41 Responses to “Ripples from the same-sex marriage ruling”

1. Butlerdidit:
   May 16th, 2008 at 7:38 am

   It’s a great decision! How is passing a new law any different from the referendum that the California Supreme Court has already knocked down? I believe same-sex marriage in California will be permanent. Frankly, the people who oppose it give me the creeps anyway, so it’s good society is moving in as progressive direction. It definitely will affcet Hawaii, as there is less hysteria about homosexuality here than in some places. So, it’s coming…!

2. C.W.:
   May 16th, 2008 at 7:53 am

   Well, the thought of 2 men together sexually gives me the creeps. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

3. Andrew:
   May 16th, 2008 at 8:19 am

   Every time someone uses that tired phrase, I hope a little harder that my gay friend Adam gets together with a nice guy named Steve.

4. Who cares:
   May 16th, 2008 at 9:03 am

   This country is in such a moral decline, lets just add this to the list

5. juh:
   May 16th, 2008 at 9:10 am

   Kim: Please provide a young, fresh perspective on this issue, as advertised.

6. Steve:
   May 16th, 2008 at 9:55 am

   I’ve always hoped that one day I might be able to marry the person I love. We have been together for 22 years, and our love has never been stronger.

   It saddens me to think that other people would judge me and go out of their way to step into my life specifically to keep me apart from the person I love. And for what?

   After all, what would give me the right to do the same to them?

7. just an opinion:
   May 16th, 2008 at 11:43 am

   don’t really matter who sleeps with who. think about it. if some male or female in hawaii kai is sleeping with someone of the same sex and you live in aiea, how does that negatively impact your life? there are homosexuals and lesbians in all walks of life.

   everyone else in america is getting their rights, non-smokers, large people, disabled, etc., why not gays? tolerance is needed in america. it won’t happen with this issue because the christian right is too powerful and rich and they’ll threaten legislators to get their vewpoint. people say they’re not this, not that, but that’s shibai.

8. Chicken Grease:
   May 16th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

   The whole thing’s beginning to look like the alternatie lifestylers’ (or has THAT politically correct term been deemed politically incorrect. I can’t seem to keep up with nonsensical things) Sisyphus and/or Prometheus story — funny how the ups and downs of same sex-marriage legalization and un-legalization mirror popular myths in an ancient milieu where homosexual behavior was more than tolerated.

   It’s gonna be legalized one day (from a few judges — think about it, people. NINE [or less] individuals ruling for the rest of us. Law degree, respected or not, they shouldn’t be able to have any say that lasts long enough to make the evening edition on matters such as these).

   The U.S. is built on Judeo-Christian values. Christmas holiday anybody? Your state, federal, most of us who work M-F have to admit our country’s religious bearings if we want that day off. How ’bout Thanksgiving? Not exactly a great day of the black Sabbath is it? And Martin Luther King, Jr. Day? A man who believed in Christ and referred to him in more than a few of his great speeches — you telling me that basically THE only holiday named after ONE man, one man who believed in Christ isn’t indicative of what this country believes in?

   Same-sex marriage should not exist in this country. Look at here in Hawaii, supposedly one of the more tolerant of lifestyles of any state — over 90% of us voted same-sex marriage down. When was the last time you saw such a high percentage for a vote on ANY issue on the ballot?

9. Chicken Grease:
   May 16th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

   * * * * *

   Woah, heh, waitaminute. Forgot to finish a thought. From 2nd paragraph:

   “It’s gonna be legalized one day (from a few judges — think about it, people. NINE [or less] individuals ruling for the rest of us. Law degree, respected or not, they shouldn’t be able to have any say that lasts long enough to make the evening edition on matters such as these).”

   SH0ULD HAVE BEEN:

   It’s gonna be legalized one day (from a few judges — think about it, people. NINE [or less] individuals ruling for the rest of us. Law degree, respected or not, they shouldn’t be able to have any say that lasts long enough to make the evening edition on matters such as these) and struck down the next for a LONG time, and the process is just going to continue and continue and continue, and you know what? The homosexual folk will just get mad. I don’t blame ‘em for getting mad with all this bouncing up and down, up and down.

   Still . . . this country is built on Judeo-Christian values . . .

   * * * * *

10. JPObvious:
    May 16th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    Let’s not jump the gun here Chickengrease:

    First of all, 90% of us did not vote same sex marriage down.

    285,384 of 1.25 million people voted for the same-sex marriage Constitutional Amendment.

    285,384 of 1.25 million. That’s just 22.8% of Hawaii residents. 22.8%. Hardly a majority.

    Even of that minority who voted, they did so not on whether same-sex marriage should be legal in Hawaii, but rather voted to give the Legislature the power and option to make that decision.

    Furthermore, on the issue of the United States being founded on Judeo-Christian values; this simply is not the case. The United States was founded on principles chiefly espoused by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams as those adopted from John Locke and other thinkers of the day whose new political revolution gave individuals fundamental rights and freedoms from one another guaranteed by the state. That many of these basic tenets such as one shall not kill another coincide with thousands of years of basic religious principle from not only Christianity but also Buddhism, Islam, and countless others is simply that - coincidence. There are after all, only so many ways to create a basic set of sound moral principles on which to base a society.

