Hasselbeck, Shepherd still advance skewed View on California's Prop 8
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On ABC's The View, co-hosts Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Sherri Shepherd again promoted the falsehood that without the passage of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, members of the clergy could be jailed for refusing to perform same-sex marriages. In fact, neither Proposition 8 nor the California Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry had anything to do with members of the clergy.
During the November 10 edition of ABC's The View, co-hosts Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Sherri Shepherd again promoted the falsehood that without the passage of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, members of the clergy could be jailed for refusing to perform same-sex marriages. Hasselbeck again referred to a Swedish priest who she falsely claimed was jailed "for not wanting to perform a marriage ceremony." And after being confronted with language from the California Supreme Court majority decision stating that clergy members will not be required to perform same-sex marriages, Shepherd suggested that that there is an "other side" to the issue. In fact, neither Proposition 8 -- which sought to overturn the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling that affirmed the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry -- nor the Supreme Court decision itself had anything to do with members of the clergy.
As Media Matters for America documented, on November 6, Shepherd said: "I don't want to know that my pastor -- because, you know, the church is preaching against homosexuality, and I don't want to know that my pastor could be jailed."
In fact, as co-host Whoopi Goldberg noted on November 10 while citing information from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the California Supreme Court majority opinion made clear that its decision did not have any impact on clergy, stating that "no religion will be required to change its policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs." Nevertheless, referencing advertisements suggesting that ministers could be jailed, Shepherd said, "[Y]ou know, GLAAD said. ... I would like to hear the other side." But no "other side" exists on the question of whether members of the clergy could be jailed for failing to perform same-sex marriages. The claim that absent passage of Proposition 8, members of the clergy could have been jailed in such circumstances is simply false. From the November 10 edition of The View:
SHEPHERD: Right. Well, I feel at a disadvantage here because, you know, we're getting from GLAAD what they say. I think the other side has -- would probably disagree. I don't know. So, if somebody else has --
GOLDBERG: Well, as I am saying to you, I checked the laws on two out of three of these.
SHEPHERD: Well, you know, I saw, you know, the ads going, you know, "The minister will be jailed"; "No, they won't." You know, so, it's like, again --
HASSELBECK: I think, too --
SHEPHERD: I hear you. I just said, you know, GLAAD said --
HASSELBECK: You want the other side.
SHEPHERD: I would like to hear the other side.
Further, during the program, Hasselbeck repeatedly falsely claimed that Prop 8 won 62 percent of the vote; in fact, Prop 8 garnered 52.3 percent of the vote, according to the California Secretary of State's office.
From the November 10 edition of ABC's The View:
GOLDBERG: As you said, we did have a really, really spirited discussion about Prop 8. And Barbara and I both got phone calls from Ellen [DeGeneres].
BARBARA WALTERS (co-host): We should tell them what Proposition 8 is.
GOLDBERG: Yes, I was gonna to let you.
WALTERS: Oh, thanks.
OFF-CAMERA: Go ahead.
WALTERS: Well, Proposition 8 was put on the agenda in California, which banned same-sex marriage, which had been allowed. And Ellen called Whoopi and then called me because she was listening to our discussion, and there were some things about it that she liked or didn't like. And we were talking about the fact that there were some people who felt that churches could lose their tax exempt if they didn't perform same-sex marriages, and we were raising other que-- and would that mean that same-sex marriage would have to be taught in school and so on?
And what Ellen's fear was, was that her marriage to Portia [de Rossi] and other marriages would be declared invalid. So we called Jerry Brown -- remember Jerry Brown? -- who is the attorney general of California, who said, "The language of Proposition 8 is silent on retroactivity, and California law generally provides the laws apply only prospectively." And he said, as the attorney general, "I will defend in court the marriages contracted before that Proposition 8 was signed." So Ellen and other people who were married before this -- right, Whoopi? -- is protected.
HASSELBECK: So it's not retroactive.
WALTERS: Well, you know, somebody could protest that, but that's the way it is for now.
GOLDBERG: But GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, were also watching our Hot Topics that day, and they have sent us what they call fact and fiction. And a coup-- we were able to check out two things before we got on, but the third thing, which is this one, I was not able to get another source on.
