A couple weeks ago I had dinner with a friend who delivered an impassioned critique of the most visible item on California's ballot in November -- Proposition 8 -- and asked for support for the No on 8 campaign. I told him I'd study the issue and blog what I learned.
.jpg?1233692458)
I think it is absolutely ridiculous to vote in favor of Propositon 8. The United States has always represented a refuge for the persecuted, who have fought and eloquently argued for certain inalienable rights. Gays have just as much a right to marry as anyone else. Marriage is a union between two people, who are ready to make a committment that is founded on love. Also, I think that since gays are fighting for the right to marry instead of abusing that right like heterosexuals (indicative by high divorce rates), perhaps the fact that they are so willing to fight for a right, which should be upheld by the Constitutional "equality for all," I believe they will be more successful in the institution. Also, from a Conservative point, homosexuality, which is considered to be deviant from the norm, and homosexuals wanting to participate in a normative and expected social practice, well, wouldn't that indicate a shift from deviant to participatory and normative behavior, and satisfy Conservatives?
So... Vote NO! on Proposition 8, and do not deny someone something they are entitled to. Remember at one time African Americans and women couldn't vote, and now these groups and their partcipation in the political process has moved from being unthought of and argued against to the norm.
Fellow Christians!
BEWARE OF MORMONS BEARING GIFTS! Vote *NO* on 8!
This is an attempt from the Mormon "Church" to gain credibility among evangelicals. Don't be fooled. A simple google search on mormon evangelical relations will reveal a lot about their plan.
You'd tell your kids "Don't accept candy from strangers." Set a good example by not doing it yourself.
When I was writing for my college newspaper a few years ago I wrote a lengthy article about this. I've NEVER heard a single argument for why gays should be denied the right of marriage that held water. The "slippery slope" argument (soon we'll be marrying animals!) and the "Sanctity of Marriage" defense (HAHAHA) that you not above are asinine and not supported by the facts.
I'm living in MA now, but if I was in CA I would absolutely be voting no on this ridiculous proposition.
- Chris
Ben,
I don't think you adequately demonstrate why it is important for people outside of California to care about this proposition. California isn't a bellwether and it doesn't affect other states any more than other measures that have been considered over the past couple of decades. If anything, California is a perpetual outlier, having hundreds of major laws that aren't in effect anywhere else in the country.
My financial and time resources are better spent promoting causes in my own state that I believe in. Those are measures that are guaranteed to impact me. At best, you've provided a very tenuous link between what happens in California to what happens in other states.
In my case, I already live in a state the allows same-sex domestic partnership (which, unlike California's current law, was passed by democratic means through the state house). California has the right, just like any other state, to determine what is best for them and my personal philosophy sees no reason for outside citizens to be concerned with it.
Ben,
I think this was a very well thought out and well-written description of this proposition. I appreciate that you included the arguments for both sides before stating your opinion. Well done.
Reina
Ben,
This is a well written post. However I don't agree with your statement -
"Even if you do not live in California, if you believe in civil rights it is something you should be following because its passage or defeat will affect the momentum of similar initiatives around the country."
which Lance comments on and I agree. However, the U.S. Supreme Court may decide to hear a case and legislate gay marriage for all states which wouldn't surprise me - so much for state's rights.
Mark
Thanks for writing about this, Ben. And thank you for offering some of the various arguments on each side. Before we get too deep into the moral/societal/cultural/legal issues, I'm curious as to how you would answer this question:
All things being equal (since we have to compare a good marriage to a good marriage), which do you believe is better for the well-being of a child: being raised by a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple?
Interested to hear your response.
@Ryan:
Why does it matter?
Hi Anon,
It matters because we want the best for people, society, future generations, etc.
If one thing is better than the other, why would we not do everything we can to promote it and strengthen it? If you believe literacy is better than illiteracy, wouldn't you support the teaching of reading and writing?
If you believe it does not matter, please explain why.
Thanks,
Ryan
So -- gay marriage can be taught in sex ed, but since parents can opt-out nothing is being forced on children. Hence, Yes on 8's scare ads are deceptive.
False. The assumption is that gay marriage will only be taught in sex ed. As last weeks first grade field trip to lesbian wedding proves, this is not always the case. And what are parents rights outside of sex ed class? Glad you asked.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said parents, while entitled to make basic decisions about a child's upbringing, have no
constitutional right to control what they are taught at school or what questions they are asked. Judge Stephen Reinhardt said in the 3-0 ruling. ""Parents have a right to inform their children when and as they wish on the subject of sex, They have no constitutional right, however, to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise.'' The case involved a Southern California elementary school conducted a psychological survey of their children and asked them about sexual feelings and masturbation. The children were in grades one, three, and five.
So Yes on 8's ads are true.
Just wanted to share a great ad created to raise awareness about gay marriage in general. . . though it applies w/regards to Prop 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2nsGtd7y3c
Polygamy is more natural than same-sex marriage. It supports the laws of survival of the fittest. Same-sex marriage (union) doesn't support the laws of nature and the population of the human race - it is unnatural. The more same-sex unions exist, the more the human race will dwindle. Put a bunch of homosexuals on their own island and they will eventually die out. See - against the natural order of things.
Either YES on 8 to preserve the human race or you must also allow polygamy to take up the slack.
what slack? i guess you think that we don't have enough people crowding this planet, jackass...
First of all, man never created the union of marriage, and if he did tell me how and when. God created marriage and He defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. It is true you stick a population of homosexuals on an island and they would die out, because it is unnatural. It is common since that homosexuality itself is wrong( and so is gay bashing), we are to love oneanother equally, but you don't let your son Jimmy go running through the house with a sharp knife and say, that's just the way he is, no you let him know he cannot do that. The bottom line to all this is we have become, all of us, a proud people who diregard God and the moral standards He has set for each one of us. Vote YES on PROP 8.
Vote NO. Regardless of what state you live in, you should still consider equal rights as important. My parents happen to be a gay couple. They've been together for more than 30 years. That's a darn sight longer than your average marriage. They got married officially recently. They deserve it. They have been living as domestic partners legally for a long time, but it is NOT the same. The "Vote Yes" side says it is. Well, it's not. They lack legal recognition as a committed couple (and if 30 years isn't committed, then I don't know what is). And what about us kids? It's not an issue any more, but if one of my parents had died when I was a minor, I could have ended up with anybody. If my biological parent had been the one to pass away, then my other parent may not have been awarded custody. This is before second parent adoption. Now there IS second parent adoption, but it's a huge hassle and it's not 100% foolproof. Scary.
Well it's a VICTORY!!! Proof that most Californians don't want an abomination in their state. Thank God that the majority of citizens are sane afterall. See, mother nature speaks and the people listen...
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY?