CA election, chickens, Prop 8, Jesus, anti-Christianity...why?

"You know, California, where chickens now have more rights than gay people ... the anguish that our community feels nationally is overwhelming, and we're not going to take this lightly and we're not going away," Robin Tyler (represented by Gloria Allred, along with her partner Diane Olson, in a pending lawsuit against Prop 8). California gives rights to chickens and takes rights away from gay people? It is true...whether you like it or not. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it is like comparing apples to oranges and it isn't like gay people are kept in cages and can't turn around but I just don't understand how we can value chickens (yes, it also covered pregnant pigs and calfs for veal, but the farms for that in California are few and far between...so it is inconsequential) rights over those of people. As many of you know, I had a problem with Prop 2, not because I don't believe in animal rights, but because I don't think it did enough. Prop 2 doesn't address that it will cause increases in prices of California animal products because of the new requirements, which will now create an increased dependence on out of state and Mexico animal products because they will cost less but will come with the heavy price of less strict laws than California already has to keep animals healthy for food consumption. Thus, there are chances of increased disease and infection being passed on through animal products to Californians. Prop 2 really should have addressed those issues to insure that our reliance on out of state or Mexico animal products wouldn't happen. That is why I voted against Prop 2, not because I don't want animal rights, but because I want better animal rights that aren't at an expense to our health. But, this isn't about Prop 2, it is about Prop 8.

Although I was prepared for Prop 8 to pass, it doesn't make the sting any less. I am just in shock and awe that we were having to vote for civil rights in the first place but even more disappointed that there were actually that many people who would be for legalizing discrimination. Yes, I have argued with Prop 8 supporters about the fact that it is discrimination and all of them I talked to don't believe that it is discrimination. How can you say specifically excluding a part of a population from a right isn't discrimination? I would rather they just come out and say they support discrimination, rather than lie to me and themselves that it isn't. The other thing, with nearly 80% of the funding coming from Mormons who were pressured by their Church to donate money to the Yes campaign, I have lost my faith in Christians. Nevermind the fact that the Old Testament eludes to homosexuality being wrong, the Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible and Christians repurposed it for themselves. However, Jesus didn't agree with the Old Testament and it was HIS religion's book (remember...he was Jewish). So, why would anyone follow it or use it as a reference to oppress a part of society today? Ok, well let's focus on REAL Christian values, actually likely values that all religions share, love thy neighbor, treat those the way you want to be treated and do not judge. The Bible also says, (Matthew 25:40) ..."Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me" or (Matthew 25:45) "...whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'"..."these" or "the lowliest of my brother" are the lesser people in society, which is clearly what gay people are considered with this discriminatory initiative. Jesus is asking the privileged to move out of their comfort zone and associate with people of lesser position in life, help these ones to improve their position. Wouldn't gay people be improving their position in life if they had the right to marry? Jesus' particular emphasis is that God's People should not treat others according to their class or social status (although this may get you ahead by worldly standards) but that we are to treat all people equally as God would . . . . and if you do this you are closer to God, or, as Jesus says in Mark's version of the Good Samaritan Story, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Mark 12:34b). You see, Prop 8 is anti-Christian, though supported by a majority of Christians. God wants people to be treated equally and for us to accept and respect each other. Prop 8 is the antithesis, the complete opposition of what God, Jesus or the Bible even dictates. So, with Prop 8 being OBVIOUSLY anti-Christian, why did they support it? They supported it because of the definition of marriage in the Bible, but what they failed to realize is that is a moral definition and what we are talking about is civil law, which should be an ethical definition. Morals do not dictate law and is solely exclusive to religion (although some laws against incest and polygamy can be argued as moral based laws)...that is what religion is all about...morality. There is no such thing as "Christian Politics" because if it is politics, it can't be Christian. Jesus brought no political message or program in his teachings. So why are they trying to impose their religion on politics, on law? Jesus wouldn't be Republican or Democrat, as he avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, "Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him" (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state. The Romans did not believe Jesus when he said he had no political ambitions. That is why the soldiers mocked him as a failed king, giving him a robe and scepter and bowing in fake obedience (John 19:1-3). Those who today say that they are creating or following a "Christian Politics" continue the work of those soldiers, disregarding the words of Jesus that his reign is not of this order. Some people want to display and honor the Ten Commandments as a political commitment enjoined by the religion of Jesus. That very act is a violation of the First and Second Commandments. By erecting a false religion — imposing a reign of Jesus in this order — they are worshiping a false god. They commit idolatry. They also take the Lord's name in vain. Some may think that removing Jesus from politics would mean removing morality from politics. They think we would all be better off if we took up the slogan "What would Jesus do?" The Jesus of the Gospels is not a great ethical teacher like Socrates, our leading humanitarian. He is an apocalyptic figure who steps outside the boundaries of normal morality to signal that the Father's judgment is breaking into history. His miracles were not acts of charity but eschatological signs — accepting the unclean, promising heavenly rewards, making last things first. He is more a higher Nietzsche, beyond good and evil, than a higher Socrates. No politician is going to tell the lustful that they must pluck out their right eye. We cannot do what Jesus would do because we are not divine. Jesus was the victim of every institutional authority in his life and death. He said: "Do not be called Rabbi, since you have only one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, the one in heaven. And do not be called leaders, since you have only one leader, the Messiah" (Matthew 23:8-10). If Christians want to fight for the support of an institutional Jesus, they will have to give up the person who said those words...Jesus. They will have to turn away from what Flannery O'Connor described as "the bleeding stinking mad shadow of Jesus" and "a wild ragged figure" who flits "from tree to tree in the back" of the mind. He was never that thing that all politics would esteem — respectable. At various times in the Gospels, Jesus is called a devil, the devil's agent, irreligious, unclean, a mocker of Jewish law, a drunkard, a glutton, & a promoter of immorality. So, I implore you, why are they obviously going against Christian values and Jesus himself in impressing their religious definition of marriage politically over law? Why are they bringing religion into government when there is no such thing as Christian politics and Jesus was the original advocate of church and state? The Christian position for Prop 8 is extremely flawed you see because they are doing exactly what Jesus wouldn't want them to do. (You can thank the fact that I was required to take Old & New Testament at Belmont University for this interpretation...I can give you more quotations to support Prop 8 being anti-Christian, but I think that it would be best served for me not to preach religion, especially since I am Agnostic)

