“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

Grammy Winners Stand Behind Marriage, Proposition 8

imagesbannerscp_120x60Reprinted by permission of the Christian Post

By Josh Kimball
Christian Post Reporter
Mon, Feb. 09 2009 06:57 PM EST

Gospel duo Mary Mary, who took home Grammys for the best Gospel performance, openly expressed their support for California’s Proposition 8 on Sunday, doing what few in the entertainment industry have done, let alone admit to doing. 

“Yes, we will say we voted for marriage in its traditional form,” the sisters said following their win Sunday evening, according to Fox News.

marriage2“We believe marriage should be how it was traditionally, a man and a woman,” they added.

Last year, prominent celebrities in the entertainment industry made a last-minute drive to prevent Prop. 8 from passing, fueling the “No on 8” campaign with millions of dollars and drawing criticism from conservatives already rankled over Hollywood’s funneling of sex, violence, and profanity into American society and overseas.

Despite efforts, Proposition 8 passed by a 52-to-48 percent vote, effectively defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and removing California from the small list of states that had legalized gay marriage.

Last week, however, the California Supreme Court announced their intention to hear oral arguments concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8 on Mar. 5. In addition to considering challenges to the amendment, the court will consider the fate of 18,000 same-sex marriages that occurred before the November election.

Copyright 2009 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.      


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


19 Responses to “Grammy Winners Stand Behind Marriage, Proposition 8”

  1. “Yes, we will say we voted for marriage in its traditional form,” the sisters said following their win Sunday evening, according to Fox News.

    Traditional as in 1 man many women? or maybe traditional as in a woman is property and is traded into marriage for land or money?

    1 man 1 woman marriage where the woman choses whom she gets to marry is relatively new in the sense of recorded history, so if marraige can change that way, why can't it change now.

    and if marriage is so tied to the Christian god, then it needs to be untied to federal and state laws because of separation of church and state

  2. I think it's pretty obvious what they meant by traditional marriage, James. People who want to undermine marriage are the only ones who claim to not get it; apparently you are one of those.

    You must be pretty ignorant of history as well, both ancient and American history. Marriage between a man and a woman has been around as long as the human race.

    And “separation of church and state” means no official state religion or church, and the church doesn't run the state–neither of which has ever been the case for the United States. It does not mean a government devoid of and divorced from moral or religious values.

    The men who wrote and signed our founding document, who crafted our Constitution, and who led this nation in the early years understood the vital importance of religion to a health society and to the maintenance of freedom:

    Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. – George Washington’s Presidential Farewell Address
    We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – John Adams

    It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. Religion and virtue are the only foundations…of republicanism and of all free governments. – John Adams

    While the people are virtuous, they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader. – Samuel Adams

    It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality. – Abraham Baldwin, signer of the Constitution

    Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. – Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

    Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. – Benjamin Franklin

    Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement – John Hancock

    Righteousness alone can exalt them [America] as a nation…The great pillars of all government and of social life: I mean virtue, morality and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible. – Patrick Henry.

    The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society…We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses. – Thomas Jefferson

    The Holy Scriptures…can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses. – James McHenry, signer of the Constitution, Secretary of War

    I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. Therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man toward God. – Gouverneur Morris, penman and signer of the Constitution

    Religion and morality…are necessary to good government, good order and good laws, for “when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice” – William Paterson, signer of the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

    The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained. – George Washington’s Inaugural Address

    The law…dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. – Alexander Hamilton, signer of the Constitution

    Let it never be forgotten that there can be no genuine freedom where there is no morality, and no sound morality where there is no religion…Hesitate not a moment to believe that the man who labors to destroy these two great pillars of human happiness…is neither a good patriot nor a good man. – Jeremiah Smith, Revolutionary soldier, judge, U.S. Congressman, Governor of New Hampshire

    It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs whether any free government can be permanent where the public worship of God and the support of religion constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. – Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Judge, Father of American Jurisprudence

    Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society – George Washington

    Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens. – Daniel Webster

    Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown—general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land. – Daniel Webstser

    The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity. – John Adams

    Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. – James Wilson, signer of the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Judge

    Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country…God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both. – John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration

    No country on earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed it would be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass. – George Washington (how deeply sad that we have betrayed Washington’s confidence)

    When a citizen gives his suffrage [vote] to a man of known immorality he abuses his trust [civic responsibility]; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country. – Noah Webster

    You wouldn't want a state devoid of religious values. Such a place would look a lot like North Korea or the old Soviet Union. Fun, huh?

