
He goes on to mention the Roman Catholic Church molestation sandal, of course, before throwing in...
If supporters of Prop. 8 wish to literally interpret the Bible, Lee and Mackenzie said, why limit themselves to opposing gay marriage? They should also campaign for slavery, the subjugation of women and the beating of children.
So tired. This is lazy or dishonest. People who are supposed to be Bible preachers should know better. Greg Koukl recently covered this much better than I can.
I’ll conclude by mentioning again that one need not be religious nor even against neutering marriage to support Prop 8 – one could simply believe this is a matter for the voters of California, not courts. Also, voters have every right to base their votes on there worldviews, including their religion. Why is basing your vote on your religious beliefs any less legitimate than basing your vote on our hormones? I would argue it is more legitimate.