By Dave Pidgeon, Intelligencer Journal Staff
Intelligencer Journal
Published: Mar 14, 2006 8:15 AM EST
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - More than a dozen people from Mountville-based Vision of Hope Metropolitan Community Church will attend a rally today at the state Capitol opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment.
The Rev. Deborah Coggins, pastor of Vision of Hope, said the proposed amendment -- which would change the state constitution by defining marriage as between "one man and one woman" -- discriminates against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people.
"There's no evidence at all to indicate that giving marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples would hurt heterosexual marriage in any way, shape or form," she said.
Coggins said the Vision of Hope contingent will try to meet with three Lancaster County legislators to express opposition to the amendment.
The lawmakers are state Rep. Scott Boyd, a Lampeter Republican who is the amendment's prime sponsor, and Republican co-sponsors state Reps. Katie True and Gibson C. Armstrong.
Lancaster County's four other Republican House delegates also support the measure.
Armstrong said Monday he is willing to meet with the Vision of Hope group.
" ... In every state that has put this amendment up, it has passed," he said. "What this is about is stopping judicial tyranny."
Supporters say the amendment would strengthen an 11-year-old state law defining marriage as a relationship between a man and woman against legal attack.
A judge in Maryland earlier this year struck down a similar law in that state. That decision prompted Pennsylvania legislators to support an amendment here.
"Why should a judge be willing to set aside 5,000 years of recorded history?" Armstrong said. "Every civilization we know of has been based on the traditional family."
But Coggin wonders: What is traditional?
"In marriages up until the latter part of the 20th century, women were still considered property," she said. Are amendment supporters "talking about the traditional marriage in the Bible, where men had more than one wife?"
The earliest the amendment could take effect is late 2007.
The House and Senate would have to approve identical language in consecutive sessions before the proposed amendment could be put before voters as a referendum.
If voters approve the measure, the constitution would be changed.
Supporters say voters, not judges, should be the ones to define marriage. They also claim a heterosexual marriage is better for children than nontraditional unions.
Opponents have said the amendment could jeopardize health care benefits and hospital-visitation rights for domestic partners.
"Gays and lesbians -- we pay our taxes," Coggin said. "We contribute to our community. We pay our bills. ... Why shouldn't we receive the same rights as other people?"
The Philadelphia-based Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights is coordinating the rally, which will begin at 2 p.m. in the Capitol Rotunda.
Dave Pidgeon's e-mail address is dpidgeon@lnpnews.com.
------------
Sad, folks, really sad. Why is this even an issue? We have health care and the economy to worry about! Let these people marry if they want to!
My nurse, Chris, said she doesn't have any sympathy for AIDS paitents as many of them are gay. Well, I don't pity AIDS paitents, either. Pity isn't what they need--it's care and help. I really feel sorry for people that cannot get past their own narrow views and see the big picture: we're all human and we have rights...yes, even the right to hate, even though we must do so quietly. But it is infinitely better to love all, even your so called "enemies". It is easier to take the easy way out than to question the norm--to dare question those who hold office or any powerful positions. Most, if called upon, will take the easy way out, but it is the few that do not who bring about the most orginality in life and the best of changes in this world. Someday, humanity will overcome this and shine. I hope to be a part of that process even if it is in a small way.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
"Some things are worth dying for!"
The following is an excerpt from an essay by Brad J. Kallenberg:
In April of 1992, Kristen French, a 15 year-old girl was kidnapped and held as a
sex slave in suburban Ontario. For two days she was raped and threatened with
death. Surprisingly, on the third day she grew defiant, refusing to perform a
particular sexual act even after she was shown pre-recorded videotape of her
predecessor, Leslie, being strangled by her captors with an electrical cord.
(Leslie's corpse was sawn into 10 pieces before disposal.) A record of Kristen's
suffering was preserved on video tape too. Of interest is Kristen's dying claim:
"Some things are worth dying for."2
Kristen's story strikes me as a pointed example of the sort of suffering
Some have offered as the basis for an evidential argument from evil. For
example, William Rowe captures the heart of the argument in proposition P: "No
good we know of justifies an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being in
permitting E1 and E2." Yet I think Kristen's tragedy is more troubling than that
of E1, the case of the fawn languishing for days horribly and alone in the forest
before succumbing to third degree forest fire burns, because I do not know what
it means to say that animals are conscious of their pain. Kristen's case seems also
more pointed than E2, the case of the rape, beating and death of a five year-old,
since 5 year-olds lack conceptual skills to fully cognize the evils of rape much
less the sense that death is impending.
