Rebuttal

I get so few comments and find the topic so interesting I thought I'd take time to respond to a comment I received today. I'll put the text I'm responding to in italics so it will hopefully be easier to read.

It was God who defined marriage as between a man and a woman (check it out!)

Check it out where? The bible? Which version? Will the verses I read be intelligible in English or do I need to learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic? I think I covered this well in my last post. If one wishes to say god defined the term, then the state has no place in giving married people special status of any kind. Check out the first amendment and refer to the text of the declaration of independence where it is established that the government's authority comes from the governed...and that includes all gay members of society.


Our founding fathers had NO idea what this country would be like in the year 2010. They could not possibly have fathomed gay rights or marriage for that matter. Our founding fathers were Christians although some refuse to believe that.

The founders may not have known what the country would be like in 2010, but they built into the system protections for all minorities, right down to the individual, and they designed a government with checks and balances that they hoped would be able to protect those minorities from the government, and the ever changing will of the majority.

I find the word "Christian" in this context to be without meaning. There are as many sets of "Christian" belief as there are "Christians" in the world today; so to say that the founder's were "Christian" as if it implies shared religious views beyond deism is kinda silly.

There is nothing meaningful one can take from the idea that the founder's were "Christian" and then apply to the idea of the word "marriage" or it's legal issues. For instance, John Adams was a unitarian, who loved the peace and equality he felt was taught by the "Christian" religion...and today a number of unitarian sects of Christianity openly recognize gay marriage. In addition, John Adams was the president and he signed into law the Treaty of Tripoli which had been unanimously passed by the senate (not many things had ever passed unanimously at that time); this treaty contained this text: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion -— as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen" So, it seems that John Adams and all the senators at the time didn't feel the government of the USA was based upon any religion or in any way in conflict with the Muslims or any other religion. Having the entire senate pass a treaty with such text says a lot about how "Christian" our government was at the time and even today.

Then there was Thomas Jefferson, who so disliked the superstition and magic in the bible that he actually took it upon himself to re-write the bible with all the magic and divine references to Jesus removed. His bible focused on what he felt were the valuable moral teachings. Do you suppose his religious views are in line with Ted Haggard? Jim Bakker? Billy Graham? Peter Popoff? How about the Pope? Any of them?

There is also reason to believe that George Washington and other founders were also only deist or unitarian in nature. Which again, might put their religious views in line with those "Christian" sects that openly accept gay marriage.

But I digress...all this is a red herring anyway.

I tend to believe that the people do have some say in the laws passed by Congress. These options are put on the ballot because the people have the RIGHT to provide their opinion.

The idea that we have inalienable rights, and that these rights are equal for all members of society are core principles I dealt with in my last post. Sure, you can have whatever opinion you want, but that doesn't mean we can vote on who to eat for lunch. The answer is: nobody. We all have the right to life and it can't be denied to us no matter how many people vote. So, sure the people of California have a process that they can use to pass laws or even constitutional amendments that bypasses their legislature, and they used it to get prop 8 on the ballot. That doesn't in any way mean that prop 8 is moral or legal...all it means is that some people followed a procedure and then they voted.



When the opinion of the majority is overturned by ONE judge (gay, black, brown, jewish, etc) I have a problem with the direction in which my country is going. Far cry from where it was just thirty years ago.

You should not respect the will of the majority on all things. I would have thought my cannibal example made that clear enough. You can't at the same time appeal to the founders for moral and legal guidance by suggesting that "they" gave us a different country and at the same time ignore the text of the declaration of independence which states clearly we the people have unalienable rights. That means we have certain things that simple can't be voted on morally...like who to eat for lunch.

It is the responsibility of the judge to stand up for the rights of the minority and insure that they are treated equally in the eyes of the law. I find it appalling that a judge would be chastised or criticized for fulfilling this aspect of his job.

What if the people under 60 years of age passed a referendum to seize all the property of all persons over 60 years of age and distribute it amongst themselves? Would you then be ashamed of the 62 year old judge for overturning the ballot measure and saying it was clearly not legal? Or would the judge have to be under 60 for his opinion to matter? It seems to me that it is clear the young people should not be allowed to vote away the property of all the old people even though we out number you by a lot. It seems equally clear to me, that any vote we had on the issue would be morally and legally void because of our constitution and founding principles.

It's important that the system treats everyone equal and that judges insure minorities are indeed equal in the eyes of the law.

---

"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Pastor Martin Niemöller