8 in favor, 3 opposed and 3 abstaining; that was the final vote today as the American River College Student Council voted to endorse Proposition 8; the state constitutional amendment that will preserve the definition of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.
The September 30th afternoon meeting drew a crowd of nearly 200 students who were about evenly split in their support or opposition to the Proposition 8 resolution. Chanting, yelling, clapping and calls for order by the President, were commonplace as students from No on 8 side expressed their views to the Council. Some shouted "NO on 8" from the podium. Others interrupted supporters of Prop.8 as they spoke by yelling insults and profane language.
After an hour and a half of student comment, the Council voted to pass the resolution with just over the 2/3rd majority vote required, drawing applause from students.
Student Representative Jorge Riley spoke in favor of passing the Resolution, stating that he would vote to uphold the majority's will, while Council member Tim Richey expressed his disgust with the Council's support for Prop 8 by emphatically stating his "NO" vote.
A student-publicized, anti-marriage rally against Prop 8 was held prior to the meeting and students were allowed to bring signs reading "No on 8" inside the meeting as well. Other students held signs reading "marriage still = 1 man +1 woman" and "Yes on Prop 8." Two campus police officers were called in to attempt to the keep the peace; several students were requested to leave the building and were escorted outside by the administration as No on 8 advocates cursed and yelled at their opponents.
Members of the ARC Student Council made a brave stand and I commend them.
Video of the full meeting will be made available at http://americanrivernews.blogspot.com/
22 comments:
This is a relatively biased (obviously) account of events. Not only does it imply that the opposition was out of order and not the present majority. Mind you, two speakers used their only chances to speak to remind the opposition of the endorsement to 'play by the rules' and 'remain calm', despite the majority of the council's obvious disregard for the present protesters.
But, start from the beginning: this endorsement is being made on behalf of the entire student body based on the opinion of an extremely small minority of the campus. The endorsement required only 100 signatures out of *36,000+* attending students, and were, at numerous times, presented with pages of signatures in opposition (reluctantly, I cannot give an exact figure). The majority of these signatures (in favor) come from two of the college's groups: the Christian Civilization Club (infamous for it's 'Islamafascism Week' last year) and the Russian Club (which has at least 5 members on the current Student Association (SA) council, despite breaking several bi-laws in their campaign).
Now, with today's (September 30th's) events, protesters rallied *peacefully* outside the cafeteria, making two additional stops on the way to Raef Hall in order to gain support against the SA's blatant disregard for the majority opinion; they had already been presented with well over 200 signatures in opposition to the endorsement prior to anything that occurred today.
Once some degree of order was achieved in the auditorium (with an advisor asking that the audience resort to 'sign language clapping' in order to save time) the SA began the meeting, leading to the Open Discussion with a ludicrous '1 minute per person' rule that even their own members were unable to respect. This time was not for support or opposition of the endorsement, but comments in regards to other possible issues. Members of the audience used this time to make clear how disgusted the majority of them were with the SA speaking on their behalf (without even informing them; word of the endorsement was spread by activists, faculty, and former SA members, including the past president, equally appalled). This opportunity was cut short by the current, impatient president, interrupting the open discussion to allow the council a chance to speak; this problem was due to the crowding and long line of people trying to get a word in, but unable to reach the podium.
One SA council member, a simple 'student representative', then summarily generalized homosexuals as 'masters of turning this into a civil rights issue' blatantly offending many audience members, who justifiably interrupted. This comment broke the fragile order for, at most, two minutes, before the audience was given its fair chance with Open Discussion again. David Fischer, a former SA member, then pointed out the hypocrisy and shady tactics of the aforementioned SA student representative and several other current SA members.
After more discussion, including input by a teacher from the English department against the endorsement, the SA barely managed to maintain order, and indeed threatened to use campus police to enforce it (however, at no point during the meeting were they called on). The meeting then came to the major matter at hand: the endorsement on behalf of the entire college and its student body of Proposition 8. The audience was again given a chance to share their feelings. The vast majority of the audience respectfully listened and used 'sign language clapping' (and in several cases, thumbs downs). The support of the endorsement came, unsurprisingly, from people admitting to being Christian (thus turning their support into a religious one, not necessarily moral) and a handful of people with eastern-european accents. However, there were less than a dozen comments in support of the endorsement (at the podium, at least), compared to the several dozen against it.
