Home » Blogs » anne's blog

Continuing the conversation...

Submitted by anne on Fri, 2008-09-19 06:02.

I got a comment on Thursday about my...let's call it a rant...on Prop 102 here in Arizona, (to amend the state's constitution and define marriage as between "one man and one woman"). I wish the commenter had been willing to leave their name...

I'm going to respond here, in the hopes of continuing the dialogue and perhaps getting some answers. It's entirely possible that this particular commenter and I can't continue the dialogue because we cannot agree on some basic concepts.

I'll quote the post, snipping the full text of the mentioned Bible references (I'll try to link them, so you don't have to hunt down your/a Bible to know what was said).

Anonymous said:

"If I understood this post accurately, then I state the following:

I do not agree with homosexuality because it is a sin. Period. There is no room for acceptance of this behavior in our society. That said, I do not judge homosexual relationships; that is up to God to do. I offer this truth from the Word of God for consideration: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Society makes sin acceptable as a means to an easier end. What society doesn't understand is the easy path is not the right one. Matthew 7:13

Any secular viewpoint on this matter (Constitutional rights, etc.) is mere opinon, but only the Word of God is the prevailing & everlasting truth."

Okay, Anonymous. In America, you're permitted to believe that homosexuality is a sin. You are welcome to attend a church that preaches it and casts it out and so on. I'll even grant that society may change its views on things that were once considered sinful. For example:

"In 1958, the Christian fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell, at the time a defender of segregation, in a sermon railed against integration, warning that it would lead to miscegenation, which would "destroy our [white] race eventually."[12]

In the United States, segregationists and Christian identity groups have claimed that several verses in the Bible[13], for example the story of Phinehas and the so-called "curse of Ham", should be understood as referring to miscegenation and that these verses expressly forbid it. Most theologians read these verses as forbidding inter-religious marriage, rather than inter-racial marriage[14]."

Quoting from miscegenation at Wikipedia.

I'm sure there are people today who still believe these things to be true. To those people, I say it's impossible for me to continue to discuss this topic with them because we do not agree on basic principles.

If you're still here and reading, then I'll continue to respond to Anonymous. Let me repeat the last part of Anonymous' comment.

"Any secular viewpoint on this matter (Constitutional rights, etc.) is mere opinon, but only the Word of God is the prevailing & everlasting truth."

Mm. Well, I'm reasonably sure Anonymous and I really cannot continue to converse on this topic because this sounds like they belief their religious views should be codified into man's laws. And that's what our forefathers struggled to prevent when they wrote:

"Article the third [Amendment I] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

see it here.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Okay, you say, but that's the federal Congress. Sure. But the Fourteenth Amendment makes it clear that: "Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." see it here

Let me repeat a key part for emphasis:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

To Anonymous I say again: You can believe as you like, but the governments which make this country are limited in what they are permitted to do. I could wish for the Federal government to remember its own limitations. But in the meantime, I'm not going to help my state's government go against the Constitution.

I break it down to this quote:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

So, once again I ask to those who read here: why does Arizona need to pass an (illegal) amendment to the state constitution to prevent gay couples from marrying? Will it "pick your pocket" or "break your leg"?

The hour is late (it's 3 am!) and I'm tired. I'll try to fiddle with the CSS and create a "quoting block" so it's easier to see when I'm quoting someone. If I can make that happen, I'll edit this post for clarity.

ETA: I finally figured it out! Hopefully I haven't already over-used it in this single post!

»