Apparently the trend of not allowing silly things like law and Constitution to stop liberal agendas is growing.
From WorldNetDaily, not only did the mayor of Seattle (ostensibly sworn to uphold the law) break the law in granting benefits to homosexual couples, the Washington Supreme Court is apparently okay with that since they declined to review a lower court's decision allowing the mayor to break the law.
The state's Defense of Marriage Act, which was upheld by the Washington Supreme Court, requires that the state not recognize same-sex marriages from outside the state.
However, the mayor of Seattle issued an executive order in direct contradiction of the state law, instructing all city departments to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions now, including California, for the purposes of employee benefits.
WorldNetDaily also reports that Massachusetts Governor Duval Patrick has appointed a lesbian activist as associate justice of the Middlesex Probate and Family Court--without legal authority to do so. In addition to bad judgment (as a lesbian, Maureen Monks has turned her back on the creation and maintenance of the family as nature and nature's God intended--and she will now have authority over family court?), Governor Patrick has broken the law.
As the WND article points out, the law requires that judicial nominees receive 5 votes from the Massachusetts Governor's Council. Monks only received four--and it's not even clear whether those four are legal, since the law does not indicate that verbal votes may be counted.
The California Supreme Court recently decided to ignore the DOMA law of that state and create a "right" for homosexuals to get "married."
We were once a nation of laws. In a nation of laws, you know where you stand. In a nation where laws are not only disregarded by the common people but by those in charge of UPHOLDING the law, there is really no way to tell from day to day whether you will retain your freedoms.
In this particular case, the disregard for the law is recognizing something as legitimate which will never truly be legitimate. However, the same disregard for law may result in serious damage to our freedoms and even the security of our persons and property.
Today you may be fine, tomorrow you're a criminal for doing the same thing. Today you were protected from mistreatment by another person, tomorrow they can harm you with impunity.
32 comments:
Anarchism is the word that first comes to mind, followed by insurrection. Flouting the law and acting contary to its intent undermines an orderly and lawful society and should be counted as a criminal breach of the oath of office that is taken by all government employees.
What are you so afraid of? What do you care if someone else gets medical or marital benefits- gay or straight? Who put you in charge of deciding that certain people should be denied respectful and equal treatment? Stop hating. Open your heart and mind. Wouldn't you enjoy your life more if you just had to focus on your own, and not on how to make others' miserable? God put you here to love, not to sit as his judge.
Unfortunately no one put me in charge. But I am a citizen who has the right to free speech and to petition my government for good policy decisions.
People aren't being denied respectful and equal treatment. We shouldn't and don't give benefits rightly reserved to married couples to people who don't meet that definition, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.
Marriage and family are a distinct, unique and particular institution which provides a vital service for the state: mainly in creating and raising up the next generation, providing for the care and nurture of that next generation, and providing a stable home in which they can grow up.
Unmarried heterosexual couples are ill-suited to do that because they lack the commitment to better guarantee the necessary stability.
Homosexual couples are even less suited to perform this function. They cannot create new life from their unions, and even if they adopt, the child would still enter into a home fraught with terrible risks and dangers (http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/06/norway-sixth-country-to-recognize.html).
Married couples are the only relationship suited to perform this vital function, and society accordingly provides some additional benefits to facilitate the execution of this function. Joe Citizen doesn't get a gun, badge and police car...because he isn't equipped to perform the function of a cop. Homosexuals and unmarried couples aren't properly equipped to perform the function of a stable family.
As for your closing comments, I'd love to focus on my own life; it has enough challenges of it's own. But there are too many voices in our society who advocate undermining the family and our civilization. God says I should care about others, and I care too much to keep my mouth shut when I see us flirting with danger.
I don't need to judge; God is judge. God has already made it clear that his design for the family and human sexuality is to be expressed between a husband and wife. Science, which shows us all the problems that come when we try things outside that framework, backs up the conclusion that marriage and family is the right, safe and healthy way to go.
Bob,
I know a man and a woman who have been married for three years. They are both in their sixties, and have no desire to have a family, and even if they wanted to, the woman is well past childbearing age, and frankly their bodies are just too old to keep up with children. They are also both atheists, and do not care what God says or doesn't say about marriage; all they want is legal protection, which is why they didn't bother with a minister or even a ceremony. They just went down to the courthouse, signed some papers, and now they're married.