Opposition of the endorsement came in two (or three, rather) forms. The first being from concerned students that were, quote "disgusted" that the SA would take their power of representation into a social and political matter irrelevant to education. The second being activists personally in favor, or not opposed, to the right of marriage between same sex partners. The third, which was underlying in the other two as well as other offended students, were angry that their endorsement was taken without their consent.
Support of the endorsement came from two angles as well. The first from the SA representative: that it would be unchristian, which was the most common argument. Next came the rather weak argument that teachers would 'have to change their curriculum to include teaching that same sex marriage was the moral equivalent of marriage between a man and a woman' and would thus interfere with education, as well as 'confuse' children.
On both sides interruptions occurred, but the opposition greatly outnumbered the support. The inaccuracy of this article is probably due to an inappropriately asked question of whether or not members of the audience were Christian (the first five or six rows all raised their hands, and several people near the back of the auditorium as well), and the writer is forgetting the second question asked here: 'Do you support gay marriage?' where nearly half of these admitted Christians kept their hands raised.
Ultimately though, this matter came down to separation of church and state which the biased and stacked council was unable to do. The majority vote, 8 to 3 with 3 abstentions, was met with the majority of the audience leaving (after David Fischer had been asked to leave for 'disrupting' the meeting by stating that the 'transparencies' of the council were obvious). The little applause came from self-righteous members of the Christian Civilization Club and Russian Club (virtually the same body as of writing this). The 'brave stand' of the SA council was no more than a majority disillusioned members using their position to advocate their religious views, and claim to represent the whole of their college.
As of writing this, there are plans of impeaching several members of the current SA, repealing and or recalling the decision, and appealing to the ARC Board of Justice. Also note that after Open Discussion ended, an opponent of the endorsement entered with a petition against the action, but the hundreds of signatures and pleas for a voice fell on deaf ears.
I'd like to note how disappointed yet unsurprised I am with the writer of this article.
The Sacramento Bee wrote:
"Choban was cursed and shouted down by some of the 200 students in the audience when he told his fellow council members, 'don't be intimidated. The homosexuals are masters of presenting themselves as a civil rights issue. It's not a civil rights issue; it's personal choice.'"
I was there. And what I witnessed was what I wrote. The students doing all of the shouting were the No on 8 folks. The ones doing all the interupting (not just the one student) were No on 8. The ones doing all the cursing and using profane language were No on Prop 8. And the ones promoting and demonstrating hate at that meeting were the "Stop the Hatred" opponents of Prop 8.
Yes, it's entirely okay to generalize a group of people (based upon their sexual preference) as 'masters' of what Choban nearly said: 'deception'. He was lucky to be interrupted by the offended audience members. Nonetheless, it's pathetic that he would even use the word 'intimidated'. I'm sorry, but as a 'student representative' (albeit one in office only due to breaking campaign laws and to be used as a majority vote tool), it would be his job to... I don't know... *represent* the student body, or at least, the majority of the student body?
It's equally pathetic that you would claim the students "were about evenly split", when the obvious majority came in opposition. Not all of the shouting was from the opposition, less than half of the interruption came from the opposition (the most coming from the ridiculous 1 minute to speak rule being enforced, though especially loosely on Choban's comment). Easily the most profanity and curses came from the opposition: they are outraged at what the SA is doing.
But, how is it possible that the opposition was the one demonstrating hate when everyone at the podium, russian, christian, concerned students, former SA members, and even a faculty member was interrupted to some degree. Does it even make sense to you that the foremost belief was a 'hatred of hate'? And what of the Christian Civilization Club's 'Love Jesus/ Hate Evil'? What of their 'Islamafascism Week'? This is entirely relevant due to their representation as the majority in the current council. Are you really that close minded to the opposition trying to prevent more hate from spreading?
