I wasn’t that angry about the Prop 8 ruling until….

California high court upholds same-sex marriage ban

Last Night!

First of all, I think it’s a miscarriage of Justice that the California Supreme Court upheld the ruling barring same-sex marriage outlined under the notorious Prop 8 legislation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Do those words mean anything anymore?

Last night I got into a heated debate with the c0-host of my now defunct radio show (we should have tapped it) about the ruling and how we felt about it.  Now I may be one of the few Muslims who supports gay marriage, even though I don’t believe gay rights activists should use or pursue the word “marriage”, and my co-host was contrary to my beliefs.  We wrangled for two hours last night on this topic until we broke it up because it was getting very late.

I’m still angry, almost foaming at the mouth angry, this morning, because I do not understand how people honestly believe that it’s perfectly OK to deny a certain segment of society rights because we don’t agree with them.  It really doesn’t matter how those who support Prop 8 color their arguments.  In principle, what supporters of Prop 8 are saying to gays and those against Prop 8 is “we don’t agree with your lifestyle, therefore you shouldn’t have the same rights as we do, as our different way of living is superior and worthy of greater rights and protections under the law”.

So last night for two hours I debated this issue.  Here I was debating the merits of legal theory, Islam, history, philosophy, science, psychology, etc.  and still I was considered wrong.  In the end, to be perfectly blunt and honest, as a minority, a double one at that (black and Muslim), I cannot in good conscience ever support the denying of rights to another minority.  To do so would mean that I should accept when or if the same is ever done to me.

I have heard all the arguments, some I will detail, but I truly don’t think that as Americans we are on the right path supporting initiatives like Prop 8.  If it’s OK to deny rights to one group of citizens one day, it will be perfectly OK to do the same to another group another day.

Here are some of the more popular arguments made last night:

It’s not the same as the Civil Rights movement, because that was about race and you can’t “choose” your skin color.

– Now, “choose” is a loaded word and it gets into a whole other argument, but my retort is that even then, it wasn’t just about race.  Race was just the argument and catalyst among others that motivated one group Americans to decide that it was perfectly and legally OK to deny the rights of another group Americans.

It was the classic “we are the majority and we feel that this (insert minority) group is detrimental to our society and doesn’t deserve to have the same rights as we do” that was the catalyst behind all the Jim Crow era laws and statutes that sought to deny marriage rights, voting rights, education rights, etc. to blacks.  This “thing” i.e. arguments and issue is cyclical.  The same arguments were historically made against blacks and other minorities like the Irish, Japanese, Catholics, etc.  We were a threat to society.  Our morals weren’t the same, what about the children how would they react to an interracial couple or blacks in power over whites, are their lifestyles even the same, what about their immoral music and dancing, didn’t it say in the Bible that they were cursed because of the color of their skin anyway, etc. etc. etc.?  Replace black with gay and the same arguments have been modified for today.  Our Civil Rights leaders of that day argued on legal principle.  It didn’t matter how the majority white populace personally felt about blacks, that has no bearing on the Constitution.  The argument was and remains today, is it lawful to deny equal rights and protections under the law, to a certain segment or group of law-abiding, tax paying, citizens, based on another segment or group of society’s personally felt/held beliefs about that certain group?  Is it OK to deny rights based on beliefs?  Our Civil Rights leaders responded with a resounding NO and fought until the government agreed with them and things have changed since then because of their efforts.  As a result, did the sky turn black?  Did dogs and cats start hanging out?  Did white kids suddenly turn black? (well…nevermind on that comment 🙂 ) Did black men immediately go out and start raping white women?  What became of those formerly illegal interracial marriages?  Did the kids go crazy?  Was society ruined?  I don’t think so.  Now a white supremacist might beg to differ on that accord.  Either way, the principles are still the same in my opinion.  I don’t have to like or believe in anything that my neighbor does, but if they obey the law and pay their taxes like I do, they should have the same legal protections and guarantees as I do.  Seems pretty simple to me anyway.

Then there’s my personal favorite:

God prohibits homosexuality as a grave sin (abomination), what kind of society would we be if we allowed unnatural things that God specifically forbids?

– This I call this argument the trying to have it both ways argument.  People who talk like this when defending their support of Prop 8 are really asking me whether or not I prefer to die by fire or by drowning.  I mean which one is worse, I’m dying anyway right?  First of all, what God states in the Bible or Qur’an for that matter, has no bearing on the US Constitution.

