Prop 8 - Gay Marriage - My Thoughts

Has been a while since I posted. Well, here is something I wrote as a comment on another person's blog -- Separation of church and state except regarding Proposition 8 --

"legally marry" - You used this term and I have to wonder if you have really thought about it. Plus I wonder if you know the history of the marriage license in the U.S.?
- http://www.answers.com/topic/marriage-license -

Prior to the Civil War there was no interference from the state or federal govt. in the union of two people.

It seems that after the Civil War there were many women asking for their legal compensation for their husbands dying in service to their country. This was when the govt really started to hand out the licenses and they found it was a way to control the populace.

From above link: Black's Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission [...] would be illegal." The authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a privilege" to do something. By allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we do not have a right to marry; marriage is a privilege. Those born in the US receive a birth certificate, not a birth license.

and this: In the early part of the 20th century, the requirement for a marriage licence (sic) was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos.[1] By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism. These laws have since been declared invalid by the Courts.

The Constitution was designed by The Founders (TM) not to control the populace but for the populace to control the government. Unfortunately this has been turned around on us with everyone wanting a handout and their own interests served first. So now we have a government that is controlling and overbearing and getting more power than The Founders (TM) meant for them to have.

Back to your use of the term "legally marry". - Lets ask ourselves the following, without 'religion' or 'church' involvement.


What is the past & current definition of marriage? (even most of those who want homosexual marriage agree it now is - one man/one woman. That is if they will be honest. That is what they are trying to do after all is redefine the word)

Should one small segment of society (albeit it is growing due to peoples ignorance) be allowed to change the legal definition of 'Marriage' through tugging on heartstrings, with accusations of 'hatred', 'homophobia', and 'bigotry'?

Once this legal definition is changed what is next?

The argument in the comments, "Except for the fact that history does not bear out that slippery-slope argument." is false AND misleading.

History does bear it out and we can see it through numerous examples. Did Hitler take control in a single day? Did Social Security go bankrupt the first day our government started abusing the funds? Even if there were no examples of any past 'slippery slopes' could this be 'the first one'? What would be next? Perhaps something I like and you don't?

I don't expect you to change your mind on this matter. But I do hope that you will slack off a bit on the rhetoric.

Personally I think the government (both state and federal) should get out of licensing peoples relationships as well as licensing pets.

target="_blank"~~~~~Technorati Tags - marriage - prop 8 - religion -~~~~~

Anarchist Hate Crime in Lansing! Where is the MSM and ACLU?

From Right Michigan:

On Sunday morning, amidst worshiping congregants and following unifying prayers that our President-elect be granted wisdom as he prepares to lead our nation through difficult global, social and economic challenges, the Michigan left declared open war on peaceful church goers.

They did it with banners, chants, blasphemy, by storming the pulpit, by vandalizing the church facility, by potentially defiling the building with lewd, public, sex acts and by intentionally forcing physical confrontations with worshipers.

...

Their other props? I'll let them tell you in their own words... from another of their liberal blogs:

"(A) video camera, a megaphone, noise makers, condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric...yeh."

And then at InfoShop News (Please no links to this one. Don't give them the search engine power)

The Mount Hope Church is a deplorable, anti-queer mega-church in Lansing, Michigan. The church works to institutionalize transphobia and homophobia through several repulsive projects including organized "ex-gay" conferences and so-called "hell houses", which depict queers, trannies and womyn who seek abortions in hell. Mt. Hope is complicit in the repression of queers in Michigan and beyond.

Bash Back! ain't down with that. And so on Sunday November 9th, about thirty radical queers from Lansing, Chicago, Memphis and Milwaukee disrupted the church's most well-attended sermon.

At noon, a small group of folks dressed in pink and black, equipped with a megaphone, black flags, picket signs and an upside-down pink cross began demonstrating outside the church. The group was extremely loud and wildly offensive.

The demonstration drew a majority of Mount Hope's security staff outside to watch them.

