Dakota Voice: Californians Fighting to Protect Marriage

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Californians Fighting to Protect Marriage

After a defeat in the courts, voters in California will get the chance to keep marriage between one man and one woman.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...: I was going to ask the same question on each of these "OMG, vote against same-sex marriage or the terrorists win!1!!!" videos that I did on the one for Florida, but I don't feel like being forced to solve the sphinx's riddle about counterfeit money every time.

So let's get to the point: if same-sex marriage becomes legal, heterosexual married couples will not lose a single right, benefit, or privilege. Not a single one. Men will not be threatened, prevented, or discouraged from marrying women, and vice versa. I'm sure the late Jerry Falwell would have been deeply disappointed.

What you're really trying to "protect" is not a set of legal sanctions but rather the definition of a word. Think about that - a word! If the success, security, personal value, joy, and productivity of your marriage are dependent upon whatever Webster says, then I'm sorry, but you need to face your insecurities and drop this irrational, laughably exaggerated fear that society will collapse once gay couples start sharing health insurance and property rights.

FYI, you may want to amend your first sentence... marriage in California is no longer exclusive to heterosexual couples, so voters wouldn't be "keeping marriage between one man and one woman"; they'd be rescinding the rights of an entire demographic and forcing legally recognized couples to live out of wedlock. But I guess there's no nice way of saying that you oppose individual liberty, is there? ;-); 9/23/2008 9:36 AM
Bob Ellis said...: Just as people counterfeiting $20 bills in Chicago has no effect on the currency of people in Denver. After all, "dollar" is just a word.

Homosexual couples are not "married" in California, and even if the decision the legislating judges of California has foisted on the people of California were to stand 1,000 years, they still wouldn't be married. Marriage can only be accomplished by a man and a woman.

You can pass around that counterfeit $20 bill a hundred times and call it a $20 bill every time...and it still won't be a $20 bill.; 9/23/2008 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Something tells me you wouldn't do so well in a debate.; 9/23/2008 12:56 PM
Bob Ellis said...: If doing well in a debate means capitulating to the opposition and abandoning logical arguments, no I wouldn't do very well.; 9/23/2008 1:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Right, because "a legally recognized relationship between two people of the same sex is the exact same thing as a counterfeit $20 bill" is the most airtight logic I've ever heard.

Seriously Bob, do you have ANYTHING substantial to say to any of my points? Or should I just pull the string on your back to hear the same pearl of homespun country wisdom you keep hiding behind one more time? God forbid you should actually confront the questions I bring up.; 9/23/2008 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...: *crickets chirping*; 9/24/2008 10:11 AM
Bob Ellis said...: Alex, I can't help it if you're too obtuse to understand what I'm saying...or refuse to admit it because you know it undermines the sin you want to excuse.

You can lead a horse to water....(more "homespun country wisdom" that's oh so true); 9/24/2008 5:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Blindly insisting that marriage can "only be accomplished by a man and a woman" is not the same as proving it. And considering that you're basing it simply on the definition of the word "marriage" it only goes to show how wrong you are. The definition of words, both in normal usage and as legal terms, change all the time. The word "artificial" used to mean what "artistic" means today.

Things change. Get over it.

Preventing same sex marriages does not "protect marriage", it only seeks to maintain one particular definition of marriage. Protecting the definition of a thing is not the same as protecting that thing.

Marriage once meant "a joining between one man and any number of women." Check your Bible and you'll see that's the case. I don't see you springing to defend that biblical definition of "marriage".

Furthermore, a fifteen year study in Scandinavian countries showed that after same-sex marriage became legal marriage rates went up, even for heterosexual couples, and divorce rates went down.[1] And if you think the US is different, similar trends have been seen in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

Still, this isn't about definitions, it's about equal rights. Whether you agree that same-sex couples fit your definition of "marriage" or not, they should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. Giving them that right in no way infringes upon your rights, or anyone else's. The US Constitution is meant to provide equal rights to all, not simply those you approve of.

Oh, and finally, if you'd passed around today's $20 bill ten years ago people would have laughed called it a lousy counterfeit. Today it's just a normal $20 bill.

