Description:
7 REASONS WHY I VOTED FOR AND CONTINUE TO SUPPORT PROPOSITION 8 DISALLOWING HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA.
1. PERMITTING HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS A DISTORTION AND ASSAULT ON THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.
The biggest lie that the homosexual propaganda machine has promulgated, and much of the American public has accepted, is that this is about discrimination.THIS IS NOT ABOUT DISCRIMINATION AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!
It is an absolute insult and huge set back to the Civil Rights Movement and resulting legislation to allow special interest groups with a political agenda, like homosexual activists, to play the "race card" whenever they can't get their way.
Homosexuals are not a class eligible for protection under civil rights statutes. Federal law and the U.S. Supreme Court have limited civil rights protections to specific groups/classifications, which are limited to the following: 1) race/national origin, 2) age and 3) gender. There are also protections for persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It’s a short list, and homosexuals are not on it, nor should they be. The thing that each of these groups has in common that warrants special legal protection is a long and ugly historically proven denial or restriction of access to education, health care, jobs, and other economic opportunities or benefits due to circumstances over which they have no choice or control.
2. HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BECOME A PROTECTED CIVIL RIGHT BECAUSE HOMOSEXUALS DO NOT HAVE THE SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT WARRANT SPECIAL LEGAL PROTECTION.
Civil rights laws were designed to protect minorities from the disadvantages suffered through no choice or fault of their own. Homosexuality is not a race, gender, or condition, but a preference, and as such, it is no more entitled to special legal privileges or protections than any other view point based group. Homosexuals are not being disenfranchised as human beings or denied any basic human rights. Homosexuals are a group of people who share a view point or preference for a particular mode of sexual expression. The choice to engage in sexual behavior that differs from the mainstream does have some consequences, but homosexuals are not singled out on this issue. Could men who like to have sex with underage girls be as vocal about their sexual preference and find acceptance and sympathy for their view point? What about polygamists? Aren’t they all just looking for love in whatever way appeals to them? Ironically, laws prohibiting marriage for these groups aren’t declared discriminatory.
Racial discrimination and homosexual marriage are two issues that should never be compared because they are as different as night and day. I was born and will die an African American woman. I wake up every day and deal with all the social and economic consequences that come with this reality. Despite some advances, most African Americans still have to be smarter and work harder and longer to earn just a fraction of the privileges and opportunities that most Caucasians take for granted. My race and gender are genetic facts that are beyond medical science; they are not optional and there has not been one day of my entire life that I could choose differently.
I am appalled when people use the election of America’s first black president to claim that racism is no longer an issue in this country. It is a symbolic change that by no means undoes all the real racism that goes on everyday in America. Everyday, black children attend dilapidated public schools that look more like prisons than learning institutions. They are denied basic services and materials like current text books and access to technologies that are necessary to allow them to compete in the market place. Meanwhile, white students attend pristine technologically advanced schools with far more services and opportunities. Both are funded by federal and state tax dollars, but the distribution of resources is far from equal. From an early age, black children are taught the message that their lives and education just aren’t worth as much. Every day in cities across the country, police officers continue to racially profile, beat, and kill black men with impunity. While Americans were outraged at the acquittal of OJ Simpson, he is an isolated exception and not the rule. There is rampant discrimination in the criminal justice system that continues to destroy the lives of black men and black families. Most black men who are not celebrities or unusually wealthy do not get fair treatment by the system. People assume that black men commit more crime. The fact is that black men are disproportionately targeted and abused by law enforcement, have less access to adequate legal representation, and are exponentially more likely to be arrested and convicted regardless of whether they are guilty. The humiliation and physical risk of driving while black continues to be a very real issue in this country. Black women may appear to have greater access, but continue to face racism in education and the work force and suffer from the destruction of the black family unit caused by the genocide and degradation of black men. Hence, the alarming number of unmarried black professional women. As long as disparities in education and injustice in the legal system persist, the vast social and economic ramifications of being black in America will continue to perpetuate racial inequality in this country.
The idea that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue necessarily requires accepting homosexuality as an involuntary condition, rather than a choice. Neither science nor rational thought can support that position. Despite valient efforts to prove a genetic cause for homosexuality, the data does not support it. Research proves that there is no genetic difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals; there is no "gay gene." Twin studies also show no higher incidence of homosexuality in twins. There is also scientific support that environment and social influence play a significant role in encouraging homosexuality. It is a fact that 75% of homosexuals have suffered some sort of sexual trauma. There are thousands of other social and environmental factors that may be involved. Science disproves the claim that homosexuality is a genetic condition.
Rational thought also defies this position. We are all born male and female, having traits of both, but in most cases emotional and social development aligns with physical gender to dominate the expression of male or female characteristics. All children are born with a sexual identity defined by genitalia, but no baby is born with a sexual preference. Sexual activity and expression generally do not occur until later in development. Homosexuality is a choice, perhaps a series of choices. Some people who are inclined toward homosexual activity try to convince themselves and others that it is a manifestation of something that existed from birth, but there are no facts to support this theory. It is consistent with a disturbing trend in America to deny responsibility for our choices, and label every difficult choice as something cosmically imposed through some external source over which one has no control. If you drink too much, are violent or just can’t get your life in order, then it is your parents’ fault. No one wants to own their challenges anymore and there is an excuse for everything. Since being openly homosexual is obviously a choice, the social or psychological benefits must outweigh the cost, or no sane person would elect it.
