12 Questions For Pro-Same Sex Marriage Presidential Candidates
12 Questions For Pro-Same Sex Marriage Presidential Candidates
GrassTopsUSA Guest Commentary
By Gregg Jackson
08-23-071. To those who say: “Banning homosexual marriage is a form of discrimination, similar to the banning of interracial marriages, which makes homosexuals into second class citizens.”
Anti-miscegenation (interracial marriage) laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia) because they frustrated the core purpose of marriage in order to sustain a racist legal order. Since the decision didn’t change the fact that marriage was still between one man and one woman, how is banning “same sex marriage” discriminatory?
2. To those who say: “Homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation that God intended for some people and is not a perversion of normal sexuality.”
I am not aware of a single place in the Bible where homosexuality is not condemned by God as unnatural, perverted, and sinful behavior. Can you point to any place in the Bible where homosexuality is not condemned by God? Also, if in fact homosexuality is genetic, how do you explain the thousands of former homosexuals who are now straight?
gay marriage | Gregg | 
August 23, 2007 8:43 pm
First a couple of disclaimers:
- I am Canadian and we have solved the same-sex marriage question by opting to recognize that not all people are created the same (although they are created EQUAL).
- I am “old” and have been in an opposite-sex marriage for some 40 odd years (some more odd than others), and have have not noticed any denigration of my marriage since same-sex couples were allowed to marry a few years ago..
- I have several gay friends, but I have no hidden agendas (unlike Gregg Jackson, who puts an advertisement for his book in the middle of his blog - tacky, man!!).
As a published author (check Amazon.com) I would suggest that writing biased garbage is not an effective way to encourage people to but your book.
Initially I had hoped to have an interesting discussion concerning the points raised. However, I have been unable to find anything substantive in Mr. Jackson’s blog to discuss. There appear to be NO references to the things he states (e.g. “thousands” of gay people who have changed to be straight? I doubt he even knows a thousand gay people, let alone has any reputable statistics to support his statement).
In short, I suspect that Mr. Jackson is (a) trying to sell his book and (b) trying to carry on where Karl Rove left off in stirring up homosexual issues in order to get out the “straight” Republican vote: (http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000719.htm
-
We need to talk. I never told anyone this, well maybe one or two people, but I used to be involved another woman. This is when I was younger, and there were many contributing factors. I was forced into prostitution at the age of 17.
I was a run away, lost, alone and scared. There were no places for children like me back then. I was treated so poorly that I actually began believing what I was told about myself.
Getting beyond that, that is when I learned to actually hate men. I did not want anything to do with them. All they did was hurt me or use me. I saw a side of men that I never should have, and now I cannot erase it from my mind.
Is homosexuality genetic? NO! It is learned. It is an escape. It deepens any pains that brings a person to that depravity. Yes, depravity. Was I ashamed then? Yes. Was I embarrassed? You bet. Enough to stop me? Yes, eventually, when the pain had already done its damage to me. See, it only increased my pain and fear. Of everything, of men, of life, and I almost committed suicide. I could not deal with the pain of the OTHER problems. No one seems to be interested in those, though. I guess they just aren’t that sexy…
There was one woman I told that I loved her, but I could not do anything about it. I had too much respect for her and, finally, for myself.
Why am I disclosing this to you? Because you need a really strong arguement here. Just in case you thought you did not know anyone who had gone through the struggle of serving themselves or serving God, you do. Me. I’m sorry to disappoint you.
You write wonderfully, and keep asking these questions. They need to be answered. For those of us who have been left out in the cold because we know it is wrong, sinful, painful and will keep us out of Heaven. For God’s sake, help US. Thank you.
I am writing this anonymously, but the author of this site knows who I am. I apologize, but I do not wish disclose who I am. This is painful enough. Thank you.
