Prop. 8 opponents end testimony in SF federal court case Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Pleasanton Weekly Online, on Jan 23, 2010 at 9:59 am
After nine days of trial, two same-sex couples who want to overturn Proposition 8 presented their final witness in federal court in San Francisco Friday, clearing the way for defense testimony to begin on Monday.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Saturday, January 23, 2010, 8:32 AM
Posted by Larry Little, a resident of the Verona neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2010 at 9:59 am
Religions have far too much power and it is being used politically.
When religion can ask the courts to discriminate against a minority and promote their hatred, then they have to put Satan or God on the witness stand to be cross examined. There are several references to homosexual behavior in the Bible but the only ones being quoted are those that say it is okay to tie Matthew Shepard to a fence and beat him to death, just doing the work of the Lord.
Posted by James S., a resident of another community, on Jan 23, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Current marriage laws do not discriminate. Any man can marry any (non-related) woman. If marriage is redefined, then we will see discrimination. "only a Gay man can marry a man" is discriminatory. I know LOTS of people who want to keep traditional marriage and NONE of them 'hate' gays.
My advice to the gay community - come up with a new word. "Marriage" has been defined in the US since the 1800's, when we told the Mormons "only one".
Oh, and stop accusing people of hating. That's hateful.
Posted by Rey, a resident of another community, on Jan 23, 2010 at 1:02 pm
I really look forward to the day when the Republican party will fully reclaim its libertarian principles. There are gay people like myself who are libertarian in principle but vote Democrat due to the hostility of the Religious Right.
The party wasn’t always like this. Note what Barry Goldwater had to say,
“Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives.”
Instead, the Republican party is as intrusive in people’s private lives as the Democratic party is in the functions of a free market economy.
As I’ve told my partner of 10 years(he’s a dyed-in-the-wool liberal), if it weren’t for the animosity on gay issues, I would likely be a Republican.
Posted by R. McClure, a resident of the Avila neighborhood, on Jan 24, 2010 at 2:40 am
We can all agree that the homosexual community is one that faces a large amount of sterotyping/prejudice. With that being the case do you think it is even possible for a vote to be fair and unbiased, based on fact? Also, like the article says "... homosexuality is now considered normal by the psychiatry and psychology professions" so if it is a natural born behavior not a choice, in America, can we segregate that group of individuals (reguardless of the issue)who brake no laws and still be called 'the land of the free'?
Posted by david scott, a resident of the Apperson Ridge neighborhood, on Jan 24, 2010 at 10:20 am
It should go without saying that a person should be allowed to marry whomever they choose. Until the right-wing, religious fanatics in this country stop trying to control everybody else and force their â€śmoralsâ€ť down the throat of the country, there can be no real freedom in the United States. Civil rights cannot simply be "voted away," that is the purpose of the Bill of Rights. Religious activists should be left out of these decisions completely. I invite you to my web pages devoted to raising awareness on this puritan attack on our freedom: Web Link
Posted by Ty C., a resident of another community, on Jan 24, 2010 at 5:56 pm
This comment is in response to James S.'s comment near the top.
See, its not a question of the word marriage. Its a question of social and civil rights. I will assume you are married to a wonderful wife (If I am wrong, please imagine that it is so). If you were to get into a car crash and were put into a coma, who would you want to make your decisions for you? A parent that may be senile and unable to make a rational decision? A young child who might not be able to handle the weight of these decisions? A relative that has no idea of what your wishes might be? Or would you want your wife to make those decisions for you? Someone who knows the right way to see to it that you are taken care of...
In the US at the moment, if a homosexual finds himself in this position, their partners have no legal rights to make decisions for them. In fact, often times they are denied access to the hospital room altogether, because they aren't "family". What if your wife was denied access to that hospital room? Would that be right at all?
Marriage isn't just a promise of vows to a spouse and to God anymore. With marriage comes social and civil rights distinguished only for married couples. If homosexual couples were entitled these same rights, there really wouldn't be such a problem. If homosexuals just rename marriage for their own sake, they still wont be recognized in the government's eyes. Its a battle over rights, not words. Homosexuals are humans too, and they have the right to decide who they are to spend their lives with, and who should be able to make their decisions when they can't, and who to share finances with, and who to build a home with. Would you feel like a human if a homosexual told you you were wrong, that it was abnormal for you to love your wife, and that you should find a new word for "marriage" because it isn't defined in the love that you two share, and that your rights that go with marriage are no longer applicable?
