A Long Reply To Bobby Herzberg

A Long Reply To Bobby Herzberg

A Facebook friend and fellow photographer, Steven Stiefel, is a liberal moderate living in Alabama-stan. He has a Facebook post about marriage equality and judicial interference in his home state, and the comment thread has gone on for a long time with most of the opposing view coming from Bobby Herzberg. Instead of highjacking Steven’s page with my oh-so-long reply to Bobby’s assertions, I’ve put it all here on my own space.

Bobby, I know this will be hard for you to accept, but this isn’t a personal attack on your politics or faith. I don’t know you enough to have an informed opinion about the kind of man you are. All I have to go on is a few Facebook posts. This is just a reply to your arguments.

Based on what your replied, you are stuck in the notion that we are country whose laws and governance are by majority rule. That is a common error made by many people from all sides of the political spectrum.

Forget what the voters of Alabama think about the issue. They are going to have this shoved down there throat because of a minority that knows better than anyone else. Why should they prevail, because they think they know better than anyone else?

[What rights of yours are being taken by force?]Nothing but my vote or the votes of the majority of the voters of Alabama. This means that most people in Alabama don’t support this use of the institution of marriage.

Shouldn’t Alabama’s constitutional changes come from the voters of Alabama rather than one liberal judge…

Why should the people of Alabama accept that their voice is not wanted or heard because it disagrees with a liberal agenda?

We are not a mob rule democracy. 51% of the people can vote to oppress 49% of the people and say they are a democracy. That isn’t how the USA works. Even if a state (such as Alabama) has enacted a certain law or even state constitutional amendment, it must still adhere to Federal law. That’s why Alabama was forced to end segregation. The state majority cannot overrule Federal law.

Federal judges overturn state law frequently. In fact, reviewing and ruling on state laws is a large part of their jobs. That is part of our system of government – the checks and balances that prevent one branch or one state from effing it up for everyone.

A State’s laws cannot be in opposition to Federal law. Roy Moore seems to think that they can, and you seem to be lock stepping with him. States’ rights issues is a sticky argument, and a excellent one to discuss. But, as we move through the rest of your arguments, it is clear that your argument isn’t really a states’ rights issue.

Every person I have encountered who opposes marriage equality only uses their religious texts and traditions to uphold their arguments. I have never debated anyone on this issue who can oppose marriage equality for purely secular or legal reasons.

The author of the story you posted may be a Baptist minister but how does he reconcile Romans chapter 1?

Christians are not to hate the sinner but at the same time not to sanction sin of any kind. Some people believe that if you don’t embrace the sin the you hate the sinner. Jesus loved the sinner but never embarrassed sin as righteousness.

…inter racial marriage had never been listed as sin in the bible. I happen to believe in the bible and I’m sure I’ll draw all kinds of flack for that.

Interracial marriage and segregation were opposed based on the human interpretation of Biblical passages. From Cain and Abel, to Noah and the separation of “kinds”, to the Tower Of Babel, to the Book Of Acts, and many in between, politicians, preachers, and the populace have used the Bible to keep the races segregated. In Alabama, George Wallace spoke of God blessing your state while he also called for segregation.

The Bible was also used to defeat segregation and to usher in the era of Civil Rights – rights that the majority of people in Alabama did not support but were forced by “liberal judge[s] who hope[ed] to make history for their personal political beliefs”.

There are many Christian denominations that support marriage equality, as well as many that do not. All of them use their interpretations of the Bible to support their views. They can’t all be right, can they? And I assume you are sure that those Christians who support marriage equality aren’t real Christians anyway. That’s why we are not ruled by Biblical laws, but by the laws of man. When we try to rule by the theological interpretations of one group of believers, we become a theocracy. In a theocracy the religious views of the dominating theology rule over all others. Abraham Lincoln (maybe not someone you respect) called the USA “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”; no mention of God’s involvement.

I challenged you to come up with one non religious argument in opposition of marriage equality. I’m still waiting.

Now, on to the less intellectual of your arguments. These aren’t just yours. They are arguments from too many people who are just freaked out by the thought that two men or two women could share a bed, a house, and a life together. These are, frankly, stupid, and reduce the people who use them to stereotypes of ignorance and unjustified fear.

When I see Gay pride parades the participants seem lewd and want everyone to see their actions illustrated publicly including in front of children.

Have you ever seen a video from spring break? How about a party in New Orleans during Mardi Gras? Have you been to a bachelor party? Statistically speaking, over 90% of the participants in those activities share some or all of your religious beliefs. Many of them many share your views on marriage equality. Should we judge the validity of your marriage, or our shared heterosexuality, based on their behavior?

What’s next legalizing marriage between humans and animals. When will it be legal for child molesters to do what they do because the claim God made them that way?…I hear NAMBLA Is looking for a Director of Marketing.

This, Bobby, the epitome of a stupid argument. It exhibits a complete misunderstanding of the issue, and betrays your fears of homosexuals. We can discuss states’ rights, definition of marriage, and even interpretations of Biblical verses, but trying to equate two consenting adults who want the same legal and financial benefits as others with bestiality and child abuse is dishonest, fearful, and intellectually bankrupt.

Thomas Jefferson eloquently and succinctly said, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.” In matters of marriage equality, nothing, absolutely nothing, about it is injurious to you. Your religious beliefs about homosexuality are intact. Your are free to be grossed out and scared of gay men and women. No law will change that. No liberal judge overturn that. What will happen is that the sun will rise and set, the tides will come in and out, people will be born and die, and the Earth will continue to spin.

That’s all, Bobby. Your life will not be affected in the least.


One Reply to “A Long Reply To Bobby Herzberg”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *