REAL STORIES
BY REAL PEOPLE Search
Monday, December 18, 2017

Why California Needs Proposition 8

by D. E. Carson (writer), , November 02, 2008

Constitutional Amendment isn't about gay marriage.

You haven’t even finished reading this and you’re already banging out a moronic response to this article. Read all the way through and then write in and with an informed opinion.

One of the initiatives on the California state ballot in 2000 was Proposition 22, a law that defined for the state of California that a legal marriage was between one man and one woman. That law passed with a handsome majority of the vote[1]. In that election 4,618,673 Californians voted in favor of Proposition 22 and 2,909,370 voted against it with 353,956 casting neither a yes or no vote. The percentages were 61.40% in favor, 38.60% opposed and 4.49% abstaining. That was supposed to be the end of the story. The people had spoken and the majority ruled. Honest and commendable efforts were made on the part of those opposing Proposition 22 but the basis of the American political system is that the majority rules in America – the will of the people.

But the will of the people doesn’t count when it comes to the state of California.

The ink had hardly dried on the forms certifying the results of the 2000 election when lawsuits started popping up all over the place – especially in the San Francisco area demanding the courts overturn Proposition 22. In San Francisco, a trial court was the first to commute the will of the people and invalidate the gender requirements. A California state appellate court reversed that decision supporting the will of the people. In December 2006, the California state Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the six cases filed against Proposition 22 and consolidated them into one case. A year and a half later, on May 15, 2008, the California state Supreme Court made its final ruling on the case and in a 4-3 decision usurped the power of the people and overthrew the Proposition as if to hog-tie the people of the state and forcibly shove gay marriage down the throats of the people. As San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome said, “The door is wide open now, whether you like it or not!”

Marriage defense organizers shifted into high gear to get another initiative on the ballot, Proposition 8 which is a Constitutional amendment that overrides the state Supreme Court and reinstates Proposition 22 – this time without any recourse for those opposing it.

Now you know this history, now for the meat of the argument.

Proposition 8 is more than just a marriage defense amendment, it is a direct and legitimate response to the ridiculous litigiousness of America. Every day millions of thumb-sucking crybabies like those who opposed Proposition 22 run crying to their lawyers when they don’t get their way. The end result is that the courts are bogged down in stupid lawsuits and even stupider judges legislate from their bench. In the case of the California state Supreme Court the will of four judges is imposed on the almost 34 million people who live in the state. Ridiculous? That marker was passed a long time ago.

Regardless of how many people voted in that election in 2000, the basic, fundamental premise of America is majority rule. Even when electing a president, the majority rules. Does this mean the majority is always right? No. After all there are some pretty stupid laws on the books across America that are the result of majority rule. But the process is there because the Founding Fathers knew that if the power of the government were in the hands of the government it could and would lead to authoritarianism or worse. It placed the power in the hands of the people to cast a vote and decide for themselves. The national Constitution does not give the U.S. Supreme Court the right to just overthrow the will of the people on a whim and since most state constitutions are similar in nature to the national one, it can be safely said that the California state constitution does not grant that right to the state Supreme Court either.

That Proposition 8 is even on the ballot is the direct result of plain stupidity and sophomoric idiot judges who seem to think that it is their job to do what they want and say to hell with what the people want. These are the beginnings of authoritarianism where those who govern take no direction from nor are they responsible to those who are governed [2]. It is not the business of the government of the United States or any of the several states to impose the will of a few on the many without the consent of the many. If the people of California do not want to recognize gay marriage, that is their right and no group or organization has the right to force that issue through the court system. If a law is unfair, then the group opposing that law has the right to appeal back to the people, to make their case and to live with the results. If the results are not fair or are discriminatory in some way, then the law needs to be changed. But for a court to just whimsically decide what is best for the people is wrong. The sole purpose for supporting Proposition 8 isn’t to deny legal rights to gays who live together – they already have those rights under California law. Supporting Proposition 8 is a means of telling the state Supreme Court to back off when the people have spoken. Never mind the legal protections for the rest of California that come with Proposition 8 – all of which is another story for another time.

