Lindy’s Blog: Where Mom is Always Right

November 19, 2008

Democracy speaks…

Filed under: politics — by lindyborer @ 8:47 am
Tags: , , , , ,

….or not. 

Often, I get discouraged by the screaming silence that is met by what should be huge nightly news stories, and I feel it my duty to relay to you, dear readers, what is so glaringly absent from the media.

This morning I seem to be reading a lot about election fraud in various states, including Georgia, Kentucky, and of course, Minnesota, where Soros/Franken are in the process of stealing away Norm Coleman’s Senate seat.

Aside from election fraud, which I believe is in dire need of reform, as in “Let’s bring Election DAY back, not Election MONTH or Election MONTHS”), there’s another interesting phenomenon going on as we speak.

That would be the peace-loving, tolerant left in California, the gay Proposition 8 protesters busy roughing up the elderly, sending white powdery subtances to churches, stomping on crosses, and blacklisting anyone who exercised their American rights in a democracy by voting for Proposition 8, the traditional marriage initiative.  I swear, should Proposition 8 have failed, and the reverse were occurring, there would be some heavy-handed action by someone, probably that most honorable of institutions, the ACLU. 

Michelle Malkin writes:

“Over the past two weeks, anti-Prop. 8 organizers have targeted Mormon, Catholic, and evangelical churches. Sentiments like this one, found on the anti-Prop.8 website “JoeMyGod,” are common across the left-wing blogosphere: “Burn their f—ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.” Thousands of gay-rights demonstrators stood in front of the Mormon temple in Los Angeles shouting “Mormon scum.” The Mormon headquarters in Salt Lake City received threatening letters containing an unidentified powder. Religious-bashing protesters filled with hate decried the “hate” at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif. Vandals defaced the Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, Calif., because church members had collected Prop. 8 petitions. One worshiper’s car was keyed with the slogans “Gay sex is love” and “SEX;” another car’s antenna and windshield wipers were broken.

In Carlsbad, Calif., a man was charged with punching his elderly neighbors over their pro-Prop. 8 signs. In Palm Springs, a videographer filmed unhinged anti-Prop. 8 marchers who yanked a large cross from the hands of 69-year-old Phyllis Burgess and stomped on it.”

For some reason, yesterday’s Too Good page post Seven Things You Can’t Do as a Moral Relativist comes to mind. 

Dennis Prager hits on this in his most recent column, Is Gay the New Black?

“The vast majority of Americans, including those who oppose same-sex marriage, know that the homosexual is created in God’s image every bit as much as is the heterosexual; and acknowledge that the gay man or woman has a right to love whom he or she wants and that commitment has the right to be given legal protections.

But radically redefining the most important institution in the life of a civilization; and routinely labeling as the moral equivalent of racists every individual who does not want children regularly asked whether they will marry a boy or a girl when grown up, and who rightly fears that every traditional religious community will be labeled as a hate group — these are not commensurate with civil rights.”

And that really is the crux of the matter:  Anyone who dares to uphold traditional marriage is deemed “hateful.”  What, logically, is the next step for these “hateful” institutions?  Radical leftist judges acting out their retribution via heavy-handed silencing tactics?  Free speech and freedom of religion only go so far anymore, it seems.  I generally try not to be an alarmist, but I can’t help but see the writing on the wall, here. 

I’m sure I will be bombarded by negative—dare I say “hateful”?—comments after this post, who will scream the usual, “Traditional marriage isn’t so great, look at the high divorce rate,” and such.  But it all goes back to the faulty insistence that is so prevalent today:  No one can seek to stand up for morality in a world filled with moral relativists, especially if THEY ARE NOT PERFECT THEMSELVES.  No one can say, “That’s not right,” because they will be met with, “Well, you’re not so perfect” type responses.  Well, in that case, nothing could ever be judged as right or wrong, because no one is perfect.  Just as no one can credibly justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.  It’s a sticky little situation, but I think it’s at the heart of every single social problem imaginable today.

Feminine Genius says it best:

“One might keep in mind that no action that is religiously motivated will be accurately viewed in the press. Overall, many make the claim that they just don’t get it. Those who promote ‘truth’ are usually interpreted as bullies or moralists who love controlling others. Those who like spiritual mushiness are seen, not as lukewarm vacillators, but as heroes, despite the fact that several truths cannot be simultaneously true. And most curiously, those who are motivated by an internal sense of jihad are hidden from view, or only commented on as having curious unnamed issues.”