[1]: A PDF of the Scandinavian study can be downloaded from here.; 9/25/2008 4:11 AM
Bob Ellis said...: HiEv, I can call a goat a "cat"...but is it then a feline...or is it still a goat. Obviously it's still a goat.

People can say two men or two women can be "married", and morally bankrupt public officials can even put a stamp of approval on such deception...but in the end, it's still going to be two homosexuals having unnatural and immoral sex on a regular basis...and that's all it's ever going to be.

Homosexuals already have the same rights that everyone else has. A homosexual man can marry a woman and a homosexual woman can marry a man; there is no lack of rights. What homosexual activists want is the "right" to call an illegitimate relationship something "legitimate" and therefore have the illusion of legitimacy...but it will never be any more legitimate than that fake $20 bill.

Oh, and we don't do time travel, either. But I suppose if one can fantasize that two men can "marry," then time travel with money is about as realistic.; 9/25/2008 5:50 AM
Anonymous said...: "...but in the end, it's still going to be two homosexuals having unnatural and immoral sex on a regular basis...and that's all it's ever going to be."

Sort of an indirect way of saying that a homosexual relationship amounts to nothing more than sex. I'm sure your gay friends would appreciate that. If all you can see when you think about a homosexual couple is what they do in the bedroom, maybe you're the one with the problem.; 9/25/2008 8:04 AM
Bob Ellis said...: There may be genuine emotion and affection involved, but in the end, that's all it ever can be. My sexual relationships outside of marriage before I gave my life over to God didn't amount to anything legitimate either.

Only sex within marriage has real legitimacy.; 9/25/2008 12:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Well I'm glad you can at least understand that same-sex partners aren't just in it for the sex.; 9/25/2008 12:59 PM
Bob Ellis said...: If they aren't in it for the sex, why are they having sex? Why not just be good friends?

That's as far as affection between the same sex can legitimately go.; 9/25/2008 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: The way you ignored my use of the word "just" kind of changes the meaning of what I said. You're a tricky one, you are!

By your "logic," I guess any gay couple that can't have sex, be it from an injury or health condition, might as well break up, seeing as how sex basically dictates our every decision in life. Your ignorance is embarrassing.

All this talk about legitimacy really doesn't get you anywhere. Only a person who views the Bible as authoritative can understand "logic" like that, so until you convert everyone to Christianity, you will not be discussing your perspective in a way that nonbelievers can understand.; 9/26/2008 9:21 AM
Bob Ellis said...: I didn't ignore the "just." The fact that they are having homosexual sex at all is relevant. Whether you have homosexual sex once or 10,000 times, whether there's affection involved or whether it's purely to get your jollies, it's wrong every time, and it's illegitimate every time.

Over 80% of Americans claim to be Christians, so I'm in the majority. What's more, God's law applies to every human being, regardless of whether they believe the tenets of Christianity or not, just as speed limit laws apply to every driver regardless of whether they believe a cop is there to enforce it on them or even believe it applies to them at all.

I do the best I can to explain things in both moral and practical ways that both believers and unbelievers can understand. However, if someone is determined to ignore the truth--as we have seen in abundance in practically every discussion you and I have had--there's really nothing that will make an impact. One has to be open to the truth before the truth can affect change.

In the meantime, I'll keep repeating the truth. Some folks may be ready for it right now, or the seed of truth may be planted now to germinate later. It might even germinate on you someday, Alex.; 9/26/2008 12:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Bob Ellis wrote: "HiEv, I can call a goat a "cat"...but is it then a feline...or is it still a goat. Obviously it's still a goat."
Cats and goats are physical objects, marriage is not. "Marriage" is a philosophical and legal concept, so the same rules don't apply as when you're labeling a set of physical characteristics. You can change the definition of mental and legal constructs, and I even gave examples of how the definition of "marriage" has changed in the past.

Bob Ellis wrote: "People can say two men or two women can be "married", and morally bankrupt public officials can even put a stamp of approval on such deception...but in the end, it's still going to be two homosexuals having unnatural and immoral sex on a regular basis...and that's all it's ever going to be."
It's only "immoral" to your narrow view of your particular religion. If they don't share your religion, why should they have to share your religious values? Who are you to say your particular religious views trump everyone else's? The United States of America is a secular country, so it should not base laws in religion, but instead on people's rights. Letting two people of the same sex marry doesn't violate anyone's rights, therefore it should be legal (unless you can come up with a good non-religious reason for preventing it that trumps those rights).