[1] http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000_primary/measures.pdf

[2] http://www.answers.com/topic/authoritarianism



About the Writer

D. E. Carson is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

24 comments on Why California Needs Proposition 8

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By D. E. Carson on November 03, 2008 at 02:04 pm

"Wouldn't religious institutions be expempt from a law like this?"

JG: You're joking right?  Opponents of Prop 8 are frothing at the mouth to kill this law because they want to force churches to close down.  They don't believe in organized religion and they see the defeat of Prop 8 as the first salvo in an all out war against religion.  They want to obliterate Christianity first because they know that most Christians have misinterpreted the Bible to mean that we're just supposed to roll over and play dead with anybody who challenges us.  That whole "turn the other cheek" thing wasn't about being a spineless wimp who didn't defend himself or his God -- it was meant in secular terms only.  Jesus also said, "Who so ever denies me before men I will deny before the Father."

Once they've successfully "killed" off Christianity, I guarantee opponents of Prop 8 will go after Islam because it is flat out violently opposed to homosexuality in all its forms -- the reason there are no homosexuals in Iran (according to President Ahmadinejad) is because Islam demands that homosexuals be executed.  Would you want to be openly gay in Tehran if you knew you'd be tied to two chairs in a room and have your head cut off with a dull blade so that you suffer immense pain and anguish as you died?

These secular-progressive opponents to Prop 8 are peacefully militant.  They won't actually kill anyone (yet) but they will do everything they can to undermine the First Amendment so that it will be eviscerated without actually being repealed.  They force the rest of us to accept their terms by keeping us from voicing opposition.  Today it's the Fairness Doctrine, tomorrow it will be the Internet.

Big Brother is coming and he ain't happy...!

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 7
By Lumiere on November 03, 2008 at 04:38 pm

Julius Ceasar once said " The best way to have a dictatorship is through a democracy."  Bravo to the people who challenge Proposition 8.

6% of very country is homosexual.  Deal with it.  Quit targeting the gays and ignoring the straight swingers, wife beaters, alcoholics, drug addicts and straight pedophiles wearing religious robes. Blind obedience to the Government or Religion is sheer stupidity. There is nothing "Christian" about the hateful or hypocritical behavior I have witnessed in my lifetime towards the 'homosexuals.' What would Jesus do? Well since he liked hanging with hookers, tax collectors and thieves he would propably be having a beer at the local gay bar. And when he was done, Jesus himself would slap half the American congregation upside the head for acting like hateful, prejudice asses 99% of the time.  Most Christian do not live by the 'Unconditional Love' rule he taught and died for, they live by the 10 Commandments of Bigotry.

" Carson: You're joking right?  Opponents of Prop 8 are frothing at the mouth to kill this law because they want to force churches to close down.  They don't believe in organized religion and they see the defeat of Prop 8 as the first salvo in an all out war against religion.  They want to obliterate Christianity first because they know that most Christians have misinterpreted the Bible to mean that we're just supposed to roll over and play dead with anybody who challenges us. "

So Mr. Carson, speaking for the gay people on the board, on the contrary, we believe in Freedom of Religion; Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Taoist, Buddhist, Atheist etc... We 'gays' believe that in America, YOU have the right to CHOOSE your faith, even if different than mine and your beliefs to worship are to be respected...as long as they do not infringe upon our Constitutional Rights or bring us undo harm.  We 'gays' will not shove a Cross down your throat or tattoo you with the Star of David, or make you worship the Buddah or even cut off your head- Spanish Inquisition style because you disagree with our spiritual beliefs. Nor will we 'gays' burn down your church like the KKK (Other Republicans/Freemasons still do) to the black community... because they, like us are also considered an 'other' by some religious literalists who have "misinterpreted the Bible" and use it as a weapon of oppression and injustice, instead of love. 

