This is a response to a fellow blogger. To read his entire blog, CLICK HERE!!
Eric is responding to Keith Olbermann’s response to the passage of Prop 8. His is the black text. Olbermann is the italic blue text, and I’m in Pink!!
Keith also says that homosexual couples, “want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option . . .”
Putting away the ridiculous assertion that a marriage license is synonymous with permanence (especially in California), I have another question as an answer. Their relationships aren’t already permanent and happy? The marriage license will make them MORE happy, MORE permanent? Aren’t they committed to each other because they’re committed to each other, not because some license tells them they are? A marriage license instantly makes you more happy, therefore we are denying homosexual couples happiness? Talk about a strawman of epic proportions. In fact, most of married America, and the divorce rate, will tell you that being married leads to a DECREASE in happiness!
Well then, let’s get rid of marriage all together, I’m sure my husband would just LOVE that. A wedding makes people happy, tax breaks make people happy, and being able to tell the world they are married makes people happy. It isn’t just about that license.
Keith goes on, ” . . . they don’t want to deny you yours.”
The point that he ignores is: Yes they do. They want to deny me my right to define marriage as between a man and a woman. They literally want to force me to define marriage as they define it. This is exactly what the issue is about.
You don’t have the right to define words, sorry. And, you didn’t address what he really meant. No one is taking away your right to marry the person you love, why would you want to do it to someone else?
Keith continues, “. . . they want what you want, a chance to be a little bit less alone in the world.”
This is sensationalism that I didn’t think Keith was capable of; I guess I didn’t know him enough. Keith is suggesting that Prop. 8 breaks apart same-sex couples. Are you kidding me? How can he take himself seriously, much less expect anyone else to, if he makes these kind of comparisons? He is equating the people of California standing up for the traditional definition of marriage with us FORCING couples apart, making them more alone. The ridiculousness of the suggestion speaks for itself.
I think it is something like 16,000 marriages that may no longer be valid in California, so that is breaking some people apart. If I was told tomorrow that my husband and I were no longer married I would be pissed (and he would be on his way to a strip club)
“…just as you are taking away the legal right that they already had.”
How did they acquire this ability? By a court ignoring the will of the people and overturning Prop. 22, essentially creating legislation, which courts aren’t supposed to be allowed to do. Remember that system of checks and balances that our government is based upon? The In re Marriage Cases decision violated that system, and yet, nobody is talking about this part of it.
I think they checked it and thought it was unjust, so they balanced it by overturning Prop22. We elect people to make sure the laws are fair and everyone is being treated equally, not to enforce the Bible.
“What if someone passed a law saying that you couldn’t marry”
If I didn’t meet the requirements for acquiring a driver’s license, I wouldn’t expect the government to give me one. Same-sex couples just don’t meet the requirements for acquiring a marriage license. It’s that simple, and it’s nothing personal, nor are any rights being violated. As Keith just admitted (and passed over as quickly as he could), same-sex couples right now have the exact same rights under the law.
No, they don’t meet your requirements for marriage, the Bible’s requirement. The point is, that IS NOT fair. Not everyone believes in the Bible and not everyone believes that same-sex marriage is wrong. This state/country is extremely diverse and we can’t base our laws off of one religion. How about we start passing laws that follow my beliefs? I don’t think MEN should be allowed guns. I think the founding fathers should have said every Woman has the right to bear arms, so lets change it, because that’s what I think it should say… who cares if I am right or not.
However, if Keith wanted to argue that since “marriage” is a religious distinction and a religious issue, therefore “marriage” should not be legislated by the state, that the state should call everything a “civil union” and leave the definition of marriage, and wether couples get married or not, to the individuals. I would stand next to him, in support of such legislation. Let’s take the principle of “separation of church and state” to it’s logical conclusion and keep the word “marriage” out of government. We can all agree on this, right?
Marriage may be a religious term to you, but not to me. I got married and it had nothing to do with a church or religion. You guys need to get over yourselves– EVERYONE uses the term marriage, deal with it… you can have Holy Union if you need something different. My side doesn’t think we need different terms, thank you very much.
“If this country hadn’t redefined marriage, black people still couldn’t marry white people…”
Justifying an incorrect redefining of marriage (same-sex marriage) with ANOTHER incorrect redefinition of marriage (racial restrictions) doesn’t make his argument valid. In fact, it shows that Keith has no argument because he must pull on the heart strings of Americans who are still hurting from the racial strife of our past. This issue isn’t about race, it’s about redefining a word and forcing that definition upon everyone else. In fact, Keith, you should be ashamed of yourself for bringing up race. This country now has an African American president-elect, and you want to shove us back fifty years. You should be ashamed for pulling the race card.
Whoa, whoa, whoa… it is a very valid argument. There are quite a few people that say interracial marriages are also “against the Bible” so what is stopping them from passing a prop changing it to "one man and one woman, of the same race"? It is because you guys like to pick and choose what to harp on. Back then it was race, now it is same-sex marriages. My husband is a liar (as well as most husbands out there) and no one told us we couldn’t get married.
“Marriages were not legally recognized to be married if the people were slaves.”
Now Keith is comparing same-sex couples to slaves. Again I must wonder how he expect us to take him seriously. Also, no one is comparing the “correct definition of marriage” to America fifty years ago. I haven’t heard that once. We are comparing the definition of marriage to that which the Bible lays down from the book of Genesis on, what has been the definition of marriage since the beginning of recorded history.
No, because as Keith pointed out, during the time of slavery it was NOT the definition of marriage, at least not for the slaves. Times change and the world needs to change too.
This next part is hard to quote, but basically Keith is saying that it is a travesty that homosexuals used to have to hide in fake marriages with members of the opposite sex, therefore we should allow same-sex couples to marry.
