How the Votes on Same-Sex Marriage Stack Up

The current legality of same-sex marriage, as defined by 5 Supreme Court Justices, has brought to a head the discussion of marriage, equality, and non-traditional societal behavior. President Obama has stated, as with Obamacare, that this is now the law of the land, “Get used to it!” 

(Although he never told the homo-sympathetic crowd before the ruling, that marriage was legally only between a man and a woman as defined in the Defence of Marriage Act so they should “Get used to it!”, but I digress.)

There have only been 2 States, Oregon and Massachusetts, where the popular vote passed same-sex marriage. The other states who passed bans had 1-3 Federal Judges overturn the vote of the people, who had already rejected it soundly. 

Public opinion polls project that a majority of the people in the US support same-sex marriages, but if you count the votes cast so far, it paints a different picture. 

(Remember that polls are taken from a small demographic group, often less than 1000 people. The area you choose to poll your voters can dramatically shift the outcome of the poll. A poll of 1000 people in downtown Salt Lake City, predominately Democrat, and 1000 people in Utah County, predominately Republican, will be diametrically opposed.)

The number of times State Legislatures voted to prohibit same-sex marriage, (some States have voted more than once on the subject.)

• For a ban – 52 times
• Against a ban – 17 times

 Popular vote to support a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage:

• Banning same-sex marriages – 32 times
• Bans to same-sex overturned by Federal Courts - 18
• Not to support ban same-sex marriages – 2 times
• Percentage of voters nationwide banning same-sex marriage – 66.57%
• Percentage of voters nationwide supporting same-sex marriages – 33.43%

Since this is still a Judicial ruling interpreting the Constitution and not actually part of the Constitution, I expect to see multitudes of court and legislative challenges defining and re-defining this decision. Who knows where it will eventually end up. 

Voting statistics from Wikipedia, 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States

Legality versus Truth

I have read scores of articles written by both proponents and opponents of the decision last week by the United States Supreme Court declaring that marriage between gay couples should be legal in all states. Vicious, apologetic, angry, compassionate; they spanned the gamut of all the emotions.

Personally, I agree with Justice Roberts that since God created and designed marriage, he is also the only one qualified to re-define it. A majority of judges, regardless of their elevated opinion of their social mores, is simply not qualified to do so. Of course those who do not think God exists, respectfully, at times, disagree with me. Regardless, that has always been the situation. Those who don't believe in absolute truth have always been at odds with those who do.

Historically, self-appointed despots and kings, generally aligned laws to coincide with their personal will. Imprisoning or killing opponents, taking productivity from the people to support the monarchy in the form of taxes, ravishing and plundering the enemy, or their own people, all of these actions were legal, but they were not right.

In the United States, it was legal for centuries for some people to own other people as slaves or indentured servants. The owner was permitted to do virtually anything they wanted to these people. Beatings and murder were accepted as a right and a privilege. Even though it was legal, it wasn't right.

The consumption of alcohol and tobacco has been legal since the founding of the 13 Colonies. Alcohol was banned for a few years, but the underground abuse created more problems than before. As a result, accidental deaths, violence, unwanted pregnancies, and people rotting away from preventable cancers and other debilitating diseases plagues us even today. Even though their use is legal, it is not right.

Many large corporations, in league with municipalities, create complicated schemes to acquire property and resources from those least able to protect themselves ,allowing the corporations to become even more powerful and greedy. Even though it is legal, it is not right.

There are absolute truths regarding fidelity, chastity, promiscuity, and pro-creation. They fly in the face of our animalistic desires. They frustrate those who can't think of anything but the moment or themselves.

I would like to fly unassisted through the sky or swim down to the ocean's floor. Regardless of the sincerity or intensity of my desires, there are absolute truths that compel me to restrain myself. Gravity and oxygen are truths I can't ignore.

There are absolute truths that declare that violation of the laws of pro-creation, chastity and fidelity will bring negative consequences. We already have children of same sex couples lamenting the damage they had from not having a father and a mother in their lives. I just hope we don't have to make all the mistakes there are before we accept the truth.

I can not predict all the effects of the Court's rulings. There are those who are opposed to any contrary voices and would love to leverage this decision to the abolition of all opposition to their social agenda. It would not be the first time truth has been ruled illegal.

I take solace in the words of Gamaliel, speaking to the Sanhedrin as they were trying to convict the early Apostles, "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it;"

Putting Homosexuality into Perspective

There has been so much talk, so many accusations regarding homosexuality, that the basic principles and premises have be lost in the cloud of rhetoric.

On one hand, there are the religious fundamentalists, who, citing God as their resource, condemn not only the action, but all of the participants as well. This non-Christian attitude gives rise to bigotry, gay-bashing, acts of hate and violence and ultimately deprives the promoter of compassion, tolerance and charity, that pure love of Christ.

On the other hand, with the homosexual adherents, there flourishes whining cries of persecution, accusations of homophobia and the irrelevant shouts of the depravation of civil rights. More damaging than these is the promotion of sexual promiscuity and the de-valuation of the family.

Putting aside all the charges and counter-charges, there are a few simple principles that should put the issue into perspective.

1. There is, has been and always will be a difference between the act and the perpetrator. We can and should abhor actions that are wrong, destructive and damaging to mankind, but we always need to separate the revulsion for the act from the participant. When we become disgusted with the person, we alienate and ostracize them from society. Without a tie to society, there is seldom enough motivation for a constructive change to take place. In other words, condemning the person is a death sentence for reformation.

2. There is no such thing as a "hate crime." A crime is a crime, regardless of the state of mind of the criminal. What the two men beating Matthew Shepherd were thinking or what motivated them to act did not lessen or increase his pain, trauma and ultimate death. When a "God fearing Christian" makes derogatory remarks, spits or hits a gay person, it is no different than if they did the same thing to a white, Black, Asian or Jewish person. There is no justification or excuse for such behavior.

3. Relationships between people of the same sex are not only easier, but they are good. They provide common elements, attitudes and understandings that can help each of us to better cope and enjoy life. The problem arises in the misconception that sexual activity is a basic human need that can be satisfied with anyone or anything, in virtually any setting.

Sexual relationships outside the bonds of a heterosexual marriage, never brings the happiness and enduring satisfaction the participants are seeking. Sexual activity stimulates a hormonal change in us that bonds a man and woman together and facilitates a lifelong partnership in addition to perpetuating our species. It is an important element in making a heterosexual relationship endure. In any other setting, sex is destructive and dangerous.

4. Homosexuality is a choice, not chance. As discussed in #3, we by nature develop friendships and relationships with those of our own sex, but having a sexual relationship with them is a choice that is made, not a fate that is executed. There are those who have a predisposition or tendency to a same sex relationship, just as there are those who are predisposed to become adulterers, alcoholics, drug addicts, child molesters or any other negative behavior.

This in no way excuses one from submitting to attitudes and actions that will eventually bring pain, humiliation or death to you or others.

5. Too many times, those who do transgress the social mores, complain that they are not welcome in the company of those they offend. Of course we are not welcome if we promote concepts or attitudes that are contrary to a group. I raise the question, "Why do you care if the ‘opposition’ doesn’t accept you and why would you want to be accepted by those who oppose you?"

If an organization does not believe the same as you, how can you be offended by not being invited to attend? How many Jews have complained that they are excluded from Neo-Nazi groups or how many Blacks have sued the Klu Klux Klan for admission? The only justification for such action is seeking acknowledgement for a behavior they know is wrong, but want to continue.

For that, there is no protection under the law.