Stand Up for Proposition 8 (Yes on Prop 8)

[Followers4christ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwERvTRFbBE

 

[Neve]

I'm just curious. The United States of America was founded on the ideal of separation of church and state. We all know that the vast majority of churches define marriage between a man and woman. Why let this cloud the legal definition that the state holds? Churches will still be able to turn away the couples they don't want to marry. But why should the state discriminate on this?

 

[Followers4christ]

Sorry to tell you but thats not what this nation was founded on.Please check the links in this post out about the founding fathers of this nation.They came to America to express their faith freely which was christianity.The founders wanted a country where they could express their faith freely in all matters of life in public and in government.This is the reason even today they hold church services in goverment buildings such as the White House.It's also the reason that many of the legal holidays are based on christianity such as Christmas (birth of Jesus) and Easter (resurrection of Christ).This nation was in no doubt after looking at the history of this country based on christian principles.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/history.html

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=51

 

[Androsia]

So free faith is limited to the sphere of Christianity? In the U.S. Congress, they do open with a sermon, but they rotate it between different religions. It is not exclusively Christian nor should the legal constructs of this nation be.

 

[Christian_Economist]

I have to say that I voted "Yes" on prop 8--but I did not make that decision the instant I heard about it. Truly my opinion in the past has been that marriage is something sacred and traditional, and no tradition in the world has ever included homosexual marriage as far as I know. I see no problem with same-sex couples receiving similar, almost identical rights as other couples, just found that changing the process of marriage to include same-sex couples unnecessary. Regardless, I read closely what each side was saying.

I noticed that supporters made Massachusetts a detailed example, which to me made a lot of sense. I read many specific opinions of the supporters explaining just how they don't want the effects of legal gay marriage in that state to happen here.

And I read what was being spoken against the proposition. Accusations of discrimination to me didn't hold weight--seemed that they were simply fishing for the votes of tolerance preachers (which I would honestly claim to be one, but like I said, this just didn't hold weight) Fact is, as my opinion mentioned in the first paragraph follows, I don't see it as discriminatory. I see marriage as a traditional lifestyle, something of culture, and not just some legal binding agreement.

And those the cheesy political commercial ads who appeal to all the voters too lazy to read. Of course the proposition isn't about schools or children--the supporters were talking about the potential effects of the legalization of gay marriage in our state. Which again, holds weight because supporters could actually back up their statements with the evidence of events in Massachusetts.

I came close to voting "No" on proposition 8 for one, just one, very specific reason. The sponsors are pushing to ratify law in order to prevent another from being passed. Seems a tad unconstitutional to me. If the people don't want same-sex marriage legalized, then they simply won't vote it in. Passing this proposition almost seems unnecessary.

It was the opposition's failure to fight for that notion that led to my decision to vote "Yes".

 

[Christian_Economist]

I'm just curious. The United States of America was founded on the ideal of separation of church and state. We all know that the vast majority of churches define marriage between a man and woman. Why let this cloud the legal definition that the state holds? Churches will still be able to turn away the couples they don't want to marry. But why should the state discriminate on this?

I could be wrong, but I have read that there have been discrimination lawsuits against churches who refused to marry same-sex couples where it was legal.