Furthermore, it is not "unnatural", since God apparently saw fit to make many species that take part in same gender sex (and some species even have both genders.) Something is "natural" if it happens in nature, and same gender sex does happen in nature. For details see here or for a list of known animals see here. Unless you've redefined "natural" in some absurd way, you have to admit that homosexual and lesbian sex is just as natural as heterosexual sex. (And no, "natural" doesn't mean "more frequent", there are lots of natural phenomenon that are also rarely seen in nature.)

Bob Ellis wrote: "Homosexuals already have the same rights that everyone else has. A homosexual man can marry a woman and a homosexual woman can marry a man; there is no lack of rights."
No, you missed the fact that they don't have the right to marry the person they love. Your argument makes just as much sense as when it was said about white people and black people to prevent interracial marriages. What you're saying is simply an attempt to maintain a legal system that supports prejudice, bigotry, and gender discrimination.

Beyond that, there are many legal rights denied to same-sex couples because they cannot be legally married. For example, many hospitals deny visiting rights to non-family members, and since same-sex couples aren't legally married they don't count as "family". Imagine being denied the right to see someone whom you've lived with and loved for 20 years when they're sick or injured in the hospital because the law says you don't have the right to marry. Does your God approve of that? And that's just one of a number of examples.

Bob Ellis wrote: "But I suppose if one can fantasize that two men can "marry," then time travel with money is about as realistic."
I beg to differ. Time travel has never been shown to be technically feasible, however it's an established fact that two men can marry in many countries, including some parts of the US. You can deny it all you want, but it's no "fantasy", they really are legally married.

And if history of other discriminated groups like blacks and women is any guide, same-sex marriage will eventually be legal everywhere but the most repressive countries.

Please, do think on this. Thank you for your time.; 10/09/2008 10:21 AM
Bob Ellis said...: Marriage is indeed not a physical object like a cat or a goat. But it is a fixed institution, and if it is changed, it will no longer be what it was. It is an institution designed for a man and a woman, and can only be fulfilled by a man and a woman; anything else is not and can never be "marriage."

The only reason homosexual activist want to call their unions "marriage" (beyond the obvious financial and practical benefits) is the air of legitimacy it lends to a practice which can never and will never be legitimate--the obvious use of our sexual organs point this out, even if common sense and morality escape us. In other words, it is an attempt at deception--to deceive others and ourselves into believing homosexual behavior can somehow be legitimate and normal, if only we can slap the same label on it as rests on a relationship that actually is legitimate and useful to society.

Your other arguments are equally flawed. Allowing people to prostitute their bodies or fill them with dangerous drugs do not "violate anyone's rights", yet we do not allow this for obvious reasons. Allowing people to create their own $20 bills doesn't violate anyone's rights, either, yet we do not allow it for obvious reasons.

You also twist and pervert the meaning of "natural." Things according to nature are implicitly according to the norm. Mutations are not according to the natural order, but are deviations. Cutting off the head of a gazelle and bludgeoning a small child of it is possible, but it is not a natural use or function for the gazelle's head.

You also have a--probably deliberately--obtuse understanding of rights. You claim homosexuals don't have the same rights as everyone else because they "don't have the right to marry the person they love." I love my daughter; do I have the right to marry her? Of course not. I might love my neighbor's 5 year old daughter; do I have the right to marry her? I might love my sister; do I have the right to marry her? Homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that everyone else has; what homosexual activists want is a special right to do what only a man and a woman can do.

And your reference to race and ethnicity is a disingenuous hijacking of civil rights, one which is a gross insult to the injustices black people have endured in the past. To equate an immoral, unnatural and unhealthy sexual practice with an innate morally-neutral physical characteristic is not only obtuse, but is downright insulting to people of color.

And no, men have not "married" in other countries; they have only been allowed to call their unions "marriage." It's the equivalent of allowing someone to call their goat a cat; they can call it that all day long, but until it meows and has kittens, it's still a goat. Two homosexual men living together--even if the state allows them to call it "marriage"--will still only be that: two homosexual men living together.; 10/09/2008 5:22 PM