But GLAAD says that the fiction is, "Teaching kids about same-sex marriage will happen here in California unless we pass Prop 8." GLAAD is saying the fact is, "Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced against a parent's will to be taught anything health and family issues at school." That is the law in California.
The second thing: The fiction that we were all believing was that churches could lose tax-exemption status. The fact is, the court decision that said same-sex marriage is legal says, "No religion will be required to change its religious policies with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
HASSELBECK: As is stated in the --
GOLDBERG: As is stated in the law. It is law. Fact -- fiction: "If Prop 8 isn't passed, people can be sued over personal beliefs." The fact of the matter is in California -- California's law already prohibits discrimination against anyone based on race, sex, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. So those are the --
HASSELBECK: What is classified as discrim-- like, when we talk -- 'cause we talked about the case -- was it in Sweden? -- when the priest was originally put in prison for not wanting to perform a marriage ceremony.
GOLDBERG: I can't speak to Swedish law. I can only speak to the law that exists right now in California. And that --
HASSELBECK: Are they exempt from that? The churches are exempt?
GOLDBERG: They are. They -- California law prohibits discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. So you cannot be sued over your personal beliefs.
WALTERS: But you know, what we were talking about was that you had said that you had mixed feelings about this. And, in truth, a great many people do. I mean, it's against whatever their ethical beliefs are, whatever their feeling is that matrimony is between a man or a woman. This was something you were expressing.
SHEPHERD: Right. Well, I feel at a disadvantage here because, you know, we're getting from GLAAD what they say. I think the other side has -- would probably disagree. I don't know. So, if somebody else has --
GOLDBERG: Well, as I am saying to you, I checked the laws on two out of three of these.
SHEPHERD: Well, you know, I saw, you know, the ads going, you know, "The minister will be jailed"; "No, they won't." You know, so, it's like, again --
HASSELBECK: I think, too --
SHEPHERD: I hear you. I just said, you know, GLAAD said --
HASSELBECK: You want the other side.
SHEPHERD: I would like to hear the other side.
HASSELBECK: It's important that the 62 percent of the popular vote was -- came out and said they didn't want the word "marriage" redefined, they wanted to protect the institution of marriage as it has been defined. And I think what happened -- this is a reaction to the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. They said, "No, you know what? This is about what the people want, and you tried to overreach."
And so I thought the people came out and said in terms of how our system should work, how it should work for them is best when it represents what they want. And I'm happy about that because it think that's --
GOLDBERG: It's -- it is unfortunate that people used not-honest things to go about it, because if the fear -- if people put fear into people and made them believe things that weren't true, that's not how you want somebody to vote. You want them to vote the truth, and you want them to vote their heart.
Now, maybe they would have voted the same way. But I'm saying to you that the law facts are, as they exist -- the only thing that I cannot say factually, 'cause I haven't read it myself, and we were not able to get it up quick enough -- that doesn't sound right -- get it to our attention fast enough, was that teaching kids about same-sex marriage. That's the one I have not been able to verify beyond that.
[...]
HASSELBECK: And it does change -- it does trickle down to what your kids are taught. I think that's what people vote on. Sixty-two percent of those people wanted to preserve it so that when their kids are taught something, they know what it is.
You would think that with all her years as a newscaster, barbara walters would insist on accuracy from her co-hosts. Each day that she does not correct them, Ms. Walters loses more credibility.
The 62% that Hasselbeck is referring to is the percentage that voted for Prop 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act, in 2000.
Her mistake is noted in the item, AA. No need to pile on.
Can someone please explain how this act is a defense of marriage?
If it had been defeated, how many marriages would have ended because of it other than mine?
My plan was to travel out to Huntington Beach and walk in on my knees, a free man proposin'.
Dang it, WK. We were so close. I guess WorrierQueen won this one.
We'll always have ManFest.
I went from being H.I. McDunnough to Ilsa Lund.
Here's lookin' at you kid.
Thats a stupid argument. State law requires that before schools teach "Family life and Sex Ed." parents have to give permission. If prop 8 were defeated this law would still be in effect. If a parent wanted to opt out they can, and still would've been able to. Nobody would be "shoving" gay marriage down anyones throat.This whole "protect the children" stuff is just sham for the stupid. If you're against gay marriage, you're a bigot. Period.
Nobody would be "shoving" gay marriage down anyones throat.