I also know two gay Christians who have been in a monogamous relationship for over sixteen years. They moved to Massachusetts last year soon so that they could get married -- which they did, in a church, with all their friends and family present. Obviously, since they're both men, they can't produce children. They also do not wish to adopt, as they have no interest in raising children.
Neither couple will take part in the creation or rearing of children, ever. Keeping in mind that the Bible should not be the basis for public policy (think of the millions of Americans who do not subscribe to Christianity), which relationship should be legal?
As an aside, I also know of some unmarried heterosexual couples who are perfectly committed to each other and have a stability that puts certain marriages to shame. A 20-minute ceremony, a piece of paper, and a fancy cake would not have the slightest impact on their ability or fitness to raise children.
Open your eyes and use common sense, Bob.
Anonymous, you say the Bible shouldn't be the basis for public policy? First of all, why not?
Over 82% of Americans say they are Christians. That's the vast majority of the country. We are a democratic country. If the majority believe we should implement public policies that are in harmony with their deeply held religious believes, why should their religious origin invalidate them? I suspect you'd be okay with those values if they dreamed them up, pulled them out of the air, or read them in a sci-fi novel? Why not on the basis of their Christian beliefs? There is no prohibition against that in the Constitution, only against Congress passing a law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, so why not?
The men who founded this country would disagree with your assertion that the Bible should not form the basis of public policy:
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. - George Washington
It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. - George Washington
Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? - George Washington
You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention. - George Washington
“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.” - Gouverneur Morris, signer of the Declaration of Independence
“In my view, the Christian Religion is the most import and and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed…no truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian Religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” - Noah Webster
"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all of our civil constitutions and laws." - Noah Webster
“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.” - John Adams
"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
"...the only foundation for...a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." - Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." - Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration
"...man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original." - William Blackstone
"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine .... Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other." - James Wilson, signer of the Declaration
And as for the examples you cited, it sounds like the heterosexual couple aren't honoring marriage as they should. However, they do possess one key element to form a marriage which the homosexual couple lacks: a woman. It takes a man and a woman and a formal commitment to make up a marriage.
It's as simple as that. Quit fighting nature and reality. Open your eyes and use some common sense.
You're exhausting, Bob. The Bible should not be used to form public policy, because if we REALLY followed it, I would be facing the death penalty, as sanctioned in Leviticus 20:13. That's reason enough for me.
And while Christianity is not the "official" religion in America, it certainly is the de facto one. And you know it. This essentially says to all non-Christians: "Sorry, but this may not be the place for you."
A lot of the men you quoted also owned slaves. Are you sure you want to trust their judgment?
So in your eyes, any husband and wife who cannot or choose not to have kids are not honoring the institution of marriage? Wow.
I wish I could just stop commenting on your "news" articles. But your stupidity is just too irresistible! Besides, who else would you have to talk to?
You misunderstand me, either intentionally or because of your ignorance of how our country works.
Christian values can and have informed public policy since the beginning of our nation. They have not, however, dictated policy; if that were the case, we'd have theocracy, which we don't.
If you really don't want the Bible and Christian values informing public policies, then we'd better get rid of laws prohibiting murder, rape, theft, and so on because guess what: these are Christian values.
And I never said any husband and wife who cannot or choose not to have children are not honoring the institution of marriage. The example to which I referred was one where a couple got married on a whim, or without proper appreciation for the sacred commitment into which they were entering. But a man and a woman do at least have the biological capacity to reproduce and create a family, which is the primary design and function for the family; homosexuals are biologically incapable of that function.
I don't know how much you know about other faiths, but Christianity isn't the only religion that frowns upon murder, rape, theft, and other crimes. They're not exclusively Christian values. Therefore, why not let a faith like, say, Buddhism or Jainism influence policy, rather than Christianity?
I can now add "ignorant" to the list of names you've called me so far. What a loving, nonjudgmental Christian you are, Bob!
Christian values also established slavery in America.
If we were wrong about that, we can be wrong again.
Did I say Christianity is the only religion that frowns on murder, theft, etc? I don't think I did. But Christianity is the religion of the people who founded the United States, and according to the most recent surveys, 82% of Americans say they still believe in Christianity.