    Further, the founding fathers themselves make it absolutely clear that the United States was NOT founded on religious premise only several years after the birth of the nation. The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by both the House and Senate, which included many founding fathers, and signed into law by none other than President John Adams himself , states clearly in Article 11: “As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion …”

    Even that our society celebrates such things as Christmas and other religious based holidays … does not mean our society is based on such things. The Supreme Court has even ruled that such events are based on cultural tradition, and bears no religious significance to this government.

    This nation has since its birth been secular the notion of being founded on any sort of religious values has only come up in the last 50 years.

    After all, it was only in 1954 that the words “under god” were inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance, 156 that our national motto was changed from “E Pluribus Unum” (Out of many, One) to “in God we trust” and only in 1957 did those words begin appearing on our dollar bills.

    Finally, and most importantly, as has been ruled time and again, if same-sex marriage was to be outlawed because it is not endorsed by the Bible, that would mean our government would have to subscribe to a Christian framework. And if that was the case, the very people who founded this country would have said so in the Constitution of the United States of America. America belongs to Americans, and Americans belong to whomever god each of them so desires. By the laws of this land, it is not up to any of us to force our god or religion onto another, and certainly not up to our government to do so either.

11. guest:
    May 16th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

    blech

12. Heterosexual:
    May 16th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    I don’t see what the big deal is. Gay and lesbians will ‘get together’ no matter what. If ‘they’ are trying to change their church, if they are a member of one, then that’s one thing. If they just want the same legal status as opposite-sex married couples I don’t oppose that. They should just call it something other than ‘marriage’ which seems like a holy term to many. Nobody is forcing Judeo-Christian clergy to marry same-sex couples. So those ‘anti-same sex’ people and churches could still hold the belief that ‘my God’ doesn’t sanctify their ‘marriage’, regardless of the their actual ‘legal only’ standing.

13. Brother Love:
    May 16th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    JP your stats on the voters against same sex marriage in hawaii is flawed AND YOU KNOW IT which means you are perpetuating a fraud. The truth is 69% voted “no” to same sex marriage in hawaii. You dont like it, thats up to you if you feel that strongly about then move to a place that will be more compliant to your lifestyle. That said, if you rather live here then you got to abide by the laws here and stop complaining about, once again its your choice..

14. Chicken Grease:
    May 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    I’m not convinced. The underpinnings of this country are Judeo-Christian based. In composing the Bill of Rights, those same great men you mentioned (God-fearing men) ended up opting to leave out language that might’ve helped empower slaves’ rights. Are they racists, then, for the same reasons why they so “managed” to leave out God? How many Buddhists or Islamists were running around during the days of the birth of America anyway? These were men of God and their Christian beliefs were assumed as much as you would assume a pitcher would not start crocheting a sweater on the mound in the last inning of the World Series.

    Today, what’s major with regard to someone running for U.S. president (especially in this upcoming election, ta-da!!! With regard, not only to a white man, but, to a black man or a white woman)? It’s who they pray to. Admit it — the one the U.S. president needs to pray to is the Christian God.

    Anyway, 90% or 70% (I could have SWORN it was the former). Nobody wants to see same-sex marriage in this country.

    My point was that: 1) the whole thing IS rolling a boulder up a hill only to have it fall to the bottom again and an eagle coming to tear out your innards only for them to regeneate then the eagle coming back to do the same thing the next morning and 2) here we go again with the judges being allowed to make THE final rule on important issues. That eminent domain ruling (Kelo vs. New London)? That’s STILL on the books. THAT is the precedent — your land can be bought for dirt cheap by some corporate monolith so that they can make pools and snack shops and tennis courts for their employees, all this courtesy of a decision 9 people made before dinner time. Same thing’s happening here w/same sex marriage — what else you wanna see go on in society? Some body bringing a donkey to your dinner party and saying, “oh, this is my spouse” and you go, “the heck?” And they go, “I beg your pardon, people marrying animals is the law, now.”

    And bottom line is, no matter where you go in this country, the original definition of marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. Homosexuality has been on this planet as long as heterosexuality . . . if gay marriage was so important, why wasn’t the definition in this country crafted to included “any HUMAN who wants to get married”?

    It is because the norm assumed by the populace is that marriage is between a man and a woman. As much as our forefathers assumed Christianity as the basis of this country. A country must have its standards.

    Maybe it’ll be solidified and legalized one day. It doesn’t seem to be any time soon, though. We alls voting it down and the concept is being left up to the majority who vote. One and done, already. The advocates of same-sex marriage need to come up with a better game plan.

    Who knows . . . guys like me might respect that game plan. But, it ain’t gonna budge me from knowing full well that the U.S.A. is Christian-based.

15. JPObvious:
    May 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    Brother Love:

    I suggest you examine the following results for the 1998 Same-Sex Constitutional Amendment vote as found at the Hawaii Office of Elections:

    http://hawaii.gov/elections/results/1998/general/98swgen.htm

    There you will find this: LEG TO RES MARRIAGE YES 285384 69.2

    285,384 people voted for the amendment. There are certainly more people in Hawaii, each with their own opinion, than the 477,326 people who went to the polls that day.