Unlike your distorted opinion of the 'homosexuals' Mr. Carson, we "gays" believe in  America that, Freedom of Choice matters. If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. If you don't believe in gay marriage than don't marry someone of the same sex.... but DO NOT attempt to impose your close minded, "my way or the highway" religious beliefs -no matter what they are- on our "Civil Rights."  Yes, Civil Rights.  Just like you 'we gays pay taxes' and are 'law abiding citizens' who also 'attend church'... and lead religious services. Sometimes openly, sometimes in secret....depending on how safe and accepted we feel in our community. So please keep in mind that "our" money is "green," it's not, "gay" and we,"homosexuals" are entitled to equality, in every sense of the word.

If our right to marry is taken away, then we "gays" should no longer pay state or federal taxes to those that deny our civil liberties. Why the fuck should I or any other "homosexual" continue to pay for "inequality."

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 5
By Lumiere on November 04, 2008 at 04:15 pm

M.B. Dion: And YOU do not make wild assumptions and blanket statements about the gay community. How many "gays" do you know personally? Any in the family closet. I go to the OLDEST church in America, that has a LGBT following so no, we are not anti-religious. Just anti-bigotry. Your belief is to convert everyone over to "one way" of religious thinking and if it is not in alignment with your lifestyle, well off with their heads..

Mr. Dean: Thank you for always being a gentlemen.  I see your point but maybe there just needs to be a clause that allows churches who support LGBT marriages to marry couples...not force a "one for all " church approach.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 7
By fashionista on November 04, 2008 at 04:17 pm

As a gay christian here is my perspective: I have spent my entire life in the church and have an amazing relationship with God. I believe that he made me this way, but I also believe that it is MY RIGHT to have a relationship with God the way i choose to; whether through Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. (and of course depending on which of these you follow, 'God' may be subjective) However I also  believe that the majority of people who read the bible and use it against a certain people group are misreading and misinterpreting what it says. The Bible and the whole Christian religion is supposed to be about love, not angrily throwing verses at eachother as weapons.

"When a church decides not to marry a gay couple and then the church is taken to court under "hate" legislation then the church and those of faith will be hammered by ridiculous "hate" legislation."

As far as opinions like these above, may I remind you that the Bible has been used to justify slavery and murder of black slaves in the south for years. The MAJORITY of the people believed that Black slaves had no rights, and they believed that their religion  backed them up. Now, when the civil rights movement started, when they realized that they didn't have the majority vote, should they have given up? Stepped down and said, 'oh, well since the majority is against me, and i don't want to oppress anyones religious opinion, I'm going to choose to live as a second class citizen?' No- OF COURSE NOT! We believe that '"EVERYONE is created equal" not just those we THINk are created equal, or who the MAJORITY believes is created equal but everyone.

If I am expected to be a law abiding, tax paying citizen, then I want the rights of ALL law abiding & tax paying citizens. As a human being - gay, straight, white, black or blue, we ALL deserve to have the same rights and the same freedoms. This is not a religious issue or a matter of opinion, this is a matter of human rights.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -4
By D. E. Carson on November 04, 2008 at 09:26 pm

...and I haven't rated a single comment on this article.  I love it.  Everything I thought would happen did.  People are screaming and hollering about how Prop 8 is discriminatory and lost focus on the real intent of the article and that is that when the people speak, the court does not have the authority to override the will of the people which is what happened in this case.  Four judges legislated from the bench because a bunch of thumb-sucking crybabies didn't agree with the will of the people.

As for the ramifications of Prop 8, there will be lawsuits filed ad infinitum against churches that refuse to perform gay marriages.  These lawsuits will claim some sort of "hate mongering" and churches will be forced to close their doors to everyone.

As John McClane (Die Hard) said, "I'm just getting sick and tired of being right."

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By CCNY on November 04, 2008 at 10:33 pm

when the people speak, the court does not have the authority to override the will of the people which is what happened in this case.  Four judges legislated from the bench because a bunch of thumb-sucking crybabies didn't agree with the will of the people.

