Friday, October 06, 2006

California Marriage Safe

Looks like the institution of marriage is safe in California (for now). Details here.

Of course, those interested in pushing the Gay Agenda on all Americans will not stop trying to redefine marriage to suit their needs. The most significant quote from the article, and the one that sums up my thoughts on this hot button topic:

"courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental institution as marriage."

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege and a majority of California voters cast their ballots in 2000 to define marriage as that of a union between a man and a woman. The people have spoken, but this doesn't deter those "hyper-politically correct" folks who think defining marriage this way somehow descriminates against them and those they ally with.

To some, this issue is not important and we should move on to more "pressing" matters. Do your homework and find out how redefining marriage has affected other countries who tried it. It is a significant change that will have a huge negative impact on our country. It is our responsibility as citizens to understand this issue and how it could potentially affect our culture and cast our votes accordingly.


Outside the Box said...

You do realize the day is coming though, yes?

Bullfrog said...

I realize legal same sex marriage will eventually become a reality in this country, which scares me. What also concerns me is how this will happen.

Most people take the attitude, "What's the harm?" and will cast their vote that way without really understanding what they are doing.

There is also that segment of the population who may have reservations about this issue, but are afraid to voice their concerns from fear of being labeled a narrow-minded bigot.

The politically correct movement has successfully created a culture of fear around issues such as Homosexual "rights", abortion, etc. This is sad because a very loud minority is being heard over the rest.

Outside the Box said...

Well, here are my thoughts on it, but I do have some new ones that I will post about sooner or later.

When you say it "scares" you, that concerns me. As a teacher, someone who works in childhood development, and a parent of two, I just see soooooo many more things to be worried about. And the scariest part is that most of the things that make my list are things that most people hardly bat an eye at because they're so common place now.

Outside the Box said...

Oops, sorry. Here is where I meant to send you.

Bullfrog said...

OTB: I read your post. So anyone who agrees with gay marriage is "tolerant" and everyone else is automatically "intolerant"?

Isn't that just intolerance?

I am supposed to give all of this consideration to people who want to change the definition of an ANCIENT institution, but most people won't take the time to understand that the reasons some have for opposing the re-definition of marriage are not arbitrary or bigoted.

I am not trying to keep gays and lesbians from being happy and being in long lasting, healthy relationships. What they do in their personal lives is their business, not mine. However, when someone wants to change the law, shouldn't we understand exactly what the impact of that will be on everyone? Does anyone really KNOW what will happen if we as a culture decide to open the definition of marriage up for interpretation like this? Most are willing to say, "Let's give it a go and see what happens; what could it hurt?"

Shouldn't we err on the side of caution?

I reject ANY emotional argument about this issue because I believe it is dangerous to legislate emotion. The argument that NOT allowing gay marriage will make someone "feel bad" does not outweigh the consideration of more practical matters around this issue.

You say that there are more important things to worry about; that is a matter of opinion. I see alot of things going on besides this issue that are just as important and need attention, may be I will post about those some other time.

Mr. Grey Ghost said...

A couple of points:

1) You're right, they will keep pushing their agenda thru every state and thats why we need an amendment to protect marriage. Its funny how scared they are of state rights when it comes to abortion, yet they'll seek state rights when it comes to gay marriage.

2) The "what's the harm" or "there are so many more important things to worry about" excuse is nothing but a strawman that liberals constantly use. Dont fall for it. If gay marriage wasnt so "important" than why cant liberals, gays and gay activists just accept the fact that most Americans dont agree with it?

Bullfrog said...

Good points Grey. 61% of California voters let their voices be heard against changing the definition of marriage proving most folks can see a bad idea coming. California isn't exactly a Conservative state either. This is not an issue of liberal, conservative, it is common sense. It is sheer arrogance to think we can start toying with this issue without drastically changing our society.

Bullfrog said...

I found this quote here:

"Once marriage stops being about binding mothers and fathers together for the sake of the children they create, the need to get married gradually disappears."

This was an article at the National Review Online by Stanley Kurtz about the impact same sex marriage has had in the Netherlands. Interesting read.

Outside the Box said...

So anyone who agrees with gay marriage is "tolerant" and everyone else is automatically "intolerant"?

Where did I state that? I reread my post, including the comments, but I couldn't find it. Reading one's own work is difficult, though. Please let me know where, because that was not what I meant to be the point of my post at all, even though that seems to be what you got out of it, since that's the first (and only) thing you wrote about from it.

