For those not familiar with Proposition 8, here’s what Wikipedia has to say:
“If passed, the proposition would change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. A new section would be added stating “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Proposition 8 is a very real thing for the community here. Recently, California gay citizens have been allowed to legally marry here – and this could very well change with this ballot. I’ve never been more eager to vote. I am so proud to live in a state that currently recognizes gay marriage and having it taken away would make for a very sad day. A CBS poll from yesterday shows that passage of this proposition is LEADING by a 5 point margin. If you weren’t planning to vote for any reason, this is a damn good reason to get out there and support equality.
The union between two people is a beautiful thing, and something I feel everyone should enjoy. The selfishness of forbidding two people who are in love to marry each other and with it receive all the rights deemed to marriage is disgusting to me. Get out there and vote, and make sure to think of how others feel even if you don’t share in their sexual preferences.
And that’s the end of my lecture.
Vote “NO” on Proposition 8
Tami Baribeau is the Associate Producer for Metaplace, Inc, currently working on Island Life. She is also the Lead Editor of feminist gaming blog The Border House, and the National Facebook Games Examiner for Examiner.com. She can be reached on Twitter or by email.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }
I wish I lived in CA so I could vote against it. It’s utterly ridiculous that it’s leading by 5 percentage points. Fortunately, one of my best friends lives in CA and I know he and his wife will vote against it, so that makes me happy.
What is disgusting is how we not only tolerate the corruption of the sanctity of marriage, but gleefully promote it as if we were making the world a better place to live.
Oh jeez, another bullshit “sanctity of marriage” person. Get over yourself.
Marriage isn’t just about an emotional connection, and legal rights like visitation privileges can be provided without it. I pray Prop 8 passes.
What else is it about, religion? I consider marriage a very important part of my future life and I’m not in the least bit religious.
Right, Proposition 8 is also about telling people what to believe, how to believe it, and where to believe it.
Historically – going back to English common law – marriage (as a matter of law, rather than belief) has been about verifying and recognizing the commitments people have made to each other, not validating socially acceptable relationships. One of my greatest hopes is that such a powerful tradition of freedom to live our lives without government interference is respected and followed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,2093869.story
Great op-ed piece from a Liberal Democrat about same-sex marriage.
Regardless, activist judges shouldn’t have the power to overturn the will of the people. I’m glad it’s finally being put to a vote.
I have friends and co-workers who are gay and I enjoy working with them. I believe that 8 is not an attack on gay people; it’s about protecting the will of the people and overturning the activist judges. I too have never been more eager to vote.
As a young voter here in California I see and believe that marriage is between a man and woman. I was too young to vote during the prop 22 issue but I still remember it and hope that Prop 8 has the same outcome. I respect and accept everyone – I just feel like marriage is between a man and a woman. I also feel like if Prop 8 does not pass that there will be longlasting effects on our society and families. For these and other reasons I will vote Yes on Prop 8.
I think there is also an element of rebellion against judicial overreaching in Prop 8.
It’s less a question of telling people what to believe than it is resisting being governed by judicial fiat.
See, there’s never just one argument going on these days… scarily reminiscent of politics in the 1860’s.
2 chicks or dudes want to get married? Doesn’t affect me, so have fun with that.
Speaking of the courts, if Prop 8 passes, the courts will once again step in. If the California Constitution is changed, then the California Supreme Court will no longer have any say, but the law will almost certainly be taken to the next judicial level by gay activists. If the Supreme Court decides to take the case, then whatever that court decides will be law for all states (pending an amendment to the national Constitution).
Marriage is not a private matter. It’s inherently public. It is the oldest and most fundamental act of civilization (community), found in even the most primitive and loosely organized cultures. And procreation has always been at the heart of marriage, which is why historically and cross-culturally marriages were not considered final until they were consummated.
Wow. Some of these comments are disturbing. Apparently bigotry is something that can be excused away by invoking religion or “activism”.
I don’t really care if you “believe” marriage is between a man and a woman. Who cares? It doesn’t affect your ability to get married to whoever you want. Dogmatic and faith based beliefs are fine…at home. They don’t belong in the law or in our governments policies. Theocratic governments are bad news.
I find people who argue about the “sanctity” of marriage, or that somehow gay marriage will “destroy” the nuclear family, to be ludicrous. Even if we just look at it historically, marriage used to be a way that women were sold (much like cattle, or hey, WITH cattle) to men for status, money, land, or power. There was nothing particularly sacred about it…it was more like business mergers. Marriages for love were uncommon until even the early 1900’s. The whole concept of romantic love was, historically, viewed as something you could achieve OUTSIDE of marriage.
The nuclear family is about 50 years old, tops. It didn’t exist before the 50’s and was mainly constructed by advertising. It’s about as “natural” as styrofoam.