  3. “You wouldn't want a state devoid of religious values. Such a place would look a lot like North Korea or the old Soviet Union. Fun, huh?”

    Try asking a Saudi Arabian woman how she feels living in a country that is decidedly not devoid of religious values.

  4. And that would be the extreme at the other end of the spectrum.

    Thankfully the United States is built on a Christian worldview that
    recognizes both the dignity and worth of women, and that you cannot force
    religious fealty.

    And that our founders had the maturity of faith to establish a civilization
    based on those Christian values…without the unwise marriage of church and
    state displayed in a state-run church or a church-run state.

  5. In that case, maybe you shouldn't generalize so much.

    And by the way, many of our founders believed that the Bible allowed them to own slaves, so I don't put much stock in the “maturity of their faith.” Perhaps their faith was so strong that they didn't stop to think?

  6. “Thankfully the United States is built on a Christian worldview “

    Not quite — “[T]he government of the United States of America is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion. . . .” (From “The Treaty with Tripoli,” approved by President Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.)

    Here are some more for you:

    “Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but is always the strongly marked feature of all law-religion, or religions established by law.” -Thomas Paine

    “There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant violation.” – James Madison

    “I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government.” – Andrew Jackson

    “The divorce between church and state should be absolute.” – James Garfield

    Now, while I don't disagree with the fact that our founding fathers were religious, they did have the maturity of faith to establish a civilization based on their separation from state.

  7. Sorry, too often I count on Americans to educate themselves about our nation, our history and our heritage. It's a failing of mine, expecting too much of the most free and affluent society in human history.

    Maybe it's just easier for you to ignore that many of the founders vehemently opposed slavery and did everything they could to rid the nation of it once we got free of England.

    Maybe it's just easier to avoid God and God's truth by avoiding the recognition that many of the founders, like Noah Webster, recognized that slavery was incompatible with Christian teaching:

    “…the moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws…All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”

    If you're waiting for perfect people to create a perfect nation before you'll support that nation, you might as well give up waiting until Christ comes back, because that's the only time it's going to happen.

    In the meantime, why not stop being so myopically concerned with every bad thing about this wonderful country (like pretending the founders who adamantly opposed slavery didn't exist) and be thankful that you live in the greatest, most prosperous, most just and most free nation in human history?

    Or if living in the peanut gallery is more satisfying, just stay where you are.

  8. Nice try, Brenton, but it's been tried before…and fell flat on it's face. It's obvious you've been reading too many secularist websites that deny America's abundantly Christian foundation and heritage.

    Try reading a little beyond the deceptively truncated excerpt often presented from the Treaty of Tripoli and you'll find later in the very same sentence that it explains the context of this statement:

    As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (muslims),-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (Islamic) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever

    In other words, the United States is not a theocracy as the Muslim nations were (and many still are). That does not in any way, shape, form or fashion change or deny the fact that our nation was founded by Christians on Christian principles, and that the founders understood how vitally important (you might want to go back and read those quotes I provided again) religion is to the health and maintenance of our free nation.

    The remainder of your quotes illustrate a shallow and profound lack of understanding of both religion, government, and our nation's history. More specifically, your only shred of “understanding” of the concept of “separation of church and state” (a statement not found in the Declaration or the Constitution) is based on the radical secularism pushed in the last 50 years.

    I don't say that deliberately to insult you; merely to point out that your position is based on a bare minimum of information–and that severely distorted by disingenuous people to grossly misrepresent our history and mislead people.

    You make the same mistake most well-meaning but otherwise ignorant people make these days. You assume that a “separation of church and state” means a government and public square totally sanitized of any religious reference or influence whatsoever. The quotes I provided overwhelmingly prove that our nation was NEVER designed to operate in this fashion.

    Rather, the founders had the wisdom and maturity of faith to create a nation that did not effect “separation of religious values and state” but separation of official function between state and church. This is what you'll find the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Congress cannot make a law giving preference to a religions ESTABLISHMENT over another.

    You really should read more than just “sound bytes” of the founders views on religious establishments and the state. They are very enlightening.

    And at the top of the reading list I would recommend Alexis de Tocqueville's “Democracy in America.” This was written around the 1830s I think by a Frenchman who toured America to find out what made this wonderful nation so powerfully unique. He found that it was the religious character of the people, and how the Christian faith guided our political institutions without an official relationship. Make sure you don't read an abridged version, or you might miss some of the profound (dare I say stunning?) observations he made about religion in America.