Or are you just that ignorant?
Leave it to the videos.
If there any readers left at this point, here is the Sacbee article Deluz is referencing:
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1278928.html
Hmm, looks like you forgot a lot of the article, sorry.
The differece was that the supporters of Prop 8 were civil and obeyed the rules of decorum, unlike the opponents.
And what the student said was correct. This is not a civil rights issue. And as a Black man, I am offended that you would liken disagreement with someone's sexual preference to 400 years of slavery, lynching and Jim Crowe.
I would like to agree with Mr. DeLuz in his conclusion that the ARC Student Council made a brave stand [in their endorsement of Proposition 8]. It takes bravery to stand against overwhelming opposition.
To be fair I must say that adding to their bravery was the fact that the opposition was unequally rude and unrestrained. I say unequally because both sides were victim to these actions. I was disappointed that emotions dictated much of the oppositions behavior at the meeting. Proposition 8 is a contentious issue though and in some respect the emotionality of the event was to be expected.
That being said, unlike Mr. DeLuz, I cannot commend the council for their bravery. Where he says they are to be commended I say that they are to be held in disgrace.
I say this because what I think is more important and has been largely ignored throughout these events (ongoing) is the the fact! that the disagreement behind this resolution - which the issue only helped to highlight - was not about wether or not gay marriage is right or wrong, rather, the anger over the resolution was about something entirely different. Misrepresentation. The idea that an obviously biased group took it upon themselves to speak for me and everyone else at ARC is, at the very least, questionable. They are representatives, and if they are not representing the majority of ARC students then who are they representing?
I've talked to a few of the council members since the vote and they justify their actions by stating that because they were elected by a majority that gives them the right to uniformly speak for the whole of ARC. This is illogical for a couple of reasons. First, when campaigning for office did any of these council members offer that they would be issuing blanket statements of ARC based on their own ideological stances? Of course not or they wouldn't have been elected. I didn't say they were stupid. Rather, they are extremely smart and organized. As a matter of fact, I voted for some of them in the last election which has not only left me feeling betrayed, but also feeling that I have betrayed my fellow students. Second, even though elected by majority, aren't they to still attempt to represent the whole to the best of their ability? There are a few things that can be said about this point: They excluded students, ignored students, and failed to respect students.
The Student Council is not an ethics committee and as such should not have entertained any thought whatsoever of publicly endorsing prop 8. Their concern should strictly pertain to student affairs and school functions. Only through the use of either theological beliefs or hatred can one merge ideology with school matters.
I do want to thank the Student Council though. They have polarized a large body of the students at ARC and thusly will shortly be recalled. I'm fairly assured in this statement because after less than one day the recall effort has garnered almost twice as many signatures as the number of ballots that were cast in the election. More detrimental to the present Student Council however, is the fact that they have polarized me.
I have a question for anyone reading this. If this resolution serves to speak for you without your input - and it does - while not having any significance in ARC policy, then what was the point in doing so? To be a good Christian? To bring sheep into the flock? I ask because I can see no other reason.
If you disagree with what I have said in any way whatsoever please let me know, I'm open to ALL viewpoints and am interested in what you think.
Ignoring the irony of you claiming to be a conservative 'black man', all thing considered, homosexuals endure similar persecution and discrimination as well, which are clearly labeled "hate crimes" socially; thus this is a civil rights issue. We'll get to that in a moment.
Take a look at your Passport, Driver's License or Identification Card. Do you see a field for "Race"? What about "Sexual Preference"? "Religion"? I didn't think so, but you know, that's all you need, other than money and any appropriate documents relevant to the dissolution of a prior marriage or domestic partnership. That's all. As a legal document, the application for a marriage license asks for the names of both parties involved, among other personal information, but none of the prior listed details (with the exception of "Religion" if the application is for a Denominational Marriage, but this is not a necessary detail). The application for a marriage license does not even ask for "Gender".