Civil rights is an ongoing battle, not just for homosexuals, but for people everywhere. All it takes is a cure for ignorance. Go out on a limb and spend an evening with a gay couple. You might learn a little about love. The strongest love is that which can withstand any hardship. Homosexuals deal with persecution everyday for their love. And people say its the easy way out. Some of the most passionate love I have ever seen has been homosexual. After seeing that, I would be hard pressed to find one reason why its wrong. Open your eyes America. The time has come for equality everywhere.
Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin, on Jan 24, 2010 at 10:48 pm dublinmike is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
James S, hate to tell you buddy but marriage has been around for many, many centuries. Some historians refer it to as a way to help women protect their properties. But, for your purposes, marriage was employed by non-Christian societies way before the creation of the Latter Day Saints,i.e; Mormons, and that radical Jew, Jesus.
I have same-sex partners for neighbors and for the life of me, they are freekin Republicans. We love them nevertheless.
As I have stated in numerous posts to the PW, all unions should be civil unions. Collect the fees and record their bonding for legal reasons. But, if they choose to have a "marriage," go for it. Have it in a place of worship, skydive, in a cave, underwater, or even in a LV or Reno chapel... but, please don't preach.
Posted by Ty C., a resident of another community, on Jan 25, 2010 at 4:59 pm
It's interesting that the sarcasm in the post above is supposed to make a point. And it does make a point. It shows that yet again Gays are subjected to stereotypes and placed in boxes.
See, what he's trying to say is that "All homosexuals partake in public indecency, which is against the law, and therefore homosexuality is wrong". I agree that public indecency is wrong, but to create a straw man by directly linking that to homosexuality only is a fallacy in logic. Heterosexual indecency in public is an epidemic as well, but you don't see people generalizing heterosexuals due to a small percentage who are being immoral.
Logic is necessary in overcoming the objectification of people everywhere. The stereotypes and labels placed on people perpetuate negative stereotypes. Fallacious arguments prove ignorance, and in this case, the sarcastic tone was the first clue of ignorance. I would be better suited to argue an actual logical point. The problem is, to this day, I have yet to see a single argument against homosexuality that isn't fallacious.
For those of you who buy into arguments like the one above, please see that they are driven by emotion founded within another emotion, and though they may resonate with the beliefs that have been given to you, they are not grounded in logic. Beware, and think before you speak. Beware of ignorance, for sometimes it consumes us and harms those around us.
Posted by M.J, a resident of another community, on Jan 25, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Ty C. is a friend of mine and I have to say that I agree with him. The "religious" connotations of marriage need to be removed. I'm happily married to my husband, but my family had fit when we talked to the non-denominational, for lack of a better word, "minister" that preformed the ceremony and had him leave out any mention of a higher power other than the State government from our ceremony. The religiousness of a wedding, hand fasting etc... doesn't make it legal or right. If your no married by a State Licensed officiant and don't have a legal marriage license you're up a creek with out a paddle. So why are we making a stink based on religious views? Also We have an amazingly high divorce rate in this country. Why can't we let the people who actually want to be together be together and not keep making fools of ourselves?
Posted by Patriot, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 25, 2010 at 9:24 pm
As a conservative, I would say that any solution to the problem of marriage should be market based and free from government meddling and interference. Allow the efficiencies of the free market to work. If you you want to preserve the institution marriage of marriage, then what you want is tax cuts and deregulation.
Posted by Sam, a resident of another community, on Jan 25, 2010 at 11:01 pm
"Marriage isn't just a promise of vows to a spouse and to God anymore. With marriage comes social and civil rights distinguished only for married couples. If homosexual couples were entitled these same rights, there really wouldn't be such a problem. If homosexuals just rename marriage for their own sake, they still wont be recognized in the government's eyes. Its a battle over rights, not words. Homosexuals are humans too, and they have the right to decide who they are to spend their lives with, and who should be able to make their decisions when they can't, and who to share finances with, and who to build a home with. Would you feel like a human if a homosexual told you you were wrong, that it was abnormal for you to love your wife, and that you should find a new word for "marriage" because it isn't defined in the love that you two share, and that your rights that go with marriage are no longer applicable?"
