Nov 21 2008
Did religion cause Prop 8 to fail?
[UTNE]
On election day, Californians passed Proposition 8, eliminating the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Many are still wondering how this could have happened, and some are looking to religion as an easy target to blame. But careful study of the issue belies the blame game.
“Both the organizing successes of the Christian right and the failures of the gay movement” allowed the proposition to pass,Richard Kim writes for the Nation. Anti-gay marriage organizations pushed hard in minority communities, organizing rallies and buying up advertising space in Chinese, black, Spanish, and Korean media outlets. Although polls predicted the proposition’s failure in the days leading up to the election, exit polls indicate that 70 percent of African Americans ended up voting in favor of the constitutional amendment.
Pointing the finger at Christian or minority communities is overly simplistic, Wendy Cadge writes for the Immanent Frame. When it comes to gay marriage, a huge “diversity of opinion exists within families, communities, churches, and racial and ethnic groups,” Cadge writes. Rather than fighting against religion (or against minorities, for that matter), defenders of gay marriage should reach out more to religious and minority communities.
Read more here.
[From me]
What happened to living in a country that is governed “by the people?” The people spoke in every state that this issue was brought together and Americans don’t want homosexual marriage. Just like the country made their decisions for President, congress and state and local election–we are governed by the will of the “people.” Now I realize some are going to argue that it is a civil right issue. Well if 70% of the African American community voted against it then they aren’t buying “civil rights” either. You can’t pick your heritage, family or skin color but you can chose your life style. I’m not whining about the outcome of the election and the homosexual community need to accept the will of the people.
What do you think?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
5 responses so far
Skin color is morally neutral, sexual preferences are not.
I thought the sign about the multiple wives was ironic because in theory the Mormons would want Prop 8 to fail. After all, the same justification for “gay marriage” would apply to polygamy.
The anti-religious bigotry is out in full force. I have seen countless blogs and mainstream media people wonder if the tax exempt status of churches or the LDS should be removed because they weighed in on Prop 8. But no one is talking about taking away the tax exempt status of the apostate portions of the UCC and the Episcopal church, for example, since they advocate for “gay marriage.”
So few people understand the First Amendment. It protects religious freedom. It doesn’t restrict it. Unless the Liberals want us to take polygraphs when voting, there is nothing wrong with our religious views informing our political views.
That said, we can argue against “gay marriage” without using religious reasoning. Those couples can never provide a mother and a father to a child so the gov’t has no reason to affirm them.
Neil’s last blog post..The real haters and responding to their inconsistency
Neil,
Since you’re giving out First Amendment advice, I figure its appropriate for someone to give you a little basic tutoring of American religion.
LDS Mormons do not support polygamy. Surely you know that? Granted, great-grandfathers of LDS Mormons might have been polygamists. But your ancestors were probably segregationists. And if you got money in your family, someone was probably a slave owner along the way. Now, that likely truth doesn’t make you any more a segregationist than it makes a LDS Mormon a polygamist or supporter of polygamy.
Big Daddy Weave’s last blog post..Wake Forest To Host New Baptist Covenant Gathering
I do agree that we can make our arguments in the public square using religious reasoning. Sometimes those religious arguments are downright lousy, though. Neil’s “lack of mother and father” argument is one such example, at least in the state of California. The state of California already allows for same-sex couples to enter into civil unions. Since Prop 8, same-sex couples in CA can no longer enter into civil marriage. Same-sex couples can adopt children in California. Clearly, the state of California has decided against your argument that kids can only be raised by a father-mother.
We do value democracy here in the U.S.A. The United States is a Republic, a Republic which since her founding has placed a heavy emphasis on protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. We’re not a perfect nation and thus we have quite a few examples of tyrannical majority-rule throughout our history. But it’s quite embarrassing to see pre-existing civil rights (and they were civil rights, by definition) be stripped away from the citizens of California.
The homosexual community needs to accept the will of the people? Statements like that are just wrong on so many levels. Once upon a time, the PEOPLE said that Baptists could get whipped for practicing their faith. And Once not too long ago, the PEOPLE tried to convince themselves that separate is equal.
You may argue that gays and lesbians can actually choose who to like and who to love - that they can go straight while African-Americans are forever Black. Many sincere and honest Americans including straight Americans strongly disagree with such a notion. But that’s a moot point. Here in America and especially in California, people are free to enter into same-sex relationships. California has taken extra steps to protect those same-sex relationships and sexual orientation in general from discrimination . We live in a pluralistic society and we need to learn to respect that pluralism. Respecting pluralism means that we take extra caution to make sure that the rights of the minority are not being trampled on by the majority. Respecting those rights does not mean that we affirm the behavior.
I like what Tony Campolo recently told a group of Baptists in Virginia:
“I believe that same-gender erotic behavior is contrary to the teaching of God,” he said. “You might ask, ‘If you believe that way, didn’t people like you and me win [with Proposition 8]?’ What did we win? …I’ll tell you what we won. We won tens of thousands of gays and lesbians parading up and down the streets of San Francisco and New York and L.A. screaming against the church, seeing the church as enemy….I don’t know how we’re going to reach these brothers and sisters,” he said, “but I’m an evangelical and I’m going to win them to Christ…. And we’re not going to win them to Christ if we keep sending them bad messages, and we’ve sent them a bad message. I think the decision in California was in agreement with how I believe, but sometimes you’ve got to consider the person before you bang them over the head with your principles.”
Big Daddy Weave’s last blog post..Wake Forest To Host New Baptist Covenant Gathering
I think the issue is very simple. There should be no additional rights for people who choose a behavior that is unnatural. And don’t get me started on it being unnatural- if it were natural we would have been created asexual for procreation then it wouldn’t matter.
I like Tony Campolo, but I think his comment is a pandering load of crap. When you allow something (such as marriage) you are giving society’s agreement to that act (like legalizing marijuana….).
WE MUST stand up and say “THIS IS WRONG” to gay marriage- though Christ wants them in the fold (as he does all of us) he wouldn’t ignore the sin. He did not condemn the woman at the well, but he didn’t pull any punches either- he told her “Go and SIN no more”. Imagine if she would have slapped him and said- “I’m no sinner, this is an acceptable lifestyle”????
“It often seems that when people call homosexuality ‘unnatural’ they really just mean that it’s disgusting. But plenty of morally neutral activities — eating snails, performing autopsies, cleaning toilets, watching the Anna Nicole Smith Show — are disgusting to many people.”
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26722.html
I was going to quote a David Hume philosophy thing about confusing is and ought, but the indegayforum is better.
I concur mostly with BigDaddyWeave, and I think Lloyd is misguided. Jesus never spoke on the subject of homosexuality, so don’t presume too much and say that he would provoke slaps from the lesbian at the well.