    You can’t say 69% of people in Hawaii want X or Y and completely ignore those whose opinion isn’t measured by any such vote. There were about 1.25 million people in Hawaii at the time, and of them, only 285,384 felt strongly enough against same-sex marriage to stand up against it. That’s less than one in four.

16. O'Reilly Couldn't Live in Hawaii:
    May 16th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    JP Obvious, sounds like someone who relates to Bill O’Reilly a great deal. His ‘Culture War’ book is basically a call to conservative white Americans that their ‘rightful’ place (as founders of this country) as the dominant culture in the U.S. is threatened. That’s why O-Reilly loves Michelle ‘the Asian-American sell-out’ Malkin. So many of her columns, as seen in Midweek, put down minorities, basically scolding them for not aspiring to the “right-wing” Anglo way of thinking and acting. Geez, if O’Reilly had his way, Japanese language programs such as Kikaida might have been banned from the American airwaves= English programs only dude, otherwise minorites might be discouraged from learning English. O’reilly is not much different from other pompous windbags like Rush, Hannity, Michael Savage, and Beck.

17. JPObvious:
    May 16th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    Chrickengrease:

    1. If the very words of the men who founded this nation can’t convince you, it is likely nothing ever will.

    2. I want to further point out that not only did the founding fathers remain silent on the topic of religious influence in our governemnt, but they also placed into the Constitution the first amendment, which specifically prohibits the government from becoming involved in it. (Exactly why our government today cannot outlaw same-sex marriage on the premise that this nation is Christian, and thus what the Bible says should be the law of the land)

    2. It is clear you don’t understand the roles that judges and the judiciary play as a branch of our government that balances the Legislative, which since Marbury v. Madison has been the branch that clarifies laws enacted by Congress and the President. If Congress or the people feel strongly enough about an issue, or that the courts have interpreted their laws in error, they can amend our laws and Constitution to their will, and judges can do nothing about it. Clearly Congress has not spoken on same-sex marriage, but to this point all courts have found simply that prohibiting it violates the rights entitled to every American in the Constitution.

18. Chicken Grease:
    May 16th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    See, JPObvious, it’s obvious (heh, ehy, look, it’s Friday) that others are disagreeing with you.

    You just gotta think about this — regarding the legalization of same sex marriage, OK? Why is it being left to the voters to decide? You might have some answer with footnotes and other references, but, the truth is, the gov’ment and politicians know there’d be hell to pay if they single-handedly decided to legalize it (in most if not every case). They inherently know that the U.S. has values that are closest to Christianity (look at the 10 Commandments — way different than what is looked down upon or our-and-out punished in the U.S.? No way).

    So, what do they do? They leave it up to the voters; that’s safe. They know most of us’ll vote it down. OR they leave it up to the judges because, oh, judges are, you know, they are the embodiment of the law. Another safe move.

    Bottom line, the passing of same-sex marriage is a surefire way for voters to say, THAT politician voted for same-sex marriage. I ain’t voting for that person again. Yep. MAJORITY rules. And the majority is Christian-based in this hea’ country.

19. Chicken Grease:
    May 16th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

    The founding fathers have convinced me. It’s YOU who’s not convincing me.

20. juh:
    May 16th, 2008 at 3:00 pm

    @JPObvious - I feel like you’re trying to teach cockroaches to do math.

    @ChickenGrease - You reminded me of this quote by Winston Churchill: “The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter.”

21. DaBomb:
    May 16th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

    Damn Homo-phobs!!!

    If two sticks wanna get it on, so be it. It aint gonna affect me, as long as they keep their stick to themselves…

    What each person does in their own bedroom is their business…but everyone should be entitled to the SAME BENEFITS AND RIGHTS…regardless if its ADAM and EVE or ADAM and STEVE…..

    Benefits and Rights to ADAM, EVE, AND STEVE!!!

22. JPObvious:
    May 16th, 2008 at 4:59 pm

    Chickengrease:

    You ask why same-sex marriage is being left to the voters to decide. It is true that it is a controversial topic. Just as women’s suffrage and civil rights was in their day. No politician could ever take a stand on the issue and satisfy 100% of their constituents.

    But that isn’t the reason politicians leave the vote on same-sex marriage to the people. In the end, every same-sex marriage vote goes to the people because it is pushed forward as a Constitutional Amendment - which by law HAS to be voted on by the people. Such legislation cannot be passed merely in statute because it conflicts with the constitution in the first place.

    More importantly, “Majority Rules” as you say is not only a scary statement usually made by those who don’t understand our system of government, but it is in fact, directly contrary to it.

    We don’t live in a democracy where a simple majority rules. We live in a democratic republic where the majority rules except at the expense of the minority. This principle is what makes our democratic society different than that of Greece, Rome or even Iran. In our society, the majority rules only to the extent that those decisions do not infringe upon the rights of the minority.

    If it was true, as you say, that the majority ruled in this hea’ country, nobody would pay taxes, women would not yet have the right to vote, and black people would still count as 2/3 of a person.

    Even if today, 99.99% of the people in this country were Christians, by our Constitution same-sex marriage could not be outlawed. If it could be, based on a Christian context, this country could also outlaw the practice of any other religion just the same. A majority of Christians could even vote on a law that all homosexuals be stoned to death, as Leviticus describes in the Bible. Or, that anyone preaching non-Christian religion be put to death just the same.