And lest we forget, there was a time in this country when black people and white people couldn’t get married. This is, and always will be, a Civil Rights issue. Denying people the right to get married and have benefits like health insurance, tax breaks, and the ability to make medical decisions, because of sexual orientation is nothing short of criminal, insane, and about a thousand years out of date.
And for those who think this is about activist judges…do you think basic human rights are something that should be based on the whims of the majority? That’s called tyranny of the masses and it’s actually something the Constitution is supposed to prevent. Because civil and human rights aren’t something you should be able to deny someone else just because you haven’t evolved yet. Because, you know, that’s why it took so long for women to have the right to vote…and for black people to be able to ride the bus or eat at the same restaurants as everyone else.
I hope more CA voters see that and vote no on this ridiculously homophobic prop.
You go girl. Well said.
i seriously am the most apolitical person ever. and this is the first time i have ever actually wanted to vote. fuck prop 8 in an uncomfortable and very homosexual place.
I love it when people whine about “activist judges overturning the will of the people.” If it weren’t for judicial review, interracial marriage would still be illegal, and segregation probably would be, too. The courts are there for a reason, people. Take a history class.
Wouldn’t all of this go away if the government only recognized traditionally “marital” rights via civil unions?
If government would follow through with the seperation of church and state, eliminating the word marriage from the laws (essentially automatically recognizing a marriage as a civil union), I think this would really become a non-issue.
Until that type of step gets taken, you’ll always hear some kind of bickering about this topic.
“Regardless, activist judges shouldn’t have the power to overturn the will of the people. I’m glad it’s finally being put to a vote.”
Actually, yes, that is the point of having a judicial branch, and the whole point of the balance of power. The job of the supreme courts is to protect the constitution. If tomorrow something happened where someone made a remark that caused us to go to war with another country, and out of fear, everyone voted to repeal freedom of speech, but the judicial branch went and turned that around, would that be defying “the will of the people”? And if it were, would that necessarily be a bad thing? I don’t know. I suppose a lot of the people voting for prop 8 support the Patriot Act too and really don’t care about civil liberties, but I don’t think that’s necessarily true.
The constitution exists to protect rights that the founders of our country saw as inalienable. The fact is that there are always going to be events and climates that are going to cause a shift of thinking, and that at times, people are going to be willing to make changes that they might otherwise not. The constitution exists to protect certain rights in those times. Sure, we can change the constitution. If thinking shifts so dramatically that pretty much everyone can agree that some part of the constitution is incorrect, then ratifications can be made. But the fact is that takes a lot more than 50% of the population to do, as it should.
Whether or not you feel the current inequality representing by a same sex marriage ban is or is not a violation of the constitution, you can’t say the judges weren’t doing their jobs. That’s a cop out and blatantly false.
Anyway, I have actually recently been thinking a lot about the same point Naladini made. If people want to suddenly attach these blatantly religiously based definitions on marriage, perhaps the government has no business dealing with marriage at all. Some people argue it’s about “tradition” but the government should not respond simply to tradition as on more than one occasion, “tradition”, has proven to be blatantly wrong (like the tradition of keeping slaves or not allowing women to vote). Let religious institutions perform marriages, and the government grant civil unions, then it becomes the decision of the churches whether they, on a case by case basis, acknowledge the right of a couple to marry one another no matter what their sexual preference.
It seems so illogical to me that Prop 8 would ever pass. I’m going to register to vote pretty much entirely for this one issue. Let’s hear it for activist judges who make laws that are just and fair. It’s a brave thing that they do. My relationship isn’t any different than anyone else’s and we all should have the same legal rights if we choose to get married.
I’m armed and ready to vote NO on Prop 8, and I’m happy to sit down and read through my Voter Information Pamphlet with my daughter and explain to her why I feel so strongly, and am voting no.
I consider myself a very open minded individual, but I cannot fathom why anyone would vote for this proposition. Recently I had a crew of evangelists knock on my door, encouraging me to change my vote on the issues, stating that it’s “for the children.” I don’t get it. How is it for the children? What if my child, or her best friend, wants to grow up and marry someone of the same sex?
I will be voting YES on Prop 8. I honestly think it is best for society as a whole to promote and protect the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman. I am not voting this way because I am against anyone. I try my best to love and respect everyone. But just because I love someone, doesn’t mean that I have to agree with them or choose to not do something that I feel is morally right.
Man, if I want blog hits, I’m just going to talk about the gays more
Well said Julie.
For those of you who hate religion or think all gays support gay marriage, here is an article full of arguments for you. Though the article is re-printed on a Catholic site, the authors do not rely on religious arguments and one of them is gay. Further arguments can be found in other articles on that site.
That is the worst article I have ever read.
Seriously – it’s time to learn that lines can be blurred. There isn’t always a black and white in all situations. Gender is merely a label put on someone, and lies in it’s own separate spectrum. Homosexuality is one issue to be concerned about – a completely separate situation is trangenderism. I’m all for two legal females being allowed to wed and for two legal males being allowed to wed and gain all the same privleges. Just because your birth certificate says one thing about your biological sex, does not mean you feel like you’re in that gender, live in that gender or that people even know what gender you really are.
Same sex marriage goes beyond homosexuality – and that’s a side of it that is generally never mentioned in these debates. If I want to live my life as male and marry a woman – I should have every legal right to regardless what my birth certificate says. Why are people so set on gender? Can’t we just be human beings who fill whatever role culturally, sexually, religiously and in society that we choose to? For a free nation, we sure have a lot of rules about how to simply EXIST within ourselves.
That’s the worst article I’ve ever read, too. And the fact that its on a Catholic website leads me to question the assertion that it might not be somewhat influenced by religious beliefs. There’s lots of Catholicism based moral rhetoric there, not to mention some really interesting stabs at gender equality and the poor abused hetero men. I weep, I really do. But it still has nothing to do with same-sex marriage besides and extremely dodgy correlation with vague “history” and some court cases tossed in to look more official. It’s all assumption and boils down to the same tired “threat to the family/man” argument with fancier language. Words like “always” are a big red flag that something is off. Plus, you can find studies to “prove” most anything. And again, the absolutist language is less than convincing. It mostly reads like fear of change and some sort of conviction that these things “must” happen or we’ll just devolve into chaotic, identity starved, messes. I disagree.
Also, I don’t hate religion. It just needs to stay out of the law. It’s called Separation of Church and State for a reason. Let’s not get into how uniformly bad theocracies have been, even if you practiced the religion in power.
Besides “some gay people agree with Prop 8″ is not a valid argument. Some women don’t think other women should have the vote. That doesn’t mean women shouldn’t be able to vote.
And to this next one, “I am not voting this way because I am against anyone. ” Actually, you are. You are against two adults of the same age being able to marry just like two adults of the opposite sex. You may not hate them, but you think your moral beliefs trump their human, civil, and legal rights. That’s discrimination. You can believe what you like about homosexuality, although I hope one day you’ll realize that it’s just human beings loving each other. But you shouldn’t be trying to make your religious or moral beliefs law.
Look, I know, change is scary. But all this “oh noes, it will destroy society!” stuff is just plain ridiculous. It’s fear-mongering. All it will do is create yet another way for families to function. We don’t know how it’ll turn out, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that loving home environments of the same sex are better than non-loving ones with both genders represented. And since we’ve made marriage a “right” then by denying it to some people based on sexual orientation you are discriminating.
Besides, divorce isn’t the worst thing that can happen to anyone and neither is gay marriage. Men will survive this “attack on their manhood”. Besides, if we didn’t grant married people rights that DIRECTLY counter certain equality laws this wouldn’t even be an issue. But we do.
I won’t even get into the gender issues here because that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms. Suffice it say that the gender binary is problematic at best and needs to constantly be re-examined. Gender and sexual orientation are fluid, no matter what biological bits you have. Our biology is not the only thing that defines us.
(same sex, not age, stupid typo)
And just because I’m a pill…we as a society are not wanting for examples of heterosexuality or “traditional” gender role models. Same-sex marriage doesn’t actually change that, nor does it mean a child raised in a same-sex parented household will be raised without gender roles. It just means it’ll be more flexible. But its not going to destroy “manhood” or families or any of the rest of it.
It makes no sense for a society that is evolving to adhere to the same rigid and outdated social and cultural models. People weren’t better off, they were limited. And while things may certainly be less predictable, they’re not better or worse. Society will not collapse because of same-sex marriage. It’s constantly in flux and will go through necessary changes. You’d hope we’d view it as evolution, not doom.
I feel the same way about overturning activist judges and I recently blogged about some other concerns as well.
I am voting YES on Prop 8. I have not seen or heard of any “rites” that will be lost if 2 people of the same sex want to be joined together as “domestic partners.” I have read “FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5″ and I don’t see it.
This will be very simplistic, however for me I can see this example. In my fruit tree orchard I have numerous trees. There are 5 plums and 4 apricots. For some reason the apricots do poorly and are always sickly, I think it’s the lack of cold weather. A number of years ago science developed a hybrid tree combining the plum and the apricot. Now this tree does very well in my orchard and I have fruit that is similar to an apricot (Plumcot) and lots of plums from the plum trees. The point – the hybrid tree cannot be called an apricot, nor can it be called a plum. This because it is really neither. If I went to the store to buy an apricot and there were only plumcots, labeled apricots this would be misleading and untrue. There are very old definitions of words that should not be changed and I believe the joining together of those of the same sex is not marriage. As I have looked into many dictionaries, old and newer the definition of marriage is always the same. Between man & woman. I think it should stay this way.
Another comment, if marriages are so terrible out “there” why be associated with it. As I said at first, I am yet to have shown to me the loss if Prop 8 passes to same sex couples. Can you help me with this? (and I mean this respectfully) is it just retoric?
Thank you. YES ON PROP 8
Hey everyone, remember how letting gays and lesbians marry caused California to sink into the Pacific Ocean?
…Oh, that’s right, it didn’t. Miraculously, we’re still here. Hell, seemed the only thing that’s changed lately is the economy, and last I checked, that affects everybody.
Both me and my girlfriend will be voting “no” on this ridiculous piece of shit.
“Another comment, if marriages are so terrible out “there” why be associated with it. As I said at first, I am yet to have shown to me the loss if Prop 8 passes to same sex couples. Can you help me with this? (and I mean this respectfully) is it just retoric”
I think you need to go read the comments to see what some of the rights are that will be denied if this passes. For one thing, in the event of a health problem, domestic partners can be disputed by family members when it comes to medical decisions and have their rights overturned. Same thing with children. If you’re not married (not domestic partners) you can end up with a host of custody issues if something happens to one parent. This is why lots of hetero couples who otherwise wouldn’t get married.
Also, not all states recognize domestic partnerships, but all recognize marriages. So if you’re a domestic partner in one state, but move to one that doesn’t recognize them, you now get none of the same benefits or rights. Like healthcare, medical decisions, custody, etc. Some people are tied to locations because of work or family, other people move because of work or family. Their rights as partners should not be changed just because they move. This is why same-sex marriage is so important.
I’m not really sure what to say to the rest of your argument…that the dictionary defines it one way so that’s the way it should be. Isn’t life a bit more flexible than that? Hasn’t marriage changed over the years? As it’s been pointed out, marriage used to be strictly about land, power, and ownership…not love. Should it still be defined that way? What is the actual threat here? It doesn’t nullify hetero marriages, it doesn’t effect anyone else’s partnerships…so what’s the actual problem? Because if all you can think of is that “marriage is between a man and a woman” then that’s just not good enough. It’s bigotry.
i am voting yes on prop 8 simply because i think the United States Constitution says a little something about Separation of church and state and if this passes Churches all over CA would be required to marry but not just that why should i pay taxes so my kids can go on a field trip to see there gay teacher get married Double standard when they couldn’t come to any Conventional Marriage it al sounds like a bunch of double standards we give give give and have never gotten anything back
“I think you need to go read the comments to see what some of the rights are that will be denied if this passes. For one thing, in the event of a health problem, domestic partners can be disputed by family members when it comes to medical decisions and have their rights overturned. Same thing with children. If you’re not married (not domestic partners) you can end up with a host of custody issues if something happens to one parent. This is why lots of hetero couples who otherwise wouldn’t get married.”
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 297-297.5
297. (a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share
one another’s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of
mutual caring.
(b) A domestic partnership shall be established in California when
both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the
Secretary of State pursuant to this division, and, at the time of
filing, all of the following requirements are met:
(1) Both persons have a common residence.
(2) Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of
another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been
terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.
(3) The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would
prevent them from being married to each other in this state.
(4) Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
(5) Either of the following:
(A) Both persons are members of the same sex.
(B) One or both of the persons meet the eligibility criteria under
Title II of the Social Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section
402(a) for old-age insurance benefits or Title XVI of the Social
Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 1381 for aged
individuals. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership
unless one or both of the persons are over the age of 62.
(6) Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic
partnership.
(c) “Have a common residence” means that both domestic partners
share the same residence. It is not necessary that the legal right
to possess the common residence be in both of their names. Two
people have a common residence even if one or both have additional
residences. Domestic partners do not cease to have a common
residence if one leaves the common residence but intends to return.
297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
(b) Former registered domestic partners shall have the same
rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon former spouses.
(c) A surviving registered domestic partner, following the death
of the other partner, shall have the same rights, protections, and
benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities,
obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes,
administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common
law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to
and imposed upon a widow or a widower.
(d) The rights and obligations of registered domestic partners
with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those
of spouses. The rights and obligations of former or surviving
registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of
them shall be the same as those of former or surviving spouses.
(e) To the extent that provisions of California law adopt, refer
to, or rely upon, provisions of federal law in a way that otherwise
would cause registered domestic partners to be treated differently
than spouses, registered domestic partners shall be treated by
California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in
the same manner as California law.
(f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights
regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.
(g) No public agency in this state may discriminate against any
person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered
domestic partner rather than a spouse or that the couple are
registered domestic partners rather than spouses, except that nothing
in this section applies to modify eligibility for long-term care
plans pursuant to Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 21660) of Part
3 of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(h) This act does not preclude any state or local agency from
exercising its regulatory authority to implement statutes providing
rights to, or imposing responsibilities upon, domestic partners.