I am supposed to give all of this consideration to people who want to change the definition of an ANCIENT institution

Ancient, yes, but the version we have now isn't what it used to be, so please don't act like this. I enjoy coming here and asking questions, and even, to an extent, sharing my own beliefs, because you have always seemed 'controlled'. This accusation is beneath you. You know very well that marriage started out very differently than from what it is today. Polygamy, arranged marriages, and the denial of marriage to those of different races are just a few examples of how marriage has evolved over its history. If anything, allowing gays to marry would just be continuing that rich history.

"Let's give it a go and see what happens; what could it hurt?"

I know far more people who support gay marriage (and the few that I know who don’t feel guilty about it), but I don’t know a single person who has this attitude. You claim to “reject ANY emotional argument about this issue” in response to those who say not allowing gays to marry will make them “feel bad”. Again, I don’t know of anyone who makes this claim, but it fits your argument well.

To me, and everyone else I know, it’s about freedom. I hate to use an argument that others use so improperly, but it’s true. If we’re going to be a country that claims freedom as its way of life, than it has to be for everyone. Is that so unreasonable?

Apparently you’re comfortable telling someone that they’re not allowed to marry the person they love, but I certainly am not. Am I wrong on this?

Shouldn't we err on the side of caution?

I am. It's just that we value different things. I like to think that I value the equal rights of every other American citizen. How would you phrase your values?

I understand the argument of claiming a majority of people don't want it, but isn't that also the case of the other changes as well? If we went by that, I still wouldn't have been allowed to have married my wife in many southern states.

As for your quote at the bottom, I want to clarify that your argument against gay marriage is that it would be bad for children? And bad for marriage? Or just marriage?

And lastly, please accept my apologies now for the aggressiveness that I have used in my writing. I'm pressed for time, so I'm unable to word many of my points in way that would be more acceptable. I do enjoy coming to your blog and I wish to continue doing so under good terms.

Bullfrog said...

OTB: "Personally, I try not to fault people for their beliefs since most likely those beliefs are simply the result of their parents upbringing. However, I have to say that when someone attempts to impose their beliefs on others then that, by definition, is intolerant."

I guess I assumed by the above statement that those "intolerant" people are those who oppose gay marriage. Is that a stretch?

"To the bigamy and polygamy my response is "Sure, why not?" I have no justification for going up to someone and saying that what they and two (or more) other people consent to do is wrong and they cannot do it."

No justification? How about the inherent danger in redefining marriage?

The crux of my argument is the SOCIAL impact of changing the definition of marriage.

Let me quote some another point from the previous article:

"At a bare minimum, the rapid and ongoing deterioration of Dutch marriage shows that the “conservative case” for same-sex marriage has been proven wrong in the Netherlands. Convince the public that marriage is not about parenthood, and increasingly parents simply stop getting married."

You see what is happening with the same sex marriage debate is the same as has already occurred in Scandinavia, Sweden, etc. The idea that marriage is ultimately about parenting becomes "absurd", and it becomes simply a legal contract between two consenting adults who want their emotional bond to be acknowledged.

We are not the first people to try this, and those who have are paying the price. Doesn't it behoove us to learn from their example?

If this were just about rights, there would be no debate as any gay couple who wants the legal rights marriage provides can do so lawfully. And in fact they are doing so. I know gay couples who are living together, adopting children, sharing property, sharing legal trusts, etc. All without legal same-sex marriage.

Most people you know support gay marriage and the rest feel bad about not supporting it? Do you think 61% of California voters have been "feeling bad" since 2000 when they voiced their opinion about this issue at the polls and voted to keep the definition of marriage intact as between one man and one woman?

Should gays, lesbians and gay rights activists respect that the voice of the people has already been heard?

Of course, children who are born into a world where mommy and daddy are no longer necessary concerns me also, as I am a father of two like you. The preponderance of psychological evidence seems to indicate children benefit most from being raised in a two parent home by a biological mother and father. Redefining marriage makes this picture more arbitrary than necessary and our kids and society as a whole WILL pay for this.

That is what scares me about this issue, that families are destroyed, not "enhanced" or "made more rich" by redefining marriage, as some would have us believe.

Cynthia said...

If you guys were true Chrisitians, you wouldn't even think about marrying especially since the bible says the following:

The Bible makes it crystal clear that chastity, not marriage, should be the primary focus of a God-loving Christian. While Paul says it’s OK to get married, both he and Jesus clearly state that giving up all carnal pleasures, even those between husband and wife, is the best course. In 1 Corinthians, Paul says being too involved in marriage can actually detract from proper worship of God: "An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs…. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world -- how he can please his wife -- and his interests are divided (7:32-4)." Earlier in Corinthians, Paul says plainly: "It is good for a man not to marry (7:1)."

Bullfrog said...

