COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

Your friend is quite right. Who would want to live in a state where doctors can’t discriminate against gays and lesbian.

Comment by Matt on 10/29/08 at 3:06 pm

Touche.

Comment by Brad A. Greenberg on 10/29/08 at 3:27 pm

i have been struggling with the same issue.  i am in no ways going to advocate for Prop 8, as just like you, I don’t feel any compulsion to decide for other people what they can and cannot do.

However, voting is an interesting thing.  Basically, the government is asking my opinion on the subject.  Obviously, as an evangelical, i believe that homosexuality is a perversion, and therefore I will not propogate that lifestyle within my own life.  So why shouldn’t I accurately reflect my own views for my own life when asked by my government?  If prop 8 gets voted down; well big deal, I never felt the need to tell others what to do…but if I vote No, aren’t I misrepresenting myself?  I may be okay with you doing whatever it is you want with your life, in a passive, you do your thing, i do mine, even if i don’t approve of your thing sort of way; but that doesn’t mean I have to represent myself as being for it.  I am voting yes on prop 8 because the government wants to know what I think about myself, and I believe that if I was to have a homosexual relationship, God would not recognize it as a marriage, but as a perversion.

I am afraid that by voting No Brad, either you have allowed others to decide what you represent, or what you represent has changed from what I have known…which is fine, but we will have to disagree on your knew found views of life lived under God.

Comment by ethan on 10/29/08 at 5:37 pm

I think I’m taking a libertarian approach on this issue. And I would just as soon not vote on it at all. But since the measure is on the ballot, I’d rather vote in a manner that allows other to enjoy the liberties I have, even when I disagree with their behavior.

Comment by Brad A. Greenberg on 10/29/08 at 5:58 pm

I disagree.

I don’t have so much a problem with people doing as they please.  Even though I agree it is a perversion, I don’t feel it is the governments place to regulate this perversion.  I do however feel the need to stand up when I feel like this perversion is leading to acceptance and promotion of the perversion as a acceptable and correct way of life.  I don’t believe in adoption by gay couples and i certainly don’t want my children reading gay Cinderella books while in kindergarten.  This is the path we walk down and this is what I am tempted to believe this prop would help stop from happening.

Comment by t on 10/29/08 at 6:52 pm

brad,

you had the option not to vote on it at all.  by voting No, you actually voiced your opinion, rather than abstaining.  you see, the ballot box can’t tell the difference between your No and a super pro-homosexuality No; they are the same.  If you really felt that this issue should not be up for vote, then who should make the decision?  We are a democracy, don’t the people get to decide?  They asked your opinion, and you gave them one; you told the government that you feel homosexuals should be allowed to call their unions marriage, the same term you and I use for our relationships with our spouses.

If you want to vote No, that is fine.  But don’t try and back out of it as soon as you have done it.  Man up.  Like i said before, you have either allowed others to represent your beliefs for you; or your beliefs do not represent true evangelical beliefs.  Like you said, there are believers who don’t view homosexuality as a sin, in which case, they should vote No.  Is that you?  If so, that would be a change from what I view as evangelical belief, and definitely a change from the views you have espoused in the past.

Comment by ethan on 10/29/08 at 7:57 pm

I’m not backing out of my vote. If I was weak in my opinion, why would I have ever shared how I voted.

I was simply saying that by voting “no” I wasn’t voting “yes” for homosexuality. I was voting “no” on government moralizing and voting “yes” on equal rights, even when it makes me and my evangelical friends uncomfortable.

Comment by Brad A. Greenberg on 10/29/08 at 8:04 pm

stewie griffin says it best:
“whatever helps you sleep at night…bitch”

last i checked Prop 8 was about homosexual marriage…not government moralizing.  when the government moralizing prop comes up for vote, i will vote No.  as for Equal Rights…when that prop comes up for vote, I will vote Yes.  Too bad, those weren’t the props on the ballot.  “me and my evangelical friends uncomfortable”?  if you mean me, then please, you’ll have to try harder to get me uncomfortable.  it’s your sticking your head in the sand and pretending that you are voting for equal rights that makes me uncomfortable, not homosexual marriage.

Comment by ethan on 10/29/08 at 8:09 pm

Well, in that case, I think Cartmen said it best last week:

“There’s just no talking to this guy.”