DE, Good job with the reset here... This is as open and shut as it gets, but disturbingly, judges undo common sense decisions like this every day.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 5
By HMA on November 04, 2008 at 11:24 pm

I think you need to get your facts straight before you tell people you are giving them a history lesson.  Proposition 22 enacted a LAW.  That LAW violated the words found in the California Constitution.  So it was overturned as unconstitutional.  The judges were not saying to hell with what the people want.  They were protecting the people under a constitution that was created BY the people.  You should read In re Marriage Cases.  It doesn't sound like you have.

Individuals crying that the judges did not follow the "will" of the people should maybe brush up on their understanding of how the California judicial system and legislature works.

You should be blaming the people who created Prop 22, not the judges.  They could have easily sought to amend the constitution instead of creating a law and it likely would have passed.  But they didn't and now they are trying to make up for their mistake, oversight or whatever you want to call it.

Further, Proposition 8 does not override or overturn the Supreme Court decision in In re Marriage Cases.  That decision is still valid based on the language of the constitution at that time.  Proposition 8 also does not reinstate Proposition 22.  Proposition 8 amends the CA Constitution, it does not create a new law or reinstate the law created by Prop 22.   So, because the actual constitution would be changed, the California Supreme Court would then have no choice but to enforce the constitution, which is created by the people. 

Please get your facts straight.  It's ignorant statements that lead ignorant people who don't do the research for themselves to believe falsities and pass it along to others.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 4
By HMA on November 04, 2008 at 11:51 pm

"Opponents of Prop 8 are frothing at the mouth to kill this law because they want to force churches to close down.  They don't believe in organized religion and they see the defeat of Prop 8 as the first salvo in an all out war against religion."

Way to make obscene generalizations.  I'm not gay, but find this very offensive.  It's people who make statements like THAT who are killing Christianity and making me embarrased to be a part of the same religious community.  

But I shouldn't be suprised.  The arguments for Prop 8 are very weak.  That is why the advocates resort to using scare tactics and extreme statements like this to try to gain the ignorant vote. 

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 4
By stopitreally on November 05, 2008 at 12:47 am

 I'll be staight and fast in repling here. The Bible verse Psalms 14:1"There is no God"Is actually specifically "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God".  That solves you groups that says there is no God.  And those who doesn't say jesus isn't god : In the bible thomas said "My Lord and my God!"  ; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made (John 1:1-3) ; Moreover //John 5:23; 8:58; 10:30, 38; 12:45; 14:6-9  //Matthew 2:11; 4:10; 14:33; 28:9, 17 //Isaiah 9:6-7                 All very interesting verses that God specifically tells you fake christians to stop believing what you believe.

     Now that one point is clear another point.  I am a christian and I can ever say I can go to heaven right now and I can explain what ever you ask me directly but I am not going to convert people into my religion through a web because I believe it's your choice to believe what ever you want.  I find people who even refer to Bible verses or God to say like they know something very, very idiotic, and there were actually few guys saying Bible says you should love your neighbors so you should be voting no for prop 8...  Yes Bible does have that but please, stop acting as if you know anything, when you say that its like you are telling me McCain won at eastern time of 4PM when he was leading by only 5 points anyways.  I find people saying prop 8 is discrimination against gay people offensive.  I am a Korean-American and I am a registered voter and I Voted today.  Your probably saying yeah so?  But think about this, don't you guys discriminate asians?  You, I think racial problem still is severe more rather than sexual relationship discriminations.

     Last point, I am very shameful of you who call yourself christian.  Buddhists, who believe and hard working and moral right rather than so called christians who just goes to church every sunday or so, I find buddhists very hard working and repectful in society.  I did not vote on prop 8 turns of matter because I believe this matter to be just plain idiotic on any point of view and if I had to look at the problem as from constitutional view, I would have to say no to it, it violates 14th amendment, but I believe prop 8 is really also more than discrimination towards Same sex marriage.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 4
By HMA on November 05, 2008 at 01:26 am

"But think about this, don't you guys discriminate asians?  You, I think racial problem still is severe more rather than sexual relationship discriminations."