(i) This section does not amend or modify any provision of the
California Constitution or any provision of any statute that was
adopted by initiative.
(j) Where necessary to implement the rights of registered domestic
partners under this act, gender-specific terms referring to spouses
shall be construed to include domestic partners.
(k) (1) For purposes of the statutes, administrative regulations,
court rules, government policies, common law, and any other provision
or source of law governing the rights, protections, and benefits,
and the responsibilities, obligations, and duties of registered
domestic partners in this state, as effectuated by this section, with
respect to community property, mutual responsibility for debts to
third parties, the right in particular circumstances of either
partner to seek financial support from the other following the
dissolution of the partnership, and other rights and duties as
between the partners concerning ownership of property, any reference
to the date of a marriage shall be deemed to refer to the date of
registration of a domestic partnership with the state.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for domestic partnerships
registered with the state before January 1, 2005, an agreement
between the domestic partners that the partners intend to be governed
by the requirements set forth in Sections 1600 to 1620, inclusive,
and which complies with those sections, except for the agreement’s
effective date, shall be enforceable as provided by Sections 1600 to
1620, inclusive, if that agreement was fully executed and in force as
of June 30, 2005.
In 297.5 I cannot find the things you specify in your first paragraph. It actually looks like the “registered domestic partner” rights are exactly what the rights of “spouses, widows/widowers, and surviving spouses” maintain.
I can understand the concern about other states and their view of marriage/domestic partners. I know there are people who decide to live in certain states because the education provided is much better than in other states. I would believe this would be true on numerous fronts and I think this is the way it should be. So we all make sacrifices for the things we want and the way we want to live or bring up our children etc. I know the laws for renters are much different in Oregon than in California and some people I know have sold their rentals in Calif and gone to Oregon because the laws are friendlier to them. States rights, I believe, are very important and need to remain open to those that live in the particular state. Now, I know this does not make this any easier to accept especially if you are passionate about something. Thank goodness we live where we can raise an issue and call for a vote. I am behind anyone that wants to do that and would do all I could to support their rights to petition for this.
Yes, marriage have changed over the years, somewhat. It is very true marriage took a poor turn in the 60’s with “no-fault” divorce. No fault divorce was designed to help a small percentage of people that were in an abusive position and could not get out. The statute was changed so judges could help (most women) who were being abuse get free. I agree with this, however not but a few years later the laws were pushed to there limit by people that didn’t need this help, yet wanted out of their commitments. I am somewhat, not just somewhat, deeply concerned this would happen in this instance concerning the definiton of marriage. Just my thought.
Often words are used, that I thought I understood, in a way that makes me think – “did I misunderstand that word.” I immediatly go to the dictionary and see what is there. Thus my comment on the dictionary and marriage.
Another word I have had to look up again is bigot/bigotry
As I have looked this up in a couple of dictionaries I have struggle understanding your comment. As I read about bigotry “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion” – “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ” – “a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own” – “A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.” I think we may all want to look in the mirror and check to see if we are intolerant of others view, also we may want to ask ourselves if we are the only ones that are correct. I have a feeling both sides in this issue are bigots, or at least numerous people are.
I want you to know I can be pro Prop 8 and still think that your opinion is valid and correct in your eyes, that we can have a dialog and then a vote. However the vote turns out, I will be respectful of you and all others in this voyage into tomorrow.
I appreciate your comments and look forward to another responce. Thank you
Jon: Yeah…those darn homosexuals, wanting the same rights that other people just have because they’re hetero. What exactly should they be “giving back”? We discriminate against them because heterosexuality is the “majority”. They don’t owe us squat. We owe them equality.
Also, no, it would not require churches to perform marriages. That’s propaganda.
Tom: I think voting for a proposition that outlaws same-sex marriage, thereby denying equal rights under the law to one grew due to their sexuality, is bigotry. It’s a way of denying rights based on personal beliefs or ideologies. Which makes you strongly partial to your own group over another. I think pretending it’s anything else is a problem, and that’s not the same. My views do not infringe on anyone else’s rights. They support them. That, to me, is the difference. And much like racism, I don’t believe that just because something is an opinion, that makes it right. I don’t believe in that kind of relativism.
Also, to address your other statement…some people don’t have the option of where they live. It’s where they can afford. The illusion in this country that we can all magically go wherever we want and have heaps of choices is an illusion. With that kind of logic we should still allow slavery because some states wanted it…or we should still be denying civil rights to black people because a whole lot of states thought that was okay. That’s not states rights.
As for divorce, I honestly don’t care if you constantly get married, divorced, and remarried…get married once…or never. It’s an individual choice that has no bearing on my life whatsoever. Forcing people to stay together makes no sense. That’s like trying to legislate for common sense. It doesn’t work. And I for one don’t want to be the person who decides who should and should not get married, or whether they have the “right” reasons for splitting up.