Let's just ignore that things are that simple at the moment, for your sake. In your latest response, you claim this to not be a civil rights issue. Let's define civil rights:
taking two definitions of "Civil" from the Oxford English Dictionary:
A. adj. I. 1. Of or belonging to citizens; consisting of citizens, or men dwelling together in a community, as in civil society, civil life; also, of the nature of a citizen, as civil man, civil creature. The literal sense ‘of citizens’ is rare (quot. 1848).
2. Of or pertaining to the whole body or community of citizens; pertaining to the organization and internal affairs of the body politic, or state.
and a few for "Right" (sorry, no, not 'center-right')
I. 1. The standard of permitted and forbidden action within a certain sphere; law; a rule or canon. Obs.
2. That which is proper for or incumbent on one to do; one's duty. Obs.
3. a. That which is consonant with equity or the light of nature; that which is morally just or due. (Often contrasted with might and wrong, and in ME. freq. coupled with reason or skill.)
b. The fact or position of being in the right (cf. 6b). Chiefly in phr. to have right. Now rare.
c. Consonance with fact; correctness.
4. a. Just or equitable treatment; fairness in decision; justice. Freq. in phr. to do (one) right.
just for fun, we'll use their definition of "Civil Law, Right" as well. (a. strictly applies to Romans)
b. In more general sense: The law of any city or state regulating the private rights and duties of the inhabitants; also used in other senses of civil.
Now, let's see... Are you going to claim that homosexuals aren't citizens of the United States? Not part of the community, of society? Not part of politics, internal affairs, organizations?
Are they not permitted the same actions, do they not follow the same laws? Are they *improper* in our society; do they fail their duty as citizens (if that's what they are?)
Here's a few you'll like: Are they unnatural? Are they morally atrocious? Are they *wrong*?
Yet
Are they unfair and unjust?
We'll fall onto the "general" definition provided by the OED for reiteration: do they not inhabit our state as citizens participating in their duty as citizens to voice their opinion?
Now, I myself being a heterosexual caucasian should have nothing to say on the matter, right? I mean, who am I to voice my opinion? How dare I.
But you know, it's more than a little disappointing to see you refer to yourself as a black man while at the same time supporting this discrimination. I guess that would make sense, though, if you identify yourself as a 'black man', and not a Citizen of the United States. So, what right do you have to marriage, then? Do you feel you are somehow superior to homosexuals?
This 'disagreement' is nothing more than discrimination against a select group of people that some of society isn't ready to accept. As a 'black man', who surely personally endured every second of those 400 years of slavery, lynching, and Jim Crowe should stand beside your fellow citizens who simply demand the same legal rights as the rest of their fellow citizens. Surely after all of that discrimination and your *brave stand* of endurance you'd be accepting of the civil (yes, civil) struggle of a fellow *minority*.
But no, they're not good enough for you.
I think you forgot your whip at the auditorium, should I schedule a time for you to come pick it up?
I agree with Nick. He has clearly put together the most organized and LOGICAL case for his argurment (though I guess I should note the complete lacking of either quality in the counter-case.) An educational institution should NEVBER take any stance on a political measure that seeks to disfranchise any of its constituancy. Individuals who don't agree with gay marriage should go to church and pray for forgiveness for their simple-mindedness and their inablity to love everyone just like Jesus asked them to.
Homosexuals have the same rights as straight people. I cannot marry a person of the same gender either. And they are free to marry someone of the opposite gender, just as I have.
If it came down to letting people marry whom they wanted, why not let 60 year old men marry 14 year old boys? Why not let them marry Five 10 year old boys?
On another note: What homosexuals have encountered is nothing compared to what black America has had to endure. And for you to even try and equate the two demonstrates your ignorance.
How many homosexuals have been lynched?
How many were taken from their homeland, taken thousands of miles away and enslaved?
How many have been denied the right to vote? Join a union? Access to school?
Where are the studies that show how systemic discrimination has effected them socioeconomically or educationally?
Where are the numbers showing that they are underrepresented at our colleges and universities? or that they have been denied access to government jobs or contracts?