The only thing being shoved down people's throats is the bigoted beliefs of a bunch of narrow-minded Bible-thumpers.
State law requires that before schools teach "Family life and Sex Ed." parents have to give permission.
True, but what the 8 people were claiming was that because state law does not allow students to be excused for historical and political discussions about "gay marriage," that meant they were going to be taught it by force.
This was the linchpin to their argument-- it was deceptive, sure, because they tried to glom this over into sex education-- but it worked!
"...because state law does not allow students to be excused for historical and political discussions about "gay marriage," that meant they were going to be taught it by force."
Can't have students learning history, now, can we?
Pay no attention to the gay man behind the curtain.
Which is a piece of good news this time around, in my opinion. Whereas 62% voted then, only 52% voted now, 10% uptick in those who realize that affording gay people the same civil rights as anyone else is the right thing to do. And that sanctioning and condoning committed relationships is of no threat to anyone, on the contrary, it creates positive role models and is good for society..
Unfortunately though, what happened in California is that the early polls showed 8 going down in flames. Then, when the Mormons commenced their deceitful campaign, full of lies, the polls reversed.
To repeat-- on election night-- election NIGHT-- they robocalled voters and used Obama's voice to rail against gay marriage and falsely claim that he favored Prop 8.
really unbelievable tactics-- the absolute worst we have ever seen here. An evil harbinger of the future-- just wait, 2012.
I wonder... since Joseph Smith based his fabricated religion on a guy named Moroni.... why didn't he just call it Moronism?
Just asking.
However, this should not even go for a vote before the people. Equal protection does not require a majority vote for approval. 14th Amendment guarantees protection for all regardless of how small the population affected. Courts should overturn the vote and grant this right to all.
you're right DeminTX,
as a constitutional question, this isn't even legitimate. a simple majority vote can not establish discrimination as the law. that's what the constitution is for - to protect the rights of citizens from the fickle whims of mob rule.
And were any of you ever "taught marriage" at any time in school?
And were any of you ever "taught marriage" at any time in school?
I remember this from the playground in kindergarten:
"Susie and Bobby sittin' in a tree
K-I-S-S-I-N-G.
First comes love,
Then comes marriage,
Then comes Susie with a baby carriage."
This is an abomonation. If prop 8 was defeated, we would be hearing kids on the schoolyard chanting,
"Steven and Bobby...sittin' in a tree..."
What will we tell the children?
No, of course not. But you need to recognize that had prop 8 been defeated and gay marriage be allowed in schools, Swedish pastors would be thrown in jail for teaching the "tricklery-slope-down" theory.
At least, after reading the transcript, I think that's what they said.
Yikes!
Seems as though MMfA's threading capability has skipped a stitch.
BTW, that is merely a metaphor, and NOT a reference to quilting, Barney.
And WZ has corrected me, I do remember learning about marriage in school now that he's brought up that straightforward timeline of the chain of events involved in marriage according to the way it's always been, or at least as far back as it's convenient to remember.What more do we need to learn?
"Susie and Bobby(NOT Sammy & Bobby)
sittin' in a tree (Good, they don't believe in evolution)
K-I-S-S-I-N-G. (as far as pre-marital sex should go)
First comes love, (again, nobody should be coming until love does)
Then comes marriage, (The "climax" of heterosexual" personhood)
Then comes Susie with a baby carriage." (Hey, where's Sammy?)
Last line should have been "Where's Bobby ?" See how confusing that is throwing two boys in there? My rhetorical, fictional bf even got me sexually confused.
Gay marriage is like making both of your jumper cables the same color instead of one each of red & black. It's confusing and dangerous.
Exactly.
"i'd like to hear the other side..." there is no "other side", period. no clergy can be forced into anything, by the specific wording of the initiative. how about the other side of 2 plus 2 equals 4? oh that's right, there isn't another side. it is what it is.
to be clear, it was the court ruling that was specific.
"i'd like to hear the other side..."
You'd have to go to Faux News for that.....
You would think Hassel-hack would have the decency to apologize for spreading blatant lies.
...Perhaps she's too embarrassed.
maybe she's afraid her hubby would be tempted to hook up with one of those strapping bear linemen in the locker room and ditch her....?
it does trickle down to what your kids are taught...
Yeah, that lying always works.
...and god favors you for using bigotry to get what you want.