Meanwhile, with the guards pre-occupied by the distraction, over a dozen queers had put on their Sunday-best and infiltrated the church's congregation. At the signal that the guards had been lured outside, the infiltrators sprung into action.

A group stood up, declared themselves fags, and began screaming loudly. Upon hearing the loud interruption, other affinity groups went into action. A team that had been hiding under the pews in the closed-off balcony dropped a banner and pulled back the curtains to reveal "IT'S OKAY TO BE GAY! BASH BACK!". Another group threw over a thousand fliers to the entirety of the congregation. The fire alarm was pulled. Queers began making out in front of the pastor. And within a matter of minutes, everyone had evaded the guards and made their escapes.

And from CityPulse News

A gay anarchist group infiltrated the Mt. Hope Church in Eaton County Sunday morning, disrupting a service by pulling a fire alarm, dropping leaflets and yelling at parishioners, a pastor said.

The group, Bash Back, was simultaneously picketing outside the church, beating on buckets and using a megaphone to shout "Jesus was a homo" and other slogans as confused churchgoers continued to enter the building.

Members of Bash Back issued a press release Tuesday saying that it targeted Mt. Hope, a church that claims a flock of around 5,000, because it is, "complicit in the repression of queers in Michigan and beyond."

AND

When Eaton County Sheriff’s deputies arrived, they questioned the remaining protestors (city pulse spelling) in the church parking lot. Elieff and other church staff questioned the Bash Back members why Mt. Hope Church had been singled out.

"I don’t know," was an almost universal response.

Elieff acknowledged the group's right to protest, but he said the church's civil rights were infringed upon when the service was disrupted.

No one was arrested at the church, and, Elieff said, as far as he knew, no arrests have been made.

The previous was posted by Tuesday Morning (11NOV08) Detroit Free Press since then posted online:

The disruption came from a group which calls itself Bash Back, and involved demonstrations outside the church and inside the sanctuary while services were under way, said Mt. Hope Church communications director David Williams.

Members of the group inside the church shouted pro-gay slogans, threw leaflets, unfurled a banner and pulled a fire alarm, then hastily departed, Williams said. There were no injuries, he said.

Hmmm. No mention of condoms??? Oh! They can't use that word because it is a family paper!

~~~~~

prying1 sez:

The actions of the Bash Back Group is not the norm for liberals and indeed some will say the group is not liberal but extreme anarchists and outside the definitions of left and right. Their website postings show disdain for both Republicans and Democrats. But I ask which side of the aisle is closer to their ideals concerning homosexuality? I'm certain they had no words of praise for McCain and Palin and more toleration for Obama.

That leaves those on the left closer to these "anarchist thugs" than conservatives.

I would not blame this on Obama's election but think perhaps these 'lost souls' planned on doing this no matter who won the race. I would like to hear the reactions of both McCain and Obama (Mr. Be Humble Around Evil...) concerning this 'incident'.


It will be interesting to see if the ACLU take the case and which side THEY are on....

Myself? I'm going to ask our pastor what he thinks about this situation and how he would want the men in the congregation to react. He is the leader of our portion of Christ's universal church and I will defer to him on this matter.

Prior to speaking with him, had this happened in our church, I would say that at least one or two would need some hospitalization...

~~~~~
~~~~~
Technorati Tags -
Religion -
Homosexuality -
Christianity -
Politics -
MSM -

[tagname] -


~~~~~

General Pace and Immorality

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff voiced his personal opinion to a group of Chicago Tribune editors and reporters this week. As a result he came under fire from homosexual activist groups, many in the Democratic Party, many in the MSM, the former Secretary of the Navy and Virginia Republican Senator John Warner. Warner said to reporters, "I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral."

Transcript:

PACE: My upbringing is such that I believe that there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral. I believe that military members who sleep with other military members’ wives are immoral in their conduct, and that we should not tolerate that. I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts.

