Thursday, May 28, 2009

Proposition 8 Upheld

Good morning, ruling. I've been waiting to hear from you. I am pleased what form you came in. :-)

While I believe it is absolutely horrific that a prop PASSED by the people (for the second time, might I add) even get to be decided on by a court, I am intensely pleased with the result.

You lost this one. Suck it up and get over it. It's time to give up with the petty legal counterattacks. You aren't going to win. We'll be there to stop you at every turn. Even if we don't, and you came to rule the world, you will still lose the war.

Remember this. See it, taste it, feel it, and know it. It is true.

Spencer

10 comments:

Ipwergis-Pudding said...

"God's in His Heaven, all's right with the world."

-Robert Browning

Even when "all's right" means we're constantly fighting for what we believe in.

p.s. book update for Spencer: I'm basically done with the writing, and now I'm revising, and formatting, and illustrating. Exciting, huh?

Rebecca said...

As you might imagine, I'm disappointed with the ruling - but I'm afraid it's you who lose in the long run. The numbers are against you, and it's most likely that the 2010 initiative will repeal the amendment and that you'll never have the votes to put it back. And at least the 18,000 marriages made before H8 passed are protected.

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

No, you don't understand.

We've voted in such manner twice as a state. It is the will of the people that true marriage reign supreme.

However, the power of the Evil One grows every single day, and I would not be surprised to see such a day of sorrow in the future.

But that wasn't my point. Proposition 8 is merely a side note to the larger issue of homosexuality. Homosexuality is but a side note to the larger issue of the war itself. Total war. By war I mean the war in the spiritual realm, the war that we, as humans and servants of a higher power (whichever side we choose), are fighting this very moment, and have been fighting since the Fall.

On the one hand, we have my general, God, and all his servants under him. Then we have Satan, and all his many minions. Satan is absolutely determined to overthrow and destroy King Jesus, but he won't be able to.

No, it is not we who will lose this war. No, we will win. That I promise you.

Spencer

Rebecca said...

We've voted in such manner twice as a state. It is the will of the people that true marriage reign supreme.When it was the will of the people to keep four million other people in slavery, was that also okay?

There's a reason we have a republic with a judicial branch, and not a direct democracy of mob rule.

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

But the courts were never supposed to have that power.

And, like I said, this is part of a bigger issue. It's either black or white, there is no grey. The LORD commands us not to engage in homosexuality.

Period. End of story.

Spencer

Rebecca said...

Whether or not the courts were supposed to have that power is debatable - in any case, they've had it since the very early days of America's existence. What is certain is that the founding documents of this country make clear that the government is not to establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of religion, which would seem to proscribe laws that prevent some churches from marrying couples because of what another church believes.

It's part of a bigger issue for me, too - civil rights. You haven't answered my question - when the will of the people was to keep four million other people as slaves, was that okay?

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

First, we've already discussed this and other issues many times. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the same issues and apparently attempting to create a stir. I don't have much time to deal with these debates, and I also am wondering why your method seems to be to mention a random issue then demand a deep philosophical answer.

The issue you bring up is, like I said, one I've already answered to you. In case your memory is lacking, I will state my position again for you. No, I do not accept slavery as moral. However, if the people voted on it here in America today, yes it would be law. That's one of the things about our society--by the people. It may be wrong, but that does not make it not law. Prop 8 is, however, in keeping with our Constitution and our national foundation (while a pro-slavery law would not be in keeping with the Constitution, in my opinion). Then again I'm no legal scholar, which is why I prefer to point to the real issue, one that you yourself seem unwilling to discuss, is what I outlined in my last comment.

It comes down to right and wrong, good and evil, God vs. Satan. In the end, it isn't simply a Proposition for the state of California.

Spencer

Rebecca said...

First, we've already discussed this and other issues many times. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the same issues and apparently attempting to create a stir.For the same reason you do. It's an issue that is important to me.