Wow. That is pretty powerful. I wonder what Charles would say to her? Is it just a lifestyle? Or is there something deeper, something we’ve overlooked? Maybe we should ask some of the groups such as the group that put out this documentary named, “We Do Exist” (Oct. 2004), this group during Oct. 2005 proclaiming, “I Do Exist,” and Exodus International. I’m sure these people might have something to say, if only people would be willing to listen.
It must be so hard out there for these people who, at one part in time could not be accepted, and now they are unaccepted if they change their lives to the right ways, according to God.
I’m sorry, Charles, but you are part of the problem. You keep these people in pain, and you do not care why they are in their situation at all. You are too concerned with being hip or cool, while at the same time the suicide rate is continuing to rise. They do not need your coolness or your sympethic ear. They need your help. If you cannot offer them this, then get out of the way so someone who actually cares can offer it to them.
Sorry about, Gregg. He just got my goat.
Charles,
To your points:
You say: “I have several gay friends, but I have no hidden agendas (unlike Gregg Jackson, who puts an advertisement for his book in the middle of his blog - tacky, man!!).”
Hidden agendas? I am the last person in the world Charles to “hide” any of my opinions. I make them known nationally on radio every week and have about 45,000 copies of my book in print. Nothing “hidden” here Charles. Just unabashed unvarnished truth and honesty. If you don’t like it that’s one thing, but there is hardly anything I am “hiding.” And as for my “tacky” link to my book: That’s what we call in America capitalism. You see, I have a blog, wrote a book, and use the blog to advertise my book. And that’s tacky? How would you suggest I market my book Charles? Isn’t that a pretty silly thing to say really intended to divert people’s attention from the fact that you could not answer one of my questions that I posed?
As to your comment in which you say:
“Initially I had hoped to have an interesting discussion concerning the points raised. However, I have been unable to find anything substantive in Mr. Jackson’s blog to discuss. There appear to be NO references to the things he states (e.g. “thousands” of gay people who have changed to be straight? I doubt he even knows a thousand gay people, let alone has any reputable statistics to support his statement).”
Nothing “substantive” Charles? I have about 20 pages of footnotes in my book Charles. Have you ever read it? Or are you just taking pot shots at me? It’s one thinkg to disagree with what I have to say, but very unfair to claim that I don’t have any “references” in eithter my book or article. I cite numerous studies in my article. Perhpas you could be a little more precise. Which of my questions are not “substantive” Charles? Perhaps we could have an actual discussion instead of you claiming I’m an evil Republican tied to Rove etc…
As to whether I “know 1000s of “gay people” Charles think about how rediculous that is. I don’t think that any practicing homosexual knows “thousands of gay people.” I don’t even “know” 200 people I could make a list of. Do you actually “know” 1000 people you could make a list of?
Let’s set aside the absurdity of that comment. But the fact is that I lived in San Fran and knew gay people personally whose bodies were ravaged by AIDs Charles. And yes I was freindly with plently of “gay” people and still am.
Instead of implying that I “hate gays” try answering the question. In my book I actually cite a an article from USA today in which I believe 750 ex-gays took out a full page add. And as Rosemary cites, there are definatley 1000s of ex-practicing homsosexuals. Ever heard of ex national gay leader Michael Glatze? I just interviewed him on my show. Perhaps you could google his name and read his story if you are interested in what an actual person who was a practicing homosexual has to say about it Charles.
Again, quite wasting people’s time with the “Gregg jackson is part of a Rovian conspiracy intended to get out REpublican voters.” That is absurd Charles. See if you can answer my 12 questions and engage in a civilized grown up discourse. Then we will see if what I have to say is “substantive” or not.
Gregg
Thank you, Gregg, and good job. You manage to control yourself so well. I wish I could that skill, or is it a gift from GOD?
Another set of questions for candidates by Gregg…
Gregg has been thoughtful and gentle in his asking of these questions. What we would like to know is what the candidates truly believe, not what is politically correct. Many times what may seem correct can do much more damage to one’s soul than e …….
