Monday, October 24, 2005

the best defense

Okay, maybe I've missed something really important here, but I really dont think so. Read this from the Dallas Whoring News:
Re: "No defense for Prop. 2," by Michael Lax, Thursday Letters

To the person who accepts God's word, the Bible, as inerrant and God-breathed, marriage is a venerable institution, and we believe marriage between one man and one woman is the way God wants it.

You don't have to like that or believe it, but do not assume true believers are misrepresenting marriage to justify their beliefs. We do not have to justify our beliefs about marriage to you or anyone else. It is those who oppose the traditional view of marriage who are misrepresenting marriage.

Proposition 2 protects the traditional view, and that's why we want it on the ballot.

The Christians I know defend traditional marriage and seek to protect it because we cherish it and want to keep it safe for the future of our families. We are as entitled to proclaim our beliefs about marriage – and seek to protect it – as much as you have a right not to.

Your letter does exactly what you accuse Christians of doing – denigrating a group for our beliefs. To my fellow Christians, please be sure to vote on Nov. 8 – and vote for Proposition 2.

Jan Dallas, Fate
For the non-Texans of you out there, Proposition 2 is this:
A JOINT RESOLUTION

proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation,
property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
SECTION 3. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005. The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: "The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Yep, that's right, the Great State of Texas has come to the rescue of God-fearing righteous folk everywhere (in the state that is), because, lets face it, everyone knows that homosexuality is a communicable disease.
It's also a sin, too.
Right?
So it's like a disease that you choose to get.
Wait.

Let's get back to that letter:
Now, I got no beef with anybody's religious beliefs. This is America, and we have the freedom to choose our own balm or poison, what have you. But your right to swing your Bible ends at the tip of my nose.
If someone chooses to believe that marriage is a God-given Institution for only one man and one woman (Mormons and Arab Royalty, take note), well that's okay with me. Jan is absolutely correct when she says "We do not have to justify our beliefs about marriage to you or anyone else". What she does have to justify is why Bob and Ted, or Carol and Alice wanting to make a commitment to share the rest of their lives together (or the 5-year American equivalent) threatens her idea of marriage.
Prop 2 does not correct any existing system of marriage that says that Jan's beliefs are wrong. No one is going to force her or her children into same sex marriage. If she drove a pick-up, would she say that her neighbor's ownership of a Volkswagon Beetle threatens the sanctity of her 1/2 ton cargo capacity?
Christians should cherish traditional marriage. And so cherishing it, they should participate in it, if they so desire, thus encouraging the tradition they cherish to be carried on. Gay marriage is not a threat to traditional marriage, it is merely an addition to traditional marriage, like a new family room on the house or something.

If Christians really want to do battle against the true threat to marriage, then they need to start a campaign against longevity and large populations. It was easy to stay in a marriage your whole life back when that life could be easily ended by infection, childbirth or disease before you reached 35 (look at your own family history; people didnt get remarried any less back then, there were just fewer survivors before it happened). And when you lived in a small community of a several hundred (as most people did in the 19th century), and everybody knew everybody else, where were you going to go if you left your spouse? Okay, you could run away with a neighbor, but I sure that never happened.

So there you go Christian Right, there's your new Issue: start lobbying for small, rural communities for everyone, and Early Death. Perhaps you could ask a Cambodian how it was done in his country. To bad Pol Pot's dead, he'd probably have had some wonderful advice.

Finally, for the Bible-types who might take offense at my words, here's some of your own words you may have forgotten:
I Cor. 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside!

2 comments:

rev. billy bob gisher ©2005 said...

Yes, but what about a man and his horse, this is Texas still isn't it?

daveawayfromhome said...

Damn straight, A man and his horse is sacred.