Christian principles have also created the most free and prosperous nation in history, so it makes sense to stick with (a) the values that founded the country and (b) what obviously works.
Christian values didn't establish slavery in America. Some people tried to twist the Scriptures to justify slavery, but that dog don't hunt.
Some people? You mean just the Founders, the Confederacy, the Southern Baptist Convention, and countless others...
I'm sure there was a Bob Ellis back in the mid-1800s, who argued until he was red in the face that slavery was sanctioned by God. "Look, it says so in the Bible, and that's good enough for me! You silly abolitionists and your twisted interpretation of scripture!"
Go read the Bible. Let me know if you find something pro-slavery in there.
I simply challenge your claim that only "some" people twisted scripture to justify slavery, and you send me off on a homework assignment? You're a master at ignoring an argument, Bob.
Even if I did quote the verses that instruct slave owners on how to treat their human property (rather than on how to, say, FREE them), my point still stands: rather than "some," it's actually a great many people who believed slavery was justified.
I say again: if Christians were found to be wrong once, they can be wrong again. To insist otherwise is dishonest and, frankly, stupid.
I didn't say Christians couldn't be wrong; we're fallible and make mistakes despite having access to the truth. The point was that there is no Biblical justification for it. Just as there's no Biblical (or scientific, or sociological) justification to legitimize homosexuality.
And if anything, the case against homosexuality is even clearer than the case against slavery.
Bob,
Actually, I think that if Christians at one point in history could genuinely believe that God wanted them to own another human being and treat him like farming equipment, I think that same-sex marriage should be an easy concept to stomach.
And I'm not concerned about biblical evidence for or against slavery, or how wrong it seems today that Christians could ever allow such a thing. The point is that people did believe it at one time, as an established Christian principle. I don't mean scholars or ministers, but everyday people like you and me; they truly believed that slavery was fine. And they believed it "because the Bible said so." It's what they were taught, and they didn't know any better.
That's why it terrifies me when people say "It's in the Bible, God says it's wrong, so that's good enough for me!"
That's why it's important to go to the Bible, not just rely on what someone tells you. Because it was never a "Christian principle" that established or justified slavery.
But you'll find that the case against homosexuality in the Bible is many times over more clear than the case against slavery. It goes beyond implication, beyond principle, and beyond application; the Bible flat-out says it numerous times in both Old and New Testaments.
What's more, science bears out the contention that homosexuality isn't a good idea. Sex organs obviously have a primary function to effect reproduction; that is impossible with two male or two female sets of organs. Biology also illustrates that human anatomy was not designed to accommodate a common homosexual practice; in fact, direct injury is a serious risk. And the dramatically elevated risk of several STDs, AIDS, cancer, depression, substance abuse and suicide all speak to the inviability of this practice as a lifestyle.
No matter how you cut it, spiritual or scientific, homosexuality is just bad for people.
Bob,
You seem to harp on how two male and two female bodies were not designed to go together. I wonder how you feel about heterosexual oral sex? Certainly a penis wasn't designed to go into a woman's mouth (that's where food goes!), nor was a man's tongue designed to go into a woman's vagina (that's obviously where his penis should go!). But straight couples do it anyway. By what you've said before, this is unnatural.
Also, many straight couples engage in anal intercourse, which CLEARLY is a misuse of their bodies, right? But as long as it's done within the context of marriage, it's somehow magically permissible?
What if a married couple chooses not to have vaginal intercourse? They would obviously not be using their sex organs in a "natural" way, but does that mean it's wrong?
That is the subject of some debate.
For one thing, the Bible doesn't really address it, so there's no objective value regarding it from which to draw.
Some people think that anything within marriage is acceptable as long as it doesn't do harm or degrade human dignity; others believe that vaginal intercourse is the only correct way for a husband and wife to have sex.
Regardless of which one of those views is correct, we do know from the Bible (which is the source of moral authority for the 82% of Americans who say they're Christians) and from nature (two men or two women are totally incapable of reproduction, or ever having sex in the intended fashion) that homosexuality isn't the moral or normal function for human sexuality.
Getting back to the original subject of this post, we also know from the law that the law is being violated by the officials mentioned here.
Just trying to make it easy for you with the analogies; sometimes they help cut through the fuss and see an issue more clearly.