Gregg,
I wish I could find the time to write a decent response to each of your questions, but I have a full-time job and simply cannot do so. Nevertheless, here is my attempt at question #1:
Question: Since Loving v. Virginia didn’t change the fact that marriage was still between one man and one woman, how is banning “same sex marriage” discriminatory?
Answer: Banning same sex marriage is discriminatory because it prohibits a homosexual or lesbian individual from marrying the person they wish to marry, while everyone else is permitted to do so. In other words, excluding homosexuals and lesbians from being able to marry whomever they wish is discriminatory.
Just as Loving v. Virginia was about recognizing the fundamental right of people to marry regardless of race, we should recognize the fundamental right of people to marry regardless of sexual orientation. Furthermore, just as marriage was redefined after Loving v. Virginia to include interracial marriages, marriage should be redefined, if necessary, to include same sex marriages.
By no means did the Court hold in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples. Therefore, recognizing same sex marriages certainly would not conflict with Loving v. Virginia.
From your perspective, banning gay marriage it is not discriminatory because all individuals would still be permitted to marry an individual of the opposite sex. Virginia actually used this same logic in Loving v. Virginia, however, in support of its ban on interracial marriage: Virginia argued that banning interracial marriage was not discriminatory because everyone would still be permitted to marry someone of their own race. Based on how obviously flawed this logic now seems to have been when applied to interracial marriage, I see no reason to view it is any less flawed when applied to same sex marriage.
JC, first of all thanks for actually engaging and answering one of the questions. I have a few pts to make in regard to your thoughtful answers. You say in response to my first question:
“Banning same sex marriage is discriminatory because it prohibits a homosexual or lesbian individual from marrying the person they wish to marry, while everyone else is permitted to do so. In other words, excluding homosexuals and lesbians from being able to marry whomever they wish is discriminatory.”
Heterosexuals are not permitted to marry the person of their “choice.” I can’t marry my daughter or even my first cousin in certain states. Nor can I marry somebody not of age of consent or two others for that matter. There are all types of laws that govern and restrict marriage. In that same regard, marriage is defined as the legal union between one man and one woman. So prohibiting a man from marrying another man is actually discriminatory in the sense that the law discriminates (i.e. that it sets legal limits and boundaries on the precise definition of what a legal marriage entails). As I note in my book, all laws discriminate in one way or another. But it is not discriminatory in the way that anti-micegenation laws were that were overturned and found to be unconstitutional in Loving v Virginia were. Again, the SC did not change the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
As to your comment that :
“Just as Loving v. Virginia was about recognizing the fundamental right of people to marry regardless of race, we should recognize the fundamental right of people to marry regardless of sexual orientation. Furthermore, just as marriage was redefined after Loving v. Virginia to include interracial marriages, marriage should be redefined, if necessary, to include same sex marriages.”
Whether marriage should be redefined as you say will be a question that we the people will decide via our elected representatives. In our Republic only we the people via our reps are constitutionally able to make and amend laws. But Loving v Virginia again didn’t redefine marriage as not being between one man and one woman. And if in fact there are citizens who believe that Loving does extend those same rights to homosexuals or even polygamists to marry whomever they want to, it will be up to them to file a petition with the court and argue their case if they feel their constitutional rights are being violated which I suspect will be the case in the future. They can also change the laws via the proscribed legislative legal process to redefine the legal definition of marriage to include same sex marriage or polygamy or whatever marital configuartion the citizens of that state so desire. Unfortunately we in Mass had that right usurped by an unelected judiciary and a legislature that didn’t allow the people to vote on the legal definition of marriage at the ballot box.
You say:
“By no means did the Court hold in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples. Therefore, recognizing same sex marriages certainly would not conflict with Loving v. Virginia.”
Oh really? Have you ever read the case? I have and include it in my book and the SC in Loving v. Virginia only ruled that miscegenation laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional. That was the entirety of the ruling. Nothing in that case extended any rights or privaledges to same sex couples, bigamists, polygamists, etc…
Gregg
Here is a well written article regarding Loving v. Virginia and its impact on, among other things, the same sex marriage debate:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20070612.html
By no means does the case provide the answer to the debate, but each side of the debate can certinaly draw from it very valid comparisons and distinctions in order to support its position.
