patching...
Breaking: City of Murrieta Lays off Employees Due to Deficit »
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Conservative Murrieta Law Firm Helps Reignite Battle Over Prop. 8

Inland Empire gay marriage advocates are hopeful they will make judicial gains in spite of local opposition.

 

The battle to uphold Proposition 8’s restrictions against gay marriage found new support from a Murrieta-based nonprofit law firm.

Advocates for Faith & Freedom plans to file legal briefs with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by March 15 as it defends the Imperial County Clerk’s ability to enforce the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Advocates for Faith & Freedom announced their backing of newly-elected Imperial County Clerk Chuck Storey on Feb. 25.

Storey was sworn into office Jan. 3, and filed papers Feb. 25 to become one of the defendants in a federal lawsuit over the state’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional. The lawsuit has now gone to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Robert Tyler, a Murrieta resident and the lead attorney for Advocates for Faith & Freedom, said he stepped into the contentious foray because state judges are dismissing the will of California voters.

“It goes against the basic principle of democratic values…the idea that each person’s vote counts and that a single judge in San Francisco would single-handedly overturn the vote of the people of California is unbelievable,” Tyler said.

“You have turmoil in the Middle East right now because they want democracy, they want liberty, they want the right to vote. And in America we are squandering that right. Someone needs to stand up for the people and that’s what we are doing.”

About 70 percent of Imperial County voters passed Proposition 8 in November of 2008--an emphatic decision compared to other counties in the state.

Areas such as the Inland Empire have many conservative groups that are taking a lead role in defending Proposition 8, Tyler said.

“There are a lot of organizations, but the media doesn't show that side. The conservative voice in America often comes from a religious perspective and the media does not give attention to those organizations.”

While the Inland Empire may retain a stigma for being home to a strong conservative voter base, there is a thriving community of gay rights advocates who have stepped forward and are helping to change the perceptions and attitudes of the region--a move that could eventually influence attitudes about same-sex marriage, said Rachel Ours, co-executive director of Equality Inland Empire (EQIE).

EQIE is a coalition focused on LGBT civil rights and advocating same-sex marriage.

Ours, a Colorado native, moved to the Inland Empire in 2009 and joined EQIE. The group has made strides to improve conditions in the region for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community through dialogue with the conservative community, she said.

“I thought because the Inland Empire was a more conservative area, that there would be no gay people. But when I moved here, I saw that Prop. 8 had galvanized the community. I saw that people who had been in the closet for decades had started to come out, to find their voices,” Ours said.

“I think the Inland Empire is one of the strongest LGBT communities because people have had so much to fight against and because they see exactly how important it is to reach out to those who aren't yet on our side,” she said.

EQIE is now using conversation as an approach with the faith-based communities, reaching out to various religious denominations to bolster its chances of creating a more inclusive community. Ours believes these steps are ultimately important in shifting the tide toward acceptance of same-sex marriage.

“We know exactly what we are up against. We know what it’s like to live in Riverside and San Bernardino counties and how to organize and to get our friends and family involved,” Ours said.

“I don’t think it’s a losing battle.”

Related Topics: LGBT community, Prop 8, Proposition 8, and Transgender
Which way did you vote on Prop. 8? Why? Tell us in the comments.

Tim Jackson

8:51 am on Saturday, March 12, 2011

The main argument put forth by this Murietta law firm is an advocacy for pure majority rule. In that world, a simple majority can oppress a minority. For example, the majority white residents of a city could vote to expel all non whites. That's allowed under their proposed rule of law, forget the constitution.

I say no thanks to that world. Some of the best parents I know are LGBT, they should be able to marry.

Reply

Bill

9:15 am on Saturday, March 12, 2011

Our former governor had the opportunity, TWICE, to have solved all of this years ago, with NO DRAWN-OUT COURT DECISIONS, NO COST TO TAXPAYERS, NO $70 MILLION spent by pro and con Prop 8 citizens. All he had to do was sign his name tothe measure passed by the legislature -- TWICE, in 2004 and 2005 -- to allow freedom to marry for all. Ironic that Schwarzenneger, who now is pro-marriage freedom and refuses to uphold Prop 8, VETOED both these bills, when he had the chance to change history. I find it surprising more people aren't bringing this up.

