Response to ThatsElbert: California Courts Impose Their Immorality

18th of May 2008

RESPONSE TO THAT’S ELBERT:
CALIFORNIA COURTS IMPOSE THEIR IMMORALITY

Mr. Elbert, I find the premise of this post lacking support, but most importantly it is devoid of honor. You see Mr. Elbert morality has become so ambiguous and arbitrary to all who exist in society that what you see as immoral, I believe to be living my life.

The first misguided premise in your post and with most fundamentalist Christians is that you can’t believe that sexuality is not a choice. Just as you did not wake up one day in your formative teen years and decide you were going to be straight, neither did I choose to be gay. On the contrary, if there was any way I could be straight I would, but it is not a choice. The only decision a homosexual has to make is do they have the courage to come to terms with their sexuality or do you hide from who they really are.

If Christians like yourself actually agreed that sexuality of a human being is not chosen, but a part of who you are by birth just as your skin color, hair color, eye color; then you would be forced to accept that gay people are created by God, perfect in his image just as they are. Setting this aside for a moment, the main point of your message is how the California Judiciary placed a judgment against that which you believe yourself.

I see the justices doing their jobs as it is written for them to carry out. The state Supreme Court is set aside and above the Legislative process as a segregated function to protect its objectivity. The job of the judges is to hear those cases that cannot be determined by the lower court systems and also enforce the State Constitution. That demands from the Justices to determine when laws are passed that are unconstitutional. When either the citizens of California or the Legislature pass laws that subjugate any group of the population, it is incumbent on the states high court to make a ruling on the constitutionality of those laws. The California State Supreme Court rendered such a verdict that restores justice to a state that passed laws restricting the rights of a group of her citizens and thereby did what Lady Liberty ensured they should do.

You may not like what the court system did, but I suspect that you should see the righteousness in their actions. If you can not, I venture to say you are unworthy to call yourself a true Christian of Jesus Christ. Our savor never once isolated anyone, denounced them or denied them. He was accepting and loved all who came to him and true Christianity should be living by his example and let me be the first to tell you none of the people you quoted live a truly Christian life.

As for your quotes:
The latest polls from California show that more than sixty percent of all California citizens do not agree with this amendment. It is common when an injustice is forced on any populace that eventually the rest of the people in society learn from their mistakes. The climate is changing for the good of humanity and that will always go against those who perpetuate oppression. Always be on the side of right…even when that side is being oppressed. Eventually right will always win the day and history has shown us that many times over.

James Dobson – I am sorry to say this miss-led fundamentalist is a relative of mine and I cannot apologize to the world enough for the sadness he has caused and the hate within his heart. I have already argued against Mr. Dobson’s statements and nothing more needs to be said.

Family Research Council – Tony Perkins: It is ashamed that hate prevails in the hearts of so many who call themselves Christians. The church Jesus founded was entirely based on the principle of Love, Honor and Respect. Until we can find a way to give those to the people we do not agree with, we will never really give tribute to his church.

You can argue the Bible to me and I can respond verse by verse; so save yourself the time and effort. You can refuse to post my comment, but I am posting it on all four of my blog sites: www.tmdobson.wordpress.com. You may disagree with me and I am sure that you do, but that doesn’t make, what I say wrong. I will leave you with the words of Jesus Christ himself as he said those who call themselves believers will be the last enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Hate is not a Christian value and absolutely not one Jesus Christ taught. Please think about your response and I hope that I have given you something to consider as apposed anger you. We may all teach love to those willing to open their hearts to the lessons of life.

Your humble servant – Todd M. Dobson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL POST:
California Courts Impose Their Immorality
There is probably nothing to be added to the news about California’s Supreme Court overturning the will of the California people. What liberals can’t win in the ballot box they impose via the courts.
Californians passed Proposition 22 in March 2000, defining marriage as one man and one woman. This measure won with 61.4% of the vote. In real numbers, the spread between the yeas and nays was 1.7 million votes. That’s around two times the population of Delaware! The California Supreme Court said no to their decision.
Here are some widely varied stuff from around the internet.
James Dobson said in response to the decision:
“The will of the people has now arrogantly been declared null and void,” he said. “In so doing, the justices have undermined and endangered the basic building block of society, which has been honored and preserved in every nation on earth through most of human history.”
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins:
“The California Supreme Court assumed the powers of a legislative body by imposing same-sex ‘marriage.’
“This decision put marriage at risk all across the nation and again highlights the need for a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so that this divisive campaign for the oxymoron of ’same-sex marriage’ will be ended once and for all.”
From the decision:
…in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.
and a reply from Outraged Richard:
Except for the fact that there are innumerable studies and psychological, philosophical, and religious writings to show that children not raised in a loving home of a married man and woman is detrimental to them.
More from the Outraged one:
The error of equating race and gender discrimination with sexual orientation discrimination is an exceptionally glaring one. Race and gender are genetically and biologically based standards that establish a human being, while sexual orientation, or more precisely, non-heterosexual sexual activity, is an extremely vague characteristic that has no immutable genetic or biological foundation.
An American Indian or a female can never stop being of that race or gender, and because those are integral unchanging human qualities there should be no discrimination against them because of it. In contrast, sexual activity, especially non-heterosexual activity, is an action that is performed, like hanging tinsel, and is subject to the same scrutiny that other acts are under—some of which have been declared unlawful.
Some pages of note: Hot Air | Prop 22 on Wikipedia | Citizen Link | Protect Marriage (CA)