    Our Constitution not only protects our government from such religious influence, but also protects your religion from government influence. You are free to practice your religion as you see fit, and if you don’t want to marry a homosexual, you don’t have to. But others who seek fit to practice their own religion in their own way, or no religion at all, are also free to do as they wish.

    juh:

    It would be nice if most voters truly understood what they were voting on, much less voted.

23. Brother Love:
    May 16th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    fancy mathamatics dont prove anything bottom line it was defeated and defeated badly.
    if gays feel that strongly about this then they should move to somewhere which is compatible to their lifestyle. ya gotta love the way he just assumes that ppl who didnt vote would have been for same sex marriage lol.
    that was the fraud i was pointing out. say what you want cuz it will not happen in this state. i know alot of ppl who dont vote cuz they have no faith in our elected officials and i can tell you right now they are dead set against gay marriages here so dont even go there.

24. Brother Love:
    May 16th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    JP says
    We don’t live in a democracy where a simple majority rules. We live in a democratic republic where the majority rules except at the expense of the minority. This principle is what makes our democratic society different than that of Greece, Rome or even Iran. In our society, the majority rules only to the extent that those decisions do not infringe upon the rights of the minority.

    hmmm thats interesting so tell about the smokers who are getting railroaded the majority to the point that they are at risk of being governed from their own homes. these ppl are legal taxpayers that are not breaking the law and yes they are a minority w/out representation. lol
    you cant apply that statement when it suits you and disregard it when it doesnt cuz if you do then you will not see the progress of the womens rights or civil rights movements..

25. wicked:
    May 16th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

    Brother Love said:

    if gays feel that strongly about this then they should move to somewhere which is compatible to their lifestyle.

    Well there goes a very capable university administrator and his partner, a university counselor. And another dean from the community college and her partner, a county employee in the building permit division. And another senior staff at the university. That’s only as far as I know.

    I agree that politicians are taking the easy way out by letting voters decide on the issue. (Yes, it is a consitutional amendent, but not one politician has had the guts to speak out for true equal rights.) If you really got to know gays and lesbians and learned to recognize your own biases, then maybe you’ll be more accepting of diversity. Afterall, no one has ‘gross’ thoughts of a man having sex with a woman when we talk about heterosexual marriage; why do we all have to “go porno” when it comes to same sex sex? Why do we even have to let our minds go into the bedroom for that one?

    Don’t get me wrong. I am heterosexual and quite religious, but no where in my religion are people allowed to judge others in the form of withholding rights. Judgement is in the eye of God.

    W

26. AnotherPOV:
    May 16th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

    Chicken Grease: You keep referring to America is a “Christian” Nation. However, the truth of the matter is that the America of today is a NATION comprised of a diversity of people and beliefs. America’s promise is that it affirms the dignity and humanity of all people regardless of difference. America is governed by SECULAR law and not by the tenants of any particular religion. The founding fathers may have been inspired by the great thinkers of the time as well as Judeo-Christian principles but they did not establish ANY one religion for America.

    Seems like you claim to speak for all Christians. However, you do not speak for the many Christians who do support same-sex marriage and affirm the rights of ALL people. As a Buddhist, I am perplexed by this need for people to impose their beliefs on others. There are many paths in this world and only YOU can decide which path is right for you. However, all religions share common principles that transcend doctrinal differences: Love, Compassion, Repect, and Responsibility. What a sad world this would be if we only affirmed our differences and did not uplift EVERYONE in our society.

27. Brother Love:
    May 16th, 2008 at 5:53 pm

    wicked, i know gay ppl to bro. i work w/ a few and even have 2 friends who happen to be a gay couple, and yes we obviously disagree on this topic but we are all cool with each other aside from that. we are friends because we dont try impose our view on each other and thats cool with me. what someone does in the privacy of their home is nobody elses business as long as it is not a crime..

28. JPObvious:
    May 16th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

    Brother Love:

    Fancy mathematics, as you say, don’t prove anything. However, basic mathematics prove that 22% of the population voted for the same-sex marraige amendment. Hardly the 90% who were against it as Chickengrease claimed, nor the majority as you did. I do not assume those who did not vote in the 1998 election were for same-sex marriage, I just said that 22% of people in Hawaii, not the 90% of “us here in Hawaii” voted it down. You can’t claim that a majority of people in Hawaii are against same-sex marriage when not even half of them even voted on it in the first place.

    As for the smokers you refer to…

    You do realize that smoking is not a right enshrined in the Bill of Rights or Constitution? We are all blessed with many rights, but also liberties, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. The two are different and distinct. Liberties are priveledges, Rights are guaranteed to everyone.

    Smoking is a liberty that multiple Surgeons General of the United States, the Department of Health, CDC and numerous other agencies and bodies have determined to be detrimental to the health of those affected by it. Every person has the liberty to smoke themselves, but every person also has the RIGHT to be free of it should they choose.

    Thus, our government has the ability to restrict the liberty of those who smoke, such that the rights of those who do not are protected. Bottom line is, nobody has a RIGHT to smoke any more than they have the RIGHT to drive - and the government often takes that away when the driver is a danger to others and infringes on others’ right to live.

