Feed
house of delegates resolutions
111
Adopted

Marriage Equality

ADOPTED

RESOLVED, That the _ urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry.

Comments (9)

  • Anton Lavrisha
    2:13 PM August 9, 2010

    Marriage must be limited to one man and one woman for the good of the family, and, consequently, for the good of our religious, social, economic, political, and civic functions.

    Same sex marriage is an oxymoron. Just as oil and water do not mix, marriage and sodomy do not mix. Marriage is based on the same Judeo-Christian principles and values as is our Declaration of Independence. Our Constitution and its Bill of Rights were created by the people to protect their exercise of these Judeo-Christian principles and values from the government.

    The Congress of the Confederation spoke plainly and clearly about the necessity of morality for “good government and the happiness of mankind” in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787: ‘”Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind,….”‘

    Today, the people have spoken very clearly in state after state across the country that marriage must be limited to one man and one woman. They have voted for the moral good based on their conscience which is formed by morality. Those who argue that ignorance and homophobia motivate the masses do not understand truth. See Wisdom 3:9, “Those who trust [in the Lord] shall understand truth….”
    Again, oil and water do not mix.

    The basis of same sex marriage is the immoral act of sodomy which emanates from lust, one of the seven deadly sins. Legalizing immorality through same sex marriage is the devilish design to create confusion about morality among the people. One consequence thereof is civil disorder which then will require more laws, rules and regulations which will then require more police, firefighters, medical personnel, and other public employees. Bigger government, more taxes. Moreover, government will have lost its moral authority to govern.

    Marriage by divine design is the unity of the flesh which is impossible to attain through acts of sodomy. Marriage is about self-less acts or good. Sodomy is about selfish acts or evil. Evil is intolerant of good, and the two cannot coexist.

    Efforts to legalize immorality (same sex marriage) through the courts is an abuse of power in as much as the consent of the governed is required to govern. Imposing evil upon the people is tyranny.

    I urge you to stand against immorality by standing against same sex marriage.

  • Michael Smith
    6:53 PM August 9, 2010

    Anton,
    You started off great: “for the good of the family ... religious, social, economic, political and civic functions.” But instead of offering substantive proof to flesh out those claims, your argument centered on your religious views as to why gay marriage is equal to “immorality.”
    I think it’ll help your efforts to read the opinion that ‘reversed’ Proposition 8. At the very least, it’ll offer some insight on how to develop your argument a bit differently.

    http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2010/08/04/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL.pdf?tsp=1

    Questions to ponder:
    1. Shouldn’t you be advocating a law that prohibits sodomy? Traditional married couples engage in sodomy all the time, so are they too creating confusion about morality?
    2. How do you feel about marriage between two women? No sodomy there.
    3. Gay men do not need to marry to engage in sodomy. So why do you think sodomy is “the basis of same sex marriage?” Have you spoken to a gay person who wants to marry? You’ll find that they want to marry for the same reasons YOU want to marry…no more, no less.

    I support your dislike of bigger government, more taxes, etc. But, your slippery slope argument that gay marriage will lead to civil disorder is not supported by the facts. Studies have failed to show any difference in jurisdictions that allow same sex marriage compared to those that don’t. Both have basically the same rates of marriage, the same rates of divorce, etc. No civil disorder.
    Don’t you think that those studies on what has happened, is more persuasive than your concerns on what will happen?

    Our government, though founded by religious men with religious principles, is founded on separating religious practices from governance. So though you are free to practice your religion and join a church that will not perform same-sex marriages. That religious belief is not enough for the government to treat a class of people differently.

    How do you feel about mixed race marriages? That was illegal at one point as well. So was the requirement that women turn over their property to their husbands – women could not enter into a contract, unless her husband did it for her. When those laws were repealed, it was done in the face of enormous opposition from the citizens. Do you also condemn those civil rights moments as a government “imposing evil upon the people?”

    Pg 24 of the above cited opinion:
    “An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must
    find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8
    finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their
    representatives.”

    I urge you to stand for valuing facts, studies, and proof over the age-old practice of hating someone you see as different.

    One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964

  • *Pingback*
    3:44 PM August 10, 2010
    This Post Referenced in: ABA urges tribes and states to allow same-sex marriage « Turtle Talk

    ... ABA urges tribes and states to allow same-sex marriage Jump to Comments Here’s a link to the ABA’s resolution. ...

  • Anonymous
    8:55 AM August 11, 2010

    Michael,

    I am not sure why you presume that Anton hates someone he sees as different. Do you hate everyone who does something that you don’t agree with? Why do you presume that he does? Maybe you should work on having an open mind to different points of view. You should also work on not trying to construct straw-man racist arguments in order to support your own. Just saying….

  • Adam McMillen
    11:36 AM August 11, 2010

    I will never join the ABA because I support marriage only between a man and a woman. I will not join an organization that runs counter to my core beliefs. Don’t get me wrong, I think we should love all men and women, no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. However, I believe it is my duty to support the traditional family, not the denigration of the family.

  • Anonymous
    1:34 PM August 11, 2010

    Adam, this should be no surprise.The ABA has always been(at least in recent times)a extremely liberal organization. It seems to me marriage is a”gut issue”, you either believe it is beyween a man and woman or not.That being said there should not be any legal discrimination against gays or lesbians; that is what civil unions are all about.We are arguing about what to call it.

  • Anonymous
    2:04 PM August 11, 2010

    Congrats to the ABA for standing against bigotry, discrimination and hatred!!!!
    @Michael…very insightful. Every bible thumper should read your remarks.

  • Unto Thyselves
    3:59 PM August 11, 2010

    Does the ABA agree with Judge Walker that we need same-sex marriage in order to protect people from the “harm” that may come from reflecting on the morality of homosexuality?

    If so, then the ABA endorses corrupt moral reasoning and perverts justice.

  • Ron
    4:56 PM August 11, 2010

    Thank you, ABA for standing up for equality for all citizens. I predict that within a decade same sex marriage will be legal in all fifty states and that soon those who oppose marriage equality will look as silly as those who opposed interracial marriage.

    If you oppose gay marriage you have only one option. Don’t marry a gay person. Otherwise just get used to the fact that America belongs to gay and lesbian people as much as it belongs to conservative Christians and Republicans.