Support the rights of ALL people to marry. If you are in California, vote NO on Prop 8!
With elections bearing down at us, most people are worrying about which party will get this country out of the financial debacle. But in California, I am far more concerned about a different vote: Proposition 8. In June of this year, California legalized gay marriage. Prop 8 seeks to revoke this vote, and make it law that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.…
Article comments
26 - Baritone
It's good to see that Doug's position on Prop 8 was arrived at through enlightenment.
B
27 - Dr Dreadful
Cannon, bear in mind that despite its 'wacky hippy liberal' image, California has large African-American and Hispanic populations and those constituencies tend to be fairly socially conservative. And remember that in 2000 Californians did approve a similar measure, Proposition 22, which defined marriage in state law as 1 man + 1 woman.
I hope you're right in your prediction. The winds have shifted somewhat over the last eight years, but it's going to be close.
28 - Alyse
Holly, WHY is gay marriage bad for children? Do you have scientific proof that children raised by same-sex parents have a higher chance of becoming criminals, addicts, etc?
Which home do you think is "more appropriate": a home in a safe area, where a kid can have his own room and a backyard, who has two parents who love this child, and have the emotional and financial means to care for this child - but those parents both happen to be of the same sex?
Or
A kid whose parent(s) are junkies? or abusive? or didn't want a child?
Remember that there are no unwanted children in a same-sex relationship.
And as far as marriage being about "family." I am married, I have no kids, and my husband and I do not want to have children ever. Does that make my marriage any less legal?
29 - Baritone
Alyse,
Be careful. Some fundies might come after you and claim that you aren't true christians if you don't procreate. In a true fundamentalist christian home, the wife is obligated to produce souls for god. By not having kids, you are shirking your duty to god.{;>
B
30 - Dr Dreadful
B-Tone, at least they'd be honest fundies. Although in the spirit of such honesty, perhaps the supporters of this stupid proposition ought to pursue that angle, and try to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would mandate all married couples to have children.
(Good luck with that!)
For the record, like Alyse I'm one half of a married couple with no intention of producing offspring.
31 - Baronius
It's funny. We know enough to protect the spawning areas of salmon, but don't protect the dominant mode of child-rearing of our own species.
The institution of the family does need protection. That's the point of civil marriage. We know that two-parent households are more stable than single parent. The uniqueness of marriage is that it allows for the different roles of the male and female. Maybe there are studies out there that show that a male/male or female/female household is just as likely to provide a stable, holistic environment as a male/female, but I've never heard of them. We know from our own lives that our moms and dads contribute something different to our upbringings, and it's well-documented that the absence of two parents leaves a child more likely to drop out of school, commit crime, earn less, and fail in his own marriage.
We've seen how the changes in marriage laws over the last 40 years have rippled through society. We've lost the concept of the "norm": not a thing to judge people against, but an ideal to strive for. Not that anyone's ever had a perfect marriage, but let's no pretend that all household structures are equal.
32 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius, I've been to about six weddings this year. Marriage is hardly an endangered species.
Some marriages are going to produce healthy, happy, stable households, and some marriages are going to be FUBAR. That's just human nature, and no line on a document in Sacramento is going to make a blind bit of difference to that.
I must say I'm at a loss to see how the changes in marriage laws have 'rippled through society'. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? And if you really haven't heard of the studies showing it makes no appreciable difference what the gender of those in the role of parents is, you haven't been paying attention.
Even if some of your arguments are legitimate, nothing in what you say provides the slightest justification for preventing two people of the same sex from having their union recognized as a marriage if they so wish.
33 - Cindy D
To those who do not support gay adoption or marriage, please refrain from becoming gay, getting married and adopting children.
Please do not ask the rest of us to protect your personal world views about "institutions of marriage" and other things that don't actually affect you.
Go forth and make your own society, where you can protect all the ludicrous biases from days gone by that you wish. I prefer that my society evolve.
