Atheists United says defining the term "marriage" as being only between a male and female is a violation of civil rights and not supportable under the law. They say the "limit on the right to marry is based on religious belief, not on the reasonable interests of the state, and therefore is an effrontery to the separation of government from religion."
Well, if one believes at all in the mundane state (atheists certainly don't believe in the state of God), then the issue comes down according to them to the reasonable interests of the state. Why is it not a reasonable interest of the state that homosexual behavior is harmful beyond what is acceptable to the vast majority of informed, heterosexual people (People: From the consent of whom the government derives its just power)? (See: "Homosexuals: What they ignore.")
The issue of harm has been deliberately suppressed. The issue has been deliberately couched as a matter of separation of church and state. However, even were such separation absolute, under the present state harmfulness is a consideration. The so-called rights of people are a balancing act under the current state. The right of one person to do whatever he or she wants is balanced against the right of others to be free from harmful results.
In real Christianity, there is no coercive law. There is only truthful warning and then letting things be. Suppressing the truth about the harmful results of falling to the temptation of homosexuality is evil.
June 16, 2008
Atheists Express Opposition to California Anti-Marriage Amendment Initiative
By Stuart Bechman
Civic laws should not be based on religious beliefs
Los Angeles "" The board of Atheists United, the preeminent atheist civil-rights organization in Southern California, unanimously voted today to formally oppose the passage of the Marriage Limitation Amendment to be voted on by California voters in the November 2008 presidential election.
The resolution reads as follows:
"WHEREAS, the California Supreme court has ruled that; 'the right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people.' (In re Marriage Cases S147999, May 15, 2008, footnote 41.)
"WHEREAS, a proposed constitutional amendment, to limit marriage, will be on the November 4, 2008 General Election Ballot in California, stating; 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'
"WHEREAS, such a limit on the right to marry is based on religious belief, not on the reasonable interests of the state, and therefore is an effrontery to the separation of government from religion.
"THEREFORE, Atheists United declares its opposition to this ballot measure and urge other organizations and individuals to oppose the measure and to vote against it."
"This is a basic moral values issue," stated Atheists United president Stuart Bechman. "Religious people who wish to define marriage restrictively are free to do so for themselves, but it is frankly immoral for one group to dictate their restrictive views of a basic human right on all citizens."
"Those who oppose gay marriage should simply refuse to marry someone of their own gender."
Atheists United will be combining its efforts and resources with other gay and civil-rights groups over the course of the campaign season to educate the public on the reasons why this amendment should be defeated.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)