I know, I know, what kind of Muslim am I right?  Well, I’m the kind of Muslim who thinks and understands the reality that we live in a secular state and if we are going to live in a secular state we should uphold the laws of that state, if not, we are free to not live in said secular state, or dissolve the government under which we live.  So which one is it?  Are we going to attempt to impose our religious beliefs on a secular society or are we going to leave?  We can’t have it both ways, because religion should never even be in the debate about the legal protections.  But if we must go there…..

A:  I never stated that voters should not have the right to vote their “conscience” or “beliefs”.  That would make me a hypocrite.  However, what I am stating is that when we do, we have to be mindful that those beliefs that we are voting to impose on others who don’t share ours could come around and haunt us as one day it may be another’s beliefs which we don’t share that is legislated against us.  Muslims, lets say we go along with these other religous groups, don’t we realize that if we went along with the “Christian” majority who supports things like Prop 8, we would in essence be responsible for strengthening their political power and legislative abilities? Afterall, they are the majority and we just happen to religiously agree on this particular issue, but in a few years from now, aren’t we then saying by our support this time, that we will equally be OK when this same group decides in some other local, state, or national legislative body that certain restrictions should be placed on Muslims?  I mean the majority wins right?  What happens when a terrorist who happens to be Muslim does something like another 9/11, God forbid, and a “proposition” is placed on a ballot during a major election that limits the building of Mosques or requiring registrations of converts to Islam, etc.?  I mean it would be in the interest of National Security right?  What about society and the values of this nation?  Isn’t the argument that this is a Christian-Judeo nation enough?  Islam is contrary to the values of society and the morality, etc. etc. blah, blah, blah, these would be their arguments against us.  We would have helped create the beast.  They could easily state that converts “chose” to be Muslims, other Muslims “chose” to come to the United States, right?  Since we “chose” these things, and “chose” to live in a society that believes and have different lifestyles than we do, we should be OK with our rights being a little less than the majority of society right?  All the while, we should still be expected to pay our taxes and abide by the law too.  So we can be equally taxed, but shouldn’t complain when we don’t have equal legal protections and representation, because of course, it’s God’s will and societal “norms” is it not?

B:  As it relates to God….what Bible or Qur’an are we reading?  Last I checked, Homosexuality is not at the top of the list and isn’t even in the top 10 on God’s list according to the most conservative interpretations.  So my question is, why are we so zealous on this issue alone?  I mean, if we want to be God’s avengers on Earth and protect society against immorality and values, one would have to ask, what the hell happened in America then?  So you want to talk about “unnatural”? What about Teen pregnancy?  Have we looked at the latest statistics they are through the roof!  What about the divorce statistics?   Most marriages in America end up in divorce.  Births out of wedlock and single parent homes, exist in greater numbers today than at any other time in history.  Then there are those “little” things like adultery, lying, stealing, poverty, crime, the treatment of the elderly, the orphans, etc. etc. etc.  What are we planning to do about these things?  Are they “natural” in God’s eyes?  I don’t see any protests or legal propositions on ballots that punish or deny the rights of those guilty of lying, cheating, stealing, etc.  I don’t see any propositions on the ballots that make it illegal to allow a child to be homeless or go hungry, let alone entire families.  In our “moral” society we will even foreclose on the home of an elderly man or woman and send them to a home for the elderly which we may or may not pay for!  Do we even want to discuss the treatment of the elderly at some of these facilities?  Don’t get me started on health care and insurance!   We have a lot of nerve!  We have a lot of guts invoking the name of God to effectively legally persecute one group of society because of what we call sinful, yet turn a blind eye to the dialy sins of our current society as if they were nothing.  Something about swatting/straining at gnats comes to mind….  To be clear, I care more about the immorality of a society who is the wealthiest in the nation in the world that would allow citizens to go without basic needs like food and shelter than I do about two adults who want to live in a monogamous, life-long committed relationship, even if they are two men or two women.  In other words, I don’t believe religious people even have the theological right to be so up in arms about this issue, meanwhile ignoring when the least of the people in this country suffer.

I mean can you imagine if these so-called religious types were as zealous about ensuring that poverty was eradicated as they are about gay marriage?  Imagine if things like usury were sought out and targeted to be denied?  Imagine if CNN covered protests against lenders because they were so energized as the Prop 8 rallies?  Imagine if it were proposed that it should be illegal to not care and ensure proper care for orphans and the elderly?  Then and only then do I think it would be proper to start with religious debates and arguments against gay marriage.  We don’t even have our house in order, but we are so concerned about another’s house.  As it stands right now, we religious types will sit and observe wars that devastate other nations and people, miscarriages of justice, and all other manners of immorality in and commited by this country in our name, yet we care more about whether or not gay men and women get to share their lives legally, as heterosexual couples currently do and have the same rights, ups, and downs that can come with marriage.   This is supposed to somehow be more important!  I’m sorry, I’m just not buying that line of thinking.