Comment by Brad A. Greenberg on 10/29/08 at 8:36 pm

A lot of Americans, both Christian and non, believe that Mormonism is a perversion of Christianity.  So shall we have a proclamation in the next election saying that only non Mormons may marry in California…  Shall we have one saying that only Catholicism shall be considered a proper religion in California…
  Should every Californian not be treated as equals under the law, as the present Constitution guarantees. 
  Changing the Constitution in order to take away rights from others is a disgusting precedent.  As far as I`m concerned, if prop 8 were to pass, it would be a trashing of the spirit of what a Constitution represents in a free society.
  This whole thing is making me so disillusioned with the Mormons.  Individuals should allow their religion to control their own lives, not try to use it to change laws to attack others.

Comment by GV on 10/29/08 at 11:31 pm

And by the way, proposition 8`s Alliance Defense Fund will not allow Jews in paid positions, even for clerical work.  And the Mormons treated blacks as inferior until 1974.  It shouldn`t be any surprise that these are the groups trying to change the law to treat others as inferior under the law.

Comment by GV on 10/29/08 at 11:39 pm

Why I’m voting yes:

I voted yes on 22.  My vote was overturned by judges who invented a new protected class, based on the theory someone’s sexual preference should be used as a basis for judging laws. I disagree it should.  Homosexuals already have civil unions that the court agreed have all the rights marriage has.  The reason they threw out Prop 22 was that since civil unions = marriage, why not call it marriage.  But that ignores both the will of the people and the fact that marriage, prior to prop 22 undefined, had been understood throughout the centuries of writing laws into the books, as being a heterosexual affair.  Changing that definition now is akin to taking a 100 page contract and adding a new paragraph at the beginning without reading the entire contract. Who knows how that new paragraph will affect what’s on page 97, or whether the contract will function as intended.  Proceeding down the path of civil unions (a whole new contract) is a much safer path, less likely to result in unintended consequences.  Meanwhile gay people can marry, just they must marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.  They can still love who they want, have sex with who they want, and even have a committed, socially-approved relationship with whoever they want.  But it’s not called marriage.  Labels matter.  If you don’t agree, why is the homosexual community fighting this so hard?

Comment by pbj on 10/30/08 at 12:17 am

if you believe that voting for Prop 8 provides further liberties for homosexuals than you are absolutely mistaken.  and so far, it seems like you had no idea what you were voting for or against anyways.  if you are going to make a public statement declaring your decision to vote for/against something at least have the decency to have a better reason than a bunch of mumbo jumbo about legislating morality and equal rights.

PBJ hit the nail on the head; homosexuals can still love who they want, have sex with who they want, and have relationships with whoever they want…but it certainly isn’t what the Bible calls marriage.  I am not advocating that the Bible be used by our politicians to craft laws, but I am definitely saying that any Christian, Jew, or Muslim if they believe in their Holy Scriptures, shouldn’t sell them out for a constitution.

Now Brad, you would be off the hook if you told me you believed that homosexuality was, under YOUR belief system, a perfectly acceptable lifestyle.  If you believe that, then your vote makes perfect sense.  After all, YOUR vote should represent YOUR belief system.

Bottom line, it doesn’t matter how this vote goes; even if the state wants to call these civil unions a marriage…I know that this form of relationship may be a marriage under the state, but it is certainly not a marriage under God.

Comment by ethan on 10/30/08 at 4:47 am

Is it a marriage under God if performed in a Christian church, as many already have been?

I believe that regardless of Prop 8, tolerance of homosexuality will be taught in school.  How can it not, with students getting teased, bullied, and even killed due to their sexuality?  Tolerance is very different to acceptance, and those who don’t see that tend to lack both.

I voted no on Prop 8 because I think it is about equality and what’s more, it is about freedom of religion as well.  My religion and place of worship is accepting of and performs gay marriages.  As do many others.  Why does one religious interpretation trump mine, especially when mine isn’t infringing on your right to freely practice your religion?

Comment by Courtney on 10/30/08 at 9:22 pm

courtney,

you are precisely the person who should vote No on Prop 8.  Though I disagree that it is about equality.  This Prop is only about a definition for the term Marriage, and in your case, if you see nothing wrong with the homosexual lifestyle…well, then you should see nothing wrong with the defnition of marriage including homosexuals.

I should be clear that when I say, under God, I am of course referencing my own personal beliefs that God does not honor the homosexual lifestyle.  My reading of scripture has taught me, and I believe that God views homosexuality as a perversion.  So when I say ‘under God’ I am not referencing any certain location; rather what I view as acceptable, honorable, and pleasing to God.

As for teaching tolerance of homosexuality in schools; I am in total support and agree that every student should be taught to not only tolerate but learn to love all; even if they disagree with those peoples choices.  Love doesn’t have to mean approval; and disagreeing with one’s lifestyle does not have to mean hate.