Most proponents of homosexual marriage happen to be Caucasian and have no real concept of what discrimination is. Because of this lack of understanding, they fail to see the difference between privileges and rights. They falsely describe this as a “civil rights” issue, when in fact it is a fight for privilege. The aim is to legitimize homosexuality as a social norm and encourage its proliferation in religion and society as a whole.
I find it deeply offensive when the proponents of homosexual marriage falsely equate the campaign for homosexual privilege to racism. There is no valid comparison between homosexual marriage and the cruel torture, genocide, and immeasurable social and economic oppression that African Americans have suffered in the struggle for equality. My parents and grandparents did not endure slavery, lynchings, segregation, dogs, and fire hoses, to legalize homosexual marriage. Increasing sentiment by the media and some citizens accepting these false claims of "discrimination" made by homosexual activists and their supporters dilutes and trivializes the purpose and spirit of civil rights legislation. To require states and churches to perform homosexual marriage under the guise of civil equality will open the flood gates to dozens of other special interest groups and render civil rights laws meaningless and void. To permit homosexual activists to manipulate the hard fought civil rights laws penned with the blood of my ancestors is a perversion of social justice that is about as reprehensible to me as denial of the holocaust. It is a lie that is too pernicious to ignore.
3. HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE REPRESENTS A REAL THREAT TO FREE SPEECH.
The continued expansion of the homosexual agenda has increasingly become an attack on our First Amendment Right to Free Speech. Over the last several years, anyone that criticizes, disagrees with, or opposes homosexual agenda in any way, has been viciously attacked and labeled a racist. It has become career suicide to call someone a homosexual, even if they are! Any view point contrary to that of the homosexual political agenda has been regarded as discrimination and elevated to the status of a racial slur. The apparent goal is to eliminate free speech for anyone that does not support the homosexual point of view. Free speech is ultimately about free thinking and the right to expression, and that is what is at stake.
As Americans, we used to be free to dislike and disagree with others for an infinite number of socially and legally acceptable reasons. You can still tease or criticize people who are over-weight, old, short, funny looking, unfashionable, etc, and its perfectly ok. But after a very successful marketing campaign, homosexuals have become a hyper-protected special interest group with an insatiable appetite for privileges that jeopardize the rights of others to disagree with them. During the 2008 political campaign in California, opponents to Prop 8 made ridiculous statements like “chickens have more rights in California than homosexuals,” pointing to a ballot measure that was passed under which chickens got the right to have cages big enough to stretch their legs. So far there have been no reported incidents of any chickens getting married. Homosexuals have been extraordinarily successful in convincing others that they are disadvantaged and mistreated. The homosexual agenda is intent on driving heterosexuals “into the closet” and prohibiting any speech that homosexual activists don’t approve of. It is to the point that much of the media will demonize anyone who dares to challenge the homosexual rights agenda. Making any speech opposing homosexual marriage into a discrimination issue is aimed at making the heterosexual viewpoint illegal, both as a matter of civil and criminal law. The news has been littered with examples of public figures who have suffered swift and extreme political, professional, and social consequences for expressing heterosexual view points. Consider the vicious attacks on the former Ms. California. She was asked a politically charged question about gay marriage and when she answered honostly, was attacked, harrassed, and ultimately fired. The right to free speech is very much at risk, and the cost of sentimentality for homosexual privilege will cost far more than most people realize.
4. HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS A THREAT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICE.
Religious and faith based institutions are increasingly facing the loss of their tax exempt status, political attack, and expensive law suits if they exclude or refuse to marry homosexuals. Faith based entities are being forced to hire homosexuals and put them in positions of leadership even though it violates core fundamental values of the institutions. Despite all of the failures and shortcomings of individuals and marriages, the institution of marriage is the foundation for family, which is still the single most important social structure in existence. If homosexuals cannot accept the basic tenants of the Christian faith, then perhaps they should create a new religion, rather than try to force Christianity to abandon biblical principles to accommodate them. Most Christians are quite accepting of homosexuals. However, they will not re-write scripture and still see sin as sin. Most Christians are taught to hate sin but love sinners. I was outraged recently when I saw a group of seminary students attacking Christian Universities, for alleged inequalities in the treatment of homosexual students. It seems odd that a homosexual would chose to attend a Christian school with the infinite number of prominent secular institutions available. It is part of an aggressive attack on any and all things that do not bend to the will of the homosexual agenda. The homosexual agenda threatens the right and ability of religious institutions and their members to practice their own religion and is a growing form of religious persecution.
5. A MARRIAGE LICENSE, LIKE ANY OTHER LICENSE, IS A PRIVILEGE GRANTED BY THE STATE, AND THE STATE IS PERMITTED TO SET REASONABLE CONDITIONS FOR ITS ISSUANCE.