Does anybody outside Planet Wingnut give two poops what this whiny little nitwit Elisabeth Hasselbeck says, anyway?
Two peas in a pod, her and Sarah Slime.
And of course, the part about the Swedish pastor was also incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85ke_Green
Yes, he was sentenced to one month in prison in the lower court (for violating a hate speech law), but two higher courts aquitted him.
Notr that facts matter to the bigots, but they should matter in the media.
I knew that story was bs.
You know, what would be the horror of teaching tolerance in school anyway? And why we listen to this bimbo on ANY important issue is ridiculous. She had gay teachers and she's not gay. Everyone's had gay teachers. I never heard a peep about marriage in california public schools 1965-1978, period. NOTHING. NADA. Sex ed was one day where they separate boys and girls and showed you falopian tube diagrams. NOTHING about marriage. Schools have enough crap to deal with, acting as parents to those that aren't doing that job, and now they're supposed to teach marriage? Well fine, bring it on. Same sex orientation as well. Gee, how HORRIBLE that would be!! Might bring about understanding and tolerance and just ruin all the wingnuts rants forever.
Long ago in a galaxy far away someone named Graham had a show called GIRL TALK. Graham had Dairy Queen GARGANTUAN hair and I vaguely remember (I was a little girl) but I think they didn't veer into politics. Hasselback needs to get a time machine.
In Oregon, we see our fair share of solutions in search of a problem courtesy of Bill Sizemore, right-wing extremist, initiative writer and government destructionist.
That said, I think Prop 8 is probably the biggest and most blatant attempt to fix problems that don't exist.
I just saw a clip of Keith Olberman' s Comment on Prop 8. I know that he is not highly regarded here, but he spoke with emotion regarding the baseless, hate-based force behind Prop 8. He ended up pointing out that extending the right to marry to all people, regardless of race, religion, orientation or social status is a representation of how each of loves our fellow humans. We don't have to cheer or even agree with them to allow love to exist.
I regret that I do not have link to the clip.
Not regarded? I regard him highly. He at least is willing to take on the Cons at their own game: snarky opinion. That he has his facts far straighter than his Fox equivelents is icing on the cake.
I amazed at just how much of what Hasselbeck says when you READ her statements sounds like teenage bimbo-babble. Arguments you'd hear from some little prom queen teachers pet.
In either event, her most lucid theory I think is a flawed one. The will of the people prevailed. Very common argument: let the people decide. Well you know what...sometimes the people are WRONG. Sometimes the people are bigots. By that logic who knows how much longer southern blacks would be drinking from separate water fountains. Sometimes you need a few smart people who can see the explosive nature of an issue and decide to correct it before it gets uglier. Democracy does have its warts.
I believe it was Mencken who said Democracy is the notion that the collective opinion of a bunch of idiots is more valuable than the single opinion of one person who is not an idiot.
I agree about reading the transcripts, Dr. Engine. Not only Hasselbeck, but some of the others on this show, have the same problem that Sarah Palin has demonstrated since being set free to do interviews;The complete inability to get to the conclusion of a freaking sentence.
Mike Murphy (Republican) had a great metaphor for Simple Sarah this morning: He said she was like the hubcap that keeps rolling down the road after a wreck.
"Well you know what...sometimes the people are WRONG."
this concept is embedded in the bill of rights, the purpose of which is to keep the majority from running roughshod over the minority. the author's figured the majority could fend for themselves.
hasselbeck isn't on the show because of her vast intellect, and insightful powers of critical analysis. she's on there because she looks good, period. anything more is well beyond her limited abilities.
OMG - you ignorant fearful biggots haven't a clue about the reality of this issue (especially the most hateful, most irritating person next to Bush ... E. Harrashurassbeck).
We are all supposed to be created equal under God and therefore to be treated equal. Who are you Elisabeth to question God's intent. We do not know why he has made some of us gay nor is it our right to try to understand.
Now, let's take religion out of this argument; this issue is of rights brought forth to all people being equal. Rights which have no affect on religion ... marriage in this sense is a contract providing two loving people necessary rights between each other. My marriage to my husband in August of this year has harmed no one. And if we allow the unconstitutional will of the majority to enact laws against the minority we are in for a world of hurt. Perhaps I will put forth a prop, and I'm sure I could get way more than a million signatures, to get Elisabeth removed from public view. Now there's a cause worth fighting for.
