Christians, if you voted against gay marriage...?

I believe that law and government must protect people and their inherent rights. Of the most basic is the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. One of the roles of the Supreme Courts of our nation is to protect minorities against the will of the majority. And fortunately, many of our court systems have started to recognize gays as a true and recognizable minority and deserve equality under the law.

Therefore I believe that the government DOES have the right to STOP people from bringing harm to others, even when this harm is brought about by "religious belief."

Too many times during the years I was a nurse's aid in a Pediatric Dept in a hospital, I have witnessed children who have been seriously harmed and even killed because of "religious beliefs." But much MORE than physical harm is being visited upon unfortunate children -- especiially gay children -- because of the harmful and erroneous concepts taught by many religions.

The problem however occurs when people or society as a whole, can not understand correctly just what "HARM" to others entails. For example many people can not see that gay marriage is a matter of civil rights. Many do not understand that for a gay person to have even a chance at a joyful successful intimate personal relationship, that person MUST have that relationship with a person of the same sex. Heck, many people refuse to "believe" that sexual orientation even exist and that people "choose" to be gay.

In 1967, the US Supreme Court stated the following in its decision in the case of Loving vs. Virginia: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court extended this right to marry the person of one’s choice to gay men and women.

The effort to enact laws or constitutional amendments, defining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman, may at first thought seem both reasonable and common sense; however, what is also does, is ignore the fact that 5 to 10 percent of our population are exclusively homosexual or lesbian, and to participate in this ‘marriage‘ they must necessarily marry a person of the same sex..

At one time, to enjoy the full rights of citizenship, one had to be a white male. Fortunately, since then, new amendments and new laws have been enacted to allow more people to engage in their rightful place as ‘full’ citizens under the law. But now it would appear that the new definition of a ‘full citizen’ now includes only heterosexuals, we see for the first time by law, an attempt to deny a significant portion of our population the full benefits of citizenship. When enacted, these amendments restrict by law one’s right to marry the one they would fall in love with.

The very concept of civil rights has only progressed substantially in the past few centuries. Not until the 1700s did ANY of the institutional Christian religions start understanding that slavery is NOT God's will and in fact immoral. (Of course it took the Catholic Church until 1890 to finally come out totally against this institution) Women's rights are still being debated. For most of Chroistian history "women were to be subject to the authority of men. And only recently are people becoming aware of the true nature of sexual orientation and homosexuality and bisexuality. And subsequently are people finally coming to the understanding that gay people too deserve EQUAL RIGHTS under the law.

===============================

JOHN K: You stated: "Homosexuals never had this legal right so how was it taken away from them?"

Would you then also opine that before universal emancipation of slaves, those slaves had NO RIGHT to their freedom?

And on the face of it you are STILL WRONG. Gays DID have this right in California and Maine, until others TOOK that right away from them.

I have learned in life that if you don't say something or speak out even a bit, and keep your mouth shut, that pretty much means you are for something. People assume you agree. I love gay people and have gay friends. But.... you are right they will keep sinning whether we make the marriage legal or not. But there comes a time when you just have to say, I don't agree. The thing about the marriage is they get benefits. They get to claim each other as a husband and wife would. Otherwise, they are merely two people living together. They want to be recognized by society as a legal couple, so it's not really about the sex per se.

I've learned to stay away from these questions because answering them is a no win for me. I did not vote against gay marriage, although I will if it is put on a ballot in my state.

Why would I do such a thing? The power of your argument (and it is powerful) is that it appeals to my moral convictions. As you rightly point out, arbitrarily denying someone a practice that I engage in is immoral. I cannot quarrel with that. But what of my other moral commitments? I believe, rightly or wrongly, that same gender sexual expression is profoundly immoral. Am I to jettison that belief, sacrificing it at the altar of social pressure? Am I to endorse a practice I consider deeply offensive to my God? And that's what voting yes would be.

You have no reason at all to trust me, but I mean this in all sincerity. If it were possible to vote yes without betraying my deepest convictions I would do so in a heartbeat. If I were unsure of my position, I would vote yes. But I am not and I cannot.

Why do they get to choose which right they lose? They didn't offer us a choice. I say we take away their right to marry. Let them "live in sin," and do without the more than 1000 benefits and rights that legal marriage automatically bestows.

Marriage is a basic civil right, according to the Supreme Court (Virginia v. Loving). So let's see the homophobes do without it for a while.