And Baronius, please refrain from lumping fair-minded people in with your species.
(just teasing you Baronius :-)
34 - Cannonshop
Kids need a Stable environment-that can be any combination of permanent relationships that are non-abusive. Just ask around anyone that grew up in a house of Divorce, or anyone that's dealt with a house of Abuse.
If the parents are a mom and dad, mom and mom, dad and dad, or mom and mom and dad it doesn't matter-what matters is that it's STABLE.
i.e. not "Mom and the boyfriend of the week", or "Dad and his stranger cookie girlfriend of the week".
35 - CallmeMaddy
I live in California, but I cannot vote because of my age. I, however, would be voting for Prop 8. I don't believe in gay marriage.
I do believe that gays should be allowed visitation rights, tax benefits, everything but marriage. To me, it doesn't make sense to throw 5,000 years of tradition out the window. Gay marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Sorry.
36 - El Bicho
"To me, it doesn't make sense to throw 5,000 years of tradition out the window."
With that line of reasoning, it's a good thing Maddy wasn't around when the States were working to abolish slavery.
Some traditions aren't worth keeping. I am sure a few virgin girls thrown into volcanoes would agree with me.
37 - Cindy D
Traditionally Maddy, women were considered property. Traditionally women could not be doctors or lawyers...etc.
Tradition is a terrible argument for depriving people of rights.
38 - Dr Dreadful
Gay marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.
Freudian slip, Maddy?
39 - Cindy D
Speaking of influencing children, I think maybe we shouldn't let Republicans reproduce.
On my trip to the seaside, I could immediately discern the Democrat from the Republican children by whether they wanted to feed the seagulls or stamp around bullying them.
It wasn't a fair assessment I have to admit, but who cares about fairness when you're having fun (I learned that from Republicans).
40 - Baritone
Yes. Just because something is a tradition, even a long standing one, does not make it good or wise or sacrosanct.
Also, there are those who oppose gay/lesbian relationships saying that they aren't "natural."
Again, people need to look up. At least since the Rennaisance, and certainly since the early to mid nineteenth century and the beginnings of the industrial revolution, what is considered "natural" has been bent, spindled and mutilated. It is largely owing to technological and scientific research and development over the past few centuries that so called "traditions" have been turned assunder when discovered to be either irrelevant or just wrong.
If there were to be a ritual book burning, and I could choose what to throw in the fire, I would chose all the so called "holy books" - the bibles and korans and on and on. One could probably find all the morality and life lessons necessary to civilization in the Dick and Jane books used in the 1950s public school first graders.
A small number of the bibles and korans, etc would be kept for any actual historical value they may have, but otherwise, there is little or nothing in them that can't be found, in what are usually better written books on philosophy and ethics from the Ancient Greeks through today without any unnecessary references to any god. And that's not even considering similar writings from the asian world. Hell, Lao Tsu's "Tao te Ching" pretty much covers it all with kudos given only to "nature" - no gods need apply.
B
41 - Glenn Contrarian
Maddy -
I am very much a Christian and as such, I do NOT force my beliefs into other peoples' lives. Remember “Judge not, lest ye be judged”? Paul backed that up by saying, “I judge those inside the Church, but not those outside the Church” (or words to that effect).
In other words, we Christians are NOT to condemn anyone outside the Church for any act not illegal. We ARE required to follow the law (“Render unto Caesar…”). Anyone who claims to be Christian but flouts the law of the land (as in refusing Congressional subpoenas) is committing willful sin.
By your name I assume you're a woman...so are you attracted to women? I assume that you are of course NOT. I assume that there is NOTHING that could ever force you to be attracted to other women. Ever.
So taking into consideration your own experience of enjoying one type of sex (hetero) and NOT the other type (homo), then what makes you think that a true homosexual can be ‘convinced’ to be attracted to the opposite sex?
