Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 4, 2010


A Federal Judge today overturned California's ban on same sex marriage. My first response to that is why should anyone even care about same sex marriage. And before all the liberals, and other sane people also, start commenting, I mean that in a positive way.

All the groups that claim that same-sex marriage is destroying the moral fiber of our nation seem to be looking at the issue with blinders on. I have yet to hear any logical arguments as to exactly how the destruction of "traditional" marriage is being accomplished by same gender couples.

Maybe some of the "family values" purveyors may want to look at taking a different approach. From what I can see, it isn't same sex marriages that are destroying the institution of marriage, it is divorce that is destroying the institution of marriage. Some of the loudest voices for "traditional" marriage are actually on their second or third marriages themselves.

The Larry Kings, Donald Trumps and Elizabeth Taylor's of the world have done more to destroy the institution of marriage than any same gender couple could ever do. It has become far too easy to just dissolve a union entered into by two adults when the going gets tough. In many cases, children resulting from the marriage become the pawns in the divorce and we wonder why the kids grow up having issues.

I still look at the institution of marriage as a union that means something. I know, that's easy for me to say because I'm single. But I had the luxury of watching my parents who were married for 53 years when my father passed away. I'm sure it wasn't always easy for them, but I think they remembered those vows they took, "for better or worse, til death do us part". I know that sounds corny to some, but as in a marriage or even an agreement between friends, your word is all you have and should mean something.

Even after 53 years my parents were like newlyweds, holding hands whenever they could and being there for each other, right until the last breath was taken by my dad. Who are we to decide who has the right to have a relationship like that?

I'm not going to even get into the rights issues because most likely that battle will go on for years, but in the mean time,the zealots who consistently quote religious reasons for their opposition may want to look at the "good book" a little closer.

I am in no way a biblical scholar, not even close, but it seems that if people are going to use a document to defend a position whether it is the Bible or the US Constitution or even State Statutes, they need to be reviewed in their totality. Using select portions and ignoring the big picture is misleading and wrong.

I found the following letter on the Internet and it was apparently sent to radio crank, I mean personality, Dr. Laura Schlesinger after one of her radio rants. At first I thought it was amusing, but then it proves a very serious point. The Bible, as is also true with our Constitution and Bill of Rights, is a "living" and ever changing document and must be interpreted with intelligence and common sense as our society continues to change.

Here's the letter to Dr. Laura: (please keep the comments civil, this could be the point where I start moderating posts, hopefully not)

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.

I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
God's Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.
How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable
expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,


Bruce Rubenstein said...

Kevin...well said...the Judge's decision states in laymen's terms that gay marriage cannot be stifled via Prop 8 as it is a violation of the 14th amendment and the state has " no rational basis" to deny same sex marriage to those couples wishing to get married.

I believe the 9th Circuit will affirm the Judge's decision and then the proponents of Prop 8 probably will file a Writ of Certeori for the Supreme Court to hear the matter....time will tell as this winds it way there,but it certainly is a huge win for those of us in America today that believe in equal rights and same sex marriage.

BTW we dont have the right for Prop 8 type referendums here in Connecticut, so the right wing and tea party folks cannot overturn our Supremem Court decision to allow same sex marriage.

Anonymous said...

unfortunally come and sense has been lost for the most part in this country... I MISS THE USA of just not so long ago.

Matt said...

As far the the Church goes, their views on gays stem from their close ties to the government during history, particularly during Feudal rule.

The government gets its taxes from the people and when the people use condoms, have abortions, and pick someone of the same sex as a life partner the population can't grow. Hence less "surfs" to tax.

At lest the Church is consistent in their beliefs so when a Priest is caught molesting an alter boy they are dealt with harshly. Oh' wait a second, that's right they are forgiven and moved to a new parish.

Live and let live. If two people are happy and want to get married they should be allowed. Who are we to pass judgment?

(send your angry email to Kevin)


Live and let live. If two people are happy and want to get married they should be allowed. Who are we to pass judgment?

The question is not whether to be tolerant; the states and the country are. It was never the purpose of the institution of marriage to discriminate against homosexuals. And, it was certainly never the point of the 14th amendment to the u.s. constitution to address the question of sexual orientation. The point is that this judge is stretching (to say the least) the terms of the constitution to get a result that is more properly the function of the political branches to achieve (or not). A victory for "equal rights," perhaps, but a great loss to those of us who believe in a constitutional republic with limited and enumerated powers delegated to different branches and states. I'm with anon.; miss the U.S. of not so long ago.

