California needs Proposition 8
Posted 8 weeks 1 day ago by"We, the people of the United States, in order to . . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Orange County Register (see editorial Oct. 2), l ead newspaper of the Freedom Communications chain, is devoted to the freedom of every individual, particularly political and economic. Experience has demonstrated the wisdom of the maximum of liberty for promoting justice and prosperity. But as the Preamble above makes clear, a free society also must be devoted to perpetuating itself and not facilitating practices at odds with the common good. When it comes to decisions regarding marriage and family, no one should be forced into unwanted relationships. But inasmuch as marriage has been understood as the union of one man and one woman by every rational definition; and protected, until recently, by every society in the history of the world; it hehooves us to support Proposition 8. Then we may know that we have secured our rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The Register wishes to secure individual rights (there are no other kind) against denial by majorities and their governments, but overlooks the indispensable role of public opinion and public officials. Reflection and experience taught our forbears to reject governments of the one or the few because, as Thomas Jefferson observed, "Republican government is the only one not in open or secret war with the rights of mankind." He also said that the people are bound "by the moral law." It is not true that the California Supreme Court decision sanctioning same-sex marriage will have no effect on marriage. It already has, as county clerks have been ordered by state authorities no longer to refer to the parties as bride and groom, but as A and B. Just this week Gov. Schwarzenegger signed into law bills (1) mandating that nurses support homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality (SB 1729), (2) making foster parents teach homosexual-bisexual-transsexual "rights" to foster kids (AB 3015) and (3) elevating homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual "rights" above everyone else's rights (AB 2654). If same-sex marriage is right, the State Legislature and the Governor have decided, all barriers to its full development must be swept away. Marriage indeed has been reformed to insure the equality of both sexes and to remove racial barriers, as the Register maintained, but it has always been between one man and one woman. It is remarkable that the Register expresses satisfaction that marriage has "evolved" when it has done the opposite with other judicial decisions that treated the text of the Constitution as an "evolving" document. The Register expresses the hope that same-sex marriage will promote societal stability and reduce promiscuity, but only after affirming as a right what no society heretofore has ever sanctioned. I have read too many angry pronouncements by activists inveighing against "Ozzie and Harriet" families to believe that "lullaby argument." It is simply wrong for the Register to claim that "Legal recognition of same-sex marriage does not require those who have a moral objection to homosexuality or to homosexual marriage to recognize or approve of it," including ministers. What sort of argument can any responsible party be making against those who disapprove of same-sex marriage except a moral one? Ministers would be advised to protect their congregations from being inundated with demands for same-sex marriage, for surely lawsuits will be filed against and damages sought from uncooperative clergy. The state has "inserted itself" into marriage and family for good reasons. We all have a stake in insuring that our free society perpetuates itself by upholding the only institution that channels potentially dangerous passions into loving relationships, secures everyone's property rights, and protects children from adults more concerned with their own gratification than the welfare of their offspring. Children need a father and a mother to guide them as they grow up and to provide examples of how to be a man and woman. The Register has rightly been dubious of experiments in government and the marketplace. It needs to include marriage and family among the institutions to be protected against the same folly. We should vote 'Yes' on Proposition 8.













Thoughts
No it don't
Submitted on October 8th, 2008 by rom12921Still legally defined as man/woman in most states. I really don't choose, the state does. Apparently with or without voter approval.
I stated my preference, you are certainly entitled to yours.
There is no my truth, your truth. Moral relativism is logically indefensible.
Retain it's meaning..
Submitted on October 8th, 2008 by Grains of Saltfor what purpose? It's meaning won't change for me. It's two people that have commited themselve to each other for the rest of their lives? That doesn't have to change. And it won't. The phrase "we are married" holds the same meaning whether It's Johna nd Sarah or John and Mark. If you CHOOSE to view it as a different meaning that's on you.
GOS missing the point
Submitted on October 8th, 2008 by rom12921back to the ooze for you.
"I prefer to be married to my wife and I don't give a damn what anyone else whats to call it or do with it in their own lives. Why should you?"
Words refer to relationships. We use cousin, step-shild, mother/father/bro/sis in-law,etc. The word defines the relationship. Some words have become ambiguous or applied to such varied situations the meaning is diluted, thus less meaningful. Just in the last 60 years-liberal and conservative. Example, Truman was a liberal Democrat that would make modern day conservative Republicans look like communists.
So, I don't give a damn about what people want to do in their lives, I want language to retain its meaning. The word marriage traditionally means man/woman, the relationship is clear, uncle Grainy
Well
Submitted on October 8th, 2008 by Grains of SaltAnimal behavior was a response to what anon called "natural marriage". Humans are a possesive bunch but not sure I would call it natural.
Ooze, I'll admit, was a little poke at creationism. Just a little tie in with the pray the gay away effort.
I prefer to be married to my wife and I don't give a damn what anyone else whats to call it or do with it in their own lives. Why should you?
Ooze
Submitted on October 8th, 2008 by rom12921GOS, How is animal behavior relevent? Crawled out of the ooze?
Biology or Prop 8 discussion? Many disagree with "man created marriage".
Subject for another day.
Humans should behave differently than animals...not eat each other, kill for sport, have social structure.
Gays should be able to pursue their happiness but, I prefer the word marriage retain its meaning for clarity -man/woman relationship and traditional reasons.
It would seem wise to have a civil contract for same-sex couple for property rights (Community property) and to prevent fraud in dependent benefits.
"..the equality of men" Good ol' Abe.
Submitted on October 8th, 2008 by Grains of SaltNatural. Interesting choice of words to describe maraige. Every animals single duty on this planet is to procreate. Marraige has nothing to do with it. We have deemed it socially responsible to take a spouse to procreate. Nature would have us poking anything we could like animals, or Clinton and McCain have.
Marraige is an institution that man created. It exists with or without the will or ability to bare children.
So I still don't get how two men being married affects me, my life, or my marriage. People have been getting the gay since we crawled out of the ooze. Gayness is not going to stop afflicting people just because you vote against porp 8. Sorry. Looks like you just might have to "tolerate" it for some time.
Public opinion
Submitted on October 8th, 2008 by Anonymous“Our government rests in public opinion. Whoever can change public opinion, can change the government, practically just so much. Public opinion, on any subject, always has a 'central idea,' from which all its minor thoughts radiate. That 'central idea' in our political public opinion, at the beginning was, and until recently has continued to be, 'the equality of men.'-Abraham Lincoln
You are correct that public opinion has been less enlightened in the past than it is now, at least when it comes to race and gender. But the public opinion, which currently favors natural marriage, is not incorrect just because it has been in the past. Holding back blacks and women was against nature but opposing same-sex marriage is upholding nature. What are you afraid will happen if Proposition 8 passes?
Too bad that the divorce rate is so high, but two wrongs do not make a right. It will be higher still when the unions are manifestly against mature.
Can't we just pray the gay away?
Submitted on October 8th, 2008 by Grains of SaltPublic opinion, at one time, kept women out of voting polls. Public opinion kept blacks at the back of the bus. I'll stop with that one.
What are you afraid will happen? I promise you, Rich, you will not catch the "gay".
With the divorce rate above 51%, just what do you think you're protecting?
Maybe homesexuals can lower that number a bit.
Mr. Reeb
Submitted on October 7th, 2008 by CORNFINGER66Do you want Skye and Pablo going at it again.
You sure do know how to stir the pot.