I'm in favor of gays and lesbian being more open about their relationships so your children can learn first hand how loving another human isn't simply about man and woman bearing children. We should all start showing our affection in public but holding hands, hugging and even a tasteful loving kiss every now and then. Better them to see it in a positive light than the hateful language used on playgrounds to torture those who are different.l
Yours, disgusted by the ignorance of two members of your View, Dan
"Better them to see it in a positive light"
Well, see, that's what the Troglodytes are most afraid of.... that they won't be able to pass their bigotry down to their children.
They cannot accept the notion that homosexuality might be the result of natural processes; all that biology stuff makes them squeamish. They would much rather base public policy on the Superstitious Delusions of Bronze Age Goatherds.
I don't think Prop 8 would place clergy at risk of being jailed.
Welcome to the strawman.
I would like someone who is for gay marriage to address my concerns.
Is it not just a short slip down the slope to where people will say they are being discriminated against by religious organizations if those organizations do not recognize and conduct gay marriages? I give you two examples.
Recently the Boy Scouts has been subject to lawsuits and threats of lawsuits for not allowing openly gay scouts and scoutmasters.
There is a lawsuit by someone trying to force a Catholic Hospital to perform sex change operations. Also proponents are trying to get transgendered bill of rights passed that would make this type of objection by religious institutions to be against the law.
My religious tradition has said for over 2,000 years that marriage is between one man and one woman. Is the gay agenda to eventually force my religious institution through the force of law to change it's position? Will my religious institution be subject to government sanctions for upholding it's belief?
Down that same slippery slope will be people who want to redefine marriage in all sorts of ways. You may scoff at it, but if marriage can be redefined by one group, why not by another? What's to say that is not the next step? If one group can force a redefinition of marriage, why cannot all others?
As a side note, those who oppose gay marriage are being vilified as haters when nothing could be further from the truth. My feeling is that labeling people who have different values and opinions as haters only shows intellectual weakness.
I'm thrilled to answer your questions, AA.
This whole slippery slope thing is ridiculous. I know, you're going to say that next, people who love giraffes are going to want to marry them. That's insane. First of all, giraffes don't have the legal authority to enter into a contract, which is what marriage is, essentially. Therefore, such nonsense would never come to fruition. There goes your argument regarding the slippery slope. The lawsuits regarding the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Hospital are, however, related, IMHO. They are related in that both lawsuits are about people wanting to be treated equally. As a gay man, let me tell you that there is no such thing as a 'gay agenda'. You can put that to rest right now.
Transgendered folks are some of the most discriminated against in the world. I have friends who are transgendered, hermaprodites, etc. They are being honest about their identity. They deserve to be treated equally.
As for your religious tradition, you can keep it out of our laws. Nowhere in your bible does it state that marriage is between one man and one woman. If so, what of all of those holy men mentioned in the bible with multiple wives? Are they writhing in hell as we speak? Further, it's quite telling that your religion mentions nothing about same-sex marriage, but speaks extensively about the sin of divorce - and we all know what the divorce rates are - even for christianists. Sanctity of marriage, indeed.
Your religious institution will not be forced to do ANYTHING with regards to gay marriage. No minister of any faith will be required to marry same-sex couples. No church will be forced to perform or even recognize same-sex marriages (Jeez, dude, if a church were so against same-sex marriage, gay folks would more than likely not be members of that particular church, especially if that gay couple wanted to get married). No one will be thrown into jail for refusing to perform same-sex marriages. No churches will be taxed for not performing same-sex marriages (indeed, churches who put money behind the support of Prop. 8 here in CA should be taxed to the hilt, as they are engaging in politics). And to take it a bit further, let's say that religious organizations are allowed to influence elections the way they have, where will it stop? Where will the religious slippery slope stop? Will the christianists now decide to put forth a ballot measure requiring that all gay folks be put into death camps? Where does it stop?
See, the slippery slope argument is insane.
Gay marriage was legalized in June here in CA. It was outlawed with the ballot measure on November 4. In those five months, the world did not come to an end. California didn't slide off into the Pacific Ocean. We haven't seen that fabled plague of locusts. Where's the damage? The simple fact is, there's no damage. In fact, the institution of marriage became stronger with legal marriage between same-sex couples. Christianists scream about homosex, how it's sex outside of wedlock, but when we want to get married, you won't let us. You make no sense.