As for the domestic partner info, again, while it should be the same rights as marriage, it isn’t. And there have been many court cases where families have successfully overturned these when it came to medical decisions and custody. And again, the state to state issue is HUGE. Some laws are federal for a reason, so that one state can’t suddenly decide to…you know…make it okay to lynch people again. The exact same rhetoric that was used to dispute mixed-racial marriages is being used here. They’re the same. And they’re both wrong.
It shouldnt matter that someone believes a marriage should be between a man and a woman. Fine go ahead and feel that way but dont force it on me. Let me live my life with the person I love and love that person the way I want to. Let me enjoy the same rights you do. I am a human being. I want the samethings out of life that you do. So please stop trying to make everyone fit into certain mold.
I dont believe abortion is right. But I most certainly would never force that on any woman. It’s not my body, its not my choice, its not MY LIFE. Everyon should be free to live thier life how they want to not how someone else wants them to.
Mariah,
I have yet to see your definition of a “right.” Is a drivers license a right, is a job a right? Is transportation a right? Is a life without difficulty a right? What is a right? I am interested in your opinion, define our rights and give some real background knowledge and history and then show how marriage fits into this. The withholding of civil rights from those who have lost, or never had their rights, because of color, race, gender, religion, education, ethnicity, hair color, eye color, etc, etc. etc – will never be correct. However there is a difference between a “right” and a choice.
In your statement “My views do not infringe on anyone else’s rights. They support them.” How are the rights of those who believe in heterosexoal marriage only supported if their children are forced to read that homosexual marriage is alright? This has, and is, happening in Mass. right now. How are you fighting for the rights of those who may not want this to happen? I see your thoughts and I don’t see your protection for others who feel their rights are going to be stepped upon. In the definition of “bigotry” — bigotry “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion” – “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ” – “a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own” – “A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.” I see how the rights of those who want to live a homosexual life are protected and I don’t see how the rights of those who want to live a heterosexual life are protected. Why do you think the re-definition of a word will protect rights? This is not well thought out. A well thought out solution that will positively affect both parties would have been well received. Not this forcing upon others the desires of any minority. This has to be a real problem in any free society as the “fight” for that freedom gets well away (in time) from the present generation. It is easy to shout and be angry about rights when all of our freedoms are given to us by people who fought and died a long way away from us. I belief that most who have suffered and sacrificed to give us our rights whould say these are not the rights they were sacrificing for. Explane to me how your views do not infringe upon any one elses rights when almost everything we do will/can infringe upon someone elses rights. Every vote we cast will infringe our desires/opinions upon others in some way or other.
To think that a person cannot live wherever they want to in this country is preposterous. It comes down to what they are willing to give up. You cannot name one place in this country a person cannot live if they want to. Now if you feel it is a “right” to live where you want to and not have to sacrifice to do so your arguement will be consistant with your present argument concerning marriage – all “right” driven, and not driven by the opportunity to sacrifice and struggle.
As to opinions – this is where it all starts. We all work towards the things we believe in. The things we believe in are our “opinions.”
I fail to see how the sacrifice to live where we want because of some advantage we want: ie; schooling, weather, snow for skiing etc, etc, etc. is equated with slavery – wow, seems a big stretch.
“Forcing people to stay together”, you must be kidding me!! When people make commitments to others they should be encouraged to keep those commitments, not to come-and-go as they please. We should really strive to get people to commit and live the commitments they enter into. I do not want a doctor, mechanic, bus driver, airplane pilot, cook, etc, etc that is not commited to what they are doing. Commitment in marriage should be a very important thing else why be married. There is a covenant in marriage and along with that covenant there is great happiness/joy. The unhappiness and difficulty in marriage does not come from just “stuff”, it comes from a party not fulfilling the covenant they have made. It does not matter which partner does not keep their covenants, unhappiness enters into a marriege. Marriage gets better as companions sacrifice and strive together to meet the needs and wants of eachother. These covenants have so much to do with the happiness/security/future of us all, I am so surprised when anyone takes a “cavalere” attitude towards them.
In the “bell shaped curve” theory there will always be some “far out” injustice with any decision. I believe your statement about the rights of domestic partnerships being lost, in your own words “there have been many court cases where families have successfully overturned these when it came to medical decisions and custody.” What is many? compared to the amount of cases brought before the courts? Do you really know or are you thinking this is so (this sounds like rhetoric). The courts have taken decisions made by married spouses away and given those decisions to the family. I can only hope these are done with care and in the best interest of the harmed person(s). The theory would probably prove this is true.