Reply

Rob

2:05 pm on Saturday, March 12, 2011

The govt pits the people against each other to keep us distracted while they raid the treasure we provide through taxes. You want a solution......... End the State's involvement in marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a State annointed blessing. IF the State wants some involvement, and the PEOPLE consent, they can provide civil union license to 2 or more people.

Reply

Gerry

5:10 pm on Saturday, March 12, 2011

Gays don't want the right to form socially licensed gender integrated homes (male/female) that is the outcome of traditional marriage. They want a new right to form socially licensed gender segregated homes (male/male or female/female) and have that new & different right treated equally.

We have gone down this road before in regards to race. Racial segregationists wanted their right to segregate to be treated equal to the right to lntegrate. It didn't work with race & it won't work with gender.

Reply

shadow_man

9:24 pm on Saturday, March 12, 2011

We need to get the word out to religious communities that anti-gay people are twisting God's words to condone their hate.

Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/
http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
http://www.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

Reply
Comment_arrow

LBV Collins

11:07 am on Sunday, March 13, 2011

Hi shadow_man. Thanks for sharing the links. Hopefully, those who are interpreting the Bible's teachings as encouraging hatred towards LGBT people will read these articles and give their current views deeper thought.

Comment_arrow

shadow_man

11:05 am on Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Np :) Feel free to use my links and spread them around.

shadow_man

9:24 pm on Saturday, March 12, 2011

For those of you claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle", that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

Reply
Comment_arrow

LBV Collins

11:22 am on Sunday, March 13, 2011

Another set of useful links, shadow_man. I've heard some anti-gay practitioners claim that science has never found a "gay gene" that encourages homosexual behavior. Hmmm… well, to the best of my knowledge, science has never found a "heterosexual" gene that encourages heterosexual behavior, either. Our sexual behavior is driven largely by the hormones surging through our veins, not the DNA embedded in our cells.

Comment_arrow

shadow_man

11:05 am on Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Yeah. Everytime i ask them what makes heterosexual behavior right over homosexual behavior, they can never provide me a good answer.

shadow_man

9:24 pm on Saturday, March 12, 2011

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

Reply

shadow_man

9:25 pm on Saturday, March 12, 2011

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

Reply

Gerard

12:15 am on Sunday, March 13, 2011

The same people that are against same gender loving relationships (including, gay marriage) are the same people that create all the hate and havoc in this world. Don't worry, it will backfire on them one day. They're very inconsiderate and also unconscious of the fact that it will come back to bite them through their children, grandchildren or even great-grandchildren. Just as we can see how stupid racism is, the children of tomorrow will look at today and think "WTF were those bigots thinking?". If this nation were smart they would give gays their right, if not, it will backfire on them in the long run also.

Reply

LBV Collins

10:59 am on Sunday, March 13, 2011

I am so happy to see the comments supporting LGBT marriage. Many are thoughtful, intelligent, and thorough in supporting their position.

In my opinion, this law firm's position that the "will of the people" must be enforced is baffling. Do they not know that our Constitution is designed to prevent mob rule, so that a majority of citizens can't strip away the rights of minorities through popular vote? And speaking of the "will of the people," does this law firm not remember that Proposition 8 narrowly passed with only a 52-to-48% simple majority? Clearly, nearly half of voting Californians are okay with same-sex marriage. Why isn't this law firm concerned about their will? Hmmm... I wonder if it's because prejudice doesn't care about a balanced interpretation of facts, but instead chooses to take snippets of facts out of context to justify its existence?

Reply

S McLennan

4:10 pm on Sunday, March 13, 2011

I am seeing in our society, as soon as someone disagrees with your belief in something you are now labeled a hater, if it suggests they are doing something wrong. It happens all the time in most arenas. Why is it that people can not respectfully state their beliefs and why they believe what they do in a kindly manor, without hostile attackers justifying themselves in their vicious assertions?