From a constitutional law perspective, restricting marriage, such that I cannot marry a man unless I am a woman, is a sex-based distinction. It would be akin to a state’s deciding (as in some Islamic countries) that only male doctors can see male patients and only female doctors can see female patients. Merely because both sexes are restricted does not mean that this is not sex discrimination.
The comparison made to Loving v. Virginia is that similarly, the Virginia miscegenation law allowed all races to get married — so long as they married within their own races. Everyone was equally restricted, but it was a restriction based on race, and such a restriction was found to violate the Constitution. It didn’t matter that the law was being used to punish a white man (Loving) — it was racist because it drew a racial distinction. A law is sexist when it draws a sex distinction.
I am not clear on why you bring up incest, polygamy, etc. Our laws are full of distinctions based on relatedness (for example, family members cannot make “arm’s length” transactions under tax law) and based on the number of people (see Baker v. Carr’s requirement that each person’s vote for the House of Representatives count equally). We have made no attempt to reduce the law’s making distinctions on these bases of relatedness or numerosity.
In contrast, for the last century the law has been reducing the distinctions made on the basis of race and sex. Treating one person differently from another because of race requires the state to have an extremely important objective that it can achieve in no other way. Treating one person differently from another because of sex requires the state to have an important objective and for the means to be tailored to that objective.
If the state’s objective is, for example, to encourage people to raise children within the protection of marriage, banning same-sex marriage is so distant a means to achieve the end that I can’t even figure out how one will help the other, unless someone really wants to declare that if the gays get married, the straights won’t want to anymore.
Our laws on how people behave in marriage and divorce make no distinctions based on sex. Husbands and wives have the exact same legal obligations. When two people of the same sex get married, their marriage is legally exactly the same as an opposite-sex couple’s. They have the same rights and duties. (Contrast with a polygamous marriage, in which spouses typically have a hierarchy; if they’re all equal, try to imagine who would make the spousal decision in something like the Terri Schiavo situation.)
I never have discussed this issue with someone who was opposed to same-sex marriage, who did not think that men and women actually do have different rights and duties in marriage, and thus two people of the same sex could not have a proper marriage. People are entitled to this sex-distinctive view in their own marriages, but the law does not partake of it.
Also, Jesus never speaks about homosexuality. If you’re getting your basis for intolerance of homosexuals from the New Testament, it’s entirely from the dicta (so to speak) of the men writing the Gospels. E.g., Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 are of course Paul’s *epistles* to the Romans, Corinthians and Timothy, not the direct word of the Father nor the Son.
And if you’re keeping the Old Testament covenant, do you also refuse to make investments that would involve getting interest on loans (bonds, certificates of deposit, etc.)? And do you urge the same condemnation of a man who dates his deceased brother’s widow, or of someone who has sex with a woman during her period, that you do of homosexuals? They’re all in Leviticus ch. 18.
PG,
Great points and well written. I particular like your reference to the Old Testament’s condemnation of those who earn interest on loans. I gotta remember that one.
Reply to Gregg Jackson -
You misunderstood my reaction to your blog.
It was titled: “12 Questions For Pro-Same Sex Marriage” but according to a casual word count this was NOT the topic.
same sex 1
Same-sex 4
marriage 5
homosexual 24
When I said I found not much substance in the blog, I was meaning substantive on the headlined topic of same-sex marriage, not homosexuality.
Oh, and by the way, it is generally accepted that quotation marks are used to indicate a speakers exact words. I did not say,” … Gregg jackson is part of a Rovian conspiracy intended to get out REpublican voters.”
I was simply making an observation on the similarity between your presenting a misleading topic heading to get people to read the blog and Rove’s getting same-sex marriage on the ballot to goad a particular group of voters to turn out to vote.
I must learn to be more specific.