First, speaking for myself and likely some others, not everyone discriminates against Asians.  And technically speaking, neither does the law.  As far as marriage goes, Asians can marry anyone they want (as long as it's a member of the opposite sex).   But if you are a gay Asian you would be discriminated against by the California Constitution because you could not marry the person of the sex you are attracted to.  I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on why you find it offensive for others to say a ban on gay marriage is discrimination.

Racial discrimination is still alive today unfortunately.  And we should be trying to do what is necessary to extinguish it.  But I don't think that means you should just ignore other types of discrimination... or find it offensive for people to talk about just because you think racial discrimination is a bigger problem.

And saying that one type of discrimination is worse or a bigger problem than another is a little ridiculous.  Until you are subjected to other kinds, you really have no reasonable basis to say which is worse.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 5
By AMC on November 05, 2008 at 01:26 am

"If a law is unfair, then the group opposing that law has the right to appeal back to the people, to make their case and to live with the results.  If the results are not fair or are discriminatory in some way, then the law needs to be changed."

To use your own statement, proposition 22 WAS unfair and it was a law that conflicted with the constitution, so it was removed, as it should have been. And, as was the case when 22 was passed, the law was changed. "...live with the results." I almost feel sorry for such close-minded people as yourself.

"If the people of California do not want to recognize gay marriage, that is their right and no group or organization has the right to force that issue through the court system."

I must say that this statement in itself is hypocritical. You should be accepting and let all people have the rights that at the moment, only some enjoy.  And I think that if gays want to get married, "that is their right and no group or organization has the right to force that issue through the court system".  If you don't support gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. And I think people here are confusing the fact that Prop 8 is not voting on the religious aspects of marriage at all and if a particular church would deny the marriage of a couple (though I don't see why they should), they have full right to and cannot be charged with anything. However, proposition 8 is voting on the LEGAL aspect of marriage and the fact that if a gay would want to get married, whether it be in a church or in the city hall, that they cannot. So if you still believe that proposition 8 should pass after knowing that it has nothing to do with religion, then that is clear anti-locution against homosexuals and if it is passed, then it is discrimination. Either way, eventually it won't matter. We are coming to an age of acceptance and equality and whether it isn't passed now or it is, I am proud to say that my generation would not let it stand.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 4
By kipstock on November 05, 2008 at 10:50 am

I have never met a single gay person who advocated the overthrow of the church or the demolition of the rights that straight people enjoy (I have met a few straight people who oppose religion).  I think the idea that gay marriage threatens straight marriage ignores a basic fact:  Even if gays could marry in a legal way that didn't have any impact on the way straight people lead their lives, straight people would still be afraid of it. 

Try it.  Try imagining that when gay people get married it doesn't affect you in any way.  They wouldn't require your church to change, they wouldn't require your kids to be taught a certain way.  I'll bet it still frightens a lot of people.  Historically, humans have been extremely unaccepting of people or cultures who think differently than they do. 

Ask yourself, "If I could make gay marriage possible in a way that doesn't harm me or my way of life, would I do it?"  I'll bet you don't even have the courage to try.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 3
By Lumiere on November 05, 2008 at 02:55 pm

Amen kipstock. I do not know any gay person that advocates the overthrow of the church or the rights of the straight people either. If anything, the religious right is always beating us down one way or another while ignoring far more important issues...it gets really old. Just look at the rallies and hate filled banter taught by Ted Dobson or others with his mentality. Seriously, when was the last time you saw gay people on the street corner protesting church with signs that read, " Hell to the heteros" or "Death and Hell to Divorced heteros?"  Never. It is not who we are. We are much more peaceful..and walk the talk of unconditional love...much more so than the ones who hate our guts.

