Comments on: Arizona Prop 102 http://shutdownnow.com/2008/11/21/arizona-prop-102 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:49:13 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Dough http://shutdownnow.com/2008/11/21/arizona-prop-102/comment-page-1#comment-93 Dough Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:17:15 +0000 http://shutdownnow.com/?p=48#comment-93 My sister sent me a text the same day I wrote this, because she thought that I was trying to condone same-sex relationships, I don't have her text anymore, but here's my reply: <div style="margin-left: 20px">Let me see if I can clarify myself: The government should never have been involved in marriage, it is entirely a religious institution. If people wanted to get married, it should only have been done at their church. Also, it is a misconception that the US government was founded on Christianity: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson (very first quote). The Bill of Rights from the US Constitution simply guarantees freedom of religion, and the right to believe what you want so long as you don't infringe the rights of others. And since I believe marriage is a religious institution, if another religion wants to desecrate my beliefs, no matter how much I dislike it, since it is not directly infringing on my right to attend my religion that upholds the sanctity of marriage, I should not be allowed to directly infringe on their rights, either. If people want to publish anti-Christian or anti-Mormon material, that is their right to free speech; I don't have to read it, and they don't have the right to force me to read it, but they must retain their right to publish or speak it. It is sad that this is even an issue, but since governments have decided to allow people to enter into contractual unions, it means they either need to take away the benefits from all or give them to any two parties that wish to enter the contract. I really could care less if they want to call it something else, but the point is that a secular contract should be called the same thing for everyone.</div> My sister sent me a text the same day I wrote this, because she thought that I was trying to condone same-sex relationships, I don’t have her text anymore, but here’s my reply:

Let me see if I can clarify myself:

The government should never have been involved in marriage, it is entirely a religious institution. If people wanted to get married, it should only have been done at their church.

Also, it is a misconception that the US government was founded on Christianity: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson (very first quote). The Bill of Rights from the US Constitution simply guarantees freedom of religion, and the right to believe what you want so long as you don’t infringe the rights of others.

And since I believe marriage is a religious institution, if another religion wants to desecrate my beliefs, no matter how much I dislike it, since it is not directly infringing on my right to attend my religion that upholds the sanctity of marriage, I should not be allowed to directly infringe on their rights, either. If people want to publish anti-Christian or anti-Mormon material, that is their right to free speech; I don’t have to read it, and they don’t have the right to force me to read it, but they must retain their right to publish or speak it.

It is sad that this is even an issue, but since governments have decided to allow people to enter into contractual unions, it means they either need to take away the benefits from all or give them to any two parties that wish to enter the contract. I really could care less if they want to call it something else, but the point is that a secular contract should be called the same thing for everyone.

]]> By: Jared http://shutdownnow.com/2008/11/21/arizona-prop-102/comment-page-1#comment-92 Jared Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:03:18 +0000 http://shutdownnow.com/?p=48#comment-92 I must say, I like your point of view. This is an issue that touches the very fabric of many people's identities. When discussing the issue, I become very empassioned about it. I'm currently reading a book called <I>A Different Mirror</I>. It is a history of America told by this affected by white's belief in manifest destiny. The level of attrocity, bigotry and hatred that existed in many white settlers is simply sickening to me and though the conditions are not physically as bad, psychologically they are nearly identilcal. It's not to say that this book has changed my perspective on the issue (I've felt this way about same-sex marriage for years), rather it has reminded me of the damage done to members of our society who, under the law, are created equally and are said to have the same rights. I know that here in Utah, I will continue to be surrounded by people who simply choose not to question what is handed down to them week after week in church and that I will remain a minority in my opinion. I'm okay with that. However, the Civil Rights Movement was proof that minority rights cannot be decided by the majority and I think that concept very much applies to the topic at hand. I must say, I like your point of view. This is an issue that touches the very fabric of many people’s identities. When discussing the issue, I become very empassioned about it. I’m currently reading a book called A Different Mirror. It is a history of America told by this affected by white’s belief in manifest destiny. The level of attrocity, bigotry and hatred that existed in many white settlers is simply sickening to me and though the conditions are not physically as bad, psychologically they are nearly identilcal. It’s not to say that this book has changed my perspective on the issue (I’ve felt this way about same-sex marriage for years), rather it has reminded me of the damage done to members of our society who, under the law, are created equally and are said to have the same rights. I know that here in Utah, I will continue to be surrounded by people who simply choose not to question what is handed down to them week after week in church and that I will remain a minority in my opinion. I’m okay with that. However, the Civil Rights Movement was proof that minority rights cannot be decided by the majority and I think that concept very much applies to the topic at hand.

]]>