Given that her story epitomizes gratuitous evil, there is something
unnerving about Kristen's assertion that some things are worth dying for. Taken
at face value, Kristen claims to know of a good causally connected to some evil,
namely, death-by-rapist, that makes the evil of some value, "worth it" in her
words. Granted, she may have had a privative rather than a substantive good in
mind (viz., the cessation of rape). Still, her story is reminiscent of others who
insisted that some things are worth dying for. For example, at the turn of the 20th
century, a 12 year-old peasant girl named Maria Goretti was killed for refusing
sex with the son of a tenant farmer with whom Maria's family shared cramped
living quarters.3 By all accounts Maria wasn't very bright, but she had been
catechized and faced her assailant with resolution: "No, it's a sin! God does not
want it." (Incidentally, her words are known to us today because the 18 year-old
would-be rapist, Alessandro Serenelli, recorded them. Serenelli was haunted by
the image of Maria who, as she lay dying, spoke words of forgiveness to him.
Serenelli not only confessed, while in prison he repented, and much later lived
out his days working in a monastery garden.)
----------
Granted, what is considered "good" is not absolute. It varies from individual to individual. And what is "worth" an entire life does, too. Kristen and Maria, in the face of death, held on to their character and principal to the last stroke of their short lives choosing death over life...but it meant a life of pain if they were to somehow survive and go on living. To give into their agressors meant to forsake their souls, so they'd rather die then give up their spirit and moral values. It is a brave thing to do in the darkest hour: to die for the sake of all spirit and life itself. Even in the face of death and fear, their are champions who triumph over it. Their bodies may be gone, but their spirit cannot decay and is not limited to the prison of their violated flesh.
In April of 1992, Kristen French, a 15 year-old girl was kidnapped and held as a
sex slave in suburban Ontario. For two days she was raped and threatened with
death. Surprisingly, on the third day she grew defiant, refusing to perform a
particular sexual act even after she was shown pre-recorded videotape of her
predecessor, Leslie, being strangled by her captors with an electrical cord.
(Leslie's corpse was sawn into 10 pieces before disposal.) A record of Kristen's
suffering was preserved on video tape too. Of interest is Kristen's dying claim:
"Some things are worth dying for."2
Kristen's story strikes me as a pointed example of the sort of suffering
Some have offered as the basis for an evidential argument from evil. For
example, William Rowe captures the heart of the argument in proposition P: "No
good we know of justifies an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being in
permitting E1 and E2." Yet I think Kristen's tragedy is more troubling than that
of E1, the case of the fawn languishing for days horribly and alone in the forest
before succumbing to third degree forest fire burns, because I do not know what
it means to say that animals are conscious of their pain. Kristen's case seems also
more pointed than E2, the case of the rape, beating and death of a five year-old,
since 5 year-olds lack conceptual skills to fully cognize the evils of rape much
less the sense that death is impending.
Given that her story epitomizes gratuitous evil, there is something
unnerving about Kristen's assertion that some things are worth dying for. Taken
at face value, Kristen claims to know of a good causally connected to some evil,
namely, death-by-rapist, that makes the evil of some value, "worth it" in her
words. Granted, she may have had a privative rather than a substantive good in
mind (viz., the cessation of rape). Still, her story is reminiscent of others who
insisted that some things are worth dying for. For example, at the turn of the 20th
century, a 12 year-old peasant girl named Maria Goretti was killed for refusing
sex with the son of a tenant farmer with whom Maria's family shared cramped
living quarters.3 By all accounts Maria wasn't very bright, but she had been
catechized and faced her assailant with resolution: "No, it's a sin! God does not
want it." (Incidentally, her words are known to us today because the 18 year-old
would-be rapist, Alessandro Serenelli, recorded them. Serenelli was haunted by
the image of Maria who, as she lay dying, spoke words of forgiveness to him.
Serenelli not only confessed, while in prison he repented, and much later lived
out his days working in a monastery garden.)
----------
Granted, what is considered "good" is not absolute. It varies from individual to individual. And what is "worth" an entire life does, too. Kristen and Maria, in the face of death, held on to their character and principal to the last stroke of their short lives choosing death over life...but it meant a life of pain if they were to somehow survive and go on living. To give into their agressors meant to forsake their souls, so they'd rather die then give up their spirit and moral values. It is a brave thing to do in the darkest hour: to die for the sake of all spirit and life itself. Even in the face of death and fear, their are champions who triumph over it. Their bodies may be gone, but their spirit cannot decay and is not limited to the prison of their violated flesh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