Now even though this is not a common argument and rightfully so, it was suggested to me that “studies” have shown that gays are more promiscuous than heterosexuals and therefore pose more of a “threat” to society…..

– Now that one almost made me laugh!  Now the “threats” were completely outlined, but they apparently range from the transmission of STD’s, to the impact on the psyche of children who may think it’s OK to have sex with anyone….

But isn’t this argument counterproductive to the cause of Prop 8 supporters?

Let me skip over the obvious insulting nature of the commentary, as evidently there truly is nothing new under the sun, history records and shows us that it was the same type of “studies” and arguments that made many believe that blacks were more sexually agressive to the point of being sexual predators, miscreants, and overly promiscuous, and therefore we should be “regulated”, some even tried to sterilize black men.

But let’s just say for a minute that any of these “studies” were true.  Wouldn’t it then seem to reason that we should then support gay marriage? Wouldn’t marriage lessen promiscuity by providing a legal framework and structure that would limit the spread of STD’s as a result?  Wouldn’t stable long term commitments provide an environment and show an example to children that it’s not OK to drop your pants every chance you get and that you can live productive lives in a committed long term relationship?  Are we suggesting that more marriage is a bad thing?  Are we suggesting that providing a legal structure and framework that is equal to all citizens who want to take “plunge” would somehow result in more instability and promiscuity?  I mean God forbid we let the gays get married right?  Then many heterosexual marriages would end in divorce, children may live in single or no parent homes, teens might actually start having sex and having children out of wedlock, entire communities would be ravaged because of the lack of stability in them due to little or know marriages….. but wait that’s already happening!

Oh, I know, that isn’t as bad, what’s bad is that gays want to actually do what heterosexuals are seriously failing to do!  How dare they want to actually do what we should be doing!  How dare they actually want stability, secure committed families and structures and the legal rights to support them as they obey the laws and pay taxes!

How dare they think of themselves as equal citizens who shouldn’t be taxed without equal representation and legislation afforded to other citizens.

What’s the worse that can happen?  Maybe they would end up in happier, sustained, marriages….maybe, their marriages wouldn’t follow our holier than thou examples, hey they might actually stay married!  What could be wrong with that?

I could rant on this subject for days on end.  I obviously haven’t covered every point in my debate last night or my entire feelings on the subject, but I have to state in closing that we have to fight this thing.

Either we uphold the principles of our Constitution or we abolish them.  Either we live in a secular society that guarantees rights for all her citizens regardless of beliefs and yes lifestyle, or we do not.  If we allow a pseudo religious police to have power over those who believe differently than them, then we should be equally willing to deal with the consequences of the future actions this religous police and constituency may take, when they take up a new cause, or find a new target to police brandishing their form of morality and imposing it on society at large.

My religious brethren, you truly worry me with your lukewarm attitudes concerning scripture and theology.  Picking and choosing what parts of the scripture you want to enforce and while standing by ignoring other parts of scripture leads down a slippery slope.  It may be that the very ones with whom you want to deny rights and condemn could be the very ones ahead of us through the gates of paradise.  Have mercy and compassion even with those whom you have theological, ideological, or lifesytle differences.  Remember that God Alone is the Judge and is the Only Granter of Paradise.  These Alienable Rights that Thomas Jefferson so elequently spoke of in our Declarition of Independence, were accurately stated to come from God Alone.  If possesing equal rights and protections under the law, will produce a citizenry that is happy, who are we as man to intefere with the pursuit of this happiness?  This happiness that comes from the ability to live ones life freely under a just system and legislation, states that one’s God given right to be happy and have the liberty thereof, should be protected.  This happiness can not be granted or denied by man because one group believes that the legal garantees that they have should be justified and protected over others due to differing individual or collective beliefs and pursuits.  The pursuit of liberty and happiness should coexist and manifest itself in equal rights and protections under the law, if we are to be true to our founding documents and principles that speak of rights that are inalienable.