So the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell allows an individual to serve the country, not — [inaudible/interruption] that allows individuals to serve their country. If we know about immoral acts, regardless of committed by who or — then we have a responsibility. And I do not believe that the Armed Forces of the United States are well served by saying through our policies that it’s okay to be immoral in any way, in any way, not just with regards to homosexuality. This is from that standpoint saying that gays should serve openly in the military to me says that we, by policy, would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity. And therefore, as an individual, I would not want that to be my policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that, if were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with someone’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior between members of the Armed Forces.

Audio here

Thanks to Think Progress for the Transcript and link to sound.

Where are the pro-adultery groups in this mix? The Homosexual groups are complaining about being mixed in with adulterers but I don't hear complaints that adulterers are being mixed in with the homosexuals.

Last Tuesday (13Mar07), an ABC reporter asked Clinton whether she thought homosexuality is immoral. She replied: "Well, I am going to leave that to others to conclude." - Since then (Thurs 15Mar07) Hillary Clinton told Bloomberg News, "Well, I've heard from a number of my friends, and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely, I do not think homosexuality is immoral." -

Barack Hussein Obama released a statement on this same Thursday. "I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years." - The day before Obama's statement was, "Traditionally, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow." -

Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback stated in a letter: "We should not expect someone as qualified, accomplished and articulate as General Pace to lack personal views on important moral issues. In fact, we should expect that anyone entrusted with such great responsibility will have strong moral views."

Asked whether he agreed with Pace's comments, Brownback said: "I do not believe being a homosexual is immoral, but I do believe homosexual acts are. I'm a Catholic and the church has clear teachings on this."

~~~~~~

prying1 sez: The issue really is, "Is there a God and did he set up rules for mankind to live by?" - I say yes. -

But what I say is unimportant compared to what each person's heart says. Inside all of us is a conscience that nudges us when we want to go the wrong direction. Then when someone comes along and says, "Hey! You're going the wrong way!" we get defensive. This happens whether the issue is homosexuality or eating to much chocolate cake.

It is an issue of sin.

For the uninitiated, sin is, simply put, disobedience to God. He set up the rules not General Pace or Hillary or Obama or Brownback or me. People can disagree with the rules, love the rules or hate the rules but we can't change the rules. - So it goes -

Those railing against General Pace simply prove that people do not like to be corrected. Consciences get pricked and in response people lash out. All of mankind needs to recognise that a conscience is a good thing and helps us see those things that we allow to stand between us and God.

Morality is not something that we can make our own definitions for. When we do try to conform morality to our desires we twist our consciences and that, my friends, is not a good way to live life.

~~~~~

~~~~~
Attribution to: CNS News.com and Time.com



~~~~~
~~~~~
Write in Cary Cartter for President in 2008
~~~~~

Technorati Tags -
General Pace -
Homosexuality -
Morality -
Religion -
Military -

Is it Friday Yet?

Normally I post on this blog in the A.M. - The Feed Blitz Emailer I signed up for takes my stuff at midnight and sends it out at willy nilly times it seems. - I'm going to be switching up on that and looking for a better (free) notifier real soon. (My Christmas present to myself. - Suggestions welcome - -(8-P)~~~~)

Anyway - This morning - (14Dec06) I got caught up with some Blog Surfing through my Sitemeter.com hits.
- One came through Christian-bloggers.com of which I am a member. - I clicked to see what was up on their 'headlines' and saw a line that said, "I Love Ellen Degeneres: Part 2" and below that was "I Love Ellen Degeneres: Part 1" - I chose link number one because I love things to be done decently and in order. It's scriptural that way.

Well, to make a long story longer, I found myself in the midst of the normal daily Christian dilemma. Meeting 'Christians' that make statements like, "I hate Ellen Degeneres."

The Rev.J. Theodore Helms of Our Sovereign Joy dealt with the problem in three parts. - Each a long read in blogging standards but each well worth the time. Leave a comment with each one as I did and tell him where he is wrong. (HINT: He's not! But you might want to suggest to him that he link to the next one in his previous postings.)

i-love-ellen-degeneres-part-1"
i-love-ellen-degeneres-part-2
i-love-ellen-degeneres-part-3

BUT WAIT!!! THERE'S MORE!