    Further, the “smoking minority” you refer to as not having representation in our government not only DOES have representation as they are citizens of Hawaii who have Senators, Representatives and even the Governor to answer to them. In fact, the Smokers’ Alliance, supposedly more than 200,000 residents strong, lobbies the legislature, visiting and meeting with Legislators nearly daily each year.

    You can find them here: http://www.hawaiismokersalliance.com

29. JPObvious:
    May 16th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

    Brother Love:

    You say you “dont try impose our view on each other and thats cool with me. what someone does in the privacy of their home is nobody elses business as long as it is not a crime..”

    Yet, you also say that “if gays feel that strongly about this then they should move to somewhere which is compatible to their lifestyle.”

    So which is it? Are you going to impose your views on others or should gay people have the same rights as the rest of us?

    When black people wanted the same rights as the rest of us, should they have just moved somewhere else outside the United States which was “more compatible to their lifestyle?”

30. collegestudent:
    May 16th, 2008 at 6:54 pm

    I haven’t read all of the other comments yet, but from an undergraduate college student’s point of view, I don’t see anything wrong with same sex marriage. It seems like discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation is what’s wrong. Some men love women and some men love men; some women love men and some women love women… so what? To me, being gay or lesbian or straight (in terms of sexual orientation) is the same thing as being male or female, white or black, Chinese or Japanese or Hawaiian, etc… it’s just one way to define a person’s identity, but not the only way. I always thought that marriage was between 2 people who loved each other, so it makes sense that marriage should be available to people who love each other whether they are homo or heterosexual. I know it’s not the same, but withholding the right to marriage from gays and lesbians to me is like denying blacks drivers’ licenses because they are not white… it’s discrimination. We’ve had heated debates on discrimination based on race and gender (Civil Rights and Womens’ Rights Movements), but I feel like discrimination based on sexual orientation is relatively ‘new’ so many people (including me) are probably ignorant about the topic. It’s also a topic that tends to make people uncomfortable (sex=taboo?), I want to say probably the older generation more than the younger generation. I think marriage has been such a stable foundation in so many peoples’ lives that they feel threatened by anything that might change it. I support the change, but who knows, maybe it’s just because I’m a young student.

31. Chicken Grease:
    May 18th, 2008 at 8:17 pm

    @ juh — you remind me of a hit and run. I can take the insults, but, you should at least get into the topic like the rest of us.

    Another POV — I only speak on the tenets that Christians should adhere to; you show me a Christian willing to tell their church priest, reverend, etc., most of all to God Himself that they support gay marriage? Well, that’s a Christian whose faith I question (and they should be questioning their own as well). And I can’t remember when an entirely Buddhist nation allowed even their TV news cameras to show two of the same sex French-kissing in front of the courthouse and getting married there either. If there’s a reference or a YouTube of it, lemme know.

    Continuing on the whole “Christian holidays recognized in the U.S. as the mere surface level proof of how this country is based on Judeo-Christian values” tip, look at something like The Passion of the Christ. Now, conservatively speaking THAT film was # 1 for at least two weeks (I wanna say three, but, heck, I might’ve got that 90% of Hawaii residents voting down same-sex marriage; oh, best believe I’m still checking) in the U.S. Wasn’t exactly an action film in the vein of Iron Man or Die Hard. Most of moviegoers wanting to see all that violence? I dunno, even from the most likely to own the boxed set of Faces of Death types I know said “that film was violent.” So what drew folks to see that “violent” film? Christian believers. The crucifixion of Jesus is more than blood and guts to Chistian believers. Believe it.

    And, uh, we can refer to laws, edicts, precedent (guess who I’m talking to now? Bwwaaa), I’m beyond all that, hey, they all don’t work in these kinds of hot topics — here’s another hot topic where the law didn’t work and, yes, MAJORITY ruled (you’ll love this proof); that is the O.J. Simpson case. He’s innocent in the eyes of the law and managed to convince those jurors he was innocent. What do the rest of us believe? Indeed, majority rules.

32. JPObvious:
    May 19th, 2008 at 9:07 am

    ChickenGrease:

    I think Juh’s comment was not an insult, but rather pointed out that while i’ve responded to your arguments with facts, data, and history, you’ve largely ignored it all and simply tried to come up with some new claim such as this last one that the United States is a Christian nation because the Passion of the Christ did so well here. I suppose this must also mean that most of us believe in magic since four of the Harry Potter movies are right up there with the Passion of the Christ in all-time high grosses.

    Even if by some logic a film’s grosses could be accurately correlated to the demographic makeup of the entire nation, it still paints a picture of our nation only today, and says nothing of its composition at its founding.

    Even more importantly, however, is that it doesn’t matter what the religious makeup of the nation was at its founding, as what matters is what was purposely enshrined in the Constitution that founded our Country, and just as importantly, what was left out of it, and for what reason. Religious freedom, and the role the government would take as a secular institution such that it would never be able to infringe on the religious rights of any individuals or groups was paramount, and that was made very clear. If Christians at the time wanted to make this a Christian nation, they could have written that right into our founding documents.

