ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.In California, we can get all the initiatives and propositions summarized for the voters. Here is a link so that you can see it yourself: CA General Elections Propositions . Here is how the document gives the background on Proposition 8:
• Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
• Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
• Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of
millions of dollars, to state and local governments.
• In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
BACKGROUND
In March 2000, California voters passed
Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only
marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. In May 2008, the California
Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by
Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage
to a relationship between a man and a woman
violated the equal protection clause of the California
Constitution. It also held that individuals of the
same sex have the right to marry under the California
Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage
between individuals of the same sex is currently valid
or recognized in the state.
There are several concerns about I have with Prop 8:
1. I remember the election of 2000 and I did vote to pass Proposition 22. It bothered me when 4 California State Supreme Court Judges decided to overturn the law I helped pass. The voters of California passed that law, Judges are not supposed to overturn law or make new laws. They are supposed to interpret and uphold laws that voters pass. They effectively re-defined what "marriage" is and all Prop 8 is doing putting it back the way it was before May 2008.
2. Under fiscal impact, opponents of the Prop 8, says that we should not pass it and allow California to be a haven for homosexuals who want to marry their partners because they will bring more money to California.
3. One argument against Prop 8 is that it singles out homosexuals and denies them the right to marry - a fundamental right - and could set a precedent for limiting the rights of select groups. I don't buy it because in no way does defining marriage traditionally take away the rights homosexuals already have in California under domestic partnership laws. Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman. Changing the definition means that it is no longer "marriage". Can we call a rectangle a "triangle"? No! A rectangle has 4 sides and cannot be a triangle! Changing the definition means that language has no meaning any more.
4. Another argument against Prop 8 is that it is primarily backed by Mormons in Utah. I have not checked this out, but I don't think that it matters. I don't agree with all of Mormonism, but if they say that same-sex marriage is wrong, at least at that point they agree with the Bible, and if you agree with the Bible then you must agree with them on that. I don't look at voting "yes" on 8 as agreeing with the Mormon church, but I know it is agreeing with God.
5. We should be way more concerned with the slippery slope of what changing the definition of Marriage really means. If we say that marriage is "between consenting adults" then what is keep a man from marrying multiple women? Or vice versa? Why stop there? You could marry your pet. Or why not marry your child? Where do you draw the line? Two generations ago, no one would have ever thought that "marriage" would be open for re-definition. What about in 2 more generations?
6. Another argument against Prop 8 is that we can't use religious sensibilities to dictate government policy. I have 2 problems with this: first it's not completely religious. I mean on one level we are talking about the definition of one of the bedrock of human society: how we think, raise and educate or children, and what it means to be a family. Why do all religions and cultures define marriage as being between a man and woman? It's only been in recent years that this has been challenged. Why? Because its the fundamental definition of what marriage is. Where did we get it from? It could have been any number of other things. Why would it come down to us this way? The only answer that makes sense is the answer the Bible gives: God said so. Second, "separation of church and state" is a facade. It is what we tell ourselves so that we can ease our conscience so we can do what we want to do in public instead of what God wants us to do. Ask yourself: "why are all men created equal"? Why should the weak be protected? Why should I care how I live my life affects people around me? I do not think for a second that anyone would come to these ideas without God. If evolution is correct (I smell another post), then it does not make sense that these ideas would have ever come to mind. "Survival of the fittest". "Only the strong are worthy to thrive and reproduce". These are the ideas that would drive an evolutionary world view and would fully characterize our government if not for the power of God. I maintain that we know that all people are created equal and should be given the same basic rights only because God said so. If that is true...then we should define those rights by what that God says.
7. For me the nail that drives down the reasons I will vote "Yes" on proposition 8 is that the word of God is clear on the subject. As one who says that Jesus is my Lord. My Savior. My Master. I must love what He loves. Hate what He hates. I am trying to follow in my Master's footsteps. God does not hate homosexuals. He loves them like He loves all of us. And like all of us, He calls us to His best. It's just a sin. No worse then any other sin people commit. God does not have some special place in hell for homosexuals worse than where the liars are going. Sometimes what He knows is best is not what we think is best. This is tough. By taking this stand some would call me a bigot at worst, ignorant and misguided at best. And on the surface, people are asking does it really matter? Why is it wrong to love someone even if its someone of the same gender? Aside from the physical and emotional pain that such a lifestyle causes and can sometimes be invisible to the participants and observers, God told us not to do it. End of story. If you don't like it, talk to God about it. As one who claims to belong to God, you must vote for prop 8. If you disagree then you have to prove that God has no problem with homosexuality.
Here are two scriptures that you would have to respond to:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Romans 1:21-27
Sounds familiar? The Bible is not just talking about the Roman Empire of the 1st century but of America in the 21st Century. Here is an example of what the Bible has to say about marriage in 1st Corinthians 7:1-7.
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Unless you wanna argue that the Bible contradicts itself you can't say that a husband should have one wife and a wife should have one husband and then say that same-sex unions glorify God. They don't fit. The only way the 2 scriptures I appealed to can be reconciled is if same-sex unions are not defined as marriage. If society wants to ignore God's law it can do it without adding the insult to injury by re-defining marriage.
CA General Elections Propositions - Get more Docstoc Buzz
