One of Michelle Malkin's compassionate and tolerant readers reminds us that lost in the California Proposition 8 furor is Christian benevolence:Palmdale resident James Jackson, a member of the Church of Latter-day Saints who gave $1,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign, said he felt that the good works of his church had been forgotten in the midst of attention on the protests about the vote.
“I’m not a bigot,” said Jackson, 48. “I want to be a good person. But there are certain things I just don’t believe are right.”
Malkin welcomes Mr. Jackson into her elite group of "soul fixers" and "healers" fighting to defend "marriage."
Asked for comment on the developments of the past week, marriage snorted "personally, I think Mr. Jackson's a raging bigot. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a whole slate of divorces to get eviscerated by today, most featuring infidelity. I'm pretty pumped!"
With absolutely no respect, Mr. Jackson: you are a bigot. If you want to be a good person, then let me show you the way - stop donating money to bigoted causes that press bigoted propositions into law.
I have a lot of personal predilections towards things I "believe are right." But if they prevent a free, adult American citizen from enjoying a right endowed to me simply because I like the ladies, then I put my wallet away and save my hard-earned dough for my family. You know, so the economic turbulence doesn't jeopardize the sanctity of my marriage when suddenly we cannot make ends meet.
I'm constantly amazed how many supposed Christians refuse to behave in a Christ-like manner. You see Jesus Christ in a grilled cheese sandwich or on a set of drapes, yet you cannot find him in yourselves.
As for the protesters this weekend, I urge restraint and a public airing of the pathos of your unfortunate situation. Progress will win. Equal rights will prevail. The bigot class will die out. Bide your time. Show your love trumps their sanctimony, and you will win the day.
6 comments:
I personally have very mixed feelings on prop 8 and similar legislation. I believe consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want, as long as their actions do not infringe on the actions of others to do the same.
However, I do recognize we live in a democracy and if the people vote against gay marriage, well, that's how they feel.
I think it comes down to whether you think marriage is a right endowed on you by your creator or is just an institution of religion and/or goverment.
Personally, I feel marriage is a societal creation (whether created by religion or government) so society should be able to regulate it however it sees fit.
But even if you think it is the first option, endowed on you by your creator, than I would point out that a homosexual has the same rights to marry that a heterosexual does. They both have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Again, personally I am fine with gay marriage. Don't know that I would go out of my way to vote for it, but I certainly wouldn't vote against it.
One arguement against gay marriage is the slippery slope one, meaning it would lead to polygamy. Again, I would say consenting adults. The key being adults.
But, since I also believe marriage is a societal institution and not an in alieanable right, I think the people have a right to regulate it how they choose.
if I could spell...
But, since I also believe marriage is a societal institution and not an inalienable right, I think the people have a right to regulate it how they choose, however wrong I think that choice may be.
We may have some common ground for once, James, but I reach a different conclusion than you do. A societal creation, such as the right to free speech or to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc., has in my opinion even more of a responsibility to be offered free of discrimination or division. If marriage were a construct purely of religion, I would actually have no issue with any restrictions. Because you can simply stop going to church, temple, madrassa, mosque or coven and find another one that suits your particular fancy. But marriage is a legal status - a construct of the law. The law needs to be applied equally to all citizens.
As far as the concept of people voting on social or legal designations, I usually support this - usually people can be invested with that responsibility. But sometimes they cannot. If you had left it to the citizens of these United States to determine on a state by state basis many issues, many things that are now taken for granted (black freedom, the rights of women and minorities to vote, the rights of couples of interracial designation to marry, and so on) would not exist. There are times the will of the people is wrong and contrary to what is necessary, just and legally proper.
Nobody would argue that "separate but equal" should have been abolished (well, no reasonable person), but when the Brown decision was issued, it was not what you would term a "popular" one in many quarters of this country. Had there been majority-rules votes on that issue in many Southern states, it would have been overturned by huge margins.
And yet we now concede that decision was absolutely necessary and proper. In the coming years, future generations will look at us quizzically and wonder how we could have seen the gay marriage issue any differently.
I agree with everything you just said... here comes the but... But what about the statement that homosexuals currently share the same rights as heterosexuals, both can marry freely amoung the opposite sex.
