Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Melissa
Is this you? Claim Profile »
8 months ago
in PROP. HATE on The District Weekly
John: I'm really a sucker for catchy slogans. BUT and with all due respect, I don't understand for instance, why laws that don't apply to your "Biblical constructionist" friends need to "suit" them. They are free to live their lives the way they always have. I mean, it's like petitioning to demolish a person's house because it just doesn't suit you.
So, I know it's your friends right to support prop 8 but in the end, why do they care about a harmless law that has no effect on them? I mean, everything else aside how could this possibly have any sort of impact on their life? Think about how your friends' moral obligations (?) could hurt gays who are married or plan to be.
And if it really does for some reason bother them, I agree that they should probably move if the law passes.
So, I know it's your friends right to support prop 8 but in the end, why do they care about a harmless law that has no effect on them? I mean, everything else aside how could this possibly have any sort of impact on their life? Think about how your friends' moral obligations (?) could hurt gays who are married or plan to be.
And if it really does for some reason bother them, I agree that they should probably move if the law passes.
2 replies
John_B
Melissa: As mentioned, many feel strongly that the Bible represents the Word of God (on this matter and all others) and thus they desire that their State's laws remain as closely aligned with that Word as possible. Nor is this approach without precedent since the Founders themselves attempted to assure the very same thing where our US Constitution was concerned...a close alignment and agreement with Judeo-Christian values and beliefs.
To minimize the importance of this belief to such people is, in my opinion, no more appropriate than it is to minimize the importance of the belief that same-sex couples should be able to be “married” and not simply “domestically partnered” under the laws of their State.
The belief of each group is no less valid simply by virtue of their divergence or disagreement. The belief of one group should be considered no less important or significant than that of the other.
Wisely, however, the Founders were not prepared to mandate their own beliefs at the federal level. They often cautioned that to diverge from these beliefs would be to risk the loss of the blessings and support of God as they defined Him, but they felt strongly that a free people *must* be guaranteed the right to worship freely, or to not worship at all if such was their choice.
The challenge, of course, arises when we involve the “State” and, for this reason, the Founders wanted to assure, as best they could, that as a nation we did not lapse into a theocracy, wherein the “State” sponsored one particular religion that all citizens would be required to adhere to and be guided by…thus the "religion clause" of the 1st Amendment and the basis of my personal objection to Prop 8.
In our nation, as well as in our State, people are free to follow and to practice whatever type of faith or belief system, or none at all, that they choose (assuming no creature is being criminally victimized, of course).
I believe that anyone who chooses to have his or her union to another "solemnized" is following their faith or belief system and, thus, should be seen to be freely exercising their “religion” and it is patently *unconstitutional* to make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Unfortunately the US Supreme Court has thus far declined to hear any challenges to US DOMA (Public Law No. 104-199, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996) and for that reason the current law of the land is that neither the federal government nor any individual State is required to respect or to honor a same-sex marriage from another State that permits them.
Those who choose to not live in a State that permits same-sex marriage have the freedom to reside in a State that does not do so and those who choose to not live in a State that does not permit same-sex marriage are, likewise, free to live in a State that does.
With the clear exception of the ill-considered US DOMA law, I believe this is precisely how it should be.
To minimize the importance of this belief to such people is, in my opinion, no more appropriate than it is to minimize the importance of the belief that same-sex couples should be able to be “married” and not simply “domestically partnered” under the laws of their State.
The belief of each group is no less valid simply by virtue of their divergence or disagreement. The belief of one group should be considered no less important or significant than that of the other.
Wisely, however, the Founders were not prepared to mandate their own beliefs at the federal level. They often cautioned that to diverge from these beliefs would be to risk the loss of the blessings and support of God as they defined Him, but they felt strongly that a free people *must* be guaranteed the right to worship freely, or to not worship at all if such was their choice.
The challenge, of course, arises when we involve the “State” and, for this reason, the Founders wanted to assure, as best they could, that as a nation we did not lapse into a theocracy, wherein the “State” sponsored one particular religion that all citizens would be required to adhere to and be guided by…thus the "religion clause" of the 1st Amendment and the basis of my personal objection to Prop 8.
In our nation, as well as in our State, people are free to follow and to practice whatever type of faith or belief system, or none at all, that they choose (assuming no creature is being criminally victimized, of course).