    Now, you claim to speak for the tenets that Christians SHOULD adhere to. Who are you to tell other people what and how their religion should be practiced? How do you know that you have interpreted the religion, and the Bible (a document written by man let’s not forget) correctly? Because out there are numerous Christian groups and countless millions of individuals who absolutely stand up and support same-sex marriage.

    What if I tell you that I think you aren’t a proper devout Christian because you aren’t following God’s teaching in the Bible. I haven’t seen you stone a homosexual lately. Who are you to pick and choose what parts of “Gods word” you are going to follow, and what you are going to ignore?

    Finally, you can’t logically or rationally talk about reasons our government should change our laws and the very foundation that this nation was built upon, while insisting that the discussion ignore “laws, edicts, and precedent” because you’re “beyond all that.” Especially when all the “laws, edicts and precedent” cited here have specifically showed that the United States was not founded on Christian principles or the religon. I think it’s clear, based on your eagerness to ignore it, and the completely irrelevant OJ Simpson case, that you don’t understand this law or history, and especially not Constitutional law, on which this entire debate centers.

    In short- the basic principles our government was founded on run counter to “judeo-christian values.” Our nation was founded on principles central to political thought of the age which was based on the Enlightenment. The Magna Carta, John Locke’s political theory, Montesquei’s separation of powers, etc. Central to this era of thought was the celebration of reason, by which people seek to understand their universe and improve their own condition through logic and rational thought. Yes, our founding fathers were a mix of religions, catholic, protestant, agnostic, deist and even athiest. But they were all raised in the 18th century age of political and social enlightenment whose basic philosophy was wholly incompatible with traditional Judeo-Christian thought.

    Judeo-Christian philosophy is, by definition, unconcerned with earthly existence. Its focus is on another world attainable only through death. While Europe lived under the power of the Church and judeo-Christian thought in the Dark and Middle Ages, the result was centuries of terrible social hierarchy, poverty, exploitation and no real social education or advancement.

    Only after the Reformation, the Renniasance and the Enlightenment ultimately split the Church and broke its hold as the center of social power did individuals, people, have the chance to improve their own lives not in heaven, but here on Earth.

    The United States could only be born when social philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, Kant and Montesquieu began to write theories focusing on life in this world, and when our intelligent group of founding fathers put aside religious influence and adopted these secular, humanist theories and built them into the fabric of a new kind of government; not by god or king, but by the people themselves. The result was the first government founded for the specific purpose of furthering and bettering the lives of its citizens here on Earth. Thus we have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, born entirely out of enlightened political and philosophical theory of the day, in direct contradiction with centuries of traditional Judeo-Christian thought.

33. Chicken Grease:
    May 19th, 2008 at 11:13 am

    Mmm, JPObvious, “facts, figures, history.” There are those who have rebutted you on your references here on this topic.

    JPObvious at May 19th, 2008 at 9:07 am United States is a Christian nation because the Passion of the Christ did so well here. I suppose this must also mean that most of us believe in magic since four of the Harry Potter movies are right up there with the Passion of the Christ in all-time high grosses.

    Man, this logic is so flawed. # 1, people can believe in magic if they want (I understand that in the U.K. there’s a Jedi belief and followers and all). I dunno what either opinion is regarding same-sex marriage. I don’t think they have one — you find it, lemme know, I’d love to read it. The Christians have a view on it, though.

    JPObvious at May 19th, 2008 at 9:07 am:
    Now, you claim to speak for the tenets that Christians SHOULD adhere to. Who are you to tell other people what and how their religion should be practiced?

    And what did you miss about me saying, what’ll be their REAL point-of-view when reminded of Christianity’s teachings? In this day and age, the same sexes marrying each other, well, being against that as a Chrisitan is clear. In this day and age, stoning a homosexual? With a real stone? In THIS day and age? That’s not the same as way back when and YOU KNOW IT. I don’t burn the fat off meat, and I’d admit that to God and my priest in an instant. It ain’t the same as a Christian believing in same-sex marriage and needing to do an about face when confronted by their church priest, pastor, whatever or God Himself. I think you know THAT, too.

    Mass never ends with the priest saying, “now go out, all of you, and pray that same-sex marriage is legalized” or “go out and stone a homosexual with REAL STONES, OK?” What you believe in Mass is the same thing Christians better believe outside of Sunday. They know it.

    I don’t tell ANY fellow Catholic what to believe — they should know.

    JPObvious at May 19th, 2008 at 9:07 am: The United States could only be born when social philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, Kant and Montesquieu began to write theories focusing on life in this world, and when our intelligent group of founding fathers put aside religious influence and adopted these secular, humanist theories and built them into the fabric of a new kind of government; not by god or king, but by the people themselves.

    The same kind of “people” who don’t want same-sex marriage in THIS country. Not enough care enough to say, “ah, let ‘em do what they like, who cares if they get married or not.”

    I understand: 1 that the same sex marriage lobby needs a better game plan than the one they’re employing if they REALLY want same-sex marriage; 2) that if same-sex marriage is SO right, then, it sure is being this day’s Sisyphus and Promethean story. I said that before you started posting here on this topic, and I’ve seen no rebuttle to that analogy, so, I guess you agree with that comparison as well. I said previously that it’s sad that it’s like this. Sad to see this thing passing, then failing, then not being recognized.