I must be mistaken here, but I was under the impression that American government is not in the business of legislating happiness. That we aren’t trying to fix the personal problems of those who felt and feel they must hide their chosen lifestyles.
His point is the people that voted Yes on 8 are the same people keeping our society homophobic and who in the hell would want to come out to a bunch of bigots? If we allow them to marry and treat them like regular people (because they ARE) then maybe all the hate will start to die out and people will feel SAFE enough to be who they are.
Keith then says that those sham marriages violated the term “the sanctity of marriage”, so much so that the term has no meaning.
It’s inconsistent to use the Biblical idea of the sanctity of the marriage bed to try and violate the Biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman.
Even besides what Keith is talking about, there is no sanctity of marriage. According to you, strangers can get married as long as they are 1 man and 1 woman. My best friend’s uncles have been together longer then I have known her (almost 20 years) but them getting married would violate the sanctity. Puh-lease.
Again, Keith says, “What is this to you, no one is asking you to embrace their expression of love.”
By legislating it, yes they are. But now Keith has switched from making this issue about race, to making it about “love”. Do we really agree on a definition for that word “love”? What kind of love are we talking about? But more on this a bit later. . .
No, you can still think it is wrong, just like you might think adultery is wrong. You just can’t play God and decide who get married.
“But don’t you, as human beings, have to embrace that love?”
Yes I do Keith, I really do. People are people and I have compassion and love for all human beings. But love is not license. Love does not force me to enable what I see as a destructive lifestyle, to approve of what God tells me is an issue of morality. Love does not force me to allow the redefinition of marriage and the redefinition of basic human rights.
I don’t feel like repeating myself, see above.
“With so much hate in the world, and so much needless division . . . this is what your religion tells you to do?”
Keith has just degraded the Word of God to mere religion. He is assuming that there is no truth in religion, only meaningless tradition, pomp and circumstance. Who is Keith to degrade the beliefs of others? Who is he to trivialize the Word of God, to assume that such a notion as objective truth doesn’t exist? He is asking those who believe there is truth in God’s Word to violate their beliefs. Does his public pulpit really afford him the right to do this?
Who are you to degrade my beliefs? I am not asking you to change your beliefs, I am asking you to have a tiny bit of compassion towards your fellow man (and woman). You can still damn them to hell all you want, just let them get married first.
“You want to honor your god, and the universal love you believe he represents? Then spread happiness.”
Just after degrading my religion to mere tradition, Keith appeals to my religion? Well done. Just as God is Love, He is also Righteousness, Truth, Justice and Wrath. To attempt to separate one aspect of God from the rest is to create your own version of god. This is something that I suspect Keith did a LONG time ago. Not once, in all of Scripture, did God say He was concerned with our happiness. But you know what He does say He’s concerned with? Our righteousness. Let me give an illustration. If running into the street makes your child happy, will you allow him/her to do so? Of course not. Your child doing the right thing, being safe, is more important than what makes them happy. This is similar to God’s love for us.
God gave us free will, so I think he would let us run out in front of that car. As a matter of fact I know more then one person that has died from running in front of a car. I know that it was supposed to be a metaphor, but it isn’t a good one. God allows us to lie, cheat, steal, murder, have pre-marital sex, and even be gay. You aren’t trying to pass laws about EVERY single thing God thinks is wrong. so why this?
And then, Keith takes the cake with this one…
“You can quote me whatever you want from your religious leader or your book of choice, telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement, and another statement, ’Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.”
I wonder if he sees the inherent contradiction in quoting one verse of the Bible, while ignoring the Bible on how it defines marriage?
What about everything in the Bible you ignore? Are you perfect? Then don’t throw stones.
“You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight . . .You are asked to stand on a question of love.”
This is where Keith’s secular humanistic belief system rears it’s ugly head. Keith assumes that human love is the ultimate love. That how humans define love is the ultimate definition. He defines love as allowing people to do whatever makes them happy. And that ”happiness” is the ultimate good. If we believe that God exists, then our definitions of love and happiness should necessarily be defined as God sees it. In fact, this definition of love assumes that Scripture is not God’s Word and that no God exists. If we don’t find the ultimacy of the human mind to be convincing, then the question becomes, how DOES God define love?
God’s Definition of Love, Not Keith’s, is the One that Matters
I’ll give you God’s definition of love, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is God’s definition of love. It doesn’t find much searching to discover why Christ died on the cross; He died to save us from our sins. Homosexuality is one of those sins. It’s no more or no less a sin than lying, no different than heterosexual adultery, there is no greater or lesser sin with God, but it’s still a sin. So those who are refusing to support a redefining of marriage ARE doing it out of love. Love for their God and God’s love for their fellow man.
Not everyone believes in your God. And you don’t get to pass laws based on your beliefs. So, I would like a reason why Prop 8 is ok that doesn’t have to do with God or the Bible. And right here you say yourself that homosexuality is no different then lying and adultery, so why are cheaters allowed to marry? Why are liars?
Anyone have anything they’d like to add?
Anyone have answers to my questions?
Anyone getting sick of me yet?
Moonstruck Mommy
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d596d2a2-91e6-41c8-b5aa-ab86bab18614)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=fd8bfd17-bdff-4f56-863c-3408311fac50)
This Saturday there is a nationwide protest to GET AMERICAS EQUAL RIGHTS BACK. There are Fight the H8 rallies all over the country… cities in every state. I am going to attend either the Pomona or Irvine rallies because they are closer then Los Angeles. I would LOVE for some more people to go too, so click the picture up top and then find your state and city! Lets have the City Halls throughout America packed!
If you are from California, like the cool kids, then click the pic and you can see a list of all the rally locations in the Golden State!)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=01b01cf7-cee8-474b-bebe-9372ea2078ce)
Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
