Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Cause God Said So, That's Why!

prop 8, homophobia, homosexual, gay, marriage, tradition, traditional, stupid, asshat
This is so utterly illogical, it might be satire. I can't quite tell.

It All Boils Down To This
by leftcoastvoter

On March 5th, the California Supreme Court will hear arguments on Proposition 8. Only four months after seven million Californians voted to amend the California Constitution to read “Marriage is between a Man and a Woman”, 7 justices will decide if this will be our law. Once more- with feeling- the majority cannot trample the minority. That is NOT what democracy means.

Ken Starr (of Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial) leads the Prop 8 side reason enough to vote no on 8. and is expected to show all of the legal reasons why this was approved by California’s Attorney General, Jerry Brown, and placed on last November’s ballot. will he include bigotry, homophobia and illogical hatred? oh, right, honesty has no place in politics.

Shannon Minter*, a transsexual attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights will argue that “its not fair.” That's not Minter's argument. Here is Minter's argument:

The freedom to choose whether and whom to marry is a fundamental human right. Being excluded from this right not only deprives same-sex couples of critical legal protections, it also demeans and stigmatizes same-sex relationships and encourages anti-LGBT discrimination. Throughout history, governments have denied the right to marry in order to dehumanize particular groups. Today, the same is true of laws that exclude LGBT people from marriage. While not everyone in our community wishes to marry, everyone deserves the freedom to make this choice. As a community, LGBT people deserve to be treated with equal dignity and respect and to have equal protection of the laws.

However, no matter what happens and regardless of the outcome, there are immutable facts which will remain. Watch in wonder as leftcoastvoter redefines winning and losing to mean the same thing. It's . . . something.

1 - Marriage was instituted by God. uh, really? there is absolutely no mention of Adam and Eve ever being married in the bible. Never mind that Adam and Eve's children must necessarily have married their sisters, so if god did institute marriage, he instituted incestuous marriage. No matter your religion (or lack thereof), all roots trace marriage back to a religious institution. This is silly. Just because, at some point, something was begun by a religion, doesn't make it religious today. Harvard was originally a divinity school. The only degrees they awarded were theological ones. Is Harvard a religious institution today? I am an atheist. I was married in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator. I think we can say that marriage today can be a religious ceremony, but it doesn't have to one. Besides that, the government gives religious institutions the right to perform ceremonies recognized by the government. A religious institution that does not have that right can marry anyone it pleases, but those marriages will be purely symbolic. Therefore, religion no longer rules marriage. Get over it. It always have has been and always will be a divine ordinance in God’s eyes. just try and prove that. with something other than bald assertions. you know, like with proof. (the bible does not count as proof. you quote the bible, i'll start quoting video games, and it all goes downhill from there.)

2 - Nothing that is said in front of, or done by, the California Supreme Court, will change the facts of Marriage. so why even worry about it? why get prop 8 on the ballot? why fight to get it passed? why fight to keep it as law? if it really doesn't matter, that is. Marriage will continue to be a Religious Principle random capitalization that has been accepted and codified by the laws of man. sure, to those who view marriage as a religious principal, it will remain a religious principal. to people like me, it will remain a civil and society principal. so what?

In light of these two tenets, people may protest the decision of the court, legislatures may enact additional laws and pass future referendums, and courts may continue to pass judgements as time marches on. so why are you participating in this useless debate?

None of these will change the Divine Nature of Marriage. what is with the random capitalization? is this guy german or something?

This cannot be refuted any more than one can argue against the Laws of Physics actually, physicists argue the laws of physics all the time. there's quite a lot of debate about some of them. and, rAndoM capiTaliZation. In the end, gravity wins. in the end, gravity exists. i'm pretty sure gravity doesn't care about marriage at all.

Think about it. You have time. i don't even know what that's supposed to mean. asshat.

*that was not the link included in the post. for obvious reasons. this is the information included about Minter in the original link: is a transsexual who spent his first 35 years as a female. yup. that's all they could think of to say. here's a look at what actually is important about Minter:

In 2005, Shannon was one of 18 people to receive the Ford Foundation's "Leadership for a Changing World" award. In 2004, he was awarded an Honorary Degree from the City University of New York School of Law for his advocacy on behalf of same-sex couples and their families.