    You can do all the referencing you want. I got the real answer here. And I ain’t alone. The day same-sex marriage is legalized as much as marriage between a man and a woman is here in this country? THAT’s the day I’ll say “I’m wrong.” You go do all referencing you want and see how far that gets with this issue.

34. Chicken Grease:
    May 19th, 2008 at 11:22 am

    And, by the way, JPObvious, I sincerely respect your views on this discussion. It’s just that to “understand” all that you’re referencing (I had AP U.S. History, by the way ), it’s just the beginning in a topic such as this one; in other words, yeah, there are ways, means, processes, shinola that needs to go through the legal process, must satisfy X-edict, etc.

    Tell you, though, I don’t think I’ll ever have to admit “I’m wrong on this issue”; at least while I’m alive. It’s gonna be A LONG time (if not ever) ’til same-sex marriage is legalized in this country. Too bad it has become a political issue the same way other hot topics that’ll never be resolved such as abortion, gun-control, etc. in this country. The topic of same-sex marriage’s become a tool for election year, come to think of it.

    Sad.

35. StraightToThePoint:
    May 19th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    Chicken Grease comes across as a ‘chip on the shoulder’ type who feels he must empty his brain of all his theories and ideas, however half-baked many are. He is a ‘brain’ in his own mind, and is hypersensitive of his half-ethnicity so must on occasion boast of his AP History and the like. Also comes across as an ‘Uncle Tom’ part-Asian who has been brainwashed by the Anglo conservatives that in order to be a ‘real’ American you have to think like the typical conservatives, with all their dislike of gun control, minorities, immigrants, social service programs,etc. This is why he is such pals with ‘worldrealist’, the blogger with the ‘white people are God’s gift to the heathen other humans on this Earth’ attitude.

36. AnotherPOV:
    May 19th, 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Chicken Grease: It’s pretty impressive you can speak for all Christians and what they should adhere to. However, the fact is there are many mainstream protestant denominations in America that affirm and support gay rights. They include not just lay members but clergy as well. So are you saying that all these long established groups are wrong in their interpretation of Christian doctrine? Ultimately, isn’t faith a matter between you and the god you believe in? However, when it comes to setting sound and fair public policy, the imposition of a particular interpretation of any one religion is not what the founding fathers had envisioned. I agree with JP that the founding fathers did indeed put aside direct religious influence and adopted secular humanist theories on government and society.

    In addition, your comment about Buddhist Nations is a diversion from the issue at hand. I am speaking as an American who happens to be Buddhist and is concerned over the blurring line between church and state in this country. As an American Buddhist, I believe in affirming the rights of all people regardless of difference. We should never govern through fear, hatred or intolerance. Members of minority religions and other groups should not have their voices and rights diminished by the majority. Our government represents ALL of us and should not impose the tenants of any particular religion (or interpretation of that religion) as public policy.

37. Chicken Grease:
    May 19th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

    Oh, “gasp,” StraightToThePoint! You have found me out. Oh. No. What. Am. I going to do. I guess I will cry. Oh, you sure are “straight to the point,” aren’t you? Gee whiz.

    Now I’ll go worry about more important things. Like the weeds in my yard. Take a hike, StraightToThePoint. Wrong on all points, you are.

38. JPObvious:
    May 21st, 2008 at 1:14 pm

    Chickengrease:

    1.”Mmm, JPObvious, “facts, figures, history.” There are those who have rebutted you on your references here on this topic.”

    Well lets see. There have been 10 people who have responded since my first post. Of them, 7 agreed with me that Same-Sex marriage is okay, 1 whose comment “blech” is indistinguishable, and then just you and “Brotherlove” who responded negatively.

    “Brotherlove” said that “JP your stats on the voters against same sex marriage in hawaii is flawed AND YOU KNOW IT which means you are perpetuating a fraud. The truth is 69% voted “no” to same sex marriage in hawaii.”

    Of course as it turns out the numbers I provided from the Hawaii Office of Elections show that only 285k people voted “no” to same-sex marriage in Hawaii, which was in fact only 22% of Hawaii’s residents for whom the issue rose was important enough to take a stand on.

    He also didn’t understand the difference between protected rights and general liberties, and didn’t understand how majority rule works in this democratic republic. Since his claims were dissected and put to rest, who else rebutted me on the “facts, figures and history” I keep providing?

    2. “In this day and age, the same sexes marrying each other, well, being against that as a Chrisitan is clear. In this day and age, stoning a homosexual? With a real stone? In THIS day and age? That’s not the same as way back when and YOU KNOW IT.”

    Well, consider that the Christian basis that homosexuality is a sin comes from Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” And, in the very next page 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

    Sounds like the bible is pretty clear about homosexual relations being a sin, and at the same time very clear on what people should do about it. So just how is it you can choose to dismiss the word of God in one passage, yet decide to honor it in the other? Who are you to interpret such things for other people?

39. Chicken Grease:
    May 22nd, 2008 at 9:37 am

    JPObvious: “So just how is it you can choose to dismiss the word of God in one passage, yet decide to honor it in the other? Who are you to interpret such things for other people?”