Your comment is ALOT off topic, and it lacks context:

1 Cor 7:2-7
2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
(from New International Version)

God is not saying marriage is a bad thing. He is saying a single man is more free to serve God because he is less distracted. He also emphasizes that since the world is an immoral place (since the fall of Adam) marriage is beneficial in promoting monogamy.

Apparently, you decided to only read and share those parts of 1 Corinthians 7 that supported your preconceived notion.

I would be interested in finding out what a "true Christian" is, in your estimation.

James Manning said...

This argument seems to be based on the premise that gay people can have the legal rights that heterosexual couples have as long as they don’t call it marriage. My question then is, under legal standards, what is marriage? And if a gay couple has the right to go to a lawyer and draw up all of the documents that provide them the rights and protections that a marriage certificate does, then isn’t any opposition to gay marriage made irrelevant?

It would seem to me that it is splitting hairs to oppose gay marriage but not the act of homosexuality. It is not the legal document that goes against God, but the act of homosexuality itself. Rick Santorum stated in an interview that homosexuality should be illegal. That view seems more credible than arguing against gay marriage only.

What are the rights of someone who was married, had children then came out of the closet to live a gay lifestyle? Would they then lose all of the rights they held as a married couple?

Bullfrog said...

James: I agree that homosexuality is immoral, I specifically wanted to talk about the whole issue of redefining marriage through our legal system. That is why I chose to talk about the social ramifications of doing so.

I don't disagree that homosexuality itself should be illegal, but that would be a subject of another debate.

As for the example you gave regarding the married heterosexual with children who decides to come out as a homosexual, since the marriage is presumably to someone of the opposite sex, they would not lose any rights.

Cynthia said...

I don't think it would be right to say what I totally think of Chrisitanity on your blog.

So, the only thing I will say, if you believe in the bible, I don't know how you can dismiss things in the bible that doesn't fit with your belief. In essence, this shows the contradictory message that the bible portrays.

Bullfrog said...

Cynthia: I didn't "dismiss" anything, I merely added context to your erroneous statement.

Let's talk about Bible contradictions, I'll bite. You can start by naming ONE.

Outside the Box said...

Boy! I've got some catching up to do!

I guess I assumed by the above statement that those "intolerant" people are those who oppose gay marriage. Is that a stretch?

It depends. If a person is opposing gay marriage on the basis that it is against their personal beliefs (religion), than yes, it is.

So far you have argued against gay marriage with reason, so no, I wouldn't label you as intolerant (but I have a sad feeling it's coming soon). becomes simply a legal contract between two consenting adults who want their emotional bond to be acknowledged.

Sorry, but it became that a long time ago. It's been about 10 years now that I've been old enough to have friends/acquaintances who have gotten married and the reasons for doing so have always been financial and/or "love". I don't recall ever hearing any of them mention anything about kids.

If this were just about rights, there would be no debate

If in every state every gay person with a partner has the same rights as a spouse, than I'm satisfied (for now).

The crux of my argument is the SOCIAL impact of changing the definition of marriage.

...and our kids and society as a whole WILL pay for this.

I want to make sure we are clear on this part. We share the same values. It's my belief that the state of marriage, along with parenting, is in crisis. It's been my experience that the vast majority of people don't have a clue as to what is truly expected of them as a spouse or a parent. This worries me a great deal.

However, where we differ is that I don't think it has anything to do with the fags.

I understand your argument that allowing gays to marry would deteriorate the very fabric of our society, but I say that it has already begun with little or no help from the homos.

Outside the Box said...

I do want to make sure that I am not put into the group that you (and others) refer to saying, "What's the harm?" or "Why not?"

(Same goes for being labelled "politically correct".)

There's a big difference from that and "There are bigger things to worry about."

While others are worried about the local pedophile down the street (I find those "Anti-Pedofreak blogs" so damn annoying), I'm truly concerned about how kids are being put on all sorts of drugs at such an early age. (This is just one of many examples.) MY kids are going to have to go out into the world one day and deal with these screwed up people. And for the next 18 or so years I've got to prepare them for that. I take it very seriously.

I have every intention of raising my children to be good spouses, parents, and people. There's not a damn thing that the gays are able to do that's going to stop me.

Corporations on the other hand....

I worry about that battle all day long.

Bullfrog said...

OTB: It sounds like we agree that same-sex marriage would be bad for society as a whole. We also both acknowledge the inevitability of this occurring.

I guess where we part ways is what should be done about it. I don't think we should sit idly by while this happens, while you are of the opinion that that train has already left the station so let's focus on other issues impacting marriage.

Your assertion that the deterioration of marriage has already begun is correct and I believe that makes for more urgency to protect marriage before it is too late.

Little Miss Chatterbox said...

You are right that this is an extremely important issue and I'm glad marriage is safe in California at least for now.