We are not seeking special rights. We're seeking the same rights you have as a heterosexual. We're all Americans and we're all promised equality through the Constitution. And those who approve of amending the constitution, state or federal, to ban same-sex marriage are indeed unAmerican. Using the ballot box to take rights away from people is not what this country is about. If you think it is, take your like-minded friends and find an island in the South Pacific, turn it into a theocracy, and leave the rest of us alone.
Finally, those who oppose gay marriage, and use ballot measures to deny rights to anyone, deserve to be vilified. If you don't agree with gay marriage, fine. You have a right to your opinion and you don't deserve to be vilified. But, if you vote to deny rights to an entire class of people, you deserve the hatred that you sow.
And you call yourself a Christian and an American? Wow. Just wow.
Just a couple of comments. There is no hatred in my heart toward gays. I simply disagree with your redefintion of marriage.
No offense but you are ignoring Matthew 9:15: And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
You cannot argue that the Christian tradition has held the view that marriage is between one man and one woman and has been since the beginning.
You are tossing in a straw man argument about the girraffe. There is nothing to say that a redefinition of marriage must include only those who can legally enter into a contract. Isn't the age of marriage somewhere around age 13 in various parts of the country? Someone could accuse you of hatred toward tall animals since you seem opposed to their 'marriage'. Are not girraffe lovers entitled to the same "rights" as gays? What about polygamy? How does that fit into your redefinition?
Interesting discussion. However the label of hatred just because I disagree with you does nothing but diminish your arguments. In fact it makes my argument stronger. It is that sort of labeling that will be, and is now, being used against people of good will, who disagree. Whats to prevent that rhetoric to be used against religious institutions in the name of "equal rights"?
Gotta run. Even though we disagree, thanks for taking the time to reply.
It's simple. Restrictions on gay marriage are violations of the 14th Amendment. Adam can marry Eve, but not Steve. Why? Because of his sex. It's sex discrimination. Now, if you had a law saying all marriages were between two persons, then there would be no 14th Amendment violation and your slippery slope never comes to pass. After all, both sexes would be prevented from marrying the giraffe, not just one.
Thanks OYGB, but I think AA knew the point I was getting at. People against gay marriage say there's a slippery slope that people will want to marry animals. The point there is that animals cannot enter into a contract. I would, however, agree with AA on the age point. A 13 year old is not mature enough to enter into marriage, not only because this 13 year old hasn't reached the age of majority and cannot enter into a contract, but marriage for a 13 year old would be mentally detrimental, IMHO. AA accuses me of a strawman argument regarding the example of a giraffe in my previous post, but then brings up a strawman of his own with his example of a 13 year old getting married.
The fact of the matter is that christianists want to impose their world-view on other Americans, even though the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids this. That is unAmerican. Sorry if AA or others of his persuasion disagree, but the law is on our side. You can have your religious beliefs. Power to you. But, you cannot and you will not, impose your theocratic beliefs upon Americans. The Constitution protects us not only from being persecuted because of our religion, it also protects us from being persecuted BY the religious.
And AA, yes, I am ignoring your book of fairy tales. They have no place in American law. I don't care what parts of the bible you choose to believe and which you choose to ignore. Nobody has redefined marriage. In fact, it is the religious in this nation who are trying to push THEIR narrow definition of marriage on the rest of us.
No one, nowhere, has ever given a logical, legitimate reason for denying gays the right to marry. And those who feel that they need to use religion to legislate their morals really don't have a leg to stand on. Their religion is a crutch. Instead of using that crutch as a way to lift others up, they use it to knock others down. It's a shame and a sham. These theocratic christianists don't really care about the G-d of love and compassion. They care about foisting their beliefs on others to create a society that fits their narrow world-view.
"You cannot argue that the Christian tradition has held the view that marriage is between one man and one woman and has been since the beginning." - AA
Actually, I am arguing that, and to say that marriage has always been between a man and a woman is incorrect. See "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" by Boswell. This is a scholarly work which discusses same-sex unions in the early church, even same-sex unions blessed by the Pope. Your assertion that marriage is "...between one man and one woman and has been since the beginning" is patently false.
