Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Vermont Vetoes the Veto and Marriage is Neutered Once Again.

Just a quick thought here today.  And a link to more thorough coverage of the Vermont vote.

I have been thinking lately how curious it is that as a word of warning during Proposition 8, many people (including me) rattled off this quote: “As California goes, so goes the nation.”  Since Prop 8’s November 4th victory, however, two more states (Iowa and Vermont) have, through legislative and judicial activism, legalized same-sex marriage.

Isn’t it curious that in the one state where the question of homosexual marriage was put to a vote by the people, marriage was upheld?  I think this clarifies why homosexual activists seek to legalize their pretend marriages by circumventing the people and pressuring the judiciary and the legislature.

The only way for them to be stymied on all fronts is for citizens to make sure they are voting moral and principled people into government positions.

That’s just my two cents.



Delirious said...

I think that's worth more than 2 cents. :) I think that's the whole ball of wax.

Secular Heretic said...

You make a good point Pearl. When the whole state can vote they don't want it (same sex marriage) but when a few politicians or judges vote it sometimes just scrapes through.

Tom said...

Pearl, I respect your opinion but do not agree with it. Same sex marriage is a matter of civil rights. In a democracy, the popular vote is not an acceptable form of legislating rights. The ability of a majority to take away or grant privileges to a minority is not a good thing. Our judicial system is the true mechanism in which civil rights are addressed with the support of our legislators. These are not "activist" judges and legislators. They are only following our nation's model of democracy. I believe too many people have mired the water by intermixing secular marriage with civil marriage. Many nations recognize civil marriage only. That is supported by our belief in the separation of Church and State in this country.

Secular Heretic said...

Same sex couples do not have the right to marry each other, neither do siblings or people who are under age.

Pearl said...

And I respect your opinion, Tom, but obviously do not agree with it, either. :0)

Separation of Church and State as you reference it, is a myth. None of those words actually exist in either the Constitution or the First Amendment.

"The First Amendment religion clauses have been morphed into the phrase 'a wall of separation between Church and State' - eight words taken out of context from an incidental letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 . . . . Ironically, Jefferson intended for his letter to the Danbury Baptists to reassure them that the new federal government would not endanger the free expression of their religion. This is widely known. But what is not well known is that Jefferson did not actually coin the phrase 'separation of church and state.' Rather, he borrowed the metaphor from the sermon, 'The Garden and the Wilderness,' which was very familiar to Baptists of the time. As Jim Henderson, senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, explains it:

"That sermon, rendered by Roger Williams (the founder of the Rhode Island Plantation colony, and a Baptist), depicted the church as a garden, the world as a wilderness, and the wall as a device of the Creator's invention that protected the garden from being overrun by the wilderness. Williams explained that, from time to time, for the purpose of disciplining sin in the church, 'it hath pleased' the Almighty to break down the wall.

Thomas Jefferson, ever the politician, knew when he communicated with the Baptists that 'The Garden and The Wilderness' was a well known and widely read nearly two generations later. He appealed to them in the terms of their own great man's idiom."

There you have it. The wall of separation was meant to protect 'the garden' of the church from being overrun by 'the wilderness' of government. No wonder Chief Justice Rehnquist has said, "The metaphor of a 'wall of separation' is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." In other words. it's a lie."
(The Marketing of Evil, p. 55-56)

Indeed, when our Constitution was created, the nation was overwhelmingly Christian and . . .

- ". . . no fewer than six of the thirteen original states had official, state-supported churches - 'establishments of religion'! I'll bet you didn't know that. In fact, these states - Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and South Carolina - refused to ratify the new national Constitution unless it included a prohibition of federal meddling with their existing state 'establishments of religion.'"

- "In 1777, with the Revolutionary War threatening the flow of Bibles from England, Congress approved the purchase of twenty thousand Bibles from Holland to give to the states."

- "Other states required those seeking elected office to be Christians."

- "The Continental Congress routinely designated days of fasting and prayer and other religious observances, appointed government-funded chaplains, and appropriated money to pay for Christian missionaries to convert the Indians."

(The Marketing of Evil, p.41)

Tom, marriage is not a civil right, it is an institutional privilege, granted to all men and women equally so long as each individual agrees to abide by its parameters. Government regulates marriage for the benefit of society; to ensure the best possible emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual outcome for the potential posterity of the marital union. Using your argument, there are others, heterosexuals, who could cry 'discrimination!' for the government's restriction of their desire to marry their sibling or their cousin or their 14-year-old neighbor.

Our nation's "model of democracy" has been clearly misunderstood when judges take it upon themselves to legislate from the bench, making decisions based on personal beliefs that children don't actually need a mother and a father, dismissing years and years of research to the contrary. Democracy is what happened in California, allowing the people to vote on a matter that affects us all and especially affects our children.