Shannon has also received the Anderson Prize Foundation's Creating Change Award by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Distinguished National Service Award from GAYLAW, the bar association for LGBT lawyers, law students, and legal professionals in Washington, D.C., Cornell Law School’s Exemplary Public Service Award, the Unity Award from Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, the Advocacy Award from the San Francisco Bar Association, and the Justice Award from Equality California.

Shannon has authored numerous articles and books on LGBT legal issues, including Transgender Rights (University of Minnesota Press 2006) and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Family Law (West Publishing 2008). He has taught as an adjunct or associate professor at Boalt, Stanford, Golden Gate, Santa Clara, and the University of San Francisco Schools of Law.

Shannon serves on the American Bar Association Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. He also serves on the boards of Equality California and the Transgender Law & Policy Institute.

Shannon received his J.D. from Cornell Law School in 1993. He is originally from Texas


  1. the bible does not count as proof. you quote the bible, I'll start quoting video games, and it all goes downhill from there

    I sometimes get flack for not quoting the Bible on my blog- but that's why. It's only meaningful for people who believe in in it. Some Christians apparently forget that NOT EVERYONE DOES.

  2. I really like you. It is SO frustrating to have the bible quoted at me as if that should be enough. For you, quite possibly. For me, not at all. I appreciate that you understand that.

  3. Doesn't banning same-sex marriage infringe on the religious freedom of groups that agree to marry same-sex couples? For example, the United Church of Canada marries same-sex couples, and if same-sex marriage were still illegal here, it would interfere with their religious freedom.

    And speaking of Ken Starr, be glad he's still an attorney because it minimizes the damage he can do. He was apparently a favourite to be nominated to the SCOTUS, but fell out of favour because he was not conservative enough and hence Bush was talked into appointing Souter instead. Had Starr been nominated and appointed to the SCOTUS, he could be doing a lot more damage than just prosecuting a president for adultery and forcibly divorcing couples.

  4. SCOTUS?! wasn't conservative enough?! i thought rush limbaugh as the head of the party was bad!

    and you're right- they are infringing on the rights of religious groups who do marry same sex couples. truth is, same sex marriage wouldn't infringe on any religious organizations rights. i can't get married in the catholic church, for example, because i'm not catholic. are they infringing on my rights? no. i can still get married. (elvis is cooler anyway, but some members of my family were deeply disturbed by my unwillingness to pretend to believe something i don't for the sake of a "church wedding". which is exactly what my sister in law is doing, btw.)

  5. According to some religions traditions Adam and Eve's kids married people who were living outside of the garden of eden, which brings up a whole bunch of other questions. And while I find those questions very fun, fundies don't. But that's neither here nor there.
    I find it interesting that this person is OK with both winning and losing. Ah, the mindset of the fundie.

  6. he's not really okay with winning and losing, he's just trying to position losing as being equal to winning cause he's still got god.

    if he really believed that it didn't matter, or that prayer work, he wouldn't be blogging about it or attending demonstrations or anything else. he'd just sincerely pray for what he wanted and that would be that. ergo . . .

    as for adam and eve, you're right. some apologists rightly recognize that people are skeeved at the thought that adam and eve's children were fucking each other and go with "well, they married people from outside of the Garden of Eden." ummm . . . if adam and eve were the only two people on the planet, where did those outside people come from?

    also, "adam" in hebrew means "mankind", which kinda puts the kibosh on only 2 people in the Garden of Eden to begin with.

  7. .......

    i really really really wish that marriage would go away. i mean, that marriage were no longer governmental AT ALL. because HOWEVER its structured, its going to step on someone. and while i don't agree with a lot of them, there ARE poly marriages that deserve equal protection (those wherein EVERYONE is equal and agreeing and consenting). i really hate the religious arguments structured around marriage - in that goddamned Bible you're touting, fundy man, MOST OF THE MARRIAGES WERE NOT "ONE WOMAN ONE MAN". those that are actually DESCRIBED, anyway. this "one man one woman" bullshit is NEW. shut up, you're all lying liars who lie.