Further, my religion teaches that same-sex marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. My religion teaches that love is love, gender doesn't matter. So, whose religion is correct? See, it doesn't matter anyway, because we have this thing called 'separation of church and state'.
If you want to split hairs even further, if marriage is between one man and one woman, doesn't that in and of itself condemn divorce and re-marriage?
How do you feel about divorce? Should those who divorce not be allowed to marry again, for fear that they may diminsh the sanctity of matrimony further? Divorce rates for heterosexuals are above 50%. That tells me just how much marriage means to you.
Again, you cannot come up with a logical reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legal. You cannot come up with a legitimate reason as to why two people who want to commit to each other cannot, and cannot be recognized by the GOVERNMENT, not a church, not YOUR church, not ANY church, but by the GOVERNMENT. Where the hell does your religion come into play here?
CSL,
Time passes and this thread might go away before the conversation ends.
Boswell was an openly gay Roman Catholic and his conclusions well criticized. He pursued his agenda by taking searching through the rites of Orthodox liturgies and reininterpreting them as gay marriage rites. His views are not shared by mainstream scholars.
Your religion must be different than mine. That is fine. simply disputed your claim that the Bible does not talk about heterosexual marriage when clearly it does.
I agree with your observation about divorce. My religious tradition does not sanction divorce and remarriage. However that is a different issue we can discuss some other time.
All laws are based on morals. It is simply a fact that our country's laws find their moral foundation all the way back to Judeo-Christian morality and laws. Some will argue those moral laws are universal. Again that is another discussion.
I have already given at least two reasons for not changing the definition of marriage and you have provided another with your giraffe example.
If you want to live in a committed relationship with another man, that is your perogotive. If you want your relationship legalized with survivor and tax benefits similar to marriage, I think that is your right. However I do believe "marriage" is a heterosexual institution, not a gender neutral institution, and I do not believe it should be redefined to suit gays or anyone else.
AA you still haven't provided a reason why two people in love should not get marraied other than your religious beliefs. Under the law we are all equal, and the 14th amendment protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority. I'll ask you again are you for repealing the 14th amendment???
conger,
You are misreading my posts. I have stated that I believe by redefining marriage that religious institutions willb e forced by law, to change their beliefs.
I have also stated that any other group will also feel entitled to redefine marriage to suit their view.
I agree about the 14th amendment. Cannot your argument also be used by polyagmists and or NAMBLA advocates? After all, based on your argument, if their definition of marriage is not included, you are the tyranny of the majority.
No. A gay person can marry a person of the opposite sex just like a straight. There is no discrimination. Just because a gay does not want to marry a person of the other sex, does not mean that gay person has been denied his 14th amendment rights of equal protection.
ps. My agreement about the 14th amendment is that I do not agree that it should be repealed. I do not agree that the 14th amendment equal rights clause applies to redefining marriage.
To answer your question about Hasselbeck, apparently some people do not understand that the First Amendment of the Constitution protects Hasselbeck's freedom of speech prevents her from being jailed for her views.
Are you suggesting that Freedom of Speech be stricken from the First Amendment?
are you suggesting that we do away with the 14th amendment?????
Evidently that is exactly what AA is propsing.
While we're at it, why don't we just put to death anyone who doesn't adhere to AA's very strict religious teachings, no matter how assinine.
No wait, we can't do that.
That would be like Sharia law, wouldn't it?
Freaking christianist terrorists.
CSL,
Comments like that only undermine your position. Too bad. You win no converts by that type of vitriolic rhetoric.
ps. The assinine argument is all yours. However creating your own arguments and then replying to them is a nice touch. :-)
congero,
You didn't answer my question. Either say yes, you do not believe Hasselbeck speech is protected from freedom of speech, or that you do.
As for the 14tth amendement, I am not arguing that it be done away. I do not see the redefinition of marriage as an "equal protection" issue. There is no discrimination as marriage is a heterosexual institution that is between one man and one woman.
If gays want to create a similar institution between people of the same sex, I believe they have that right. I personally have no objection petitioning our lawmakers to create that legal institution.
Did you read my whole post?
"If those are the result of not passing Prop 8 why weren't they happening before it passed?"
Yes, I read it. I do not live in California so you might address your question to those who do.
You're a very silly person.