The fact is, I was born black and I will die black. I don't know any former black people. But I do know former homosexuals.
Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and in no way can be equated to being black in America. So please stop trying to hop on the civil rights bandwagon.
My final point on this thread was best stated by Fisher Ames who stated, “The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty.”
It looks like you're forgetting that it currently legal to marry someone of the same gender, and that they have to amend the state's constitution to take this right away from from. But I don't see how allowing two people of the same gender to wed changes the age of consent. I don't even need to touch the polygamy issue.
I am not trying to 'equate' the strife of homosexuals and 'black America', you're just ignorantly claiming that this is not a civil rights issue; and if they're citizens, and thus deserve "Just or equitable treatment", amending a constitution to deny them a right that they currently have would be simple discrimination.
Homosexuals have been beaten, killed, and many are afraid to admit this perfectly legal personal choice for fear of either happening. But, I'm sorry, have you been denied the right to vote? Have you been denied the right to join a union? Were you ever afraid to go to school because you were afraid you wouldn't walk back out after the school bell? While you're still claiming to simply be a 'black man'; did you even notice we have Barack Obama, who appears to be just as 'black' as you, running as president? Have you been been limited to a certain socioeconomic class or education level?
I have to point out, that again, the Civil Rights Movement was a liberal campaign to help bring about equality. Yet, again, you want to deny your fellow law abiding citizens a right that they currently have, despite it not harming you in any way.
"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"
Can you tell who that is?
How about..
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
?
Liberty
1. a. Exemption or release from captivity, bondage, or slavery.
b. In religious use: Freedom from the bondage of sin, or of the law.
2. a. Exemption or freedom from arbitrary, despotic, or autocratic rule or control. cap of liberty
b. natural liberty: the state in which every one is free to act as he thinks fit, subject only to the laws of nature. civil liberty: natural liberty so far restricted by established law as is expedient or necessary for the good of the community. liberty of conscience: the system of things in which a member of a state is permitted to follow without interference the dictates of his conscience in the profession of any religious creed or the exercise of any mode of worship. liberty of the press: the recognition by the state of the right of any one to print and publish whatever he pleases without previous governmental permission.
Let's go with Civil Liberty.
How is it 'good for the community' to continue the discrimination of our citizens?
It's a bit funny when you quote licentiousness and yet deny that this was the same feeling used in opposition of the Civil Rights Movement. I'm sorry, but Ames died over 200 years ago; you might want to get with the times.
Yet I wonder if you even believe it's possible to be a 'black man' and a 'homosexual'...
Let's define what civil rights and civil liberties are in the context of our constitution. But, in order to do that, we can not look to the definitions we use today, as these definitions are out of the context in which the founders framed them.
In order to establish the proper context, we can look to the Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, written by Noah Webster. He was the first Secretary of Education.
He defines civil as the following:
1. Relating to the community, or to the policy and government of the citizens and subjects of a state; as in the phrases, civil rights, civil government, civil privileges, civil war, civil justice. It is opposed to criminal; as a civil suit, a suit between citizens alone; whereas a criminal process is between the state and a citizen. It is distinguished from ecclesiastical, which respects the church; and from military, which respects the army and navy.
2. Relating to any man as a member of a community; as civil power, civil rights, the power or rights which a man enjoys as a citizen.
3. Reduced to order, rule and government; under a regular administration; implying some refinement of manners; not savage or wild; as civil life; civil society.
4. Civilized; courteous; complaisant; gentle and obliging; well-bred; affable; kind; having the manners of a city, as opposed to the rough, rude, coarse manners of a savage or clown.
Where civil speech and soft persuasion hung.
5. Grave; sober; not gay or showy. (I only included this one for the irony)
Rights are defined as follows:
1. Conformity to the will of God, or to his law, the perfect standard of truth and justice. In the literal sense, right is a straight line of conduct, and wrong a crooked one. Right therefore is rectitude or straightness, and perfect rectitude is found only in an infinite Being and his will.
