California votes to ban homosexual marriage
Tuesday night was not a good night for Republicans, with Barack Obama winning 52% of the popular vote and winning the Electoral College in a landslide. This was not a surprise to me, after the Republicans nominated a moderate who has frequently clashed with the Republican base. And while some might want to argue that Sarah Palin hurt John McCain with moderate voters, the elections results in California serve as evidence to the contrary.
Obama obliterated McCain in California, 6,219,123 to 3,777,314. But Californians voted to ban homosexual marriage, 5,376,424 to 4,870,010, according to CNN’s election website. That means a significant number of Obama supporters also voted to prevent government from recognizing homosexual marriage. Keep in mind that Barack Obama was opposed to the California ballot initiative. A ban on homosexual marriage also passed in Florida, 4,717,753 to 2,883,847. While a moderate Republican lost convincingly nationwide, socially conservative ballot initiatives did well.
The results in California are encouraging to those of us who have been working against efforts to radically redefine marriage to something other than the union of one man and one woman. Even in a very liberal state known for sending Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer to represent them in Washington, voters were not willing to see government recognize homosexual marriage. It is also significant that the vote invalidated any “marriages” that took place after the California Supreme Court ruled that a previous state law approved by the voters was unconstitutional. With the ban on homosexual marriage now part of California’s constitution, that is no longer an option.
(Read more after the leap)
Many people are attributing the vote to “hate”. As a Christian, I do not hate homosexuals, and I doubt that the 5 million people who voted to ban homosexual marriage in California “hate” homosexuals. However, I submit to the authority of Scripture when it states that homosexuality is an abomination to God. While many only want to share where God says “yes”, it is not loving to only share part of the Truth. God’s “no” is as important as His “yes”, and it is an act of faith and love to proclaim Christian doctrine as presented in Scripture.
It is not an act of love to have government place a stamp of approval on a destructive sin and rebellion against what God has ordained for His creation. It is an act of hatred to endorse that sin. And this vote does not take any rights away. Right now, homosexuals in California can get married, should they find a church where the elders and pastors are in rebellion against God’s word and are willing to perform a “marriage” ceremony. What they do not have is governmental recognition of their relationship through a state-certified marriage contract.
Following is an email I sent to Peggy Welch.
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Homosexual marriage ban in California mandates action by Hoosier legislators
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:50:26 -0500
From: Scott Tibbs <tibbs1973@yahoo.com>
To: H60@IN.gov
Representative Welch,
I am sure you saw that the amendment to California’s constitution to ban homosexual marriage was approved by California voters, despite the fact that President-elect Barack Obama completely obliterated moderate Republican John McCain in the state.
I want to thank you for your efforts to pass an amendment to Indiana’s constitution to prohibit government from recognizing homosexual marriage. You have consistently supported efforts to bring a constitutional amendment to Hoosier voters, standing up to your own party and enduring some pretty harsh criticism from your own party in the process. I applaud your commitment to traditional marriage and your willingness to reach across party lines to protect marriage.
However, House Speaker Pat Bauer has broken his promise to allow a vote by the full House on the amendment. The fact that a liberal state that voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic nominee for President voted to preserve traditional marriage should serve as a mandate to the Indiana House of Representatives. Unfortunately, Bauer’s broken promise has caused the “clock” to be reset, and the earliest Hoosiers can see a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage is 2012.
Speaker Bauer should immediately allow a vote of the full House when the legislative session opens in January. I encourage you to join me and other advocates of traditional marriage to demand that Bauer keep his promise and allow this vote. Hoosier voters will pass a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage if it is put before us, and we want that opportunity so that the Indiana Supreme Court cannot invalidate state law the way the California Supreme Court did earlier this year.
Thank you again for all of your efforts to protect marriage.
Scott Tibbs
This post is also available at ConservaTibbs.
November 7th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
We will never stop fighting to have every right you have. This was one battle in a long war. The advocates of intolerance are already losing amongst the new generation and time is on our side. As Dr. King said, “The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.” I know our time will come. In my lifetime I will be able to marry my beloved partner and share in every right that belongs to you. I am your equal.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Mr. Tibbs, I have a problem with your stand point even while I’m trying to become a Christian. To my knowledge homosexuality is not something someone actively chooses and either way I think the gift of free will is often left out of the kind of argument you are making.