I agree that "marriage" as we see it in the USA is no longer just about a covenant recorded by the government and before God. It is also but not only about social and civil rights. I disagree, however, that gay marriage is no problem. It is a problem for me, it is a problem for every single conservative Christian who believes the Bible, it is a problem for any Christian orphanage (like the ones that was forced to shut down in the UK and New York), and it is a problem for anyone who believes gay marriage is wrong but has to legally cater to any legally marriage couple. Now, as a rebuttal, many would say that Christian orphanages, if forced by the government to adopt to gay couples, could still give children to any couple, including gay couples. However, it would not be right in the sight of the Christian God to do so, which is why they MUST shut down and not do what is sinful in the eyes of their God. There really is no choice in it at all. So, as a Christian, gay marriage takes away my rights to refuse service to a gay married couple. People can choose to do what they want. I am fine with people wanting to be gay. However, when a change in civil law infringes on my rights in a way that would Force me to do something I believe with all my heart is wrong, isn't that worth fighting against? You don't have to believe what I believe, just know that I do not wish to offend my God. Do you what I am saying?
Posted by just wondering, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 26, 2010 at 1:38 am
So by your logic, it is ok for me to refuse service to you at my business because I am offended by your predjudice, discrimination, and supremacy?
I believe in equality for all people as stated in our Constitution, isn't that something worth fighting for? I am baffled that your religion grants your rights to be more important than your neighbors. And on top of that, you lie, saying you are fine with people being gay- isnt lying a sin? If you were fine with it, then why would you treat gay people differently? Or are your sins not as bad as you claim theirs to be?
Posted by Ty C., a resident of another community, on Jan 26, 2010 at 6:36 am
To the person above me just wondering,
He is going by the idea that Christians like to use which is hate the sin, but love the sinner. And even here, the sin is not the argument. Its Christian morals and how they affect the governmental standards and laws.
And what amazes me is how deeply people believe the Bible is against homosexuality. Everyone draws from Leviticus. The book of Leviticus was a piece written specifically for the Jewish people of the time to keep them healthy and safe, as a people. This is why it is stressed not to do things like eat raw meat or shellfish. On the other hand, there are a lot of sexual laws aimed at several different types of people. Is it too much of a stretch to realize that maybe the Jews of the period didn't understand microbiology? And that maybe they attributed things like botulism and syphilis to a God's wrath at something that displeased him? It seems the Levite laws on Sexuality are more aimed at keeping people with fewer partners, as we try to do today. The difference is, we do it to prevent the contraction and spread of std's because we understand the biology behind it. Chew it over for a while and then re-read Leviticus.
And the beauty of the response given directed specifically at me, a specific quote states; "and it is a problem for anyone who believes gay marriage is wrong but has to legally cater to any legally marriage couple" Now change the words " Gay Marriage" and "Legally Marriage couple" (Which makes no sense by the way... were you writing out of emotion?) and replace them with racial words. What comes out is "...and it is a problem for anyone who believes being a black citizen is wrong but has to legally cater to any legally black citizen". And I agree, for someone to have to do these things is a problem; but where does the problem rest? The KKK wholeheartedly believed God made the white race superior for a reason. Many now see that as ludicrous.
And I know what the response to this is going to be... Race is inborn while homosexuality is a choice. Research it. See the ex-gay conversion rates that are successful. I already stated, many believe homosexuals are taking the easy way out by "Choosing" to be gay. Why would someone choose to be persecuted? Why would someone choose to be subjected to less than equal rights, brutal attacks, and people telling us they are praying for our mortal souls everyday?
I am praying for all of you who can't understand at the present moment. I pray for those of you who choose not to see the problem in allowing people to be persecuted. Please, it is my only request... try to see it from a different point of view (I.e. through the eyes of a homosexual... have one tell you their story and truly listen to what they say). Even if you come to the same conclusions, you will have a logically based reason for doing so. Then come back here and give me a reason. In the sixties, people had a lot of trouble thinking that black people might be able to adopt white babies. They felt it was against their religion. Look how far we've come.
Posted by Sam, a resident of another community, on Jan 26, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Actually, it is not Leviticus that Christians look to, but Romans 1 and Genesis in the account of Sodom and Gomorrah. Homosexuality, just like sin, is inherent in all people. I am no different from someone who is homosexual in that I sin and I like it. I feel that I cannot stop it, but that is why there is forgiveness of sins and repentance. It does not matter what conversion rates are since the conversion rates for people sinning to not-sinning would be even drastically lower. In fact, the rate is 0%. So rates mean nothing.