(and yes, I know that's mean spirited. I suggest it only because I know it won't happen... but I hope it might open up a mind or two.)

Edit for John K and a few others: You clearly don't know your history, either ancient or recent. Same-sex marriage existed throughout the world until the arrival of European colonizers. And in the US, gay people had the legal right to marry in California and Maine... and the people took that right away. So get the facts before you make statements like that.

I don't usually get involved with debates on this topic because homosexuality isn't the issue; Christ is the issue. But I'll chime in this once even though I'll inevitably be attacked for my two cents.

Discrimination is wrong when it violates someone's basic civil or human rights due to something about their beliefs, race, gender, orientation, etc. I would NEVER deny a homosexual person the same rights as any other citizen. So of course they are as free to marry as any heterosexual. Only thing is, the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. There is no such thing as same-sex marriage. Plain and simple. So if someone would like to spend their life with someone of the same sex, so be it. I'll not judge, I'll not deny them the right. But if they want to marry, the only way it can happen and actually be a marriage is with a member of the opposite sex. Otherwise, it is not marriage.

I think this would work better if you made it multiple choice. You know, provide a list of our civil rights and let the creepy Jesus freaks choose.

OUR CIVIL RIGHTS:

1.freedom of speech

2.right to counsel

3.freedom to assemble

4.right to bear arms

5.right to get married to whomever we want as long as they're over 17 and human and etc...wait a minute! I don't remember seeing that one? Are you absolutely certain "getting married" is one of our civil rights? You're sure you were reading the US constitution? Are you sure you know what constitutes a civil right? Can you please provide the specific clause and its location in the constitution?

No. Of course you can't.

Don't take this to mean I'm against gay marriage, but I get tired of people declaring their own set of personal civil rights. Civil rights are a real thing and they're very important. But

getting married is NOT one of them! Neither are abortion or "free"healthcare. And every time one of you clueless ay-holes invents a

In the teachings of Jesus, we learn that all of our rights are taken away. I can only live by what He provides me to live with, and how He has told me to live. He takes care of my rights as long as I leave them alone. (not always an easy task)

As far as the marriage issue goes, I am not a voter since I am a convicted felon, but I don't think America always votes for what they actually want. They seem to vote against things they don't want, and then end up with something else that they don't really want either. That may not be the case here, but we do seem to be divided enough to keep the issue alive.

Oddly enough, you've hit on one of the reasons I vote for/against no law that would interfere in such an arena.

I am most definitely a Christian, but we are * not * a theocracy. Were I to do my part to define this particular position, what would be next? Pretty soon they could hit something that affects * me *.

That's the reason I keep my nose out of the affairs of others ... at least * these * types of affairs.

We have to be careful about what we determine should be defined by society. Some things are easy. Others are very tricky and invite us down a slipper slope.

Nice question! :) As a gay atheist, I don't really have an answer to give, because it's my right to happiness that's being impeded here. I'll be interested to see some of the answers (and possibly appalled to see some of the others).

[edit]

I note that none of the responses yet have really answered your question.

@Christy: "I guess I fail as a Christian since I am not against anything that has to do with humans loving and caring for one another."

Personally, as an atheist but someone who has read the Bible and believes that much of Christ's message is sound, I think you're far more Christian than those who vote against love.

Luke 6:27-30: "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you".

Ummm, if someone thought they were saving me from God's wrath and judgment by denying me something I wanted, that would be a favor I might want returned. Part of loving someone is indeed rebuking them for what they are doing wrong.

Any who, before you get upset about people generalizing you who know nothing about you, please don't approach us in the same manner. Christians vote this way because they because they feel it is their job to protect the sanctity of marriage. I believe we should stand up for what is right, but Christians, take a look around. Our own marriages are failing at the same rate as those of the secular population. More than a 50% failure rate. Yikes. I honestly feel that the best way to protect tthe sanctity of marriage is by making our own marriages work, instead of going after groups that we don't agree with. I mean, do we honestly look like we have any authority in this arena right now? No, we look like hypocrites. Yay us.

However, we are allowed the freedom to vote as we choose and to stand up for what we believe is right, for now. As Christians, we believe a day is coming when we have no rights and are put to death in the streets, legally, for what we believe. So the more rights taken from us, the closer we are getting to the end of all this. It doesn't matter what you take from us, we will still believe. What can you do to me? You can only hurt my body, but you can't take my spirit. I will still be a Christian no matter what you take, and you will still be gay no matter what is taken from you.