If God says something is right or wrong He still gives us the choice between them. I think His compassion to make belief elective is the ultimate point which Christians often miss. You contradict yourself when you say it is your duty to share your belief, only to go on to say you demand alignment with that belief.
God gave us the choice right or wrong, who are you to take away that choice?
November 8th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
This isn’t a good place to be dealing with theology. Suffice it to say that there is some disagreement on whether or not there is a choice involved in having homosexual tendencies or being “born homosexual”. There is certainly a choice involved as to whether one engages in any sexual activity–whether it is homosexual or not.
There are many Christians who believe that the Bible’s teaching on homosexual activity is very clear and easy to understand–namely that the Bible condemns the practice of homosexuality. Other Christians do not believe it is quite so simple.
I hope I have steered that argument without creating controversy. There are many that read this site that disagree on the causes and theology of this issue.
But then we move to politics, which is a completely different discussion. The essential arguments tend to be:
ConservaTibbs falls into the category that sees homosexuality as destructive to those involved in it, to society in general and to the institution of traditional marriage, specifically. (Please correct me if I have misrepresented your position).
Others that comment on this site are openly homosexual and believe that traditional marriage is not threatened by homosexual marriage and, in fact, the absence of homosexual marriage is a failure of equal protection under the law. That is the primary argument of this group, but there is a secondary argument that institutionalizing marriage among homosexuals will give them the motivation to settle into long-term monogamous relationships rather than relationships with many partners.
But there is a third set of people–kind of a libertarian mindset–who are socially conservative and do not agree with homosexuality theologically, but at the same time do not think it is appropriate for the government to be involved here. But regarding marriage, find it difficult to swallow the redefining of marriage. Generally the approach with this group is: allow the States (specifically the Legislatures of the States) to decide the issue and do not force that decision on the other States.
Much of the conservative activity on this issue has been caused because of the court system’s involvement in the issue and the fear that it creates that guys in black robes will be writing our laws for us rather than the people who we elect to do so.
November 8th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
All religion and personal beliefs aside here.
Aside from personal survival, the drive to reproduce is unarguably about the strongest drive that any living thing possesses. It is about the most basic urge any living organism has. For any organism to pervert that drive and want to mate with an organism of the same sex, or different species whether it be biologically, physiologically, or spiritually based, is to display an incredible deep seated flaw in that thing’s make up. It is displaying a warp at it’s core upon which the rest of that being is based. Feet of clay if you will. All it’s other attributes that are built apon it are then suspect. Simple facts.
November 8th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I, and the millions of other gay people in this country, are not abominations, perverts, flawed or warped. You can continue to heap all the abuse and scorn on us you wish, but we are your equals. Freedom is for everyone, not just you. This country does not belong to you alone. My existence and pursuit of happiness does not threaten your freedom or your marriage or your children. I have a different sexual orientation than you. I did not choose it. You think I would choose to grow up being different in small town rural Indiana? I respect your rights and religion, I only ask the same in return.
November 9th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
1. Obviously, Scott Tibbs’ post is offensive. While it is his right to believe anything he likes about his fellow citizens, (in addition to being wrong) it is unkind. To a gay citizen, it is no different than this site giving voice to openly racist or anti-semitic statements. I think many writers on this site know it, and are just not yet ready to embrace the ramifications.
In my view, as long as these kinds of sentiments are identified, right or wrong, with the “conservative core”, Republican conservatism will not again be able to gain adequate traction. Tibbs doesn’t damage gays in this kind of post so much as he damages conservatism, this website, and any other cause with which he chooses to identify.
2. Joel, you do a fine job of summing the situation up and in so doing appear to me to identify with the third group, while I identify with both aspects of the second group you mention. I do suggest that in America the argument for equal protection laws and religious freedom are Constitutional principles which should prevail, and that it has been failure of the legislative at both the State and Federal level to honor the spirit of the Constitution that has forced Judicial check on legislative power. (And of course it is my view that amending the Constitution to void its guarantees is contrary to its spirit.) In my view, leaving it to the states is no more legitimate that leaving to the states the capacity to void any of provisions of the Bill of Rights.