Obviously it's splitting hairs, but an arguement that has always intrigued me since I first heard it.
I would never argue that a homosexual relationship doesn't deserve the same protections as a hetero one, insurance, inheritence, power of attorney, etc. But what about when it comes to the protections given a person testifying against their spouse?
Not that I think homosexuals are criminals, but criminals could easily exploit loopholes in marriage laws for organized crime purposes.
The number one way we convict criminals these days is through deals with their accomplices. If I were a criminal, about to conspire with others, I would make a condition of our criminal arrangement gay marriage so that my accomplice could not testify against me. That may be giving criminals too much credit, I recognize.
Most states have civil union laws, and I believe most polls show people support civil unions. Do you think civil unions are not equal to marriage, even though they bestow the exact same rights and benefits and it's just a word game?
As opposed to removing democracy from the equation, I would be more likely to support a total ban on marriage ;) My wife I am sure would be displeased.
Seriously though, what about removing civil marriage from the government altogether. I would be more likely to support a civil marriage reclassification to civil unions as far as the government documentation and laws are conscerned and leaving the term/institution of marriage to the churches.
I think what opponents of gay marriage fear most is not the degredation of societal values, but more that gay marriage laws will be used to force church's to hold gay marriages because of various anti-discrimination legislation.
I think I would oppose a move like that, because it infringes on the rights of people to practice their religion how they choose.
James, just wanted to pluck out the fourth sentence of your latest response, because it intrigued me.
You're right - in California, I believe the state is absolutely precluded from calling a defendant's spouse as witness. Would Frankie "The Ladies Man" Tapentola and Sammy "The Pussy Wagon" Pizzalo take advantage of such a testimonial privilege?
Perhaps, bperhaps we take it too far. Look,if the government want to prosecute La Cosa Nostra with all available evidentiary resources, the Mobsters' wives are the incriminating treasure trove it seeks. By that logic, all marriage should be outlawed. At least Italian marriages (may have an equal protection problem there).
Also, a sham marriage is still a sham marriage. Would your concern extend to immigration and men exchanging nuptials with other men for cash consideration to avoid citizenship problems?
Probably.
Just like the disingenuous vows men and women have exchanged to beat the system for decades.
My point is that all of the societal concerns over hetero-marriage are equally applicable to homosexual marriage. But we permit only the former.
A final note: Civil unions is this season's hot "separate, but equal" fashion accessory. Water fountains for "coloreds" are so passe.
I have to admit (WAP's sentiments aside) that I've never heard or considered the "organized crime bosses marrying each other to protect themselves against testifying" - that is a new one and, frankly, I'm kind of impressed with that creativity. I mean, I think that's tortured logic because it implies that you only conspire with ONE person in organized crime (since you can only theoretically gay-marry one of your Cosa Nostra buddies in this scenario, you'd need a mob family of two people to avoid being compelled to testify). But I will admit, that is one I've never heard before, and I thought I had heard them all!!
As far as just doing away with marriage totally and making everyone have a civil union and then leaving marriage as a purely religious designation, I say go for it. But it isn't going to happen. Not now, probably not ever.
But let us say for argument's sake that it did, and your local Church refuses to marry a gay couple. I think that's absolutely fine and dandy... but when they raise holy hell (pun intended) that their federal funding or tax exempt status is revoked, that is also fine and dandy. You want to not marry people based solely on their choice of spouse? You lose your federal support. Them's the breaks. You want to be a private organization that can cherrypick whom to marry and whom not to, then you don't get a free ride on my tax dollars and you certainly don't get handouts for government backed programs.
But since that's all in fantasyland, where there's no marriage under the federal and state law, we have to deal with what we have - and to say that a gay person has the same marriage rights as a straight person because they are able to marry a straight person is just simply not acceptable.
Imagine a United States in which you had the freedom to practice your religion - so long as it was Catholicism. You go "hey wait a second - I'm a protestant. This isn't freedom of religion." If the reply was that you have the same freedom of religion that everyone else does - so long as you are Catholic, you're totally free to practice religion however you like - you'd be pretty upset by that.
Post a Comment