Are you equating homosexual partnerships with lynching? It seems you believe the “right to live under any circumstance” you want is the same as taking someones life. This the constitution is specific about – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Wow, it always shocks me to think that some people consider life so irrelavent, usually though, this does not mean their own. States rights are one of the things that makes this a strong country. Since Mass., Calif, and another (I’m sorry I can’t remember which state) have decided same sex marriage is ok, should this be overturned because of a possible federal law? or because other states have said no to this? States rights and decisions are their own and should be kept that way. The founders of the constitution knew this and set it up this way.
I ask you to think this issue over. Not just the surface issues and the rhetoric sent out by those who may not have your interest at heart, but to really think over the history of this possible decision. There are many poor decisions made throughout the world by people/governments especially when not thought out well.
Yes on Prop 8 is very important. I am voting YES and I invite you to look deeply into the rhetoric and see it for what it is. A smoke screen to obscure peoples sight, a trick played for centuries upon mankind.
YES on Prop 8
Jojo concerning abortion – this statement “Everyon should be free to live thier life how they want to not how someone else wants them to” is very interesting in that – if there are consequences in decisions you make that affect others, then you are bound BY YOUR STATEMENT to protect the ability of all affected by your action/decision to be free and live as they want to. If a woman becomes pregnant she, believing in freedom for all, will want to allow this possible life to develope and comeforth, if possible, and have this same right of freedom that she has. She, and her sexual partner, knew the consequences of their actions, they now need to extend that same freedom to the unborn person. If she was forced to become pregnant – insest, rape or any other way of force – she has not created a consequence and this should be looked at very carefully. Freedom is not free Jojo, it comes with many responsibilities. Especially to those who have power over others, as a pregnant woman has power over a fetus in the womb.
I must add, the male partner has just as much responsibility to protect this freedom by providing all needed support, both financial and psychological, to bring the prospective person to life. If decided after, or before birth, to adopt out – fine, especially if this brings more freedom to the prospective person.
I have always found freedom talked about very cheaply, freedom is not cheap and freedom is not free. Freedom will never be cheap! It comes with the very highest demands of hard work, tolerance, teaching, sacrificing, striving, struggling before the joy/happiness of freedom comes to us. This abortion issue you bring up here is very short sighted and not related to freedom in any way, except one – and that is the, so called freedom, opportunity to do what ever you want and not be responsible for the heart ache left in our wakes. This is a very polluted form of freedom and I would ask you to take a deeper look into “FREEDOM”, what it is and how one attains it.
Tom
Wow. No. I’m not going to indulge you and the way you want to have your bigotry excused. You want to tell consenting adults they can’t get married and you want that to be legal and justified. Sorry, but I can’t do that for you. You’re allowed to believe what you like and I”m allowed to feel very sorry for you. There is clearly nothing I can say that will change your mind.
You’re coming from a place that A. is assuming huge things about gender. B. huge things about “choice” and C. some weird idea that hetero-sexuality is being infringed upon. It’s not. It’s the majority lifestyle and viewpoint. It always will be. Same-sex marriage does not and will not change that. But disallowing one right (marriage) to one group of people that you allow another, and that grants that one group additional benefits, is wrong. Period. You can support that, but it’s still wrong on a very basic, human level. As you have stated, you don’t want other people telling you how to live…what gives you the right to decide what is right for others? I’m not the one who needs to think more deeply. You are.
Either you didn’t understand my point about the correlation between same-sex and interracial marriage, or you are willfully ignoring it. We used to outlaw interracial marriage for the SAME REASONS being given to deny same-sex marriage. That it’s unnatural. That it will damage children. And like racism people have had to learn to reevaluate their viewpoints about race. Much like they are going to have to reevaluate their ideas about gender and sexuality. You don’t have to like it, but it’s still going to happen.
Yes, I equate lynching (a racist hate crime) with things like the murder of Matthew Shepard (a homphobic hate crime) who was killed for being a homosexual. They are hate crimes. That is what I am equating, not whatever convoluted thing you are suggesting. And much like black people were denied rights for centuries in this country, the same rights white people had as nearly a given (unless they were women or didn’t have land)…yes, I think these issues are the same. And it’s scary to me how some people want to deny that or excuse it. Many homosexuals have been killed simply because they had the audacity to love someone of the same gender. That’s hate, pure and simple. And
As for “surface issues” and “rhetoric”, please. Sure, I have rhetoric. And so do you. You’re not hitting on anything deeper than the same tired, bigoted, misguided homophobia I’ve seen for a long time.
And I agree with states rights, up to a point. We are not autonomous countries within the U.S. We are part of a whole. This is why we have both. And frankly, the founding father’s couldn’t possibly have prepared for every eventuality…and again…they voted to keep slavery legal. I’m trying to figure out what you think is better…states allowing things like slavery…or federal law requiring countrywide civil rights. Of course not all laws will be just or right…so we fight to get them changed.