And M.B. Dion, please list all the churches who have been sued via "hate legislation."

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By D. E. Carson on November 05, 2008 at 11:35 pm

"Racial discrimination is still alive today"

Not if you ask Barack Obama's supporters...

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By D. E. Carson on November 05, 2008 at 11:40 pm

For all of you who like to (mis)quote the Bible, make sure that you look to the portions where homosexuality is called "an abomination before God." You can't pick and choose which portions of the Bible you want to use.  You have to either take it all or leave it all.  God is not a God of convenience.  He demands complete submission to Him.

Does he love everyone?  Absolutely, He even loves Osama bin Laden.  What He doesn't love is when people do things that are contrary to his commands.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 5
By Lumiere on November 07, 2008 at 08:46 pm

That's my favorite: "For all of you who like to (mis)quote the Bible, make sure that you look to the portions where homosexuality is called "an abomination before God."

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 2

In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah to'ebah hee."

It is often translated as "abomination" or "detestable" in English. It can refer to the breaking of either a moral or ritual law OR it has been used to refer to foreign practices, foreign religious practices, or daily routines of another culture. When "to'ebah" refers to the breaking of a ritual law it might be better translated "ritually improper," or "involves foreign religious cult practice." Some of the "to'ebah" passages are considered without significance to Christians today. Many activities which were "to'ebah" transgressions to the ancient Israelites simply do not apply to modern cultures.

The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts. By using the word "homosexuality," the English translation appears to condemn lesbian activity as well. The latter behavior is definitely not mentioned in the original Hebrew text of this passage. In fact, lesbian behavior is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.

  • The term "homosexuality" has two distinct meanings in English. Sometimes it refers to sexual behavior (what some people do). Sometimes it relates to sexual orientation (what some people are). One reader might conclude from an English translation that homosexual orientation is criticized in the Bible; others might assume that homosexual behavior is criticized.
  • The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.
  • http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: -2
    By D. E. Carson on November 08, 2008 at 03:24 am

    Hello Corisong1 and welcome to Amerika, land of the free hand out and home of the brave new world.

    Actually, if the people want to establish a constitutional amendment that says gays can't get married, that is their perrogative.  The trouble is, that everyone has missed the point of this article, which is fine with me, it's the fastest article I've ever written, receiving 1462 views in its very short life.  It's also the most linked article I've ever written.  But it's too late to become the lowest rated.  But I really don't care about that.

    The republic of Amerika is founded on the principle of the majority rules.  Right, wrong or indifferent, whatever the majority wants, the majority gets.  Now, on the federal level, laws are passed via the legislative branch, signed by the president then are supposed to be monitored by the judicial.  That works fine for federal laws.  But our Constitution also says that only the powers specifically given to the federal government can be exercised by the federal government.  The rest are given over to the states to deal with.  So, here in California, we have a two-method approach for getting laws passed.  One is the same way as the federal government: the legislature passes a law, the governor signs it and the court makes sure everything is on the up and up.  BUT, there is a second provision for the people of California to get a law on the books and that is by direct referendum.  A law that goes straight to the people is not the same as one passed by the legislature and therefore is not subject to the same judicial review.  Unfortunately, four pinhead judges in Sacaramento don't see it that way.  Those four pinhead judges who voted to overturn the direct and irrefutable will of the people.  That the issue was a ban on same-sex marriage is moot.  But the state Supreme Court made and additional error and that was in the ruling against the original ban, the Court specifically stated what WOULD HAVE BEEN constitutional in the verbage of the law and so Proposition 8 was created containing exactly the words the Court said would have been legal.  Proposition 8 was then put to the people as an amendment to the state constitution so there would be no question what the people wanted.  Now, Proposition 8 has passed and the opponents are whining because they lost again.  Progressives don't like it when the don't get their way, so when they don't, they run whining to their lawyers and make complete asses of themselves on the streets of San Francisco and West Hollywood protesting a law they campaigned against and lost.  The point now is, the amendment passed, it is now law, pull your thumbs out of your mouths and live with it.  Marching up and down the streets only makes you look like a bunch of whiny, crybabies who throw a temper-tantrum when you don't get to do what you want.  You're making fools of yourselves.