So if a homosexual can NEVER be convinced to be attracted to the opposite sex, then what American right have we to tell him he has NO right to the pursuit of happiness as our Founding Fathers laid down in the Declaration of Independence? And don’t give me “the Bible says so”, because we have freedom of religion in America…which means we have NO right to force our disparate religious beliefs on anyone else!
And let’s not stop there! If marriage is to be only between a man and a woman, then WHY did God allow true hermaphrodites? And then there’s women with AIS - Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - which gives them all the parts of a female…but also an internal set of testes AND the ‘Y’ chromosome? How could God, being perfect as He certainly is, demand that homosexuality was so sinful, yet allow hermaphrodites and AIS? The only other possibility is that those who recorded the Bible allowed some of their cultural mores to influence their writing…and even Jeremiah railed against those who were not accurate in their recordings of Scripture.
42 - Cannonshop
#39 Funny, Cindy, I can tell whose parents are Dems by who's feeding the seagulls...alka-seltzer.
Then laughing about it as the animals die in a pretty agonizing fashion. (See, I can be a partisan moron too...)
back on-topic though, fact is, Prop 8 probably won't pass, and logically shouldn't. From a pure perspective of schadenfreud (taking delight from another's discomfort) I would campaign against said proposition for one reason-it would prevent the gay community from having to endure Divorce, with all the financial and legal nightmares attached.
I'm very much in favour of Gay Divorce, along with making Gay couples pay the Marraige Penalty in their taxes, and enforcing the same child-support apparatus on gay divorced non-custodials that is enforced on straight divorced non-custodials, gay people should have the opportunity to experience having their credit destroyed in the same ways that straight people do, gay survivors should be saddled with the same probate costs straight surviving spouses are, and all of the other things that come with a Marraige Certificate.
In other words, let's get the demographic that, on average and per capita has a higher discretionary portion of income relative to their peers to deal with some of the factors that impact those peers. Spread the misery around, y'know? Why should a man have to be straight to be saddled with his spouse's unpaid debts?
Why should a gay man be able to just pick up his stuff and end a long-term relationship without the interference of the courts? Why should a gay man be able to walk off from his partner's unpaid bills? Let's make sure the hassle reaches all through society-so that maybe, just maybe, some of it can be addressed.
43 - Jet
I'd like to direct you "Anti-Special Rights" people to a political cartoon I just posted on the BlogCritic's Forum. Click here
While the text is on another subject, the cartoon is directly on target...
Jet
44 - El Bicho
"(See, I can be a partisan moron too...)"
I don't think that was in doubt.
45 - Ruvy
Maddy,
If you want to toss in your views on a topic like this, expect to get jumped on - for everything you say - especially if you want to defend something like marriage.
I'm not expressing any point of view on any of this. It is none of my business what the state of fruits, nuts and flakes decides to do about marriage. same-sex or otherwise. I don't live there, and never would want to! All I will say is that there are a whole pack of unhappily married people who wish their marriages were gay - or over. And that I'm no one of them.
46 - Cannonshop
So, Jet, what you're saying with the cartoon, is that it's okay for certain groups to be targeted for grotesque and horrific treatment, just as long as they get special rights? Isn't that kind of macabre?
I mean, to me it would be more helpful to humanity as a whole to simply take guys who attack and murder someone for being gay, or black, or jewish, or christian, or having sex before marraige or looking at someone in a longing way... to take the people who do these hate crimes, and, well...execute them?
You know, like "Premeditated murder is premeditated murder"?? Remove the Excuses. Instead of making it a separate crime that has to be tried separately, maybe treat bigotry as what it is-a contributor that indicates a higher probability of guilt?
I mean, if the victim is, say, a gay man, and the suspects hate gay people, to me that makes those suspects a LOT more likely to be guilty, the crime a LOT more likely to be premeditated, and the lack of remorse would make me, as a juror, a lot more likely to vote in favour of saying "guilty", and maybe asking for a seat at the execution as a witness to the removal of another cancerous blight on the human race.
and I doubt I'm all that lonely in that respect.