And, oh, woe be it to anyone who must learn about homosexuality! God forbid. We have to learn about heterosexuality all the time. What’s the difference? Pretending it doesn’t exist won’t make it less real. And anyway, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for homophobes who don’t want their children to learn acceptance. Then homeschool them or send them to religious school. Otherwise the public school is not responsible for teaching religious ideology. They are responsible for informing our children. I honestly don’t know how you can even make a statement like “what about people who want to live a heterosexual life”. What, learning about homosexuality impedes on your ability to be hetero? Or is this because you think it’s wrong so therefore we shouldn’t learn about it? Or do you think homosexuality is learned, rather than innate? Or a choice rather than who you are? If so then there’s literally nothing I can say to you because we disagree so fundamentally. I think homophobia and racism are wrong…and I think we SHOULD learn about them. Information and access to it is the only way we evolve. Kids are smart enough to come to their own conclusions.
Really? Preposterous? So…very poor people can just move wherever they want to? No one is bound by dependent parents, spouses, or children, to where they live? No one is bound by a job to a specific location? I didn’t say they can’t like they are forbidden to move…only that moving is expensive, which given our current economic climate, limits some people’s ability to move wherever they’d like. That’s just fact…unless you’re living in very different American than I am.
I’m truly sorry, but you sound like the sort of person who believes that the way you believe life should be led is the way it should be legislated and require everyone else to live that way. I don’t. I believe marriage is an artificial and mostly unnecessary ceremony that anyone and everyone should be able to participate in (and get out of) regardless of sexual orientation. You can view marriage any way you like. And so can I. You can do all the things you listed with someone without being married. And it’s not cavalier. You know nothing about me and are making some very telling assumptions.
In the end, we’re coming at this issue from two opposing viewpoints. You believe that society will break down if we don’t follow whatever specific rules you believe keep us together. I don’t. I think society will function just fine without trying to force everyone to adhere to the same guidelines when it comes to gender, religion, marriage, sexuality etc. I don’t think those are the things that keep everything going.
As for your stance on choice and abortion…ugh. This is just another example of you deciding what is best for other people based on a narrow and very personal agenda. You have the right to believe those things, you don’t have the right to inflict it on others. And for the record, no, I don’t believe my views infringe on anyone else’s rights. You can still be a bigot and a homophobe. That’s the difference.
Marriage is not necessarily religious in nature. If religionists choose to marry a man and a woman in a place of worship under a god, then they should be free to do so. Likewise, others should be free to enter into any reasonable marital contract they so desire.
Saying “marriage” and “domestic partner” are legally the same and provide the same rights is irrelevant. This argument was used to defend “separate but equal” in segregation eras, and was struck down by the US Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson. The ruling was already made by a higher legal authority than the people of California and cannot be overturned by them.
Secondly, the separation of powers doctrine of the US Constitution gave judges the power to overturn a popular vote for a reason. It is designed to specifically prohibit a majority decision by the people to ever violate the inalienable rights of a minority. The “activist judges” that overturned Prop 22 were not legislating from the bench, but doing the job they are ordered to do by the US Constitution.
Anyone who does not understand the above two points needs to go back to high school civics class.
I live in California and will be voting No on Prop 8.
Jaerik: Yes. This. Thank you. :}
For those who think gay marriage will be taught to your kids read this:
Under SB 71, which passed in 2003, the Legislature set out the framework for comprehensive sex education, which includes the brief reference to marriage from which these dire Proposition 8 warnings are drawn: “Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.” Schools aren’t required to teach comprehensive sex education, but if they do, this is one of many rules they must follow. The law also gives schools the option of discussing gender, sexual orientation and family life, though that’s not required as part of the more comprehensive program.
Most important, the law contains paragraph after paragraph guaranteeing parents the right to review the material being taught and to have their children excused from all or any part of it.
Know your facts. Stop the hate.
Jojo, here is a link to an article that explains exactly what you just said
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-prop8-21-2008oct21,0,7164183.story
Thank you Cuppycake!
Respecting marriage, desiring marriage, and adding yourself to the ranks of the married does not diminish marriage, it strengthens it. To deny marriage to someone weakens marriage. This should be self-evident. To rationize otherwise is desiring to hate without consequence.
Well put Ken!
If you are against marriage between black and white , you are RACIST
If you are against marriage between gays , you are HOMOPHOBIC
Vote NO to prop8
Vote NO to homophobia
Vote NO to religious talibans in Afghanistan or in California !
I have such mixed feeling on this election. While im estatic that Obama won its very bitter sweet. Im very ashamed and disgusted with CA that they could vote to take away the rights of a certain group. Im even more disgusted that the majority of african American voters voted yes. Oh how quickly we forget…and the cycle continues the abused become the abuser.
I’m ashamed to live in CA im disgusted with the 52%. This is a sad day in CA in America that people can cheer about the rights of a group being removed. Congratulations yes on 8. I just hope that next time its not one of your rights that are up for being taken away. I wouldnt wish this feeling on anyone.