I was challenging Brad because in my personal relationship with him, he has expressed views different than yours and similar to mine.  Therefore, I felt that he was not accurately reflecting his belief system through his vote…but instead was pretending that the Prop is about rights or legislating morality; when the Prop is strictly about a definition for a word.

Comment by ethan on 10/31/08 at 1:25 am

I often say that for (religious) Jews there is no possible separation between ‘church’ and state. The identity of the Bible as the ‘law’ makes that impossible, The law includes both social and spiritual regulation. All bible-based societies have had to deal with this and reconcile it somehow.

America however is not a Bible-based society. It is fundamentally based on a live-and-let-live concept. If marriage is a religious convention (it is) than America has no business being involved with it. If marriage is a cultural convention (that too) than America has no business being involved with it either. As long as the definition of marriage is uncontroversial it doesn’t matter that America defined marriage in a traditional way.

But in the face of challenge that is not long-term sustainable from a Constitutional POV. You can see that what is at stake here is the forcing of a one-size-fits-all definition.

My oft-stated solution for the politicization of the term is for Amercia to totally deregulate marriage. Anyone should be free from the point of view of the State to form any relationships they want and call them anything they want. Bi-. Tri-. Same-. Group-. Multi-. Poly-. Not Pedo-, because the State cannot sanction agreeements between non-responsible parties subject to exploitation. However. The State cannot then force any individual or group or business or entity to accept the definition of others under threat of discrimination and bias. I suspect that the 98-99% of the population will find an equilibrium, and the 1-2% will find themselves playing with themselves.

The linch-pin of this approach is to free ourselves from the idea that marriage is a protected ‘right’. It is not. How can something that requires mutual cooperation be a right for either one of them. Soail contract, y’know.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 10/31/08 at 2:49 am

ben,
your idea is genius in my opinion.  i was having lunch with a pastor today, and I brought up this idea to him.  I think you had mentioned it in a prior post.  I am absolutely for deregulating marriage and thus, disallowing government to be involved in the whole process.

This would allow Christians, who believe in traditional marrige, to hold on to their beliefs without pressure from the state to redefine what their scriptures teach.  This is a case where the state is getting involved with the church, not the other way around.

Comment by ethan on 10/31/08 at 3:51 am

Thank you. I have been shopping the idea around for a couple of years and you are apparently the first person who has grokked it.

Marriage by government is at heart a religious accommodation, like the Sabbath laws used to be. It is a holdover from the days when the government was intermixed with the state by Divine Right etc. It costs a lot to license and regulate and enforce it (more than it used to) but it is worth it because of the win-win benefits of subcontracting provision for our mini-citizens, the children. The only reason that marriage isn’t defined in the Constitution is that nobody dreamed it would be necessary. One difference between the American Constitution and the Israelite Constitution (the Bible), whose author truly has seen everything and takes nothing for granted. Once we might have said that if God had not told us than we would have figured it out but today it is obvious that that is not so.

As long as the government’s policy was congruent with the natural sexual process and orderly social process favored by God, there was no need to rock the boat. For example, if the government was willing to guarantee that kosher food met kosher standards I would not be so idealistic as to oppose it, but the party’s over when political activists put lipstick on a pig and get the government to call it kosher (and enforces moral and legal acceptance of that definition). That vulnerability is the trade-off. It’s not working anymore. The government as the authority on the subject is the tail wagging the dog. From recognizing a God-given religious relationship, to institutionalizing the relationship, to decoupling the relationship from the religion, to redefining the relationship as a civil right, to decoupling the relationship from nature altogether. That’s what happens when you monkey around with God’s law, pun intended.

As we now see the US Constitution, there is no legal way to protect the definition of marriage. Theproof is that the two current efforts by the Church (generically speaking) is to push for State and US Constitutional Amendments, a politically and financially enormous project and in my opinion futile. It’s an admission that the game is lost and we want to arbitrarily change the rules, something that would not survive two decades before being overturned.

It’s time to take our football and go home. At ZERO cost, leave them holding an empty bag. Let gay people call it marriage or let them call it a major-league contract, and let us call it shackmating, and be free to disagree without fear of accusations of bigotry or civil rights violations and most especially employment obligations. We might even free up a trillion dollars in civil enforcement and litigation of marriage laws to help pay for the economic meltdown.