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: -2
    By D. E. Carson on November 08, 2008 at 03:34 am

    Lumiere:  how nice of you to provide us with that special segment on the Hebrew language.  Thank you.  It really was educational. (And I don't mean that disparigingly).

    Now, as for your point about the male-male being the only referenced act, you must remember that at that point in time, women were not regarded as equal to men.  Somewhere between Adam's recognition of Eve as his mate and the rest of the Bible, women were down graded to second-class citizens.  Therefore, because women weren't seen favorably, the Bible texts in the original Hebrew speak from a patriarchial viewpoint.  Men are the ones who are told to refrain from the abomination because women could barely even talk to one another, let alone attempt to have lesbian sex together.

    Furthermore, I would like to know how the original Hebrew reads in regards to Genesis 1:27-28 (So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it).  God himself is telling the man and the woman to be fruitful and multiply.  The Bible doesn't say, "God told Adam and Bob to go off and attempt to be fruitful and multiply".  The Bible is very clear that men and women are to pair off.

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: -1
    By D. E. Carson on November 09, 2008 at 06:50 pm

    Since someone likes voting down my sincere commentary, allow me to repost it for all of you who missed it so you don't have to expend the effort  of opening it yourself.  The comment was as sincere as I could make it.  I really did appreciate Lumiere's post and I really want to know how the Hebrew language deals with the Genesis 1:27-28 passage and I'm not being cruel or inappropriate when I am pointing out the lowered status of women during the time the Bible was written.  In fact, I'll even rewrite my first paragraph to make it sound more sappy if you like, Mr. I'll-Vote-Down-Everything-DECarson-Says-Because-I-Refuse-To-Allow-Myself-To-Consider-A-Point-of-view-That-Differs-From-My-Own.

    Lumiere: Thank you for the clarification of the translation from Hebrew into English.  It really was educational. (And I don't mean that disparigingly).

    As for your point about the male-male being the only referenced act, you must remember that at that point in time, women were not regarded as equal to men.  Somewhere between Adam's recognition of Eve as his mate and the rest of the Bible, women were down graded to second-class citizens.  Therefore, because women weren't seen favorably, the Bible texts in the original Hebrew speak from a patriarchial viewpoint.  Men are the ones who are told to refrain from the abomination because women could barely even talk to one another, let alone attempt to have lesbian sex together.

    Furthermore, I would like to know (really, I am curious.  I don't know Hebrew and would love to see how this translates) how the original Hebrew reads in regards to Genesis 1:27-28 (So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it).  God himself is telling the man and the woman to be fruitful and multiply.  The Bible doesn't say, "God told Adam and Bob to go off and attempt to be fruitful and multiply".  The Bible is very clear that men and women are to pair off.

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: -3
    By D. E. Carson on November 11, 2008 at 01:59 pm

    Unfortunately, most of the Bible is out of date now and although a fascinating read, doesn't apply anymore to a 21st Century world.

    I disagree.  The Bible is as pertinent today as it ever was -- especially with the Book of Revelation being the prophesy for the end of the earth.  Certainly there are aspects of the Bible that no longer apply due to technology, medical and cultural changes, but there is much wisdom in that book that is still VERY applicable in this 21st Century world.  In fact, the concept of the parental right to discipline their children is very prominent in the Bible.  We have learned the hard way of the problems created by not setting rules and guidelines for our children -- gang wars, teen pregnancy, drug and sexual abuse among other issues.  All of those are the result of evil in this world and all of those could be prevented by parents who heed the wisdom and admonitions of the Bible.  Evil loves anarchy and the more anarchy there is the more evil will prevail.  So long as we ignore the admonitions of the Bible, anarchy will spread and evil will spread.