2. Conformity to human laws, or to other human standard of truth, propriety or justice. When laws are definite, right and wrong are easily ascertained and understood. In arts, there are some principles and rules which determine what is right. In many things indifferent, or left without positive law, we are to judge what is right by fitness or propriety, by custom, civility or other circumstances.
3. Justice; that which is due or proper; as, to do right to every man.
Long love to her has borne the faithful knight, and well deserv'd had fortune done him right.
4. Freedom from error; conformity with truth or fact.
Seldom your opinions err, your eyes are always in the right.
5. Just claim; legal title; ownership; the legal power of exclusive possession and enjoyment. In hereditary monarchies, a right to the throne vests in the heir on the decease of the king. A deed vests the right of possession in the purchaser of land. Right and possession are very different things. We often have occasion to demand and sue for rights not in possession.
6. Just claim by courtesy, customs, or the principles of civility and decorum. Every man has a right to civil treatment. The magistrate has a right to respect.
7. Just claim by sovereignty; prerogative. God, as the author of all things, has a right to govern and dispose of them at his pleasure.
How about Liberty:
n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]
1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.
2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.
3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.
So what am I trying to get at?
Based on these definitions, Civil Rights represents justice for citizens under the governmental law that is due any anyone. But it also points out that these rights must be in “Conformity to the will of God, or to his law”
John Locke put it best in the Second Treatise of Government when he wrote, “so that laws human must be made according to the general laws of nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of scripture, otherwise they are ill made.”
Laws allowing same-sex marriage work violate this fundamental principle as they work contrary the laws of nature and the positive law of scripture.
It is appropriate to then surmise that refusal by government to officially recognize same-sex unions is wholly appropriate. First, there is no inalienable right to marry. There is only a governmental interest in promoting and regulating the institution.
Secondly, as the founders understood it, Natural Liberty does not apply in this case, as same-sex unions clearly represents a contradiction to the laws of nature. This means that it is not a violation of their Civil Liberties, as not allowing them to marry is not arbitrary. Rather it is maintaining consistency with the laws of nature and the positive law of scripture.
I know that the “laws of scripture” argument won’t fly with you. You will inevitably argue “Separation of Church and State” Which is also not in the constitution. (An argument for another post.)
But I am arguing this matter based on the constitution in the context in which the founders wrote it.
How is the context proper if we do not live in 1828? Let me also point out that the current state constitution, the one that is in question, is from 1879. But lets go back to the 1828 mentality.
Actually, no, lets go back to 1791. Then 1796. Then 1802.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
Do you have any idea where that's from? When you figure that out, lets jump back to 1796:
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
And finally.. 1802:
"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
I'll give you a hint, the last two come from former Presidents, which I do believe has a slightly higher podium; not to say that the Secretary of Education isn't a respectable position. But that's just our founding fathers' perspectives. But clearly oour country was founded in 1828 by Mr. Webster.
It seems selectively conservative that you would take this 1828 context to define the standards to which we are held today, if in 1828 Slavery appeared to be quite alive in America. I mean, since you identify yourself as 'black man', and if this is the context in which you live, are you willing to sacrifice the rights your fellow citizens fought for in 1968?
If I wanted to interpret a document that was written in Spanish, I would use a Spanish-English Dictionary. If I tried to use a German-English Dictionary, I would likely get some of the wrong, and thus misinterpret the document.
You are trying to apply today's terminology to words that had a different meaning when they were written. For example, church back then meant the same as denomination does today. The concern that the founders had was that the state would set up a national denomination.
And as for your quotes, they only prove my point. The first quote clearly states that there can be no morality without religion and the second
"What homosexuals have encountered is nothing compared to what black America has had to endure. And for you to even try and equate the two demonstrates your ignorance."
Part of the reason gays are not discriminated against in such ways is because of the strides made by the civil rights movement. I would think that you (Craig) being a person of color would be more sympathetic to that. But now it seems like you have your rights and you're now privledged so damn the rest. Gay's don't have it as bad as blacks used to so lets not give them equal rights....