    PF, you are so good at this. disecting these things. you should write a book.

    seriously. *I* would buy it :) then ask you to sign it and make me cookies! *giggle*

  8. I know, the bible is filled with polygymous relationships and incestuous relationships! Our concept of marriage today is not traditional, it is very modern. For one thing, marriage was always simply a means of passing property from one generation to the next. For another, prior to modern medicine, the average marriage lasted a mere 7 years before someone died. So, marrying someone who didn't please you in any way was no big deal, because one of you was bound to die before too long.

    I'm also glad that I'm not the only freak who sees nothing inherently wrong with CONSENSUAL poly relationships. I am against the way poly is usually practiced in this country, but there are poly relationships in which everyone is an adult, everyone is completely free to choose and everyone is happy. In which case, good for you! (I couldn't do it, but I couldn't be an accountant, either. That doesn't make accounting bad.)

  9. *sigh* It irks me that it's taken so long for them to decide whether to decide (I'm getting somewhere with this I swear!) to keep Prop 8 or not.

    I really hope there is a positive outcome for the LGBT population, because it will not just be a victory for the Californian population, not just for the American population, but a victory for many LGBT people worldwide.

  10. Yeah, it's not just the marriage thing, and I hope they see that. It's about rights and respect and, in a lot of cases, safety for LGBT people everywhere in the world. I hope that their willingness to review this means they do, in some dim way, understand that the repercussions of their decision will be felt everywhere.

  11. Christians as a whole also don't believe in the concept of Adam being married to Lilith before Eve, so the idea that they would skim over who Adam and Eve's kids were having sex with doesn't suprise me. Goofy people.
    There are times when I do wish these people would simply stick to praying. If they believe in it then do it and your God will make it happen. And there would be the added bonus of not having to hear them try to strip us of our rights.

  12. Ah, Lilith- the original feminist. I truly do wish christians would stick to prayer. That would leave the rest of us free to get to work and actually fix things.

  13. how did i forget Lilith *tears hair*

    i mean, i ADORE Lilith is a snarky, geeky way!

    (it is important to note here that i have been trying to write a story, for YEARS, about a new way of looking at the Genesis myth... where "man" is really a joint production and became the new battleground between the forces of Yaweh and Lucifer, both equally powerful entities but not omnipotent... erm. its complicated lol. but Lilith is a MAJOR player, being the right hand person of the leader of the third faction of powerful beings who forces the war to the new arena of "man". its my - fictional - attempt at unifying *EVERYTHING*. and Lilith kicks ass :p)

    also... my only problem with poly people, EVER, is that many of them refuse to accept the fact that *I* am monogomous. i have a boyfriend; i do not want another. and you have a girfriend, and i don't care if she tells me its all righ, it is NOT alright with *me*. i don't care what you do, don't involve me.
    that seems a bit harsh, on re-reading it, but... that is my primary experience of poly-people, especially the guys. just because THEY do it, they want *me* to. and i dont wanna.

    i am, sadly, very very mono. not poly.

    but i really think that every adult should be allowed to marry every other adult that they want to, who also wants to marry them. i don't see why poly is wrong, as long as everyone agrees and is happy and wants it. i don't see whats wrong with two guys, two gals, marrying. i don't see what wrong with ANY of it. as long as everyone wants it, why should *I* care? it just doesn't make sense to me, the idea that what other people do in the bedroom (or the laundryroom, or the kitchen) and who they are doing it with, should affect me (assuming consenting adults, of course)

    i DO NOT GET IT, damnit. its why i have so much trouble arguing with fundys, i thinks. there's no empathy for their position from me (and none from them to me, so at least its fair)

    and i think i want to stop trying to get it. trying to understand their... hate... makes my stomach hurt. it really does.


Comments are for you guys, not for me. Say what you will. Don't feel compelled to stay on topic, I enjoy it when comments enter Tangentville or veer off into Non Sequitur Town. Just keep it polite, okay?

I am attempting to use blogger's new comment spam feature. If you don't immediately see your comment, it is being held in spam, I will get it out next time I check the filter. Unless you are Dennis Markuze, in which case you're never seeing your comment.

Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at foreverinhell.blogspot.com.