    If you start with that one book, your understanding of “church and state” issues in America, and the truth about our heritage, will never be remotely the same again.

  9. You wouldn't want a state devoid of religious values. Such a place would look a lot like North Korea or the old Soviet Union. Fun, huh?

    You imply that one can not have values without religion. I want my government to have values, just not necessarily Christian values.

    Gay Marriage will not harm anyone, and If you can site an instance where it did, then i would love the chance to see it.

  10. You cannot have moral values without religion. You have no idea how much the Judeo-Christian worldview influences values in the Western world (even as the Western world attempts to reject that worldview).

    You can have values…of a sort. Values that include murdering your political enemies, values that include silencing or imprisoning your enemies, etc. Without a transcendent moral foundation, “values” can be anything you want them to be. Cases in point: the aforementioned North Korea and former Soviet Union.

    The ways in which homosexual “marriage” is harmful are myriad, but here are a few (being very, very brief).

    When marriage can mean anything, it really means nothing. Which leads to…

    Fewer couples marry because if it means nothing, why bother. Which leads to…

    More children born without the commitment and stability of a marital commitment. Which leads to…

    More children seeing various father-figures shuffling in and out of the home. Which leads to…

    Lack of attachment in developing children. Lack of a solid male (or female) role model. An absence of a living example of healthy interaction between males and females in a domestic environment. Lack of supervision and moral training for the children. All of which lead to…

    More juvenile crime. More juvenile mental and emotional problems. More academic problems. More poverty. Lack of a moral foundation and solid work ethic. Which leads to…

    More adult crime. Lack of economic productivity. More poverty. More strain on the productive taxpayers. More sexual, relational and parenting dysfunction. Which leads to…

    Even more of all the above in the next generation…and the next…and the next.

    Pretty picture, huh? And that was just something I threw together in a couple of minutes. Imagine the depth and breadth of the societal devastation if I (or a trained sociologist) sat down and did an in-depth analysis.

    Finally, consider this: why is producing and knowingly passing counterfeit currency illegal?

  11. Hi Bob,

    Could you please share the sources you used to determine that there's been an increase in juvenile/adult crime, poverty, strain on taxpayers, sexual/relational/parental dysfunction, and a decrease in economic productivity in the countries and states which have legalized same-sex unions? Has there been a decrease in the number of couples who marry in these places? If so, can you prove that the reason is “why bother”?

    And again, I would be very careful not to speak in such general terms about religion.

  12. The concept of homosexual “marriage” is a pretty new concept, even among the morally decadent nations of Europe, so data is still sketchy. However, a study called “Homosexual Marriage: A Social Science View” found that the dissolution rate of such unions in Sweden is 50% higher for homosexuals than heterosexuals. In both Norway and Sweden, lesbian dissolution rates are double that of male homosexuals, blowing the conventional wisdom that female homosexuals are more settled in their relationships.

    Another study of Norway found that heterosexual marriage rates (the only genuine marriage) plummeted after homosexual unions were officially recognized. If marriage can mean anything, it means nothing, and people don't have to be a genius to figure that out.

    And we know from multiple studies here in the United States–including the work of Charles Murray–that divorce and single parenthood has the deleterious effects I previously mentioned on children. The chaos in the home, the bad messages–real or perceived–that such situations send children about their worth and whether they're loved ends up causing considerable mental and emotional problems. The lack of an opposite-role model sends a message that the other sex is unnecessary or undesirable, and especially for boys, the lack of a male role model in the home leads to identity problems and distorted views on sexuality, commitment, marriage and parenting. Numerous studies and statistics, both at the federal and state, show that the overwhelming majority of poverty is found in single-parent homes. And children in single-parent homes and homes without two adults with a biological connection to the child experience far greater incidence of academic difficulties and juvenile crime. I used to be a cop, and I've seen it up close. Anything that undermines marriage and stable families promotes crime, poverty, and children with lots of problems.

    There is a veritable forest of evidence, a mountain of proof readily available in libraries and on the internet that the breakdown of marriage is devastating to children.

    The fallacious concept of homosexual “marriage” only adds to that in a domino effect that has only just begun. It doesn't take a genius to see the relationships, just open eyes.

    Finally, I have no need to be general about religion. The evidence of what I say about it is also mountainous in volume…for those with eyes to see.