      

 

 

Advertisements

12 Comments »

  1. The simple answer to this dilemma (traditional marriage and Prop 8 (102) is to abolish all marriage contracts and eliminate contractual marriage … a legal entity that has never made one scintilla of sense to me in the 65 years of my life. There is no reasonable argument to be made that sufficiently explains why anyone would want to join their life through a legal contract with another person!! If love and committment prevail then the relationship will last, held together by the power of that love. If, as occurs in 50% or more of all legal marriages, the relationship fails then the two parties can work out their demise in private without the expense and display of a legal divorce to undo the contract. Custody of children can be worked out ahead of time with a prebirth contract, or not. Children in the current system are simply used as weapons in a divorce, so a private resolution couldn’t be any worse. Or, my personal favorite solution is that the person leaving the relationship always gets the children unless otherwise mutually agreed to. In divorce, no one wins. If settlement is done privately without the curse of divorce proceedings the outcome, while perhaps not perfect, will be better than the notoriously failed outcomes of the current system. Also this eliminates the need for constitutional amendments to grant marriage to some (with its attending legal benefits, tax, social security survivorship, etc.), while refusing it to others thereby violating the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. Folks can still marry in the eyes of God, have big church weddings and all that stuff. There just will not be that nasty little legal document called the marriage license/certificate. Being fairly familiar with the Bible I am quite sure neither God nor Jesus say that marriage must be attended by a legal contract with the state. And all you good Christians out there can walk your talk about traditional marriage and the queers can do their thing. A good solution I’d say.

    Comment by BSBradley — November 19, 2008 @ 10:44 am |Reply

  2. Except that contractual marriage (or civil unions, which the gay folks in CA already have) is good for society in that it establishes things like inheritance and property laws.

    In the case of heterosexual couples it also establishes paternity and custody laws as regards children.

    Comment by foobar — November 19, 2008 @ 2:32 pm |Reply

  3. BSBradley

    In my opinion, one of the main reasons these people want their marriages to be recognized is to enjoy (?) the same benefits that traditional couples receive. If this is really the case, how would we keep track of who is really married and who isn’t with your “good solution” to receive these so-called benefits?

    Comment by Brent — November 19, 2008 @ 2:58 pm |Reply

  4. I guess I didn’t make myself clear. Without contractual marriage there would be no special benefits for anyone. The playing field would be level. So there is no need to “keep track” of anything. In my solution inheritance would go to the beneficiary in ones will..pure and simple. No will, then all assets would go to the state. Property would be governed by a partnership agreement, like the ones which currently exist when two or more people purchase a piece of property together. They form a partnership at the time of purchase, the share distribution is established in the document and the purchasing shareholders sign the agreement if they choose and the partnership document then governs or rules all aspects of the property. I own several pieces of real estate in partnership with various individuals and we drew up such arrangements, agreed to the terms, signed the documents and the property is held by the partnership not any one shareholder. Very simple and effective.
    A word about paternity: DNA establishes biological paternity. A simple and direct response to the concerns about paternity and custody… you certainly do not need a contract of marriage to be a parent and have custody. Just look around you! I bet you can name more than one parent you know who has one or more children, with full custody who has NEVER been married. In my opinion, proof that contractual marriage is not necessary and thus laws governing paternity and custody not necessary. Children are conceived every day among folks who never intend to marry each other. Raising children and maintaining families are acts of the heart founded on the power and grace of love. There is no law which can over-ride this basic reality. Marriage certificates and custody documents are otherwise useless except as weapons. I am certain this solution will never be considered but I firmly believe it is the best answer. I am single and have been in a monogomus relationship for 27 years. We have two children. We own two homes held in partnerships. We simply work together as a family. It hasn’t always been easy but very rewarding. I am very proud of us! We don’t have the opportunity to whack each other over the head with threats and documents. We are forced by design to make it work or cut losses and leave. We both are equally affected.

    Comment by BSBradley — November 19, 2008 @ 6:03 pm |Reply

  5. Lindy, as you know these gay activists make me sick. They only serve to uphold the biases that people have towards gays. Gay marriage sure looks like a great thing to give to people who have absolutely no respect for other people’s beliefs. I agree with the other commentors about contractual marriage. It may be the best thing for the society we now live in. As a gay person, I have no problem with Christian people wanting to define marraige in a legal way, I just don’t believe it should be an amendment to a constitution. Perhaps a proclamation?

