A new Associated Press poll says that “Almost half of all Americans support banning gay marriage by constitutional amendment.”
But there is some schizophrenia in this poll as well. While forty-seven percent say they oppose same-sex marriage, 57 percent say that same-sex couples should receive the same government benefits as married couples of the opposite sex. That means that a good many people who oppose same-sex marriage for moral or religious reasons do not favor public policies and laws that would privilege heterosexual unions over homosexual ones. This suggests that many supporters of traditional marriage have failed to see the implications of their view for the public good.
Read more about the poll here.
“In spite of gaining the approval of some 55% of Americans in the spring of 1954, five years later a majority believed that the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education “caused a lot more trouble than it was worth.” During the 1960s a Gallup Poll found most Americans gradually came to support “racial equality in public places” but a consistent plurality wanted to take a “go slow” approach to racial change. In the South, not surprisingly, Gallup found that 80% of those polled in 1964 disapproved of civil rights legislation.” -http://restorefairness.org/2010/05/what-did-civil-rights-polls-reveal-50-years-ago/
Only 55% of Americans approved of the Brown v. BOE decision!! Think about that. Five years after the decision was written, almost half the country opposed whites and blacks learning together in the same building. I’m really not surprised to see almost identical poll numbers with regard to the rights of homosexuals.
The absurd thing to a rather dumb man as me is that marriage already has a definition, and it is what it is. 2 men cannot marry. It is ludicrous.
As far as men having sex together, and the same for women, this is condemned under the Lord’s statement that forniction is a sin. Fornication is wrong, in all its manners and ways.
Nowadays people will look at a red apple and say it isn’t really red, and it isn’t an apple to me. It can be an orange and be green, if they say it is. And you can try to argue with them all day long, and it will be fruitless.
The Church needs to read JC Ryle’s classic book, “Holiness”, and take it to heart. What a teacher he was. And if we understood the truth about sin, then we would have the right heart to deal with it. And even then it will forever be a battle against the devils in this world, until Christ our King comes and crushes him under our feet. Romans 16:20
Marriage has many different definitions throughout time and cilizations. Frequently, it was the arrangement by which property (the woman) was passed from father to husband. Additionally, same-sex unions were recognized in hundreds of African tribes, in Rome and in Greece (as well as other western cultures).
America is NOT a theocracy and the rules of one belief system shouldn’t dictate our laws. The bible can support plenty of evil things, like slavery.
Let’s hear it for postmodernism and Michael, its champion! Whatever that means.
But just as pertinent:
“Frequently, it was the arrangement by which property (the woman) was passed from father to husband”
Is someone lobbying for this? Then whatever is your point?
“Additionally, same-sex unions were recognized in hundreds of African tribes, in Rome and in Greece ”
This is not quite true, in that though same sex unions were common and not outlawed in Rome and Greece, they were never codified into civil law. For plain reasons.
Now, maybe Michael prefers African tribal living. Since most don’t, I’m not sure what his point is here, either. Or maybe since definitions (read: meaning for Mike) change, then maybe Mike has no preferences, and it’s just all the same. If not, WHY not?
“”America is NOT a theocracy and the rules of one belief system shouldn’t dictate our laws.”
Firstly, knock it off with the theocracy stuff. It is the buzzword of persons looking to make an impact without saying anything. One does not need to champion theocracy to strongly lobby for one man/one woman for reasons as plain as Michael’s gender. There is no reason at all that one group with one belief system cannot do what they think they could or should within the law to effect the ethics that their worldview projects. Every law is a moral statement, there are no exceptions, and so SOMEONE’S morals are going to be projected in this matter on the society as a whole. Though Mike is for African Tribal living, I am not for it, and so the conjugal unit – the most simple and necessary atom of society – is that which is worth fighting for.
What are your reasons for opposing homosexual marriage?
There is no reason to codify the notion into law. What that means is born out as those who want to effect the change argue for the change.
It far more than half. Most people are afraid to publicly admit that because they will be falsely labeled a hater and bigot by those who talk the loudest.
In the security of the voting booth marriage will be upheld as one-man, one woman.
How is this matter a “civil right”?
And based on what logic are the race issues you cite at all related?
And that’s why we can’t wait for a vote on the issue. Civil rights are going to have to be granted by court decision. Look at the poll numbers from Brown v. Board of Education and southern acceptance of segregation. It’s precisely because, in the secrecy of the voting booth, people will follow their darker angels of their nature that court action is required.
It wasn’t until 1967 that federal law trumped existing state laws with regard to interracial marriage. 1967!! In 1966 there were states in this country where justice Clarence Thomas would be put in jail because he was married to a white woman. And the laws, as they existed, were based largely on the moral and spiritual judgement of the majority of citizens. The majority honestly believed they were on the right side of justice. And many Christians supported their view from the scripture.
Sorry, the above is for RD.
How is this matter a “civil right”?
And based on what logic are the issues and events you cite related?
And based on what is voting for one’s own reasons “follow[ing] their darker angels”?
This is a very good article by attorney Theodore Olson, a lifelong Republican and a former staffer in both the Reagan and GWB administrations. He clearly spells out the reasons that homosexuals are guaranteed marriage rights under the U.S. Constitution:
I appreciate that you found a position paper that you think lines up with your views, but I don’t want to sift through someone else’s ideas to try to figure out what you think and why.
I need you to address the above questions in your own words. Can you explain these matters? If you can’t, then why should I spend any time dissecting something that someone else thinks when it is you to whom I am talking?
In the latest issue of The Week magazine, the following statistics were presented:
86% of Americans now approve of marriages between whites and blacks. Only 4% did in 1958, and 29% did in 1973. A majority did not approve of inerracial marriages until 1997.
As noted before, it wasn’t until 1967 that laws were enacted that didn’t make it a crime for a black and a white to marry.
The long arc of history does bend toward justice.
And this is a good example. You don’t seem to realize that you are approaching the two matters presupposing their equivalence. About halfway down the first page of the article you cited, the author attempted the same “illegal shift”, presupposing an equivalent sense of justice in the matters without explaining it. One cannot say “I can’t see any good reason not to see it my way” when one is arguing for change in the direction of one’s own point of view. One needs to make the case for one’s point of view, if one’s point of view is the change being sought. It is your case to make, as it was you who made the assertion.