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.