Posted by
Playful Walrus on Friday, October 24, 2008 4:48:49 PM
You knew these were coming. The Los Angeles Times printed letters prompted by the paper's coverage of the involvement of "black" churches in Proposition 8.
Joel Marks of Chatsworth wrote:
We've been through this type of emotional issue before with the 1967 Loving vs. Virginia ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding interracial marriage.
Comparing this situation to Loving vs. Virginia is a tired ploy by the marriage neutering activists that just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. This court decision was a lot more like Roe v. Wade than that case. Interracial marriage existed and was recognized from the beginning of human history. Every major religion recognized it. In the U.S., some (not all) states banned it to stop something that was already going on. This was in an era when landlords and hotel operators could refuse to rent to couples who were not married, thus this really was a ban on their marriage, and they could be prosecuted, not simply denied a license. This is not so today. Today, we all have the freedom to live together and have ceremonies and such without fear of prosecution. Hotels check you in without regard to your marital status.
Furthermore, a woman of any race can bear children from a man of any race. Quite simply, interracial marriage is marriage.
Conversely, our marriage laws were not passed because same-sex couples were getting "married". This is a new phenomenon as religious institutions put membership numbers ahead of tradition, and homosexuality advocates look to reform all of society away from a heteronormative culture. Our marriage licensing laws simply recognized what already existed – marriage – something that united a bride and a groom. California did not create marriage. It recognized it.
Race is incidental to marriage, while sex is inherent.
We needed the court to protect a minority's rights.
The California Supreme Court violated the rights of the people.
Some do not consider gays to be a minority deserving of protection.
A homosexual person has the same God-given rights I do, and government should protect the rights of such a person the same as it works to protect mine. Neither one of our rights should be infringed.
In contrast, our state Supreme Court, in its carefully worded opinion, said this is indeed a group worthy of protection.
It is hardly protection when you force someone else to give you license against their will.
Mitchell Harris of La Verne got it right:
Lopez's sarcasm reaches its pitch when he states, "I always envy those who know precisely what Jesus would do." But teaching God's will is precisely what pastors are called to do. For those who do not attend church at all, it seems to come as a surprise that an evangelical pastor's teachings are based on the Bible.
Glenn M. Langdon of Garden Grove wrote:
After reading Lopez's column, I believe what we need is a proposition on a future state ballot that would amend the California Constitution to not allow Christians to get married.
Go for it. But this isn’t about "allowing" anyone to do anything. Same-sex couples don’t have to ask for anyone’s permission to "marry" each other. But when you ask someone else (the people of California) for something (a license), we have the right to say "no". (Some homosexuality advocates have said "we're not asking" - and we know all to well that they are demanding. But we still have the right to say "no". And even if you point a gun at our heads and get us all to vote your way, it will still never really be marriage; only a government-sanctioned counterfeit.)