    Comment by dsgawrsh — November 19, 2008 @ 6:33 pm |Reply

  6. I really don’t have the answers (well, duh, right?) I’m mainly more interested in the story from the whole double standards in media/bias perspective. I definitely think this would be above-the-fold news on every paper across America if conservatives were the ones doing the bashing. I most defintely realize that all gays cannot and should not be tarred by the same brush; the haters in San Fran are a fringe minority and not representative of gays in general.

    Part of me is wanting to say, Yeah, what’s the point of a marriage contract if people abuse it so much, and respect it so little? Again, I really don’t know.

    Comment by lindyborer — November 19, 2008 @ 8:05 pm |Reply

  7. I agree gay activists go over the top sometimes. But I also recall from the sixties the many times blacks were asking for and sometimes simply acting on the rights they were entitled to under our constitution .. (Rosa Parks). I remember sitting in the front of the bus, my white little face puzzled as to why there was a line across the floor in front of the rear seats labeled (colored only). When I asked my mom or dad I was immediately hushed up. Harsh stares were shot my way and clearly my parents were embarassed and uncomfortable. I never was given a credible answer. As time passed I noticed a fuming rage forming among the black people in our community. And I understood their anger for I had been witness to their opression up close and personal. Excuses ranged from they are not really human to God didn’t intend them to have the same rights as whites because if He did we’d all be the same color. SO today the same is true for gays. They have been marginalzed and shamed for centuries. And leading the charge has always been religious zealots, Catholic, Protestant, Jews and Muslims. Religious beliefs are just that, beliefs, subject to a plethora of interpretation! And as such have no place in shaping laws and public policy of the land, anywhere..hence the separation of church and state…a tenet in the constitution the current supreme court and courts of the past seem to have excised from that document. There is also “equal protection”. Once we stray from it, “open season” on all groups could follow. I am certain a reason can be found to exclude just about anyone who is not a white christian in good standing. So if the activists go over the top and make you sick, I can appreciate that BUT on the other hand I understand why they are so pissed off. AND their wrath is justly directed at the Morman church and other religious organizations who spend money to support amendments to state constitutions which deny an entire group of full tax paying citizens of our country’s “equal protection” clause. This is particularly galling when you take into account that these churches (Morans and many others) are tax exempt. In other words a strong argument can be made that the money not paid in taxes by the church is used by the church to promote denying equal protection under the law to those who do pay taxes. The gay citizens are in effect supporting their own opression via tax laws. Which leads me to say for any church actively engaging in shaping public policy or contributing to any political campaign or even speaking politics (including abortion and gay marriage) from the pulpit should be be denied their tax exempt status. Period! If they pay taxes like any other corporation and are subject to the same rules as business corporations then they can speak and act politically all they want to. But no tax exemptions!!!! Again I am sure I am way ahead of my time with these remarks but I have been an out of the box critical thinker all my life. But at the end of the day I believe in equal rights for everyone..no exceptions. I want fairness for everyone, even those I disagree with. I soundly reject special entitlements for anyone or any group. AND BTW I am not a liberal. I support capital punishment, reject welfare, support fiscal conservatism (personally and institutionally, reject regulation (though I see why it is necessary). So there…Just my ideas. Thanks for your attention.

    Comment by BSBradley — November 20, 2008 @ 12:02 pm |Reply

  8. BSBradley, I understand what you are saying about activism and I understand why gay people are so enraged, but there is a big difference between Rosa Parks not getting up from her seat or blacks sitting at meal counters and refusing to get up and what these gay activists are doing. You don’t win respect by being as disrespectful as possible. I live my life in such a way that people question their core beliefs because I don’t fill a pre-conceived mold. A pastor at a church I wanted to attend found himself in this dilemma. He couldn’t believe that he had baptized a woman who was co-habitating and not a very good person and yet he is told by his church that I cannot become a member because I’m gay and living the “lifestyle”. If more gay people did that, possibly we would see some laws change. But if you scare the masses by acting like idiots, you aren’t going to get anywhere.