47 - Jet
It was stupid of me to bother... sorry
48 - Cannonshop
Never stupid to bother, Jet. The truth is, people lose sight of the need for JUSTICE. Not "group Justice" which is "Just Us", but Justice, the doing of the right thing even when it isn't fun, and doesn't make one feel better about oneself.
The Right thing is to, in the case of family law, put the interests of the youngsters FIRST, which means making sure that, within the limits of what CAN be done, they have a stable home situation that won't turn them into basket cases, felons, or victims. That means that, instead of obsessing over the idea of Two parents (one male, one female), maybe it's just enough that there are sufficient adult persons who actually CARE about said kid to handle the job of raising them-whether it's one parent, two, or three, or twenty. There are a lot of prison-filler and nuthatch-filler out there that were raised by a mom AND a dad and still turned out basketcases or criminals. There are millions of other kids who grew up with one parent and are responsible citizens who don't live on prozac and don't commit crimes. Kids with gay couples as parents don't seem to show any greater probability toward antisocial behaviour than kids with hetero couples do, nor is there any seriously collected evidence that parents determine your sexuality. If a kid's going to be gay, they'll be gay even if mom and dad married as virgins and never strayed, and if they're going to be straight, they'll be straight even if Dad dresses in a skirt for other-dad.
WHO you love, who you CAN love, doesn't have anything to do with what your parents told you-at least, on a sex level. On the other hand, who you Hate? Hate can be taught. Hate can and is taught, it's a learned behaviour, just like religion, just like political views. It can be overcome by experience, or reinforced by experience, or submitted to in spite of experience.
But what turns your crank is entirely internal to someone. ON the whole, it's not Justice to say to one group "You can be married" and another group "but you're icky, you can't be married".
Justice means you treat everyone with the same allowance for disappointment, everyone pays the same penalties, everyone qualifies for the same basic opportunities.
49 - Jet
When gays are targeted for beatings and/or killings because they're considered "nonpersons" by the state, they should get special considerations too. Since I'm a non-person that means you can spray paint FAGGOT in big letters on my car, beat me up on sight, or deny me the same rights as you, because I'm not as good as you are.
If we're all the same in society, that means you no longer are special and above the rest of us... and that concept scares the hell out of you.
Equal rights-like marriage-doesn't mean special rights. We're asking for a hand up, not a handout. There was a time when marriage meant between only those of the same faith, those of the same race, or those of the same ethnicity too.
50 - Mark Saleski
To me, it doesn't make sense to throw 5,000 years of tradition out the window.
i'd write more about this, but i'm late for my bloodletting appointment.
ta, ta!
51 - Cannonshop
#49 The Federal Government had to step in and Enforce the LAW. (the Constitution is the supreme law of the land).
When Gays are targeted for beatings and killings, it is incumbent on the Law to step in and protect them as they should any other citizen-by prosecuting the criminals. Hurt feelings mean nothing, but property being vandalized is a crime. It is incumbent on the society to enforce your rights as a citizen.
No more, no less.
It doesn't scare me to be equal with you. It shouldn't scare you to be equal to me-at least, in terms of equality under the law. Somehow, I doubt you want to be equal with me in terms of accomplishment, financial security, or other intangibles. I reckon it would be a step down.
I agree-IF 'Marraige' is a right, then it is a right that extends to all relationships equally regardless of race, orientation, religion, or ethnicity. IF it is NOT, then the State has no business either recognizing, or endorsing it for ANYONE, regardless of race, creed, colour, ethnicity, religion, or orientation.
I would further extend this to include poly relationships, but will have to suggest that an age limit be observed and enforced-a position on which I think we would also agree?
52 - Baritone
Baronius #31,
Perhaps a constitutional amendment should be enacted against single parent families. There is no evidence that 2 parent gay/lesbian families have any negative effect on children, but there is plenty of data regarding the harm children often suffer in one parent homes.
B