Where did the idea that God approves of homosexuality come from, or that he creates people that way? It certainly didn't come from the Bible, because the Bible is very clear that neither of those is true.
As with slavery, et al, it came from someone's desire to justify a behavior they knew was wrong. They felt that if they could somehow "reinterpret" Scripture to support what they wanted, it would put a seal of respectability and legitimacy on it. There is actually a whole theology out there at says God is way-cool on homosexuality. The problem is, like with many of the abuses you mentioned, it has only the loosest connection with what the Bible actually says.
And I didn't say the Bible was true because the Bible says it is. I don't think I even addressed that question in this thread, but if I had, I almost certainly would have said something like this: many of the claims of the Bible have proven to be true, and not a single one of it's claims have been proven untrue. That's something that can't be said for modern "science," so that places the Bible firmly within the realm of credible for me.
The Bible will never, and CAN never be proven neither right nor wrong on one important claim, however: that it is the word of God.
You believe that because you want it to be true.
That may be true, until God reveals himself.
However, the Bible made claims hundreds and even thousands of years in advance of their being proven.
Short of being written in fire in the sky that's pretty credible to me...and to most reasonable people. (More credible than many of the continually-changing claims of modern "science")
If God reveals himself, not until. "Until" assumes that he will, which is an intellectually unfair statement, given the lack of proof either way...just trying to keep it fair here.
God says he will reveal himself one day...and since I've never caught him in a lie before, I have no reason not to believe him on this claim, either.
So you figure that since God hasn't lied before, he will never lie in the future? Interesting.
Here's a thought: what if God has done nothing BUT lie? How would you really know?
I'm sure some would escape me, but not all.
Dinosaurs were described in the Bible (with descriptions that wouldn't fit any animal known to us today), thousands of years before the term was even coined.
The Bible says the stars can't be numbered (though the ancients tried), and even with the Hubble Telescope today, we find that we still don't really know how many are out there.
About 3,000 years ago, the Bible described the expansion of the universe...which is a scientific theory which arose only in recent decades.
Thousands of years ago, the Bible said the earth wasn't suspended on anything...while the Greeks were talking about Atlas.
The Bible said thousands of years ago that air has measurable weight, something that was only done a few hundred years ago.
The Bible made numerous prophesies--including many specific ones about the coming of Christ--hundreds of years before he was born, including what city he would be born in. The Bible also predicted BY NAME King Cyrus of Babylon 150 years before Cyrus was even born.
The Bible talked about the Hittite people, and some people thought the writer made it up, until the archaeological evidence turned up less than 100 years ago.
There are tons more, but those are just a few claims the Bible has made that have proven true. And not a single one proven false.
Prove that Christ is the son of God.
I can never prove it conclusively to the satisfaction of a determined skeptic, which you appear to be.
Suffice to say that he made many claims which were witnessed to be true--and not only by his "insiders," but actually by some that might be considered less than disposed to accept his claims. And in 2,000 years, the body has never turned up. And I know what He's done in my life--it's nothing short of miraculous.
But that's another topic for another post on another day. The subject of this post is on the lawbreaking of officials in Mass., Calif. and Washington state.
So eyewitness accounts from superstitious people living in a superstitious time, the lack of a corpse (which is irrelevant), and a gut feeling are "proof" that Christ is the son of God, and you think that's enough to justify telling complete strangers how they should live, whom they can and cannot marry, and what laws they should follow.
Despicable.
So eyewitness accounts from superstitious people living in a superstitious time, the lack of a corpse (which is irrelevant), and a gut feeling are "proof" that Christ is the son of God, and you think that's enough to justify telling complete strangers how they should live, whom they can and cannot marry, and what laws they should follow.
Despicable.
Did Julius Caesar exist? Did Leonidas? Did Xerxes? There's better historical and documentary evidence supporting Jesus than these guys--yet I doubt that you doubt their existence and the claims made about them.
But this is a post about the lawbreaking of of government officials in Calif., Mass. and Washington, so let's get back to the topic at hand.
Yes, the dearth of historical documentation on Xerxes is the best reason I've ever heard to accept Christ. It makes perfect sense.
If you want to stay on topic, fine. But you won't get much conversation -- I'm the only person who seems to show any interest in this article.
Post a Comment