Matt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

Peter, I understand what you are saying but I think the real point is it's NO ONES business to legislate (hence judge) who and how people want to share their lives with but the people who are in that relationship.

Arguing over what branch of government should be deciding a person's life style is like debating over which thug should be allowed to rob me when I'm walking down the street.

It never ceases to amaze me how willingly people forfeit their basic human rights over to our government.

peter brush said...

To what "basic human right" do you refer? I'm as opposed as the next guy to the ongoing expansion of the government, particularly the federal one. I'm all on board with the voters of Mo. who Tuesday said, "hell no" to the Obamanoid mandate to buy health insurance. But, California didn't deny any "right." No judgment was made about anybody's "style" of life. The institution of marriage has been around for many a long, long year, and nowhere nohow involved homosexuals, as such. The 14th amendment has been around since the Republicans won the Civil War, but was never intended to require that states provide "equality" to all sexual "styles." What we have is the deliberate destruction of bourgeois institutions by revolutionary egalitarians in spite of the constitution.

Matt said...

I refer to the basic rights to choose that we all have as human beings as well as the United States Declaration of Independence...

"All Men are Created Equal" and the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," penned by Thomas Jefferson and John Locke, two true founding fathers of American liberty.

How is telling a man and a women they can marry then telling two people of the same sex they can't equality? That's an agenda!

The entire notion of equality has been lost as our government has become hijacked over the last few centuries by corporations and organizations who have slowly eroded our freedom of choice.

Like Kevin's blog title says... It's "We the People" Not "We the People, Unless you're gay".

Bruce Rubenstein said...

The 14th amandment was put in at the urging of certain members of Congress to deal with equality of freed slaves AND those OTHERS that Congress knew were left behind in terms of equal rights.The equal protection and due process clauses do not limit themselves only to freed slaves and those the arguments of Mr Brush and others must fall to the wayside. I do know that the citizen clause of the 14 th amendment over-ruled that awful Dred Scott decision, which of course only dealt with slavery of afro-americans.

In is a faulty premise to wish for us to revert back to a simpler time as some do( this would mean afro americans would once again be slaves ?) and bemoan an ever increasing federal government.The fact is that we are nothing like we were in 1812 and we are in fact the strongest empire in the history of the world.That fact means that the federal and state governments by their nature in this Empire would be large and would be complicated.Society to far to complex to revert to how our founding fathers lived and our Empire is far to strong and complex to have to resort to some form of limited government.

peter brush said...

I refer to the basic rights to choose that we all have as human beings as well as the United States Declaration of Independence...

Right. But, the signatories to the Declaration, and in particular the "all men ... endowed with (natural rights)" lingo therein, never had in mind same sex marriage. Hell, they never had in mind legalization of sodomy. They were simply not libertarians. And in any case, the Declaration is not a juridical instrument. You'll find even less natural rights lingo in the Constitution, and, not a single use of the word "equal" until the 14th amendment after Civil War. And, again, you're kidding yourself if you think the states that ratified the 14th amendment were endorsing gay marriage.

peter brush said...

Society to far to complex to revert to how our founding fathers lived and our Empire is far to strong and complex to have to resort to some form of limited government.

And, while Matt relies on the 18th century document referring to universal natural rights, Bruce claims history demands that we disregard same as anachronistic.

Matt said...

Peter, I think our disconnect on this issue is you are relying on man made documents to support your case. If we laid out all the laws and documents as to who decides what's acceptable in a marriage you might be right, it's not for the Feds to decide.

However, I don't care what a bunch of rich people being influenced by the Church say. I'm relying on the simple fact people need to be treated as equals no matter what a man made document might proclaim.

The Judge did this and I applaud that single action.

As far as your second comment...

At the time the Declaration of Independence was written it was from a perspective of just coming out from under British rule. Our founding fathers wrote it as a reminder that we need to treat each other as equals and not allow ourselves to fall into a have vs have not form of government like we had under British rule. I was referring to those founding principals which seem to have been lost over the years. I was not referring to the level of governance at that time.

Like Bruce said the government is dynamic and needs to change with the times and has become so big you can't just reverse it anymore.

(Personally I think history is repeating itself right now in America with the new ruler being the American Banks instead of the British Banks, but that's another topic)

Anonymous said...

Ay Dios Santo.

Hombre this sound to me like a:


nothing wrong with that man !!!

Anonymous said...

Kevin, Angel,

Diana said I'm coming out
I want the world to know
Got to let it show
I'm coming out
I want the world to know
I got to let it show.

Anonymous said...

Angel Morales is deep in the closet ?