Maybe, just maybe if we focused more on living our lives to the highest standards of Our Creator, then we would not have to worry about the lives of our neighbors as they would would readily embrace our examples. If our example reflected those principles and actions that we readily condemn others for not having, then we wouldn’t have to worry about those who don’t reflect them as they would be with us, as it is written in our scripture, that those who are not shall not prosper right?

However, given the current state of affairs in this nation and the world, who would actually want to be a Christian or a Muslim if these terms were defined by the actions and example of those who only seem to have the ability to organize, rally, and support legislation when and if it’s designed merely to deny the rights of those who don’t believe as they do?

Related Articles:

California high court upholds Prop. 8

California high court upholds same-sex marriage ban

Advertisements

13 Comments

  1. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    With respect who do you think the Creator is… The Creator is GOD. Currently people in America do have life, liberty and the persuit of happiness… so what is the problem.

    Contrary to what you may think Scripture plays a large roll in our nation:

    In 1892 the US Supreme Court made this ruling in a case. (Church of The Holy Trinity vs. The United States.) “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is a Christian nation.”

    It is true God considers homosexuality as an abomination. So what is wrong with a Scriptural point of view. declaring what is wrong to be correct is a sign of the comming of the end of time.

    Blessings,
    AV1

    Reply

    1. Peace and Blessings AV1,

      Should I therefore infer from your referencing of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892), that you support the idea that as this is a “Christian Nation” legislation that is passed can be enforced or revoked based on the conformance to the Christian religion? Are you suggesting that the laws of the United States should be interpreted based within the Christian religious theological concepts? If so, then which Christian theology, Church, or Sect should we interpret from or use as a guide? The Mormon Church, The Catholic Church, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.

      This is the problem with such legal inferences in which Justices of centuries past sought to interpret based on assumptions that are not clearly outlined in the Constitution. Not only does it give the Christian Right ammunition, but it also points out the mass hypocrisy of those who promote such interpretations of US Laws. If the founders wanted this nation to be a pseudo or defacto Christian theocracy, why did they go through the pains they did to ensure freedom of religion and separation of Church and State? Why even mention it? Why not pick a Church call it the Church of America and legislate around that specific cannon?

      This specific legal opinion by the Supreme Court had nothing to do with whether or not this is a Christian nation, nor did it have anything to do with setting precedent on how we should interpret or pass laws. It was of the opinion of the Court of that era, that this is a Christian nation and as such should in essence ignore the immigration laws for Christian clergy who do business with Churches in America.

      Even if this court got it right and those who support this legal opinion are right, you still have the problem of explaining the extent of the Churches influence on our laws and letting us know exactly what Church law we are supposed to hold as the supreme model.

      Furthermore, you also embolden my case that to support this type of thinking only emboldens the hypocrisy of some Christians and sets a dangerous precedent that if allowed means that laws could be passed to deny the rights of any citizen who doesn’t adhere to “Christian” law or legal theory. Entire sects, religions, and ideologies could be banned because they don’t adhere to the standards of a “Christian Nation” and if this is a “Christian Nation” as you suggest, I once again ask what Bible are we reading?

      To your commentary: “With respect who do you think the Creator is… The Creator is GOD. Currently people in America do have life, liberty and the persuit of happiness… so what is the problem.”

      You completely misunderstood my commentary apparently. It doesn’t matter what you or I feel about God, religion, theology, etc. Our beliefs should not be legislated against and or over others beliefs. If that were allowed, we would have to redefine our Constitution and decide which religion has precedence. The entire end times rant, is a belief I do not hold, it’s typical of the sky is falling types. To me, it’s arrogant to attempt to know the mind of God as He has not informed man of when the world would end. My beliefs, which according to you can be legislated against, state that our focus should be on our lives now and leave the future to God’s Will Alone. If it were God’s Will that the world should end now, I would have to believe that the reason would not be from Gay marriage but could have something to do with the general state of this so-called Christian Nation. If one was to look at the 10 Commandments and then look at our “Christian Nation” one would not only see that we daily transgress these laws and do nothing about them, but that nowhere is it stated that thou shall not be gay and get married. I happen to think that God would punish us more for our treatment of the least of the people, you know the brethren of Jesus (as) than He would for our allowing Gay couples to have civil rights.

      But heh, if a child dies tonight in America of starvation, that’s less important and less worthy of protest, than if a gay couple can file jointly on a tax return!

