Defending Marriage: Is Turnabout Fair Play?

[Polycarp1]

As most people who care know by now, the State of California has provisions for ballot initiatives and referendums on a wide range of subjects, including amendments to the State Constitution. And it has been widely reported that petitions are to be circulated to amend the state constitution, by initiative, to prohibit gay marriages. The matter is supposed also to be introduced in the state legislature.

Now, I think it is a safe assumption that the overwhelming majority of people seeking such measures are doing so on the basis of "family values" arguments founded in their allegiance to the Bible -- or to their particular understanding of what the Bible calls for.

One moral imperiative in the Bible is Matthew 7:12, the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It therefore occurs to me that it might be appropriate for Californians who wish to see justice done to circulate another initiative proposition: one which voids any existing marriages of those who propose anti-0gay-marriage amendment in the state legislature, and those who circulate, sign, or endorse petitions for a ballot initiative voiding gay marriages, identifying them by name, and prohibiting them from contracting marriage in California or seeking to have a marriage contracted elsewhere held legally valid in California courts and public agencies.

If they truly feel that Biblical grounds are appropriate bases on which to found a civil marriage law, then it seems reasonable to hold them to the same standard themselves, and judge them by the measure with which they seek to judge.

Comment?

 

[Steezie]

This I have to see

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

As most are aware I am all for equal rights but let me play hypocrite advocate here and argue against the proposition. (This is something I personally practice in dry runs while forming arguments.)

The argument is based on equitable distribution of biblical hermeneutics and the question centers around the position of the golden rule. I would say the golden rule is being applied because the reason to deny gay marriage is on the premise of sin. Since hetero marriage is not a sin there is no violation of the golden rule.

A violation would be in place if those against gay marriage were advocating for pedophilia marriage because that would be a double standard of the golden rule. Lastly, it could also be stated those against gay marriage also advocate the golden rule because they want to be held accountable to biblical standards in the same way they are holding others accountable.

 

[WatersMoon110]

As most are aware I am all for equal rights but let me play hypocrite advocate here and argue against the proposition. (This is something I personally practice in dry runs while forming arguments.)

The argument is based on equitable distribution of biblical hermeneutics and the question centers around the position of the golden rule. I would say the golden rule is being applied because the reason to deny gay marriage is on the premise of sin. Since hetero marriage is not a sin there is no violation of the golden rule.

Well, that isn't entirely true. Anyone who divorced and remarried (except, maybe, for reasons of adultery, if one follows Matthew over Mark) would be sinning. As would any Christian married to a non-Christian, and certainly any non-Christians that were married.

Last time I checked, homosexuality wasn't the only sin in the Bible. *wink*

Since "Born Again" Christians have the highest divorce rate in the country, I believe, perhaps just a proposed amendment to ban all second, third, forth marriages would work?

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Well, that isn't entirely true. Anyone who divorced and remarried (except, maybe, for reasons of adultery, if one follows Matthew over Mark) would be sinning. As would any Christian married to a non-Christian, and certainly any non-Christians that were married.

Last time I checked, homosexuality wasn't the only sin in the Bible. *wink*

Since "Born Again" Christians have the highest divorce rate in the country, I believe, perhaps just a proposed amendment to ban all second, third, forth marriages would work?

That was my whole point. Those using "sin" to deny equal rights always claim they are living by the golden rule. Hence, they are not being hypocrites because they can find some way to say their marriage isn't based in sin. That's why the op is a twisty straw of circular logic and one with no end in sight.

 

[Spherical Time]

Well, gay marriage is now just "marriage" in CA.

Are they defending that marriage or attacking it? Attacking it? Well, then they're being disingenuous by calling it "Defending marriage," aren't they?

Of course this goes along with my "Conservatives are pro-sadness/pro-unhappiness" understanding of their reasons against gay marriage.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Are they defending that marriage or attacking it? Attacking it? Well, then they're being disingenuous by calling it "Defending marriage," aren't they?

Oh come on. Are we really not allowed to have political discussions with definitions independent from the law? I mean, is it wrong for people against abortions to say that they are against such murders being committed because legally it isn't murder?

 

[fated]

As most people who care know by now, the State of California has provisions for ballot initiatives and referendums on a wide range of subjects, including amendments to the State Constitution. And it has been widely reported that petitions are to be circulated to amend the state constitution, by initiative, to prohibit gay marriages. The matter is supposed also to be introduced in the state legislature.

Now, I think it is a safe assumption that the overwhelming majority of people seeking such measures are doing so on the basis of "family values" arguments founded in their allegiance to the Bible -- or to their particular understanding of what the Bible calls for.

One moral imperiative in the Bible is Matthew 7:12, the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It therefore occurs to me that it might be appropriate for Californians who wish to see justice done to circulate another initiative proposition: one which voids any existing marriages of those who propose anti-0gay-marriage amendment in the state legislature, and those who circulate, sign, or endorse petitions for a ballot initiative voiding gay marriages, identifying them by name, and prohibiting them from contracting marriage in California or seeking to have a marriage contracted elsewhere held legally valid in California courts and public agencies.

If they truly feel that Biblical grounds are appropriate bases on which to found a civil marriage law, then it seems reasonable to hold them to the same standard themselves, and judge them by the measure with which they seek to judge.

Comment?

I believe that the people of California can assert their dominion over the term married, especially because it pertains not just to the state institution but also to the national institution, which, seems to be a front runner to affirmative action for people who generally end up having children. As such, being a program, it could be covered elsewhere and the current union system could simply be the gay right to marriage. Or the title could be removed and the institution stay the same.

 

[IzzyPop]

I believe that the people of California can assert their dominion over the term married, especially because it pertains not just to the state institution but also to the national institution, which, seems to be a front runner to affirmative action for people who generally end up having children. As such, being a program, it could be covered elsewhere and the current union system could simply be the gay right to marriage. Or the title could be removed and the institution stay the same.

Given the definition of affirmative action (and you have been), how, exactly, does marriage fall under said definition?

 

[cantata]

Can we call it same-sex marriage, please? Not everyone who wants to marry a same-sex partner is gay.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Given the definition of affirmative action (and you have been), how, exactly, does marriage fall under said definition?

I can't believe that AA garbage was dropped in here after being asked repeatedtly to explain how AA relates to marriage at all. I really can't wait to see how it is a "front running" national AA institution.

 

[TheManeki]

I believe that the people of California can assert their dominion over the term married, especially because it pertains not just to the state institution but also to the national institution, which, seems to be a front runner to affirmative action for people who generally end up having children. As such, being a program, it could be covered elsewhere and the current union system could simply be the gay right to marriage. Or the title could be removed and the institution stay the same.

At one time, the people of 41 states in the US (including Illinois) asserted their dominion over the term married, defining it as two people of the same race only. It didn't stop the courts from striking down these laws and amendments to state constitutions in the 1960s.