  13. Then would you contend that a devout Muslim who beats his wives (plural) is more moral than an agnostic – simply because he is religious? Keep in mind, the Muslim is only following the orders set out in the Qu'ran…

    I think a more accurate and truthful statement is that one does not necessarily have to be religious in order to be moral.

  14. Even Islam contains many elements of moral behavior based on what it alleges to be transcendent values–things like the value of human life (provided it isn't infidel life, of course), avoidance of intoxicants, etc.

    But Islam is a bit of a religious oddity when compared to most other religions. Where most religions (whether they be Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) affirm the value of innocent human life as a matter of principle, peace where possible, and the freedom to choose within the parameters of what doesn't injur others…Islam is militantly a “my way or the highway” belief–and the “highway” involves you laying down in it while Islam runs you over.

    That is why Islam is at odds with every other religion, philosophy and way of life it encounters. There are “moderate” Muslims, but they usually do not devoutly follow their religion (more akin to the “cultural Christian”). Orthodox, serious Islam is a do-or-die proposition.

    That would, of course, make it the exception to the rule when it comes to religion.

    But then, I'm sure that answer is unsatisfying for someone who lives by the exception to the rule in order to justify immorality.

  15. Haha, come on Bob. “My way or the highway” beliefs and do-or-die propositions are what Christianity is all about!

  16. The concept of homosexual “marriage” is a pretty new concept, even among the morally decadent nations of Europe, so data is still sketchy. However, a study called “Homosexual Marriage: A Social Science View” found that the dissolution rate of such unions in Sweden is 50% higher for homosexuals than heterosexuals. In both Norway and Sweden, lesbian dissolution rates are double that of male homosexuals, blowing the conventional wisdom that female homosexuals are more settled in their relationships.

    Another study of Norway found that heterosexual marriage rates (the only genuine marriage) plummeted after homosexual unions were officially recognized. If marriage can mean anything, it means nothing, and people don't have to be a genius to figure that out.

    And we know from multiple studies here in the United States–including the work of Charles Murray–that divorce and single parenthood has the deleterious effects I previously mentioned on children. The chaos in the home, the bad messages–real or perceived–that such situations send children about their worth and whether they're loved ends up causing considerable mental and emotional problems. The lack of an opposite-role model sends a message that the other sex is unnecessary or undesirable, and especially for boys, the lack of a male role model in the home leads to identity problems and distorted views on sexuality, commitment, marriage and parenting. Numerous studies and statistics, both at the federal and state, show that the overwhelming majority of poverty is found in single-parent homes. And children in single-parent homes and homes without two adults with a biological connection to the child experience far greater incidence of academic difficulties and juvenile crime. I used to be a cop, and I've seen it up close. Anything that undermines marriage and stable families promotes crime, poverty, and children with lots of problems.

    There is a veritable forest of evidence, a mountain of proof readily available in libraries and on the internet that the breakdown of marriage is devastating to children.

    The fallacious concept of homosexual “marriage” only adds to that in a domino effect that has only just begun. It doesn't take a genius to see the relationships, just open eyes.

    Finally, I have no need to be general about religion. The evidence of what I say about it is also mountainous in volume…for those with eyes to see.

  17. Then would you contend that a devout Muslim who beats his wives (plural) is more moral than an agnostic – simply because he is religious? Keep in mind, the Muslim is only following the orders set out in the Qu'ran…

    I think a more accurate and truthful statement is that one does not necessarily have to be religious in order to be moral.

  18. Even Islam contains many elements of moral behavior based on what it alleges to be transcendent values–things like the value of human life (provided it isn't infidel life, of course), avoidance of intoxicants, etc.

    But Islam is a bit of a religious oddity when compared to most other religions. Where most religions (whether they be Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) affirm the value of innocent human life as a matter of principle, peace where possible, and the freedom to choose within the parameters of what doesn't injur others…Islam is militantly a “my way or the highway” belief–and the “highway” involves you laying down in it while Islam runs you over.

    That is why Islam is at odds with every other religion, philosophy and way of life it encounters. There are “moderate” Muslims, but they usually do not devoutly follow their religion (more akin to the “cultural Christian”). Orthodox, serious Islam is a do-or-die proposition.

    That would, of course, make it the exception to the rule when it comes to religion.

    But then, I'm sure that answer is unsatisfying for someone who lives by the exception to the rule in order to justify immorality.

  19. Haha, come on Bob. “My way or the highway” beliefs and do-or-die propositions are what Christianity is all about!