      Reply

      1. Robert,

        A simple answer to your question is yes… America is a Christian nation. No America is not like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran or China; the point is Christian principals are the foundational blocks that formed our nation. Please read the article “Is Obama Correct: Is America No Longer A Christian Nation”. As an American Citizen who spent twenty years protecting and defending our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic there is a grave concern regarding the current path of our nation. The foundation of a Christian is not the denomination a person belongs to; the foundation is a personal relationship daily relationship with the Lord God and accepting Him as your Lord and savior. The “guide” America’s success is God’s word the Holy Bible.

        Please explain assumption… how does one assume that which is written down for that is of course unless one has their own agenda. Freedom of speech is always an issue with many people. The “Bill of Rights” is clear it is the “Progressives” and those who are like them who have a problem with comprehension. “abridging the freedom of speech”. Freedom of speech is the right of a person to verbalize their point of view without condensing, diminishing, depriving or shortening the duration of their comment. There is no provision in this amendment of our Constitution that allows a person to speak in an uncivil manner. People have a right to voice their opinion; clearly, there is not allowance for slander or foul and disrespectful language towards another person. Concerning the separation of church and state in 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter replying to the Danbury Baptist. In the letter he stated

        “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

        Jefferson was concerned regarding a wall of separation between Man and God were people not provided the free exercise of their religion. Jefferson’s letter had nothing to do with the removal of God or the Holy Bible from the public square. With respect, it is not about a specific Cannon, Theology, Denomination, or any other labels one would choose to use. The Supreme Court referencing Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) stated “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is a Christian nation.”. Please consider the following:

        “the original intent of our Founding Fathers was clear. This is and always should be a Christian nation because true Christian principles protect everyone’s rights, especially the right to disagree.

        In 1789, the United States Congress voted this resolution: “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.”

        This was an accepted practice in schools at the time of our revolution-

        Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first, Harvard University, chartered in 1636. In the original Harvard Student Handbook, rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the Scriptures: “Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies, is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.”
        From the article, “U.S. District Court judge chooses to leave God out of the Pledge of Allegiance”

        When all is said and done, in this world there is only one thing that will truly matter; And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:3 (KJV) The Holy Bible was as true foundation in 1636 as it was in 1789, 1802, 1892, the foundational cornerstone. The Courts did get it right America is a Christian Nation. You ask about which church law to follow… the answer is it is not about Church law, the model is God’s law.
        With respect your case is not emboldened by this writers comment as the intent is not hypocrisy as this writer believes in the God of Scripture, the Trinity, and that accepting Jesus as ones personal savior is the only way to the Father. The point is Christian principals are America’s foundation our Constitution clearly states, “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”. This writer has never implied or suggested the denial of a person’s faith or religion. However, we must not forget a civil society must maintain morals, standards and values. Please explain the problem with having established morals, standards and values in society. The model is God’s law from the Holy Bible.
        How can you say, “It doesn’t matter what you or I feel about God, religion, theology, etc. Our beliefs should not be legislated against and or over others beliefs. If that were allowed, we would have to redefine our Constitution and decide which religion has precedence”? Once again, with respect it does matter you say in your post, “I think it’s a miscarriage of Justice that the California Supreme Court upheld the ruling barring same-sex marriage outlined under the notorious Prop 8 legislation.” To that, I ask this question why you would promote a lifestyle that God considers an abomination.
        Robert, you are the one who is missing the point… Judeo-Christian and democratic principals are the foundation and the Cornerstone America. Any civil society or nation must have morals values and standards for the citizens of the society to follow. Each society and nation is as unique as God Chose to make it. There is only one Creator and that Creator is the Lord God. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE understand it is not about religion… God wants a personal relationship with each of us. A personal relationship with the Lord God, the right to worship God or not worship God is the foundational principal of America.
        Contraire, the end times are coming it is not a rant to be clear you are correct. Even Jesus Christ the Son of God does not know the time of his return. The intended meaning of the comment was that scripture explains that we are to recognize the wretchedness of those who would call that that is evil good and good evil, and we are to recognize God and His Gospel and His wrath. At no time was there a mention of legislating against a person’s faith that is unconstitutional. The Constitution provides you the right to follow God as one chooses or not. God’s will is the same as it was yesterday, today, and it will be tomorrow. The time frame is His alone … Homosexual Marriage is an abomination in the Christian Faith and am sure homosexuality is not acceptable in the Muslim Faith. You speak of the Ten Commandments; you are correct there has been much transgression. The Commandments provided by God established acceptable standards for the Hebrew nation to follow. The reality check here is to break one Commandment is to break them all we are all sinners, you see it is not “the”, or “which”, sin but sin itself that God does not allow in His presence. A person cannot work their way to Salvation; it is by God’s Grace that we are saved through Faith and not of one’s self but Salvation is a gift of God.
        Transgression for man is daily because we are born of a sinful nature God knows this that is why He sent Jesus that all would not perish. To be sure, each of us will be accountable for our actions; the choice is a personal one to choose Jesus… or to have eternal separation from God in ones future. Homosexuality, people going hungry, not following God as we should these and many more are all transgressions and show the sinful nature of man. No, it is not right that in a nation as powerful as America that a child should go hungry. You would have to ask our President why it is more important to bail out corporations than to feed hungry children. In the process ask the President when it was decided that Civil Rights laws became paramount to the laws of God