3. Combining #1 and #2, in my view a Conservative movement that fails to press the Bill of Rights as a guarantor of individual liberty for gay citizens will suffer a cognitive dissonance that inhibits its ability to attract the majority of young and educated (whom the views of Tibbs repel), and will deny it the legitimacy (and therefore the ability) to oppose government intrusiveness. In my opinion, this is the reason why the success of an individual like Mike Pence (who I know is admired by some on this site) will be inverse to the success of the Republican Party. Until this intrusive (and in my view highly intolerant) strain of Republicanism takes a back seat, it will be impossible to regain a business wing.
4. These things said, and aside from Mr. Tibbs and one or two other notables, I do see a trend among some writers on this site to give gay citizens our due as citizens. This is appreciated. I hope that you will lean into the position that our rights as your fellow citizens have been abrogated, and however unsavory you may find us, that you understand that silence has been too long and with your advocacy of those rights will come ultimate honor and respect from the majority, and redemption for the Party.
November 9th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Actually, preserving marriage represents a significant opportunity for Republicans to make inroads with minorities. After all, black voters approved measures to preserve marriage as an institution of one man and one woman by 70% in both California and Florida. Latinos also votes for the Florida ban by a large margin. The increased black turnout for Obama in California may have saved Proposition 8 from defeat.
I have no desire to see homosexuals denied basic constitutional rights, such as the right to free speech, the right to keep and bare arms, the right to a fair trial, and so forth. I oppose laws that ban homosexual conduct, even though I vehemently disagree with homosexuality. I support extending the right to sue for “wrongful death” to same-sex couples.
Nonetheless, I recognize that homosexuality is destructive both for homosexuals and society at large. That is why I oppose any and all efforts to have government recognize homosexual “marriage” as equal to traditional marriage. Of course, I also submit to Scriptural authority on the sinfulness of sodomy.
Right now, homosexuals can get married in any church willing to perform the ceremony. However, the government should not place a stamp of approval on a sinful and destructive “lifestyle” by recognizing same-sex “marriages” as it does heterosexual marriages.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:55 am
“the right to keep and bare arms”
I’m glad you support Chris’ and others rights to wear short sleeve shirts!
I Think You Meant “bear arms” …
November 10th, 2008 at 7:28 am
1. Mr. Tibbs, the equal protection of the laws is a Constitutional right, which today same sex couples do not enjoy. Further, the Constitution at both the state and federal level prohibit preferring one religious perspectiver over others… which is what you seem to demand in requiring the Government to recognize your religious ceremonies, but not ours. The government is not approving of anything…. it is recognizing for pragmatic purposes the web of contracts which it has formed around the union of two people.
2. By all polling, even those (perhaps excepting some on this site) who would deny their fellow citizens equal protection accord the matter of a level of importance not ranking within the top 10 of issues. Black and Hispanics will never favor the Republican Party because of the stance of its right wing with regard to same sex marriage. A Constitutional referendum that allows them at once to vote Democratic and at the same time vote for a Republican-forced measure to abrogate the Constitutional guarantees of same sex citizens is a one-time gimmee of common interest the commonality of which evaporates immediately upon the passage of such an amendment.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Chris, you and I have covered this ground before, but it is useful to make sure the arguments are put together. You have not been able (and will not, as I have rejected it WITH consideration–so let’s not rehash it now) to convince me that homosexual marriage is necessitated due to equal protection issues. It doesn’t follow to me.
However, you have made other arguments on rights for homosexuals that do make sense to me. The treatment of property rights is a valid issue. Visitation rights are a valid issue. But I think those issues can be handled without the institution of homosexual marriage.
You are absolutely right that social conservative positions, by themselves, will not win African-Americans and Hispanics to the Republican Party. But it helps rather than hurts to have a starting place of agreement, don’t you think?