And the way is wide open to make various civil adjustments for the costs and committments of the propagation and rearing of children, something applicable to certain provably healthy relationships and not others, alas

Comment by Ben Plonie on 10/31/08 at 2:27 pm

I do not hate anyone from the gay community and I am voting “yes” on prop 8.  It’s obvious to me from various articles and statements I have read that there are those who don’t think it is possible to put these two assertions in the same sentence.  But I am writing this to let people know that there are many, many people who are voting “yes” on 8 and are not doing so out of hate.  I am not motivated by hate.  The reason I go out and encourage people to vote “yes” and have a “yes” sign in my yard is motivated by my love for God and His laws and commandments.  As a Christian, I believe with all my soul that God Himself started this institution called marriage at the beginning of time and established it as a union between a man and a woman; that’s it!  No addendums,  no “but maybe later”s,  a union between a man and a woman.  I am working to keep God’s institution the way He established it; nothing more and nothing less.

Comment by Catherine on 10/31/08 at 5:20 pm

Relying simply on “majority rule” as a basis of democracy leads to the majority persecuting a minority even in a case that is forbidden by the constitution.  It is the entire purpose of the judicial branch to prevent “mob rule” from ignoring what is written in the constitution.

If you believe your religion is against the homosexual lifestyle, voting “no” on proposition 8 will not change that.  However voting “yes” WILL be in violation of the “equal protection under the law” clause of the constitution.

Any church can refuse to marry any heterosexual couple for any reason.  Proposition 8 in no way affects that.

In any case relying on religious beliefs to determine the laws of a society is what goes on in Iran.  I personally don’t want to live in such a society.

Comment by Nonzealot on 10/31/08 at 6:09 pm

pbj,

You completely miss the genius of the American system of government. The courts were instituted, in part, to protect minorities from the TYRANNY of the majority. It doesn’t matter what you believe in a religious sense, or what I believe in a religious sense—what matters is protection of *all* people under our system of government. To impose your beliefs on others is not only *wrong* it is un-American.

Comment by Webster on 10/31/08 at 11:07 pm

pbj,

I love your ideas on protecting the “sanctity” of marriage:

“Meanwhile gay people can marry, just they must marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.  They can still love who they want, have sex with who they want, and even have a committed, socially-approved relationship with whoever they want.  But it’s not called marriage.”

So feel people can get married, then are free to do all the things you describe?  You’re just fine with that?  And you claim to be defending marriage?

Brad Greenberg, you did the right thing voting No.  After all, ALL Berliners in the 1930’s weren’t virulent anti-semites.  Initially, the one’s who disagreed with what was going on just said nothing while a segment of their population lost its rights and were persecuted by a loud bunch of dangerous idiots.

Comment by Nonzealot on 11/01/08 at 1:01 am

Nonzealot and Webster
This backwards discussion is the reason I promote deregulation and privatization of marriage, in order to prevent citizens to be forced to recognize and defend and protect the definitions of others. By what right for example can you restrict traditional Muslims from having four wives? And then Wiccans from having four husbands? There is no way without Prop 8 holding the fort. How many times does everybody have to go through this? Once you open this can of worms society will go on the path of resembling the ‘Cantina’ in Star Wars.

But you are buying into the ‘equal rights’ and ‘equal protection’ argument which does not really apply. It is a cynical manipulation of the concepts of ‘rights’ vs. ‘privilieges’.

It is not a right for people to marry, nor a protection of a right. It is a privilege. The State only acts as a licencing agent. it is the right of society to license or withhold licensing based upon its interests. For example, an ex-convict cannot obtain a firearms license and has no recourse to constitutional equal protection. does that make him a second class citizen? Maybe, it is an interesting question and that might be a useful model.

If you don’t like that one, a more accessable example is that of licensing drivers. All kinds of physical, mental and social impairments can get a person denied a drivers license. In fact (in New York at least) the drivers manual states that it is a privilege; the police have the right to confiscate your license on the spot if they subjectively don’t like your driving or your attitude, and since it is a privilege and not a right there is no recourse to the courts.

Considering as I did the great costs to the state of administering marriage obligations and custody and divorce, if the right road is to ditch the whole mess, should the state add on the burden by starting to bring in new experimental classes of marriage. The court systems will become a farce.

Once the abstract principle of ‘equal’ this and that does not apply, it is realy simple to restrict the debate to what constitutes a clearly viable and prudent environment for child-rearing, which I don’t think will take much proving using readily available demographic and social services data.

And notice I said all that without once bringing in the ‘G’ word.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/02/08 at 1:47 am

Ben,

All your reasoning for denying a segment of the population the right to marry relys on labeling that segment of the population as “criminals” or “suffering from some sort of impairment”.  The vast majority of homosexuals are neither, so the entire group shouldn’t be treated as such.

Furthermore if marriage was a “privilege” and not a “right”, then the state would be able to deny marriage to people who have been divorced multiple times.

Thus marriage is a “right”.

The children issues you raise are primarily a concern for the over 50% of hetero-sexual divorces that occur.  Let’s stick to the issue at hand.