    So, what, JPObvious — do you WANT me to stone homosexuals? I refuse to do it and I wouldn’t have any reservations telling God Himself that I wasn’t inclined to do it in my time in the flesh, on Earth. I don’t have to and it’s against the law based on Judeo-Christian values. I also won’t have to worry about telling Him that I supported homosexual marriage because I don’t. If you think just using the Bible without some interpretation (like how you’re only directly quoting from it, now), then, maybe you should go to Church. And if you already are, pay more attention during the sermon. Things change and Churches know it, and they know they have bad historical pasts and current pasts. It doesn’t mean we stop believing in crucial epithets and rules (like being against the same sex lying down with each other), but, if you’re expecting Christians to do wanton harm in all cases? Then, man, maybe I shouldn’t respect your opinion, like how I mentioned before.

    Your “they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,” doesn’t specify WHO will be putting them to death, does it ain’t gonna be me. Ain’t gonna be a lot of Christians. Judgement will be made is how I read it. You think the Old Testament is dead to Christians or something?

    Your problem, JPObvious, is that you think you can convince me. I ain’t being stubborn and I ain’t an idiot. What you’re addressing I’ve seen before. Yawn, you know? I’m beyond all that.

    Bottom line, I think I’ve been objective enough in saying the gay marriage lobby needs a better game plan (yay, pat on the back to me, right? Prffft). They ain’t convincing most of us to OK gay marriage through vote. Highly unlikely they’ll ever convince me, espeically how it stand now.

    Christians will stand against this. Deal with it. You will not convince me, JPObvious, and I ain’t alone. You may have your private e-mails or conversations on this very board, “Chicken Grease, that stubbborn, whatever . . .” with others and convince yourself that you’re right. Go right ahead, because I’ll still be against this gay marriage thing, and I am not alone either.

40. JPObvious:
    May 22nd, 2008 at 11:10 am

    “You think the Old Testament is dead to Christians or something?”

    Some Christians, it seems yourself included, choose to cherry-pick what they will and will not believe in from the old-testament.

    “It doesn’t mean we stop believing in crucial epithets and rules (like being against the same sex lying down with each other)”

    My entire point is, such “crucial epithets” as a crusade against homosexual practices being central to Christian belief have been cherry-picked out of the old-testament by man, in his interpretation of the Bible. Moreover, large segments of Christians have begun to dismiss anti-same-sex marriage beliefs just as they have dismissed God’s call to stone them to death. For example, the entire Episcopal branch of the church.

    “Judgement will be made is how I read it.”

    Just as you leave judgement of homosexuals to God by not killing them yourself, Christians must leave judgement of their lifestyles to God just the same, and cannot punish them, or any others, themselves. After all, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Thus, Christians have no business interfering with the lives of others even when those lifestyles run counter to mainstream Christian beliefs, and have no business preventing homosexuals from marrying if they so choose. If you think God does not approve, then i’m sure God will sort it out when he judges them. However, God reserves that right for himself, and not you, I, or anyone on this planet.

    More importantly, Christians or any other religious group have no business trying to change the laws of our free nation to reflect and impose their own religion on the rest of us as stated in the very first amendment of the Constitution.

41. Chicken Grease:
    May 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    “. . . have no business preventing homosexuals from marrying if they so choose.” Don’t look now, maybe it just ain’t the Christians. You and others have said there’s freedom of religion in this country (I know that; I only said this country is based on Judeo-Christian values, i.e., has its underpinnings in; you know this — or else go, say, correct Wikipedia on that topic; we’ll see how long your edit lasts); if that’s the case, this harmony of religions ain’t powerful enough to legalize same-sex marriage. Or at least, in my eyes, the Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and others don’t favor it enough to have enough opinion to say, “oh, marriage between a man and a man and/or a woman between a woman is the exact same thing as marriage between a man and a woman.

    “If you think God does not approve, then i’m sure God will sort it out when he judges them. However, God reserves that right for himself, and not you, I, or anyone on this planet.” — and you don’t think Christians don’t understand this? I keep saying ’til I’m as blue in the face as the interface frames of the Advertiser 2.0, you bet your @$$ that at the gate most Christian’s’ll readily admit that they didn’t throw stones at homosexuals or didn’t burn the fat off meat . . . and any Christian should fear for their soul if they have to admit to Him that they did everything they could to support gay marriage as much as it means the bond between a man and a woman. Jesus’s first miracle was at a marriage between a man and a woman.

    You and others, JPObvious, can go on this forever if you want. I know my stance.

    Maybe it ain’t just Judeo-Christian values that doesn’t value gay marriage. I mean, you telling me that no (you telling me the MAJORITY OF PARENTS?) parents who don’t have ANY religious affliation might not feel a sting if their child(ren) comes home with someone of the same gender and says, “hi, folks, I’d like you to meet _______, my new boyfriend” in the case of a son, or “hi folks, I’d like you to meet ________, my new girlfriend” in the case of a daughter. Pfrrffft. Please. You just fooling yourself if that’s what you think.

    Because their last line of such parents’ hope for that child in that case is, “oh, I hope they won’t get married. I hope our [son/daughter] will just snap out of this.” You know it’s true.

Leave a Reply