Reply
Comment_arrow

shadow_man

11:04 am on Tuesday, March 15, 2011

You are labeled a hater because you have no valid reason to hate homosexuals. Prove that homosexuality is wrong, and you might have a point. I have yet to see anyone give me one reason why homosexuality is wrong, that i couldn't easily refute.

S McLennan

4:13 pm on Sunday, March 13, 2011

We live in America, "One nation under God ". It is only natural for a country that was founded on the belief in God, would find the majority wanting to protect those same beliefs, and their God given right to speak and stand up for those beliefs. It doesn't matter what side of this issue you are on, most do believe that God… no matter what you call him or how you describe him, loves all of his children he has sent to earth. I personally don't believe he would be happy with these attacks on one another. I know both sides are guilty of behaving badly. Grant it I am speaking mainly to those who believe in God. Those who don't believe in him, in my opinion, should know he still knows and loves you. One day you will have the opportunity to see that for yourself, but for now, you have the liberty to choose not to believe in him, and I respect your right. On the issue of the ban on gay marriage, the interest range is from uninterested to very passionate in both directions. Since we live in America, there is a governing program to help us when we disagree. We have the Constitution and the right to peacefully protest and sign petitions as well as voting opportunities. We have. When those steps are carried out we need to be respectful of the process that protects all of us as Citizens of the United States.

Reply
Comment_arrow

shadow_man

11:03 am on Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Lol, it appears you need to open a history book. There's a reason we have the separation of church and state, and our original forefathers came here to avoid religion. Let's examine what some of them had to say regarding religion.

The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.
-- George Washington

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Comment_arrow

shadow_man

11:03 am on Tuesday, March 15, 2011

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
-- Thomas Paine

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
-- Thomas Jefferson

The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.
-- Abraham Lincoln

Comment_arrow

shadow_man

11:04 am on Tuesday, March 15, 2011

" “That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world” ~John Adams

The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.
-- Abraham Lincoln

James Madison [1751-1836] American president and political theorist. Popularly known as the "Father of the Constitution." More than any other framer he is responsible for the content and form of the First Amendment. also see 'First Amendment' section of the 'Law & Government' section

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

"In no instance have ... the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

" “That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world” ~John Adams

Rob

5:34 pm on Sunday, March 13, 2011

The liberals worked to overturn Prop 187 for one reason, to lesson conservative influence in SoCal where the area was once dominated by conservative thought. They used the courts to make ineffective the death penalty, and mandate millions of taxpayers go to their biggest lobby... lawyers. They put Prop 8 on the ballot for ONE REASON, to get to the liberal infested circuit court to AGAIN overturn the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Gay marriage has lost on EVERY SINGLE BALLOT it has been presented.

Until conservative stand up and marach against the illegal aliens and the left nuts, nothing will change. In Cali, the numbers may now be completely against a return to common sense. The direction is clearly liberal, and appears unstoppable. We have just under 13% of the population, but 33% of the welfare. We have the highest state tax and still the biggest deficit. Emergency taxes will be extended and now Brown will try and dismantle long-standing Prop 13 (property tax) this June by pitting the UNIONS against the people. < If this occurs, property values will drop even further.

The U-haul index once said for every 1 that left, 4 entered. Today for every 3 new or relocated businesses entering 100 leave. Further, per capita earnings are dropping as wealth leaves the state and lower income people enter the state... resulting in a strain on social services and HIGHER TAXES! Arnies' carbon tax - 6 billion in taxes to corps.... passed on to WE, THE PEOPLE!

Reply
Comment_arrow

LBV Collins

7:49 am on Monday, March 14, 2011

Hi Rob. You seem quite upset about a variety of things… gay marriage, illegal aliens, the death penalty, high state taxes, California’s job losses, property values… all interesting topics, all important issues. I’ll focus my response to gay marriage. But perhaps some other time, we can discuss the other topics.