Also just because we allowed inter-racial couples to marry, doesn’t mean people can marry their dogs, or have multiple wives/husbands.  That argument didn’t work then, and it’s just as silly now.

Ultimately no one is asking you to endorse or accept anything or change your life in any way.  If two gay guys or two gay women down the street want to get married, what business is that of yours?  It doesn’t affect you in any way.  Whether they get married or not, they’re still gay, and still living down the street from you.  Nothing will change that affects you.  They only really want recognition from the state.

Comment by Nonzealot on 11/02/08 at 3:19 am

Brad…. WWJKD?

(what would Josh Kemble do?)

Comment by motodavey on 11/03/08 at 7:48 pm

Oh, I think he’d sing about the good ol’ daze.

Comment by Brad A. Greenberg on 11/03/08 at 7:55 pm

There is a certain sameness to these blog posts and arguments and so there must be to my responses as well.

A marriage is not someone a citizen does alone, but is a corporate entity so to speak. It confers non-standard privileges and obligation on the state, and therefore may and should be limited to those that require such. According to Article 16 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sections 1 and 3, marriage is a combined right for a man and a woman and the family is entitled to protection by society and the state. It is not the right of an individual which makes no sense or or any arbitrary couple or combination.

It is legitimate to state that a couple consisting of the same sex is ‘impaired’ by reference to the type of couple that creates and sustains natural families as per the Declaration. And the aspect of children, at least in principle is actually the central once for society and the state to address. It cannot be dismissed just to isolate and spotlight an artificial principle. There is really no other reason for the state to become involved in people lives and loves.

I search in vain for the issue of ‘racial’ being involved here. From any perspective other than the narrowest scientific one, race is non-existent. The country tore itself apart over that one. Gender on the other hand is core to social structure and relations and their supporting legal framework. If you redefine marriage to disregard gender, than there is no legally defensible way to draw a hard definition. The ‘dog’ argument may be far fetched, (although people do will their posessions to their pets), but not the group one and even an assault on age limitations. ‘Silly’ doesn’t cut it. I recently spoke to a woman who became pregnant at age 11.

I say just the same as you; laws against gay behavior and relations have been eliminated and tolerance is the norm. Let the gay couples get married informally and privately and change nothing. But recognition from the state first of all changes the definition of all existing marriages as a subset of something with which they do not agree, and on a practical level drags in all kinds of legally complicated and expensive accomodations and protections and enforcements that should be reserved for necessity and not vanity. and opens the door to unlimited redefinitions of marriage.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/12/08 at 1:55 pm

Future Police State Emerges on Prop 8 Protest (11.08.08)

http://framingtheworld.com/videos/othervideo.html

Comment by Paul on 11/15/08 at 1:20 am

You know, I’m quite open-minded, and I think that any two people who are willing to create a civil union should be allowed to.
On the other hand, I respect the the efforts of those families who devoted them to raising children in Christian faith, and with their moral values.
So, this is the issue to discuss, not shout.

Comment by dildo on 9/17/09 at 5:23 am

So why not discuss it? Oh, spam. So Sorry. Carry on.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 9/17/09 at 5:47 am

I would have voted No. Im so sick of this damn issue. Especially how people try to compare Gay-ism to Racism. It is so not even close. An issues of apples and oranges. Not apples and apples.

Comment by American Constitution on 11/27/09 at 12:58 am

1st all you should be doing is building the 3rd temple on the northern plan and doing the head bouncing thing regardless of action in the mideast.  Next the gay marriage ruling and all gay marriage ruling plus the abortion ruling are all fake calls.  You cannot change the fed/state constitution without ammendment (include word definitions and principles at the time of the writing).  No need for any prop 8 election and the CA supreme justices should be recalled and the guv should resign for his role in the prop 8 court ruling and this include the current GOP guv canditate Meg Whitman (wonder how many H1b visas ebay has faked).

Comment by br on 2/01/10 at 4:14 pm

There are LGBT people who osppoe gay marriage. If Stonewall set out to promote the the opinions of all LGBT people they’d soon find they had set themselves an impossible task. There are many different strands to LGBT equality and each individual LGBT person puts a different priority on each of them. If stonewall are content to pick up _any_ of these strands and further them then I value their work. Energy can be directed at attacking the establishments and individuals making concerted efforts to ensure no strands are picked up at all. To see this energy direced at attacking an organsiation helping further equalty strands, and not at those directly opposing them, makes me rather sad.

Comment by Odai on 3/22/12 at 1:24 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

Blog Archive

• By Month
• Categories

• By Month
• Categories