    It's up to you but you might want to cut the Bible some slack.

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: -2
    By D. E. Carson on November 17, 2008 at 11:49 pm

    It's amazing to me that gays and lesbians want to be taken seriously and yet they result to such sophomoric behavior.

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 2
    By AMC on January 12, 2009 at 03:32 am

    I''d like to comment on several things here. Please don't start getting mad and offensive. I'm not.

    1. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry would not create anarchy. It wouldn't change anything except it might make plenty of people happier. It might make others uncomfortable, I know, but that is due to their own views. Essentially they are making themselves uncomfortable through narrow-mindedness. Have you ever heard of the saying "Live and Let Live"?

    2. Most people don't discipline their children because the bible tells them to, but because they want what's best for their children. And when you refer to homosexuality as causing anarchy and evil, are you really saying that love begets anarchy?

    3. Not everyone believes in the bible or even God for that matter, so they shouldn't have to have those who do affect the way they live their lives. You could say that "some people don't agree with the law either, but they have to follow that" but the bible is not the law in the eyes of the court.

    4. It would be much appreciated if you stopped with this "mudslinging" way of trying to get your point across. It's really not nice offending people and it's really not effective either.

    5. When you say "The bible doesn't say 'God told Adam and Bob to go off and attempt to be fruitful and multiply'.", do you honestly believe that gay people think that by having sex with each other, they'll procreate? They do it for most of the same reasons most straight people do it. I think you know what those are...

    6. I think that what that group, "Bash Back" did during that church service was incredibly disrespectful. There are much more peaceful, respectful ways to argue a point. That is something that I would never condone. In fact, I think it's something that most gays and lesbians wouldn't condone either, so I really don't think it's fair to lump an entire group of people together and say that it amazes you that gays and lesbians want to be taken seriously and yet they result to such sophmoric behavior. That's just rude to demean people like that. That would be like if I said "It amazes me that straight people [all of them] want to be taken seriously when they go around bullying and physically harming those who are different (i.e. gay people) than them." I know that most straight people wouldn't go around beating up people who were different than them just because they are different. I would hope that you would agree. So how would that be fair if I lumped you in with people who share ONE preference with you and that is that they are straight and you are straight, and just assume that you believe all that they believe is okay even though you may strongly disagree with it, just because of that one shared trait?

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: -2
    By D. E. Carson on January 13, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    "It urks me when people write articles as if they are factual, when indeed they are the opposite."

    It IRKS me when goose-stepping morons like the person who wrote this review chastises me by saying that I need to go back to high school civics (where I got an "A", thankyouverymuch) and yet the person who wrote this can't even spell.

    Luke 6:42 (NIV) - "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

    I suspect that I have a much more thorough and CORRECT education than the fruit cake who wrote this review.  It's my guess that the fruit cake probably is barely 21 years old and was indoctrinated in California's sorry-assed excuse for a public school.  At least I've read the Constitution and I know how our government works -- it's majority rule whether it's happening in the Congressional chambers or in the streets of California.  I'm sure that reviewer hasn't the slightest idea of the difference between a "democracy" and a "republic".  Of course, if this pinhead actually has the nerve to respond to this, he or she will no doubt cut and paste the definitions from Wikipedia or some dictionary and yet will still have no clue of what those posts say.

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 1
    By AMC on January 14, 2010 at 07:05 pm

    Your comments are getting increasingly hateful. You're really reduced to the point of calling someone a moron because of a typo? And clearly you weren't educated in courtesy, because if you were, you'd know how offensive it is to call someone a "fruit cake." You may have read the Constitution, but clearly you haven't read the Declaration of Independence. "all men are created equal" and that "among these [unalienable] rights are life, liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." Don't you yourself have a plank in your eye, sir? What exactly is your gripe with gay people?

     Report abuse



    Add A Comment!

    Click here to signup or login.


    Rate This Article


    Your vote matters to us



    x


    x