So then why has the NAACP has come out AGAINST prop 8? Because they understand civil rights are civil rights. At one point in history they had to overcome bias and ignorance so that justice would prevail. And now that same thing is happening with gay people. And sadly, it is religious folk leading the charge of denying civil rights just like it was in the past. If you've studied the history of slavery you must know how Christians thought the Bible was CLEAR on slavery being acceptable. They were wrong. As I believe they are today on the gay issue.
Some things done in Jesus' name must sadden Him.
"Homosexuals have the same rights as straight people. I cannot marry a person of the same gender either. And they are free to marry someone of the opposite gender, just as I have."
Well that depends on perspective doesn't it? If marriage had NOTHING to do with attraction or love, I would agree with you. And up until a few hundred years ago thats how it was. But our culture today makes marriage about love and attraction. When that happened it excluded a whole group of people. If we lived hundreds of years ago and marriage was arranged and about the survival of your family then I would get married even if I wasn't attracted because that was what marriage was about. Thats simply not the case. And since the understanding of marriage HAS changed, so too, do the rules reguarding same-sex marriage.
I apologize for not completing my thought. I had to interupt to take care of family business.
But back to my thought...
The second quote you use points out that the primary concern was to keep the government from trying to control the church.
To Prophet,
I do not equate sexual preference to race. Or have you not read the entire thread?
The only reason the NAACP is against Prop. 8 is because the organization has been dying on the vine and is hoping to infuse some money from the Gay community. I even wrote a piece on it a few years ago NAACP Trades Marriage for Memberships .
In the piece I note that there is much division within the NAACP on the issue; so much so that the National Conference refused to hear the resolution.
Let me get this straight.
By quoting the First Amendment
saying
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
You think it's saying
"there can be no morality without religion and the second"
I can understand the misinterpretation of Washington: take not of the phrase "minds of peculiar structure". Take your 1828 Webster and look up "peculiar"; mind you, he doesn't say "religion", he says "religious princicple". So, again, pull out your 1828 Webster and define "religious" and "principle".
Wait, before you even go that far; lets look at the descriptions of the 1828 Webster:
"The 1828 dictionary reflects our nation's Christian heritage, and the Christian philosophy for life, government, and education."
"The American Dictionary of the English language is based upon God's written word, for Noah Webster used the Bible as the foundation for his definitions."
Wait, we weren't supposed to catch on to that, right? So, you're going to define words according to a christian perspective in order to claim that the rest of the nation (or even world, for that matter) may disagree with some interpretation?
We'll overlook that for the time being.
"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'"
So, Jefferson's opinion is irrelevant to you? Well, as much as I'd love to cite the Treaty of Tripole, I can't find a copy of it.
But let's go to your comment of division on the issue (in the NAACP): again, I remind you, then when the audience was asked "Are you christian?" then "do you believe in gay marriage", many of the admitted christians kept their hands firmly raised.
Do you find your opinion more important than that of the members of the NAACP? Of your fellow christians?
Let me remind you, that initially McCain was against the proposition before flipping his decision (as he has done on several occasions now).
Let me again remind you that no current definition exists within our state's constitution (from 1879, mind you, not your 1828) and that it would require amending and adding to this constitution to take this right away— again, this right is currently ours, available to every citizen of California.
Let me again remind you, that with your 1828 mentality, your opinion would only count as three-fifths of mine on this election (does that sound racist to you?). That it wasn't until 37 years later that you would have been free to voice your own opinion. That it took another 140 years for that opinion to be seen as entirely equal.
And finally, let me again remind you that we live in 2008, nearly 2009.
But then, I must ask, if the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791... And Webster's dictionary wasn't published until 1828... how did the founding fathers define the language they used in such a powerful document?
And I must also point out there's no record of Webster as the Secretary of Education... Considering the position didn't exist 1979. However, he was a Connecticut House Representative for a total of 7 years. No, not the Congressional House, just Connecticut's.
You might also want to read his version of the bible, but you'll have to wait 5 years, it doesn't come out until 1833.