I believe that anyone who chooses to have his or her union to another "solemnized" is following their faith or belief system and, thus, should be seen to be freely exercising their “religion” and it is patently *unconstitutional* to make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Unfortunately the US Supreme Court has thus far declined to hear any challenges to US DOMA (Public Law No. 104-199, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996) and for that reason the current law of the land is that neither the federal government nor any individual State is required to respect or to honor a same-sex marriage from another State that permits them.
Those who choose to not live in a State that permits same-sex marriage have the freedom to reside in a State that does not do so and those who choose to not live in a State that does not permit same-sex marriage are, likewise, free to live in a State that does.
With the clear exception of the ill-considered US DOMA law, I believe this is precisely how it should be.
8 months ago
in PROP. HATE on The District Weekly
No on 8= No on hate.
1 reply
John_B
Melissa: With due respect, that's a very nice slogan and sound byte but a vast oversimplification of the motivation of many who are supporting Prop 8.
Are some proponents hateful? Certainly and sadly. Some but not, by any means, all and to paint every proponent of Prop 8 with that extremely judgmental brush is to practice the very same sort of intolerance to divergent viewpoints that you no doubt accuse them of practicing against you.
Many people, though (and some of these are extremely dear to me) are strict Biblical constructionists who feel that our own codified laws (such as our State Constitution, for example) should much more closely reflect what they believe to be the true word of God on this topic. They are not motivated by hate to *any* degree but, rather, by a love of their God as they define Him and a desire to adhere to his Word. Some are so commited to this belief that they intend to leave the State if Prop 8 fails and I would submit that they probably should do so.
That's really how our Republic was designed to work. The people in each State are free to craft the sort of place in which they desire to live, work and raise their families. As long as each State follows the US Constitution and any other federal laws that all States agreed to adhere to, they are otherwise free to make whatever laws they feel best suit them.
And better still, to *NOT* make laws (like this one) that don't.
Are some proponents hateful? Certainly and sadly. Some but not, by any means, all and to paint every proponent of Prop 8 with that extremely judgmental brush is to practice the very same sort of intolerance to divergent viewpoints that you no doubt accuse them of practicing against you.
Many people, though (and some of these are extremely dear to me) are strict Biblical constructionists who feel that our own codified laws (such as our State Constitution, for example) should much more closely reflect what they believe to be the true word of God on this topic. They are not motivated by hate to *any* degree but, rather, by a love of their God as they define Him and a desire to adhere to his Word. Some are so commited to this belief that they intend to leave the State if Prop 8 fails and I would submit that they probably should do so.
That's really how our Republic was designed to work. The people in each State are free to craft the sort of place in which they desire to live, work and raise their families. As long as each State follows the US Constitution and any other federal laws that all States agreed to adhere to, they are otherwise free to make whatever laws they feel best suit them.
And better still, to *NOT* make laws (like this one) that don't.
To minimize the importance of this belief to such people is, in my opinion, no more appropriate than it is to minimize the importance of the belief that same-sex couples should be able to be “married” and not simply “domestically partnered” under the laws of their State.
The belief of each group is no less valid simply by virtue of their divergence or disagreement. The belief of one group should be considered no less important or significant than that of the other.
Wisely, however, the Founders were not prepared to mandate their own beliefs at the federal level. They often cautioned that to diverge from these beliefs would be to risk the loss of the blessings and support of God as they defined Him, but they felt strongly that a free people *must* be guaranteed the right to worship freely, or to not worship at all if such was their choice.
The challenge, of course, arises when we involve the “State” and, for this reason, the Founders wanted to assure, as best they could, that as a nation we did not lapse into a theocracy, wherein the “State” sponsored one particular religion that all citizens would be required to adhere to and be controlled by…thus the "religion clause" of the 1st Amendment and the basis of my personal objection to Prop 8.
In our nation, as well as in our State, people are free to follow and to practice whatever type of faith or belief system they choose (assuming no creature is being criminally victimized, of course).
I believe that anyone who chooses to have his or her union to another solemnized is following their faith or belief system and, thus, should be seen to be freely exercising their “religion” and it is patently *unconstitutional* to make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Unfortunately the US Supreme Court has thus far declined to hear any challenges to US DOMA (Public Law No. 104-199, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996) and for that reason the current law of the land is that neither the federal government nor any individual State is required to respect or to honor a same-sex marriage from a State that permits them.
Those who choose to not live in a State that permits same-sex marriage have the freedom to reside in a State that does not do so and those who choose to not live in a State that does not permit same-sex marriage are, likewise, free to live in a State that does.
With the clear exception of the ill-considered US DOMA law, I believe this is precisely how it should be.