While marriage is a covenant between two people, the state’s involvement in the choice
of two people to enter a marriage is pretty much limited to issuing licenses. A license is a
grant of permission to do something, and may have other related rights or privileges.
Every license issued by a government entity has conditions governing one’s eligibility.
You need a license to run businesses, enter professions, drive a car, or hold a parade.
There are more laws prohibiting or restricting the ability to obtain a driver’s license than
there are for getting married. There are written tests, vision tests, age requirements, training requirements, etc, and failure to meet any will result in a denial of the privilege to drive a car. If you think its tough being a homosexual who can’t marry; try living in Los Angeles and not being able to drive a car. Sadly, there is no advocacy group for Californians who can’t drive, so I guess this group will just have to suck it up and catch the bus.
California government entities and most religions will only marry a man and a woman. It is a requirement that the intended couple be of opposite sexes. Homosexuals don’t meet this basic condition to get a license, and therefore are no more entitled to marry than a person who fails the written driver’s exam is entitled to drive. Two people can make a lifetime commitment to each other without ever obtaining this now coveted piece of paper. Civil unions provide many of the same benefits as marriage. Heterosexuals who cohabitate without marriage or remain single, whether or not by choice, don’t get any of the benefits of civil union but no one cares about their challenges. Homosexuals can throw a party and invite all their friends, but if they want the state or the church to bless, validate, or recognize their unions, then they have to follow the rules like everybody else.
6. MARRIAGE IS A SOCIAL INSTITUTION GROUNDED IN MORAL AND RELIGIOIUS PRINCIPLES.
On a spiritual level, there is nothing hateful, sinful, or mean about opposing homosexual marriage. It is about preserving a fundamental aspect of our collective social and religious heritage. As a technical matter, the bible does not prohibit homosexuality, but prohibits the act of intercourse between people of the same sex. Leviticus 18:22. The very same chapter of Leviticus prohibiting homosexual sex also prohibits a number of other sexual practices, including intercourse with animals, close relatives, and UNMARRIED HETEROSEXUALS. Leviticus. 18:1-29. From a biblical stand point, all of these practices are regarded as sins that violate spiritual law. However, from a biblical perspective, homosexuality is at the far end of the spectrum of what is considered to be sexual perversion. The majority of Christian churches still teach abstinence from sexual intercourse of any kind outside of marriage. A difference of opinion on the fundamental issue of marriage has nothing to do with hatred or intolerance, but the preservation of social and moral principles that are essential in this time of rapid and progressive moral decay. People are getting tired of the oversaturation of aggressive and explicit homosexual images and messages that have been increasingly forced into American homes through every conceivable medium, that conflict with their own values and beliefs. American people are pretty open and accepting for the most part, but occasionally, when things get too far afield of our collective moral sensibilities, the people will come together and set a limit.
7. CONTINUED OPPOSITION TO CALIFORNIA LAWS REGARDING MARRIAGE IS A VIOLATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.
Californians have voted twice on this issue, and homosexuals still refuse to accept the result of the democratic process. The people of California made a choice to pass a law that is legal and valid and should be honored because it does not violate any civil right. As set forth above, this is not a discrimination issue, and there is no valid legal argument requiring the state or church to perform homosexual marriages. The claim that Proposition 8 stripped away an "existing right" to homosexual marriage is misleading. California voters previously passed Proposition 22 in 2000, defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
The California Supreme Court case, In re Marriages, started this controversy and temporarily allowed homosexuals to marry until a second election corrected them. Even in that case, the court acknowledged the fact that many states have legally passed laws restricting marriage to heterosexuals. The issue in California was technical and somewhat complicated because of the paradoxical existence of civil unions that mirror most of the rights of marriage but deny the "title" of marriage to homosexual couples. This was the basis on which the court struck down the 2000 law, and temporarily permitted homosexual marriage.
The people of California voted again in November 2008, this time to amend the State’s Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Homosexual activists challenged the validity of the election and lost. Homosexual activists still persist and believe they can get around the will of people by intensifying their marketing efforts and repeatedly putting homosexual marriage legislation on the ballot until they get the result they want. The hope by some homosexual activists to make marriage a federal issue would require a rejection of essential principles of our constitution. The U.S. Constitution and the fundamentals upon which this country was built reserved the right of states to decide several social issues, including marriage. Based on the continued protests and deep divide on this issue, it may take a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to finally put the matter to rest. If that happens, I think these activists will find they reached too far and will regret it. Federal courts have been clear that homosexuals are not a suspect or semi-suspect class and therefore absolutely not entitled to protection under civil rights statutes.
Final thought.
Homosexuals are fighting for a privilege and using deceptive propaganda to portray this as a civil rights issue. “gay” is not the new “black”. Ultimately, this is not about intolerance but about preserving at least a few fundamental values held by the majority of Americans. For the heterosexuals who sympathize with the gay rights activists' rhetoric and ask “Why not let them marry?” my answer is this: because it costs too much. The loss of civil rights laws for those who truly need them, the loss of free speech, freedom of religion, the ramifications to education and our culture is immeasurable. I for one am not willing shred the constitution and surrender most of the fundamental rights upon which this country was built to yield to the self serving indulgences demanded by homosexual activists.