But wait.
"The concern that the founders had was that the state would set up a national denomination. "
And how is that different from...
"But it also points out that these rights must be in “Conformity to the will of God, or to his law”"
So we don't have a national church, but we have a church's government?
Come on.
Nick,
Maybe you need to invest in hooked on phonics? LOL!!!!
Please read the second part of my comment that I posted.
I stated that the 1st amendment keeps the government from establishing a national demonination (ie. baptist, methodist, etc.) They did not want the government controling how people worshiped God.
But they clearly understood that vital link between Christian principles and the well being of our nation.
Geogre Washington stated in his fairwell address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars…”
If you want to more why this was, read my post, So Help Me God!
I wonder if LOL is in your dictionary, and sorry, I've never heard of Geogre Washington.
But that doesn't change that your interpretation of the first amendment is just that: your interpretation. It has been used on other grounds before, but you forget one of the other intended purposes was to prevent 'preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose.'
So, again, if we don't have a national denomination, why are you trying to claim that your religious ideals serve a purpose in this proposition? Last time I checked, again, if our own CIA describes us as a "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition"
and not a Theocracy
why should we deny ourselves a right that we currently have based upon a religious ideal?
I mean, last time that happened, it was called Prohibition. But wait, that's not going to happen for another 92 years!
But seriously, if you want to deny yourself rights you currently have, by all means, do it! Go ahead and revert your entire lifestyle back to the ideals of 1828.
In the mean time, let the rest of California live in 2008. I mean, at least we have Secretaries of Education now, looks like we needed them back then.
I think I should point out, that when Craig was talking about "the first quote" and "the second quote," he actually meant the second and third quote. He wasn't addressing "Congress shall make no law..." but instead "And let us with caution indulge the supposition..." and ""...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that."
This simplifies things a bit, but I'm still confused on Craig's arguments.
He says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is actually saying that congress should establish religion, but not a particular denomination. Because "church back then meant the same as denomination does today. The concern that the founders had was that the state would set up a national denomination."
However, the Amendment doesn't say anything about church, or denomination. It says "make no law respecting establishment of religion." Did religion mean something different in those days as well?
"They clearly understood that vital link between Christian principles and the well being of our nation."
I assume by they, you mean the writers of the Constitution, whom you somehow have failed to prove this "clearly." I think they clearly understand the vital link between just principles and the well being of our nation, as clearly shown throughout the Constitution and it's Amendments. Many of these principles are shared in many faiths, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. It doesn't mean that if the Christian religion is not here, that morality and strong national principles will cease to exist.
Nick,
You are all over the map! Try to stick to the point.
1. Thomas Jefferson, like the rest of the founders believed that the seperation was needed to protect the church from the state. [T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists.
But that Christian principles were key to the propsperity and success of our nation. can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?
2. Even those who founded California and wrote our State Constitution respected the imporant roll that God has played in establishing our state. Just read the preamble, "We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...."
3. In regards to the 3/5 compromise relating to blacks. You should really be intellectually honest. That value only had to do with determining the number of representatives that southern states would have in congress. Had they been successful in getting full recognition for every slave owned in the south, Southern States would likely have been able to control congress and the electoral college; thus preventing the northern states from being able to end slavery. It had nothing at all to do with the 1828 mentatlity.
3. Yes, Noah Webster did base his definitions on the word of God, as did his comtemporaries. So the only way to understand what they intended by thier words, is to look at the words as they understood them.
4. On Noah Webster, I must admitt that I did misspeak (or rather miswrote?) He was not the first Secretary of Education. He is largely recognized at the "Schoolmaster to America" as he wrote most of the commonly used school textbooks. You are right on this point.
lydeker,
Go and read Jeffereson's letter to the Dansbury Baptist Association. That is where the phrase, "Seperation of Church and State" actually comes from. That is what I was referencing.
Ah, so it was in a letter, not in any Constitution or laws about our country, which still stands for freedom and liberty and equality - when it comes to religion and other personal rights. Thanks.
Post a Comment