Law is about ethics and the separation of church & state. So, again, why were churches imposing their religion's moral definition of marriage on the population? Because they fear anything that is different from them and agree that discrimination should occur to those that are not like them or do not believe like them. Granted this isn't the case with all Christians, as I met a number of Christians at work and at protests that were against Prop 8, whether because of their religious convictions or that they just think discrimination should not be legalized. However, it is the Yes Christians I am focusing on, the ones that actually promoted anti-Christianity in this fight while still attempting to impose their religion's definition of marriage on society...contradicting and confusing, I know. Well, it apparently worked...for now. However, with a writ of petition already filed and two lawsuits against Prop 8's passage also filed...it is likely that it will be found unconstitutional, just like Prop 22.

And here is why...

First off, the obvious answer, there is no difference in what they were trying to do with Prop 22 and what they are doing with Prop 8. Prop 22 was found unconstitutional and thus Prop 8 would be unconstitutional too. Yep, that means $73 million down the drain.

Second, a major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution. Therefore, a change of this nature is not amending the constitution which can be voted on by the people, it is a complete revision that can only be dictated by our legislature.

Third, it violates gay people's rights for due process and equal protection under the law.

Fourth, In re Marriage Cases, the majority declared gays and lesbians a suspect (protected) class, subjecting potential restrictions of their rights to a strict scrutiny standard and they should be shielded from discrimination. As a protected class, the government is required to protect gay people from laws such as Prop 8 because their main point is to discriminate against them and nothing more.

So, eventually Prop 8 will be struck down and if we are really lucky, the Supreme Court will stop it from being enacted while these cases are tried...although I find that unlikely. One option for the court would be to say, the way to harmonize Prop 8 and the equal protection clause of California's constitution is, if you're going to take away marriage rights for one group, you've got to take it away from everyone...also unlikely. However, the main bone of contention is that they don't want gay marriage to be called marriage, so let's take marriage out of law and allow everyone to have domestic partnerships or civil unions and leave marriage to be recognized by religions and churches. Seriously, this whole Prop 8 argument is asinine, it is over a word...a single word that really shouldn't mean much considering straight people have a 50% divorce rate. Why would you be so quick to protect marriage when there are so many divorces? If you want to protect marriage, make divorces illegal...like they used to be. That will make it so people won't jump into marriages so easily but would increase the amount of couples who have families out of wedlock, which is something that religions are against. It would probably also increase people attempting to murder their spouses so they can get out of their marriage...also something nobody wants to see happen. You see how this comes full circle? Religion exerting their power in politics and law...not right!

Marriage strengthens society...both straight and gay. They validate families and provide a loving, committed environment for children to thrive (if you want children). In fact, I would even bet that allowing gay people to marry would probably decrease the divorce rate because if anything, gay people value marriage just as much, if not more than straight people because it is something they don't get to have, where straight people have raised the divorce rate to the point where it appears that they feel it is disposable. Prop 8 is a terrible initiative. We should never be voting on civil rights, we should never have religious groups attempting to impose their religious definition on law or society and we should never be voting to legalize discrimination, no matter the subject.