        Blessings,
        AV1

  2. Salaam alaikum,

    “First of all, I think it’s a miscarriage of Justice that the California Supreme Court upheld the ruling barring same-sex marriage outlined under the notorious Prop 8 legislation.”

    Nope, the court is this case was not deciding on the legality of gay marriage. They were ruling on the constitutionality of the voter initiative process that resulted in prop 8. As the justices said, they are constitutionally bound to uphold that process. Anger at the court is misplaced. (“Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy,” Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the majority, “we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question.”)

    These are the same justices that after all declared recognizing same sex marriages constitutional, which is what led to the prop 8 amendment in the first place. If there is anger, it should be directed at the voters who voted for the amendment and perhaps the process that allows them to do so, not at the court.

    It is better long term for those who want gay marriage that it happen by the will of the people rather than through the courts (this way we don’t have to hear cries of “liberal judges/judicial activists!” from the conservative side). Polls show opinion on gay marriage is changing rapidly, it already has in several other states. My bet is the next time gay marriage is placed before California voters (as soon as next year) it will pass.

    Reply

    1. Wa Alaikum Asalaam,

      Thank you for the clarification as to what the ruling was really about. I guess I typed in haste. My general point was that it’s a miscarriage of Justice when we are even at a point where civil rights are still on ballots and have to go to courts. It’s unfortunate that the rights of Americans can be voted away based on a myriad of reasons none of them Constitutional and the Courts have to uphold them because the “process” was seemingly legit. The true miscarriage is the fact that the denial of civil rights could legally be put up for a vote!

      Reply

  3. very true…I can only hope that we American Muslims will be able to intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually mature enough as a community to support the cause of justice.

    Reply

  4. What an ignorant dung spoon. Gays do have the same rights with their civil unions or whatever the corect term is, as the hetrosexual marriages. Their complaint is, that although they have a civil union that has the same rights as a marriage, it JUST isn’t CALLED A MARRIAGE.

    For someone so intelligent you sure are stupid.

    Reply

    1. even if they do, they don’t get the benefits (economically) that come with marriage that heterosexual couples get. It does make a big difference in the face of the law if it is legally a marriage or not.

      Reply

  5. Robert, once again, you’re misinterpreting the Constitution. I would ask you to show me WHERE in the Constitution that it states “separation of Church & State” ?? You can’t!!! It doesn’t exist!! The first Amendment specifically states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” What that means is that our founding Fathers didn’t want to follow the English rule of law and having the Government and the Church intertwined with each other as in the Church of England. Where people get this “Wall of separation between the church and the state” was from one of the letters that Jefferson wrote to a church in Virginia. Basically, when I see this quote about the “separation of church and state”, I am reminded that people have willingly overlooked the true intent of the Constitution, legislated from the bench, and otherwise attempted to subvert the Constitution.

    Anyways, I am not opposed to Gay marriage, as I believe that marriage is part of the religious institution. If a homosexual couple wants to get married, find a church that will “marry” them. I also believe that Government shouldn’t be involved in the marriage business. After all, it’s just another form of taxation, mostly without representation.

    Reply

  6. If your daughter was a prostitute……. and your son gay?
    Who would allah allow to enter Janna ?

    Homosexuality is forbidden in Islam as is prostitution, sex before marriage. But, which is MORE haram? Both equally wrong, but, which would be perhaps forgiven?

    I think your decision to agree with same sex marriage is wrong.

    Before I converted, my best friend was gay. Now, needless to say, I don’t talk to him because it hurts me to know he will have no chance of entering heaven.

    Prophet Mohamed (pbuh) teaches us that marriage is fard. you must do it. it is not obligatory.
    Any man that does not marry that is capable of marrying is committing sin.
    He did not say……marry a man.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s