I believe your suggesting that “left nut” liberals put Proposition 8 on the California ballot to “...AGAIN overturn the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.” If this is your position, please understand that it’s not true. The ProtectMarriage.com organization sponsored the initiative that placed Proposition 8 on the ballot. Their “About Us” page states, “ProtectMarriage.com is a broad-based coalition of California families, community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations and individuals from all walks of life who have joined together to defend and restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Well over 100,000 Californians have become active in supporting traditional marriage through ProtectMarriage.com. Protectmarriage.com is defending traditional marriage in the courts, through activism and advocacy, and through public education and academic research.” I suspect it’s safe to say that ProtectMarriage.com is a conservative group who had no intention of allowing liberals to overturn the will of the people, but wanted to mandate by constitutional amendment that same-sex marriage was illegal.

Comment_arrow

LBV Collins

7:49 am on Monday, March 14, 2011

You also note that, “Gay marriage has lost on EVERY SINGLE BALLOT it has been presented.” That may be true, but I don’t know. However, your point beautifully exemplifies the need for judges to review newly enacted laws and determine whether those laws are in harmony with our Constitution. Proposition 8 is not. If the will of the people is to pass a law that strips away the inalienable rights of minority groups, then it is not in harmony with our Constitution. From my perspective, our system of laws and courts are doing a pretty good job of making sure our America is a place where all people can live, worship... and even marry... in a free society.

Rob

5:36 pm on Sunday, March 13, 2011

PS: I have been to the town halls, gone to the border with the Patriots and we have been out numbered 1000:1. I have sold my avo grove and will be leacing my house and moving to Texas. I have had enough of paying for others and standing up where others do not.

.... Gay marriage, who cares. It is a distraction to keep us from focusing on raiding the castle.

Reply

Rob

10:47 am on Monday, March 14, 2011

The group was manipulated into filing the Prop after the State began marrying gays. (A reaction to the liberal movement.)

1) my point is the State should NOT be involved in marriage, PERIOD. IT is a religious ceremony. Take the word "marriage" out of the debate and the conflict is diffused. RIGHT NOW, any 2 or more people, cold get MARRIED by whatever faith they espouse. The 2 sides are fighting over what defines a MARRIAGE. The State should NOT be involved in that debate. The State involvement, given the legal rights involvement, should have a renewable civil union license for whoever applies.

2) It is a manufactured issue to keep the people from focusing on the fleecing and consolidation of power in Sac-town, no different than the abortion debate. Personally, I could not care less about gay marriage. It is a state imposed tax scam.

3) I concede props need to pass the test of Constitutionality, but that objective benchmark has been DEAD for decades. Please summarize why Prop 187 was unconstitutional. Liberals apply the laws only when in their favor.

4) Liberals believe in majority rule and free speech only when they hold the seat of power and are speaking. They walked out in WI, used parlor tricks to pass healthcare, use the courts again and again to block the will of the people. Gay Marriage is the topic, but I used others to point out their hypocrisy. Please defend the millions spend on mandatory appeals for Richard Ramirez.

Reply
Comment_arrow

LBV Collins

10:52 am on Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Hi Rob. Thanks for the clarifications.

First of all, I want to say that I LOVE avocados! Sorry to hear you're selling your grove and moving out of state, but I respect your decision.

Regarding your Point 1: I think the debate over who can legally marry involves more than just semantics or religious perspectives. As I understand, same-sex marriage supporters seek equality under the law regarding the rights and privileges afforded those who possess a marriage license, versus those who are in domestic partnerships. One of shadow_man's comments (from above) shares a story of a gay man who was not allowed to attend his partner's funeral, though they had been in a committed relationship for 28 years. If they were allowed to marry, this would not have been an issue.

Regarding Point 2: I'm not convinced that the same-sex marriage and abortion issues were purposely put forth to distract the citizenry from our State's financial/political issues. I believe these two issues are legitimate and important topics because they affect many lives.

Comment_arrow

LBV Collins

10:54 am on Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Regarding Point 3: According to Wikipedia, "In November 1997, [Judge Mariana] Pfaelzer found [California Proposition 187] to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration, similar to the Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe." (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187_%281994%29#Legal_challenges/)

Regarding Point 4: (a) It may be true that Liberals and Conservatives love our laws when they favor their own positions. But the laws put forth by either party must withstand the test of the Constitution. (b) I'm unfamiliar with Wisconsin’s political activities, and have no opinion. (c) Regarding Richard Ramírez (I assume you’re referring to The Night Stalker), I'm not sure what you want me to defend. Here again, I'm unfamiliar with his case.