@ just wondering
I believe all people are equal in that all are sinners and fall short of the glory of God (romans 3:23). Just like I told Ty C, I am in the same boat as anyone else including homosexuals. I sin, and for that I seek forgiveness and seek to do what is right before God; ie, not sin. There may be a day when Christian marriages are outlawed, like in many countries today, and it would be your right to refuse me service. However, in doing that, you are changing the definition of what we have always known as marriage, so you are changing it morally and changing the civil rights associated with it. My problem with gay marriage is not the definition, for the law's definition will always be less important that what God's definition is, so it is negligible. My problem with gay marriage is simply the civil implications. My God will be offended if I adopt to a gay couple. Do you see how that affects me? Do you care? Since when are my religious views not important in this country anymore?
Also, I'm fine with whatever people choose. It is not me who judges, but God and His Word. So, I'm not lying when I say I'm fine with people being gay. They can choose what they want since it is a free country. They will reap their consequences just like I do when I sin, which I do, and which are just as bad, and which I ask for forgiveness for. That is the only difference between me and someone who is gay, that I ask God to forgive me. That's it.
Posted by Mike, a resident of another community, on Jan 26, 2010 at 5:42 pm
You can not argue that prop 8 does not discriminate against anyone because Any man can marry any (non-related) woman, without arguing that anti mixed race marriage laws do not discriminate against anyone because any man can marry any woman of the same race.
Posted by Sam, a resident of another community, on Jan 26, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Prop 8 is not discriminatory if marriage is Defined as between a man and a woman. It is discriminatory if marriage is open to anyone of any sexual orientation. So right now, no it is not discriminatory. By the current definition of marriage, your race analogy is not logical, since race has nothing to do with being a man or woman in the context of the current definition of marriage.
Posted by Ty C., a resident of another community, on Jan 26, 2010 at 7:22 pm
I agree, Romans and Genesis are the other two books that speak of homosexuality. The reason I don't bring them up is because of the ambiguity of their message. Simply put, both stories speak of the acts between the men to be of rape... I feel, (in my interpretations, of course) that God looks down upon the act of forcing a person into sexual activity is a sin because it is an improper use of another's body.
In your view that homosexuality is a sin, which I will validate on account of I, like you, can never know what God shall judge (our beliefs are based on the ambiguous accounts in the stories shared in the Bible). It is interesting that you should say that homosexuals do not seek forgiveness for their sins in sexual activity in the Christian faith. In fact, the interesting part of that is a lot of the guilt heterosexual Christians feel over their sexual accounts occur within the homosexual Christian community just as strongly. If we are to be frank about it, all people should seek forgiveness for the sin of sex through using the body, one that is supposed to be of and for God, as a means. Something that bothers me about these arguments is that generally people only see homosexuals through a sexual lens... its not that simple. I know many homosexuals who are abstinent. That is how they serve God, as a nun or priest would be abstinent. Homosexuality is not just an intercourse preference. It runs so much deeper than that... Just something to chew over...
and as for the definition of Marriage, the problem is that it is the Christian definition that the states currently possess. The problem there though is that it is in direct conflict with our nation's constitutional promises on equality. By the order of separation of Church and State, this definition needs to be called into question, because it is a case where the Christian religion has a pull in Government, which our constitution also protects us from.
I appreciate your comments a lot. You are the first person to actually give me a reason worthy of debating, and it calls into question what our rights and values as a collective society shall actually say. Regardless of laws, homosexuals will go on loving each other... its inevitable. Right now its solely a question of rights for homosexuals, not necessarily the morality of homosexuality. So many people are blinded by their emotions over the morality of homosexuality in their eyes that they don't actually see the debate at hand. It seems ignorant to me. This is a question of social and civil rights, and I will be interested in what my countries judicial system upholds. I pay taxes, so by all rights I am entitled to, they must represent me as well. I feel we are both anticipating the outcome of this case.
How I wish we could have this conversation in person, or on a live feed somehow. Thank you again, Sam, for your worthy debate!