I don't have much time to deal with these debates, and I also am wondering why your method seems to be to mention a random issue then demand a deep philosophical answer.Random how? I'm responding to your post with a directly relevant comment. Nor is philosophizing necessary.

No, I do not accept slavery as moral.So the Bible's not infallible, then?

However, if the people voted on it here in America today, yes it would be law. That's one of the things about our society--by the people. It may be wrong, but that does not make it not law. Prop 8 is, however, in keeping with our Constitution and our national foundation (while a pro-slavery law would not be in keeping with the Constitution, in my opinion).Firstly - it would absolutely not be law. No opinion necessary. The Constitution, in its current form, explicitly bans slavery. However, it didn't for about eight years after the founding of the country, and the will of the people in a large number of states was that black people should be slaves.

Secondly - yes, popular sovereignty is an integral part of our society and government. However, an equally integral part is the protection of certain rights. You post often about parental rights and homeschoolers' rights - do you think the people should be allowed to take away, for example, your right to raise and educate your children as you want, by a very slim majority?

Thirdly - though the argument for same-sex marriage can be founded on many parts of the Constitution, the one that comes up most often is the equal protection that the government promises to all citizens of the United States. Allowing some couples to marry but not others is a violation of that promise.

What do you mean by "national foundation"? Because I'm pretty sure the nation was founded on religious freedom and individual rights.

Then again I'm no legal scholar, which is why I prefer to point to the real issue, one that you yourself seem unwilling to discuss, is what I outlined in my last comment.I pointed out that while your religion forbids homosexuality, others do not, and asked why your religion should be established in law and prohibit the free exercise of those other religions, in direct defiance of the First Amendment. You neglected to answer me.

It comes down to right and wrong, good and evil, God vs. Satan.And I believe that love is good and right, hate is evil and wrong, and God is love.

Rebecca said...

* "eight" should read "eighty"

Dr. Paleo Ph.D. said...

So the Bible's not infallible, then?

No. The Bible is 110% infallible, perfect, flawless.

I think you are thinking of something different than what I am thinking of. There is one big difference between what was known as slavery in America and willingly becoming a servant for seven years, and then being released in the year of jubilee.

And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:16

The Constitution, in its current form, explicitly bans slavery. However, it didn't for about eight years after the founding of the country, and the will of the people in a large number of states was that black people should be slaves.

But it wasn't put to a popular vote in a certain state, was it? That's what we're discussing here. (Note that I also did say that the "law" would be unconstitutional, thus hopefully dealt with accordingly. But, as we see today, countless laws, etc. exist that are unconstitutional. Too bad those aren't smashed, nut when they work for the good of the left they aren't worried about....)

Allowing some couples to marry but not others is a violation of that promise.

How? They have the same exact rights I do. A sodomite male can marry a woman, I can marry woman. A lesbian can marry a man, a heterosexual woman can marry a man. I don't find special sodomite rights very constitutional.

What do you mean by "national foundation"? Because I'm pretty sure the nation was founded on religious freedom and individual rights.

Our "national foundation" was predominantly Christian (any reading of history cannot indicate otherwise, plain and simple). The "no establishment of religion" clause was mostly intended to keep legislators from creating a denominational test for office (Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.). No one ever said that all religions were to be sanctioned. (And yes, homosexuality is a religious view.) After all, should we sanction the religious views of Jihadist Muslims? If so, then murder would be government-sanctioned. All in the name of individual and religious freedom, right?

And I believe that love is good and right, hate is evil and wrong, and God is love.

Why do you believe God is love? Is it because the Bible tells you so? (1 John 4:8, 16) If you believe that God is love because the Bible tells you so, why do you not believe that homosexuality is wrong when that very same book, the Word of God, condemns it?

I humbly submit that you must recognize that no amount of wrangling will change either of our minds. We both submit to a different religious philosophy. When you get down to it, law is the will of the sovereign. The will of the true sovereign, Christ, as revealed in His holy word, does not allow for homosexuality.

But, as I've said before, homosexuality and slavery are both issues that have been discussed far enough.

DISCUSSION CLOSED