Much has been said on this topic. Much more will be said. However, I feel the need to express my thoughts on 'paper' about this measure.
First, by recognizing same-sex marriages, the law would be changing the inherent definition of what a marriage is. What one group of people is asking for would be null and void if they received what they were asking for, so even though they think they're getting what they're asking for, it's not exactly what they wanted, because the definition changed.
Second, I'm a bit disgruntled because the whole push of anti-Proposition 8 is about the right of two individuals of any sex to have a marriage legally recognized, but they're actually campaigning for a GROUP right, not an individual right. Campaign away, but on at least one political issue this election, let's call a horse a horse and a carrot a carrot.
I am in favor of Proposition 8. !!!! I truly believe that marriage is meant for one man and one woman. I am not hateful or angry toward people who do not share my beliefs, or who don't adopt my preferred lifestyle. I just have a belief, and I'm going to act on it on election day.
1 comment:
inda,
a good definition of bigotry is the assertion that one group of people is inferior to another group of people based on some benign (i.e., non-criminal) characteristic. a Yes on 8 vote just that. it stripped gay people of their former equality under the law.
i will support, with all my might, your right to bigoted views, and your right to express your bigotry with your vote. i hope you'll fight just as hard for my right to call you, and others, out on your bigotry. as you say, let's call a horse a horse!
your argument that gay people want to "change" the definition of marriage is unpersuasive for a number of reasons--mainly because of what modern marriage is and how very, very often the definition of marriage has already changed: all the way from a financial transaction in which women were property, to one in which two people make a legal and financial commitment to care for each other (nothing in the modern definition about children: see, i.e., childless straight couples).
economically, marriage is a good thing for an ordered society. it binds individuals, and ensures that there is a level of protection (for things like illness, etc.) to prevent one person from becoming society's responsibility.
it was disturbing to me that the Yes on 8 campaign was built on a tissue lies about No somehow removing people's religious freedom. so silly. churches can discriminate! that is what religious freedom means. there is such thing as freedom of association, so discriminate away. teach kids we're going to hell, fine. but codifying your religious views into laws that affect me is something quite different.
what is at stake in the No on 8 fight is whether the constitution means what it says when it says that "all men are created equal." i believe it does. that's why my side, ultimately, will win this battle.
the idea of equality was a pretty radical notion when the founders laid it out--and it is still is. it took over 150 years for society to adapt to that radical notion with regard to the rights of black people. gay people are almost there, and i'm really sorry that you will be proudly standing in the way as we attempt to cross the line...
your uncle joe
Post a Comment