Posted by Sam, a resident of another community, on Jan 26, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Indeed, I also appreciate your insight. As you have already stated, much of the debate over gay marriage is based on emotions and wrong premises/assumptions. Also, like you say, the debate over Prop 8 is not about morality, but civil and social rights. Were this a debate about morality, I wouldn't care, because everyone thinks something different and I do not need others to believe what I believe. However, votes matter in my future and my children's futures... As Benjamin Franklin would put it: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb debating on what to have for lunch." So, my objective in the case of seemingly being on the side of the lamb, is to show that trading the rights of some for many is being discriminatory either way.
-For example, if you legalize gay marriage and give homosexuals the "right" to marriage, you take away rights to deny service to gay couples, since as a married, legal couple, gays cannot be refused service from orphanages as the law clearly states.
-On the flip side, if you keep gay marriage not legal, you keep the "right" that people like myself have to refuse service to gay couples in the context of married persons.
Either way, some people are going to feel like they do not have "rights". The homosexual community believes (in a rough nutshell) that they cannot participate in a tradition that any other person can. However, if gay marriage were legalized, I would feel like I can no longer participate in providing certain types of services (like adoption agencies) as a Christian who fears God and wishes to die before I purposely or knowingly offend Him. Quite a dilemma.
Though we both agree that this is not a debate over morality, I might as well bring it up as a side note. Romans 1:26-27 says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
In terms of hermeneutics, that seems pretty convincing to me. Genesis, admittedly is not as clear as to whether the sin of the men of Sodom was rape or homosexuality, but looking at Romans, I'd have to stretch pretty far to make it not about homosexuality. Regardless, the morality of homosexuality is negligible, other than acknowledging that many people do not accept it and do not wish to incorporate homosexuals into all the laws pertaining to marriage, which are quite a few. Just to reiterate and summarize, it is not the "marriage" of homosexuals that is the problem, but all the laws and rights that then apply to them that affect others, specifically the services industry.
Posted by Sam, a resident of another community, on Jan 26, 2010 at 10:44 pm
I just thought of an analogy, hopefully a good one. Lying is morally wrong, according to me. Others might not think so, but I believe it. That has nothing to do with the law though. It is our social and civil right to lie. If I lie to somebody tomorrow on the street, it will not matter. However, if I am the CEO of a corporation and I lie to a customer, that is against the law. The difference, I see, between the two examples I gave is that one does not affect anybody and the latter does.
Another example would be stealing. Friends can "steal" items from each other because they think it's funny. It may very well be. Some would say that is wrong, others would not. Again, that is not the issue we are speaking of. The second example is that of a grocery store. If someone stole something from a store, it is illegal. The difference, once again, is that one of the two parties is negatively affected.
It seems to me that the only reason laws have anything to do with morals is when somebody is negatively affected. Well, I will apply that general mantra to homosexual marriage. Practicing homosexuality does not affect me. I do not believe in it morally, but it does not negatively affect me in and of itself being practiced. However, once you legalize the marriage of homosexuals, it does affect me negatively in the way of losing the right to refuse service in the context of married couples. That was most certainly not a 100% analogy, nor was it supposed to be. Hopefully you can discern what I am getting at.
Posted by Ty C., a resident of another community, on Jan 27, 2010 at 3:07 pm
I understand what you are trying to say. I'm sorry that you feel like adoption of a child into a gay family would be something equitable to sin.
The reason I say this is for two reasons. The first is that being homosexual does not necessarily affect a person's parenting ability. The second is a stem off the first, but that orphanages should thoroughly evaluate any family on capability and compatibility. For example, my cousin was married to a woman when she lived in San Francisco. They adopted a beautiful and intelligent young girl who is one of the happiest children I have ever met. It is interesting to me that you see allowing a couple to adopt a child affects your morality before your God, while the orientation of homosexuality does not directly affect you.
People have children everyday. Some of them are not the best of parents. Some homosexuals have full capabilities to properly nurture and raise a child. I don't see why it would truly affect you any differently than the orientation if the orphanages perform the same screenings for homosexual couples as they do for heterosexual couples. On that same note, I feel like denying any orphan a home that is even remotely better than the orphanage they are in is a sad thing to believe in. I never had a traditional family, my mother being married three times in the first ten years of my life... but I feel that was much better than not having a family at all.
