[PD/TD] Re: [CS-FSLUG] Activist Republican Judge Says CA Marriage Law Unconstitutional

[Aaron Lehmann]

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 05:22:05PM -0500, Brian Derr wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 18:45 -0500, Fred A. Miller wrote:
> > Well, we've all sinned, but this guy made sure everyone knows he did, and 
> > proud of it!
> > 
> > Fred
> > 
> > http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2188
> 
> I've got to say that I agree with the judge.  Since when is it alright
> to force your views and make them law?  Please do not misunderstand me
> here: I am not advocating homosexuality, but rather advocating
> individual freedom.  We are given freedom by one person, Jesus Christ.
> Who are we to take it away from someone?
> 
> Let me ask the question this way: Would a liberal group making it law to
> pay homage to any tree you saw be a absurd to those of us that do not
> worship nature?  Yes!  If another liberal group somehow made law that
> you may only drive a car one day a week to keep pollution in check would
> you feel outraged?  Yes!  Why is it any different when we, as
> Christians, take what we believe and make it law for those that don't
> believe?
> 
> In a perfect world I wouldn't have to write this because there would be
> no sin and thus no need for the law.  In our non-perfect world where sin
> runs rampant is the law going to save anyone?  No!  By creating moral
> laws such as this we are only driving a wedge between those that have
> found Jesus and those that have not.  Humans are defiant by nature and
> will be incensed at the thought that someone can tell them how to live
> their lives.
> 
> Rather than wasting our time making laws that drive the lost away from
> the Word lets befriend them and show them the love of Jesus.  After all
> it is what Jesus would have done.
> 
> PS  Discussion is very much what I'm after here.  :-)  I'm not 100% sure
> in either direction on this subject but I am heavily leaning towards
> what I just wrote.  Your thoughts?
> 
> -- 
> Brian
> 
> The just man walketh in his integrity: his children are blessed after
> him.  -- Proverbs 20:7

I agree with you Brian.  I feel that our government is too big, and is
aggregating too many powers to itself.  Why should our purposefully
secular agnostic government have the right to sanction marriage?  I'm of
the opinion that our government should not endorse ANY marriage,
homosexual or heterosexual.  Rather, civil unions should be available to
all, and should carry the rights traditionally associated with marriage.
If I couple wishes to be married, they should go to the church of their
religion, and have it blessed by whatever god they wish to have it
blessed by.

This, of course, opens up a can of worms.  For example, gay adoption:
How can our government give preference to heterosexual couples over
homosexual couples with regard to adoption without hypocracy?  I don't
believe they can.  I'm sure that a child is better off being raise by a
man and a woman, all things being equal otherwise, but the alternative
would seem to me to be setting up a government sanctioned church,
officially or unofficially.  And we are to give unto Caesar what is
Caesar's and unto God what is God's.  I presume this means that it is
God's place to dictate and enforce holiness, and the government's place
to enforce fairness.

Aaron Lehmann