I then got to his Home Page and discover that on 13Dec06 Scott Welch posted on the Sovereign Joy blog with his posting about harboring hatred in ones heart. This made four posts and comments and then I had to get to work. No time to post this AM! Oh well. It was well worth the time.

So what happens when I get home tonight. I go to Sitemeter.com again and find I've got hits from My Weekly Thoughts who thought the Being Five link was worthy of a mention. Another half hour of my life gone but I must say, "It was not Wasted." - Both going into my blogroll soon. -

P.S. This posting was modified 'after' 9PM (12Pm Eastern) because I had to hit 'Publish' in time for the email notifier to send it out by Friday AM. HELP!!!

~~~~~~

Technorati Tags -
Religion -
Homosexuality -
Blogs -

Elton John is in the news

Elton John has hit the news recently with a comment that religion should be banned. - Elton John and the Scissor Sisters' Jake Shears discuss what it means to be a gay star, just what constitutes a gay sense of humour - and why everyone is welcome in their world. -
says a headline in the Guardian Unlimited -

Prior to the banning religion statement Elton John had said:

I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people. Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays. But there are so many Christian people I know who are gay and love their religion ...

Italics = prying1 who wonders at the contradiction in this statement???

Elton John's words about banning religion in context:

... We should all be together. I've got this really naive idea of what life should be like - it's an idealistic idea but it's completely integrated. We can't keep thinking of gay people as being ostracised; we can't keep thinking of Muslim people as being [ostracised] because of the fundamentalism that occurs in Islam. Muslim people have to do something about speaking up about it. - This I agree with - We can't judge a book by its cover.

From my point of view I would ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it. I love the idea of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the beautiful stories about it, which I loved in Sunday school and I collected all the little stickers and put them in my book. But the reality is that organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate.

The world is near escalating to World War Three and where are the leaders of each religion? Why aren't they having a conclave; why aren't they coming together? I said this after 9/11 and people thought I was nuts: instead of more violence why isn't there a [meeting of religious leaders]. It's all got to be dialogue - that's the only way. Get everybody from each religion together and say 'Listen, this can't go on. Why do we have all this hatred?'

~~~~~
His opening lines about being naive are proven in his last paragraph about the leaders of each religion having a conclave. "It's all got to be dialogue... "

There are no LEADERS of each religion except the Catholic Church and maybe the Dali Lama. In the Muslum religion there is a myriad of local Imams and such but which of them are considered THE LEADERS of the Muslum religion? All of them by their local congregations.

Christianity has so many branches and disagreements on such little issues that it would be impossible to gather them together and decide who is in and who is out. Many of those that the Main Stream Media calls "Christian Leaders" are rejected as such by the majority of Christians... Tony Campolo and Hillary Clinton come to mind...

Hindoo and Buddhist religions are pretty much the same way by what I gather.

Then, if and when, they get to the meeting who is going to lead it?

Elton?

I think not.

The meeting would be filled with a bunch of people pointing fingers and claiming the others are wrong. Plus you have the problem of definitions of words. For example the Muslums and Mormans and Jehovah's Witnesses and Hindoos and Buddhists and Catholics and Protestants all have a different definition of the word 'salvation' and even the need for it...

No Elton. A Holy Conclave would not work. You are as you said, "naive"...

As far as the religion is filled with hate towards gays aspect of your statements, Christianity as I know it simply disagrees with the gay lifestyle. Because a person (religious or not) says, "I do not think that the word 'Marraige' should be redefined to denote a relationship between two men or two women", or "I do not think the gay lifestyle is a viable one", they are tagged as hate filled.

Often times by those that are filled with hate towards religion...

~~~~~~
Think about it. To ban religion would really cause troubles in this world.
~~~~~~
I think it would be easier to ban toupees than it would be to ban religion.
~~~~~

Technorati Tags -
Elton John -
Religion -
Homosexuality -

Attack Dobson? For what?

Update - Some of the links once on this page have been changed or removed from the original posting due to the fluid nature of the Internet. All quotes were taken from associated webpages that were up at the time...

~~~~~~~
Accusations abound that Dr. Dobson said Spongebob Squarepants, a cartoon character, is homosexual and promotes the gay lifestyle... Here is the whole story as I found it.

From Dr. Dobson's Website

----quote----

Question: Why is Dr. Dobson objecting to the distribution of a video featuring such popular children's characters as SpongeBob SquarePants?

Answer: From the outset, let's be clear that this issue is not about objections to any specific cartoon characters. Instead, Dr. Dobson is concerned that these popular animated personalities are being exploited by an organization that's determined to promote the acceptance of homosexuality among our nation's youth.

We applaud the ideal of championing to children the value and dignity of every human life as well as respect for our differences. What we vehemently object to is using these beloved characters to help advance an agenda that's beyond the comprehension of 6 and 7 year-old children, not to mention morally offensive to millions of moms and dads.

The video in question is slated to be distributed to 61,000 public and private elementary schools throughout the United States. Where it is shown, schoolchildren will be left with the impression that their teachers are offering their endorsement of the values and agenda associated with the video's sponsor. While some of the goals associated with this organization are noble in nature, their inclusion of the reference to "sexual identity" within their "tolerance pledge" is not only unnecessary, but it crosses a moral line.

We believe that it is the privilege of parents to decide how, when and where it is appropriate to introduce their children to these types of sensitive issues. The distribution of this video trumps the authority of mothers and fathers and leaves it in the hands of strangers whose standards may very well be different than the children they teach.

By calling it to light this video and its affiliation with this larger organization, we are attempting to do for parents what their busy lives often prevent them from doing themselves--connecting the dots.
----end quote---

prying1 sez: It is a well known known fact that Dr. Dobson disagrees with the homosexual agenda. Hate or "homophobia" are not the reasons for the disagreement but spiritual and religious conviction. As a lover of the truth (see my first post) I feel it is necessary to compare Dobson's statement with The L.A. Times and the New York Times. (Defunct links to both papers removed)

-------------
L.A. Times has
ONE SENTENCE attributed to Dr. James Dobson
- "Does anyone here know SpongeBob?" Dr. James Dobson asked DARKLY, addressing a black-tie audience at one of Tuesday's inaugural events. -
and NO links to the entire speech. (darkly? Is that thrown in for effect making him appear sinister??? Is that the way a real newspaper should act? Of course this is from their opinion page not a 'real' newspage.)

ONE QUOTE from a spokesman that has an ellipses in the middle (and in the wrong spot note as/is in real sentence. Might be nitpicking but I am a nitpcker so...)
- "We see the video ... as manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids," Dobson's spokesperson told the New York Times on Wednesday. "It's a classic bait and switch.". -

Hmmmm...

--------------

New York Times has ONE SENTENCE attributed to Dr. James Dobson and NO links to the entire speech.
- "Does anybody here know SpongeBob?" Dr. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, asked the guests Tuesday night at a black-tie dinner for members of Congress and political allies to celebrate the election results. -

TWO SENTENCES from a spokesman that may have had sentences between them. Who knows with these bastions of truth reporting.
- "We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids," he said. "It is a classic bait and switch." -

Hmmmm...

-------------
All of the writing around those 3 lines are written by people who are obviously trying to foster hatred and intolerance towards Dr. Dobson.
-------------

We are Family Website

The Pledge page has been moved or removed from the We Are Family Foundation website

Tolerance is a personal decision that comes from a belief that every person is a treasure. I believe that America's diversity is its strength. I also recognize that ignorance, insensitivity and bigotry can turn that diversity into a source of prejudice and discrimination.

To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own.
-----------------------
Should the reporters and staff at both the Times buildings take the pledge? It is obvious they are intolerant of Dobson's well known views that homosexuality is not a viable lifestyle...

He is not alone in this view so why is he the one to be attacked? Perhaps it is because both papers are narrow minded and bigoted...