I wish you could meet my cousin and her daughter... It might change your mind on the morality of allowing gays to adopt. The Bible also says we shouldn't cut our hair or divorce or eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed fibers or curse and these are things that a majority of people do every single day. The Bible never says its not ok to allow gays to adopt children.
As for Romans, I would like to call into question Paul's ethics in general. He is also the man who said women should not speak in Church. We allow that, and deem it moral, so why is homosexuality so different? I've always had a problem with Paul and his ethics in his writings. Maybe that's just me.
And you are right, someone will always feel like their rights are being subjected to the law. However, there is a fine line between offering services to people you deem as less than people (by equality and equal opportunity standards) and actually being that person who is being subjected to being subhuman in the eyes of the law. If you have a problem with adopting children to gays, then don't work in adoption, if it offends you. Its still like saying it should be ok to not allow black people to adopt children, say because you feel like it might offend your God. Members of the KKK will tell you this is how they feel about their interactions with different races and sexualities, but does that make it right?
The laws aren't necessarily about morality. If they were, capital punishment would still be banned. The laws are about protecting people's rights. Its not a question of rights, if you own a business committed to serving the community, to deny a certain group your service.
Posted by Sam, a resident of another community, on Jan 27, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Though any family, no matter how ungodly or terrible they might be, is better than no family at all, it is not the issue of how suitable parents are, but what God says about it, considering those who believe in a literal Bible. If you do believe in a literal, 100% perspicuous Bible, then it is clear that practicing homosexuality is a sin. This would preclude a gay couple from adopting, much like practicing liars, or practicing robbers. So, the Bible does not need to specifically address adopting to homosexuals, since hopefully, it is already clear that it is disdainful to God.
As for Paul, I believe in 2 Timothy 3:16 that states, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." I believe it to mean that Scripture, all of it, including the writings of Paul, are infallible and all of it is profitable for today, even if the cultural context is not directly profitable. Paul's point about women not speaking in church is directly related to the natural inclination of women. It is also geared towards women not teaching men in church, since as Paul reasons, Adam was ordained first by God to lead. So it is not Paul who's ethics to question, but God Himself. If you do not believe that the entirety of Scripture is infallible, then I'm afraid we have no biblical common ground with which to discuss anything on the matter.
In terms of what directly or indirectly affects me, homosexuality itself has nothing to do with me, and has no direct connections to me. It bears no negative affect on my walk with my God. However, once I must offer services involving human beings whom I have a responsibility before God to look after, then it becomes personal, not just for my morality, but between God and myself. At the Great White Throne Judgement, I do not want God to look at me and say, "why did you give away this child to those who even you believed could not properly raise them?" I could be accountable for it, and I would rather die a thousand deaths than offend my God in a way I know was preventable.
Now then, I hope you do not think I believe homosexuals to be sub-human. I have homosexual friends. We disagree, but we get along fine. I disagree with them just like I disagree with you, and I believe that you are just as human as me and them. As for your KKK analogy. I understand what you are saying. And the analogy fits, with one exception. Right now, interracial adoption is allowed and the KKK cannot deny a couple of any ethnicity an adoption. However, as of right now, I have the ability to deny a gay couple adoption. That is my right. I have it, and I do not want to give it up. So the analogy is different in the way that gay marriage will take away a right I've had for my entire life. But also, since this is not about morality, then being right or wrong doesn't matter. It is about how somebody's actions negatively affect another. Somebody, in this case, will be negatively affected no matter what. If it is decided that no literal-Bible believing Christian should work in an adoption agency, then so be it, but it is just the wolves deciding to eat the lamb who voted against them.
Being accountable for everything I do before my God, I cannot adopt to a gay couple. You are right, that every Christian can just quit adoption agencies. I guess that just does not sit well for me with the outlook on the degrading morality of the USA. What will Christians not be able to do next? Hopefully not what Canada is into, seeing as how they already arrested a number of Catholic priests for preaching that homosexuality is wrong.
Posted by Lisa, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 30, 2010 at 7:27 pm
@TY C. It is telling that you state that if gays have the right to adopt, that it takes away your RIGHT to refuse gay couples this privelege. The God that lives in my heart does not discriminate in this way and would not want me to interfere in the love of another family.
Maybe visiting a PFLAG meeting would help you see how others interpret the scriptures - in a way that is not damaging to other potential parents and children who want a family.