Rob

1:02 pm on Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Marriage - gay or otherwise, is a tax scam. By providing any 2 or more people the right to gain a civil union license they allow the financial and legal access you reference. MARRIAGE is NOT something the State can license. I was married in Costa Rica, on a beach. I could have gotten married in Tahoe, while rafting down the Truckee. My faith, my God, my community recognize the MARRIAGE. Uncle Sam is NOT part of ANY of that. The State has concocted LAWS around marriage to TAX the people. OK, fine, lets not fight that issue. The State can still get their pound of flesh via civil unions, family court, etc. (libs own the court system), just take the name of a RELIGOUS ceremony out of the LAW!. < The fix is sooo easy most can't see it.

The 9th District used the same default logic to block AZ, while not using in place law to defend State sovereignty and right to hold accountable the FED for a LACK of enforcement. That IS the issue. The feds have jurisdiction OVER the BORDER but are derelict in that duty. The financial burden is then placed squarely on the State. The State pushed back and said we will NOT be financially responsible. The 9th circuit overturned that ruling. Why? Look up this judge's background and you will see she is an ACLU lib. The left wanted votes to silence a once conservative, but cash rich SoCal. They succeeded and today Cali has 12% of the population and 33% of the Nation's welfare.

Reply

Rob

1:02 pm on Tuesday, March 15, 2011

The largest deficit and the highest taxes, with the worst education, healthcare, etc... THAT is why I am leaving.

Death Sentence - Libs lose the death penalty vote so they clog the court with MANDATED appeals to "protect" the convict. The Night Stalker's mandated appeals have gone on for more than 20 years. Lib attorneys have made MILLIONs and the will of the people... muted again.

Reply

S McLennan

7:02 pm on Tuesday, March 22, 2011

In full disclosure. I personally do have a personal belief and position on the Whole Prop 8 thing. I am not here to banter the techinical details of the laws and taxing now in force, nor the biblical history challenges proving one thing or another, but I do feel the right to my belief is every much as valid as your right to your belief. I simply do believe marriage is ordained of God, making it subject to religion, which yes...I also do believe means between a man and a woman. I also understand there is within our society multiple societies, with different views on the subject. As I respectfully disagree, I do see there is an injustice in human kindness and respect that affects many people with in our society in every direction. I am not the one to offer a best solution so that everyone is happy, but perhaps there should be something that allows people rights that take into account private relationships and considerations. An alternate name rather than marriage, but with protections of healthcare and funeral attendance and other legal protections as well, signified by a defined relationship status. I can't imagine how painful it must have been to be shut out of a service of someone, you loved deeply. That just seems so sad and wrong from this solo perspective. May God bless us all to have more wisdom and charity resulting in mutual respect and peace with in.

Reply
Comment_arrow

LBV Collins

9:02 am on Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Hi Suzanne. I appreciate your empathy for gays.

Regarding your idea of coming up with an alternative name to marriage, it sounds like the “separate but equal” argument used to justify systems of segregation. On the surface it seems like a reasonable solution that appeases everyone. However, it is virtually impossible to guarantee true equality under such a segregated system. A better solution, in my opinion, is to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. That is a better guarantee of equal rights.

What I have yet hear is a reasonable explanation of why same-sex marriage is bad… other than people evoking their religious beliefs. Religious beliefs don’t present a persuasive argument, in my opinion, because our laws are based on freedom from religious persecution. I cannot force anyone to adhere to my religious beliefs, nor can anyone force me to abide by theirs. If your religious beliefs cause you to conclude that same-sex marriage is wrong or a sin, fine… but that doesn’t mean your beliefs should be the law of the land.

I’m a reasonable person, and it sounds like you are, too. So if you can explain to me why marriage should only be between a man and a women… without saying it’s God’s Will… I’d be sincerely interested in discussing it. Otherwise, in my opinion, it’s time for us to broaden the meaning of marriage to include same-sex marriages so that our LGBT citizens can experience the same rights and privileges as the rest of us.

Leave a comment