Nuts Nearly Ready to Give Up
This does sound encouraging!
Out in California they've extended their marriage law to include same-sex couples, and certain "types" are sponsoring a referendum to exclude them again. I wonder what kind of guy is afraid his marriage will be trouble if some gay people tie the knot, well, I guess I don't need to spell out the absurdity of all that. Anyway, there was a ruling yesterday that makes it pretty sure that California voters will decide in the November election whether to amend their constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
You can imagine, the Family Blah Blah groups are beating their drums, trying to get their gazillions of true believers to get out and vote against allowing people of the same sex to marry. You know this is one of their favorite issues to get their noses out of joint over, heaven forbid a couple should marry and settle down just because they love one another.
This newsletter called OneNewsNow has an article about the referendum where they interview Donald Wildmon (and man, I wish I had a catchy name like "Wildmon," everybody could call me "Wild-Man" and I would have been so cool back in school...) and he seems to think it's nearly time to give up on some of this ridiculousness:
It sounds like if the referendum fails the nuts will give up. Would that be cool, or what?
Ah, but he does leave a loophole, this is very sly. In that last paragraph he says, "If the homosexuals are able to defeat the marriage amendment..." Okay, let's say that gay and lesbian people probably make up less than ten percent of the population, even in California. So when it comes to voting on things, it seems almost impossible for them to win anything! Even if there is high turnout of gay people -- and you can bet there will be, for this -- there is no way ten percent of the population can win an election by themselves.
See what he's getting at? He could have said, "If the sensible people of California are able to defeat the marriage amendment..." Because that's who's going to vote against this stupid law. Gay people can't do it, but if intelligent people, fair people, people who care about others, people with a strong sense of morality and justice, and people who believe in freedom and dignity will vote against it, then I do have the feeling the initiative referendum will fail.
As it is, when the bill fails he can always say "but it wasn't defeated by the homosexuals," and then he can keep calling for those all-important donations to keep the culture war going.
Out in California they've extended their marriage law to include same-sex couples, and certain "types" are sponsoring a referendum to exclude them again. I wonder what kind of guy is afraid his marriage will be trouble if some gay people tie the knot, well, I guess I don't need to spell out the absurdity of all that. Anyway, there was a ruling yesterday that makes it pretty sure that California voters will decide in the November election whether to amend their constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
You can imagine, the Family Blah Blah groups are beating their drums, trying to get their gazillions of true believers to get out and vote against allowing people of the same sex to marry. You know this is one of their favorite issues to get their noses out of joint over, heaven forbid a couple should marry and settle down just because they love one another.
This newsletter called OneNewsNow has an article about the referendum where they interview Donald Wildmon (and man, I wish I had a catchy name like "Wildmon," everybody could call me "Wild-Man" and I would have been so cool back in school...) and he seems to think it's nearly time to give up on some of this ridiculousness:
Dr. Donald Wildmon is founder of the American Family Association and an organizer of the Arlington Group. He says passage of the California marriage amendment is critical.
"If we lose California, if they defeat the marriage amendment, I'm afraid that the culture war is over and Christians have lost," says Wildmon, a 30-year veteran of the culture war. "I've never said that publicly until now -- but that's just the reality of the fact.
"If the homosexuals are able to defeat the marriage amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, then the culture war is over and we've lost -- and gradually, secularism will replace Christianity as the foundation of our society," he adds. Wildmon: Prop. 8 vote crucial in culture battle
It sounds like if the referendum fails the nuts will give up. Would that be cool, or what?
Ah, but he does leave a loophole, this is very sly. In that last paragraph he says, "If the homosexuals are able to defeat the marriage amendment..." Okay, let's say that gay and lesbian people probably make up less than ten percent of the population, even in California. So when it comes to voting on things, it seems almost impossible for them to win anything! Even if there is high turnout of gay people -- and you can bet there will be, for this -- there is no way ten percent of the population can win an election by themselves.
See what he's getting at? He could have said, "If the sensible people of California are able to defeat the marriage amendment..." Because that's who's going to vote against this stupid law. Gay people can't do it, but if intelligent people, fair people, people who care about others, people with a strong sense of morality and justice, and people who believe in freedom and dignity will vote against it, then I do have the feeling the initiative referendum will fail.
As it is, when the bill fails he can always say "but it wasn't defeated by the homosexuals," and then he can keep calling for those all-important donations to keep the culture war going.
posted by JimK at 10:23 AM
6 Comments:
I think that we should ban churches from being tax-exempt as well. Let's put that on a federal ballot.
Massachusetts is poised to repeal its ban on out-of-state lesbian and gay people getting married there:
Massachusetts Senate Passes Repeal of 1913 Marriage Law
It is worth noting that Massachusetts allowed interracial marriages from 1843 on, while Virginians had to wait for a Supreme Court ruling in 1969. I hope this doesn't take that long.
Derrick's statement brings up a question in my mind: I know churches can't endorse candidates without losing their tax-exempt status (though that is rarely enforced in these times when there is a mine-field around religion in our country), but does the same apply if they take a stand on a referendum? I'm sure the major efforts of the anti-marriage forces in California will be through conservative houses of worship, as often with anti-lgbt mobilization
"Derrick's statement brings up a question in my mind: I know churches can't endorse candidates without losing their tax-exempt status (though that is rarely enforced in these times when there is a mine-field around religion in our country), but does the same apply if they take a stand on a referendum?"
No, it doesn't, Robert. However, churches can lose their exemptions if they spent a "substantial" amount of time on such activities. There is a "safe-harbor" percentage of expenditures that the IRS will allow churches to spend without questioning it.
A few weeks back, I was at an AICPA convention and in the religious organization break-out session, this was a hotly discussed issue. Most in the audience seemed to agree that if the issue ever made it to the Supreme Court, this law would be ruled unconstitutional.
An interesting fact not widely known is that this law hasn't always been around. It originated during the time of LBJ who had lost a race early in his career because he wasn't endorse by a popular preacher in his district.
I think this blog entry by Jim may be one of his all-time biggest worthless entries.
It seems to be about nothing.
Thank you, Anon, for expressing your opinion.
JimK
I for myself thought it was a good post. It led me on some interesting web searches this afternoon. I think Jim's a great guy.
rrjr
Post a Comment
<< Home