Four judges legalized same sex marriage-
From San Francisco has come disparage
For, in 2000 marriage was defined
As between a man and a woman, twas outlined
What was voted on and passed by 61%
Has to be recomposed and needs our endorsement
As world history's sacred institution
Must be placed in our state's constitution
Though we feel for those in sexual exclusion
To embrace their union as marriage is delusion
For our children we cannot define this as mainstream
Though gays want acceptance and higher esteem
We've given them all the rights of marriage
And, sadly they still fight on and dare edge
To infringe on what God has ordained
And, for their small numbers society's more pained
But, what of our creator- who said, "Thou shalt not"?
And of our founding father's and of all that they fought?
We've commandments for how we should live
And, we can't grant things that aren't ours to give
I feel for those of gay circumstance
I know they want romance and an equal chance
I've counseled them for the antibody test
And, I know that their feelings are hard to rest
Please do not call this bigotry or hate
For I am concerned about our futures fate
Let's focus on family and build its foundation
For there lies the future of our good nation
Let's not redefine marriage or tear it apart
But, pray for it with every depth of our heart
And unite and fight for the noblest cause
For the purest of standards of our God's laws
From San Francisco has come disparage
For, in 2000 marriage was defined
As between a man and a woman, twas outlined
What was voted on and passed by 61%
Has to be recomposed and needs our endorsement
As world history's sacred institution
Must be placed in our state's constitution
Though we feel for those in sexual exclusion
To embrace their union as marriage is delusion
For our children we cannot define this as mainstream
Though gays want acceptance and higher esteem
We've given them all the rights of marriage
And, sadly they still fight on and dare edge
To infringe on what God has ordained
And, for their small numbers society's more pained
But, what of our creator- who said, "Thou shalt not"?
And of our founding father's and of all that they fought?
We've commandments for how we should live
And, we can't grant things that aren't ours to give
I feel for those of gay circumstance
I know they want romance and an equal chance
I've counseled them for the antibody test
And, I know that their feelings are hard to rest
Please do not call this bigotry or hate
For I am concerned about our futures fate
Let's focus on family and build its foundation
For there lies the future of our good nation
Let's not redefine marriage or tear it apart
But, pray for it with every depth of our heart
And unite and fight for the noblest cause
For the purest of standards of our God's laws
I am a California kindergarten teacher and used to be a health educator and hiv antibody test counselor. I teach values and patriotism and of the pursuit, of happiness, and of the freedoms we enjoy. A 5 year old is just beginning to understand these values. I see the adjustment they go through when there is a new baby in the house or just one on the way. I can't imagine what the confusion of these issues would add. Children deserve so much- They are precious- if only each can be raised in a home with a mom and a dad... But, if not they need the exposure of a married, loving heterosexual couple...
October General Conference, 1999
There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God. Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality.
Gordon B. Hinckley
3 comments:
As I see it, your right to free production of your little fantasies ends at the point where they impinge on my world - and turn up being contentious in places I visit. Thereafter, you're fair game for rudeness.
To take your recent posting at The Atheist Blogger at face value, your personal attitude to gays is complete equanimity, and you'd really like to grant them the benefits - largely legal - of marriage. It's just that your imaginary friend has ruled it a no-no. So you, I, and the rest of the world needs must put aside our personal feelings, because your imaginary friend's rules trump everything - including the views of others, who may have other imaginary friends, right?
No, sir. In a democracy, you and your Friend get one vote, just like everyone else. The degree of your conviction that your pet deity exists and has strong opinions on the matter is of no consequence. You may believe you have evidence to support your views, but there is much stronger countermanding evidence. You're welcome to ignore it, but don't be alarmed when others ignore yours in turn.
One last thing: your posting fairly drips with sympathy for poor gays and their desire for lebensraum. Very forgiving of you, but are you sure that in your heart of hearts you're not a teensy bit repelled by them? Just a little? And are you sure that repulsion isn't influencing your attitude? Just a little?
Or do you really have no thoughts in your head but the received, proxy wisdom of your deity?
CD
Dear cdavis-
This is "no sir's husband responding. My wife just read me your eloquent if misguided response. Let's use your own words to hoist you.
You stated: "In a democracy, you and your Friend get one vote, just like everyone else". True, unless you're a judge. The fact is, the People of the state of California (or at least, those who bothered to vote) already had their say on this issue several years ago. One person, one vote,and several million of us voted. Now come four judges in response to a lawsuit filed by a plaintiff unsatisfied with the will of the majority and, as is their constitutional right, litigation ensued. The result: four judges overturned the expressed will of the people.
OK, "our" turn. California's proposition 8 proposes a constitutional amendment. If that amendment passes, what then for you? Will you accept that the system works and has achieved a fair result? Or will you resort to further derision and condescension?
I approach this differently from my wife. She is a woman of great faith, and I admire that capacity within her. I, on the other hand, am an attorney, and understand the rule of law. When the people speak, pass or fail, I will accept the outcome as the guiding principle. You, I suspect, will embrace the result only if it is a rejection of the proposed amendment.
Tell me it's not so - I dare you.
Rick
Aha! So - Sir has more than one source of received ideas, and one of 'em's real. Then, as you presumably handle temporal matters, perhaps you could advise Sir not to mess with atheists - we're a lot less meek and mild than once we were, and we don't do 'respect' anymore.
Alright, Rick, to business: I may have given the impressions that I approve of democracy. I don't, really - especially the olive-oil-flavoured kind, which is little more than governorship by the Average, and a recipe for disaster in a land hagridden by mass delusion. It's just a better system than some: Theocracy, for instance - which is what you have when hoi polloi wield proxy votes for an imaginary superbeing.
But in the West we don't use the mob-rule variety: we have Representative Democracy, in which we elect the cat to catch the bird to catch the spider to catch the fly. And we grumblingly put up with the decisions that result, even when they're far too lenient on issues we feel should be punished, banished and stamped out. Because ultimately we trust those representatives to have a better grasp on morality, ethics and reality than the vector sum of the Common Man's nasty, brutish desires - as authorised by selective reading from ancient books whose relevance was always shaky, and which have become completely irrelevant over the millennia.
And sometimes, mirabile dictu, they do. Which is why the children of Dover will be taught the facts of biology rather than the silly myths preferred by some; and why women may terminate pregnancies they don't want, rather than create two wasted lives; and why - steadily across the nominally civilised parts of the globe - people born with an attraction to their own gender may now enjoy the legal benefits granted to couples whose proclivities are in the majority. This is basic, necessary Humanity.
Do you doubt that such things will be universal in a matter of decades at most? Then you are dreaming. Do you question their simple ethical righteousness? Then you are a bigot. Do you believe that Leviticus et al override such considerations? Then you are guilty of both of these, and more besides - but you might make a good lawyer.
CD
Post a Comment