Proposition 8 states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
That's it.
So, is that a reasonable thing to state?
I tend to fall on the "keep government out of it" side of things, of course :-) There have been numerous forms of marriage in different places and times, not all were of the "one man and one woman" variety. Indeed, not all today are of that type, though in America today those are, for the most part, the only accepted ones.
Having the government involved in marriage has been a huge disaster as far as I can tell. The government gave us "no fault divorce" and the resulting "serial polygamy" or "temporary marriage" that is so common today. If we had left it up to the churches alone to marry and grant dissolution of marriage we would not have that, I don't think. But no, our totalitarian government has to have it's grubby paws in every aspect of our lives, including marriage. Well, you get just what you would expect from the organization that gave us nuclear weapons, the DMV and the Post Office: an ungodly mess of broken homes and a divorce rate of 50%.
The only thing government should do with marriage is record them, maybe, but I'm not sure even that is necessary. Governments should not be saying "I now pronounce you man and wife" and they should not be granting divorces either.
When my late "ex"wife kicked me out of the house and got a government decree of divorce I told her "We were married by a Lutheran Pastor, no judge can change that." I left anyway, of course, I didn't have a choice, governments have guns you know. But I didn't remarry and maintained that, even though we seemed unable to live together in the same house, we remained married in the eyes of God.
So, how am I going to vote? I have no idea ;-/ I'm thinking that maybe it's divorce that is the problem, governments should only have the authority to dissolve a marriage they made, so only "civil marriages" done by judges could be revoked... yeah, that might work. If that were the case then I would not care one way or the other what sort of unions the government countenanced, as long as they recognized the validity of religious marriages and didn't claim to be able to dissolve them. Yeah, like that's going to happen!
That's it.
So, is that a reasonable thing to state?
I tend to fall on the "keep government out of it" side of things, of course :-) There have been numerous forms of marriage in different places and times, not all were of the "one man and one woman" variety. Indeed, not all today are of that type, though in America today those are, for the most part, the only accepted ones.
Having the government involved in marriage has been a huge disaster as far as I can tell. The government gave us "no fault divorce" and the resulting "serial polygamy" or "temporary marriage" that is so common today. If we had left it up to the churches alone to marry and grant dissolution of marriage we would not have that, I don't think. But no, our totalitarian government has to have it's grubby paws in every aspect of our lives, including marriage. Well, you get just what you would expect from the organization that gave us nuclear weapons, the DMV and the Post Office: an ungodly mess of broken homes and a divorce rate of 50%.
The only thing government should do with marriage is record them, maybe, but I'm not sure even that is necessary. Governments should not be saying "I now pronounce you man and wife" and they should not be granting divorces either.
When my late "ex"wife kicked me out of the house and got a government decree of divorce I told her "We were married by a Lutheran Pastor, no judge can change that." I left anyway, of course, I didn't have a choice, governments have guns you know. But I didn't remarry and maintained that, even though we seemed unable to live together in the same house, we remained married in the eyes of God.
So, how am I going to vote? I have no idea ;-/ I'm thinking that maybe it's divorce that is the problem, governments should only have the authority to dissolve a marriage they made, so only "civil marriages" done by judges could be revoked... yeah, that might work. If that were the case then I would not care one way or the other what sort of unions the government countenanced, as long as they recognized the validity of religious marriages and didn't claim to be able to dissolve them. Yeah, like that's going to happen!
Considering that ProtectMarriage.com has decided NOT to appeal the ballot language, what chance do you really see for Prop 8 to pass? I just don’t see a majority of Californians voting YES on a proposition titled ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
ReplyDeleteOnce the churches realize that Prop 8 is an almost guaranteed loser, are they going to do the right thing and let their members know?
If not, what happens after Prop 8 loses 40-60 (or worse), and then the members find out that the churches were privy all along to internal polling that predicted a crushing defeat? Do the members get their money back?
Or do they get stuck paying for ads that were run by a campaign that knew it was going to lose but ran them anyway!
chino blanco said:
ReplyDelete"Or do they get stuck paying for ads that were run by a campaign that knew it was going to lose but ran them anyway!"
I say:
You pay your money and you take your chance. No refunds :-) I won't be putting any money up, nor will my church, though I'm sure most will be voting yes on it. I'm not at all sure yet if I'll vote yes or no. It's more complicated than "Is homosexuality a sin?" Which it clearly is, it's a church-state question that I am wrestling with.
I understand what you are thinking about, Larry. My main issue is our government is such a joke anyway, I just give up, to be honest.
ReplyDeleteThey can't even get decent energy policies that will sustain us, and I do believe they are mostly the most ignorant and foolish people I have ever heard.