    And I disagree with churches losing their tax exempt status over talking about gay marriage or abortion. Those have become political issues, but in and of themselves are not political. Again, there is a difference between telling people who to vote for or what to vote for and preaching that you believe gay marriage and abortion is wrong.

    Comment by dsgawrsh — November 20, 2008 @ 5:04 pm |Reply

  9. dsgawrsh: Thank you for saying so well what is a very valid point regarding abortion and gay marriage becoming political issues, although they are not political in and of themselves.

    BSBradley: I think that you are one of a large number of people who have totally butchered the meaning of “separation of church and state.” (Respectfully, of course.) I will not go into it here, because people have written entire books on the subject.

    Since the birth of our country we have depended upon religion–all kinds, but mainly Christianity-to uphold morality and goodness in our land. To totally divorce govt. and religion (as is incrementally happening) I believe has led to an overall deterioration of our country’s moral fiber. It is and should always be wrong and illegal to force people, for example, to fund abortion through their tax dollars if they believe that it is the murder of an entirely innocent human being, even if people like you deem them “religious zealots.” Apparently, this country needs more of them.

    You also said:
    “AND their wrath is justly directed at the Morman [sic] church and other religious organizations who spend money to support amendments to state constitutions which deny an entire group of full tax paying citizens of our country’s ‘equal protection’ clause.”

    I really don’t know where your beliefs lay regarding abortion, but if you happen to be pro-abortion, this statement becomes almost laughable, for obvious reasons. Again, if the church is suddenly not even allowed to direct the morality of its people, who is? The government? That hasn’t worked yet. When the government begins to decide that tax money will be spent unscrupulously (see Obama, Hyde Amendment), it is currently fine for anyone to disagree with it BUT the church (the “white Christians in good standing”). That’s ridiculous, and taking “separation of church and state” to ludicrous extremes. It leads to moral relativism, and that is where our country is headed at this point.

    Aside from that caveat, it is interesting to me that very little people (both reporting about this and protesting it) have directed any attention to the 70% of African American voters and churches who supported Proposition 8 (who also comprised over 90% Obama voters.) By no means am I saying this sort of behavior should begin being directed at them, of course.

    I commend your very open mind and outside-the-box thinking, but would graciously caution you with the age-old axiom of being “so open-minded your brains fall out.” I’m not mocking you; I truly believe that the current goal of “open-mindedness” at any and all costs is the reason people can’t hug anymore for fear of being arrested or some such nonsense. Someone, after all, might get offended. At some point, carried to the extreme, open-mindedness eradicates “right” and “wrong”.

    Comment by lindyborer — November 20, 2008 @ 6:35 pm |Reply

  10. I’d like to comment on BSBradley’s comment #4. I believe you just made the case that this issue is much to do about nothing. After all, if as you state, we can abolish marriage and those who would like to join can do so and enjoy the same legal protections such as property rights etc., then gays can also have those same legal protections now without the union being called marriage. I really do not understand what protections or rights a married couple has that any other two individuals wouldn’t be able to create through legal documentation. I think this is purely a way for those who hate the religious right to stick it to them.

    Comment by Lisa — November 20, 2008 @ 8:40 pm |Reply

  11. Lisa, yes. Great point.

    Related reading supplementation: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/christians-and-gays-behaving-badly/ by Elizabeth Scalia

    Excellent. Excellent. Excellent.

    Comment by lindyborer — November 21, 2008 @ 10:49 am |Reply

  12. Contrary to what BS “ahead of my time” Bradley thinks, there is no equal protection argument for same-sex marriage. In order for there to be one, there would have to be laws that provided that SOME people (say, whites, women, or straights) could enter into same-sex marriages but OTHER people (non-whites, men, gays) could not. Laws that ban same-sex marriage ban it for ALL people, not just gays. Obviously this is not the only “arbitrary restriction” we have on marriage. Like the others (banning, for example, brothers from marrying sisters), laws against same-sex marriage are applied without discrimination.

    People who think anti-same-sex marriage laws are “discriminatory” mistake the government’s interest in marriage. Government does not give certain blessings to marriages in order to “honor the love” of the union. If that becomes the rationale for supporting same-sex marriage, then opposition to honoring any other romantic attachments (like the siblings who want to marry) becomes nothing more than a REAL act of rank discrimination. Then there WOULD be an “equal protection” argument to make.

    Comment by RomeoHotel — November 23, 2008 @ 12:47 pm |Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: