PLEASE NOTE: Disrespectful comments will be deleted. Period.
On May 15th, 2008, California became a state that grants equal protection and equal rights to same-sex couples. This was indeed a victory for all citizens, gay and straight, and people across the country are celebrating!
Regardless of how people feel about marriage itself, many people from across the political spectrum are lining up against Prop 8 -- the marriage ban.
From the left, the right, and the political center, a lot of folks just don’t like the way Prop 8 singles out one group to be treated differently.
After all, our California Constitution -- the law of our land -- guarantees the same freedoms and rights to everyone. America itself was founded on the principle of equality, and equal protection under the law is as American as apple pie.
Civil rights groups, religious leaders, and elected officials from throughout California -- and beyond -- are all opposing the initiative, which would change our Constitution and single out one group of people for unfair treatment.
Senator Barack Obama and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger don’t agree on much, but they both oppose Prop 8. They’ve both come to the conclusion that regardless of how they feel personally, it’s just plain wrong to single out one group of people and exclude them from enjoying the same rights as other citizens.
There’s growing recognition that -- like freedom of religion and freedom of speech -- the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society. No one can tell you which church to attend, or what you can and cannot say. And no one should be able to tell you whom you can marry.
Marriage allows couples to express a lifetime commitment to each other, and gives spouses the responsibility for crucial medical decisions in an emergency.
Why should we deny same-sex couples that same security, dignity and respect?
At a time when many political questions seem to divide us, it’s inspiring to see people united around the fundamental things that matter -- equality, freedom and fairness for all.
Please join me in voting No on Prop 8 -- it’s about fairness.
-------
And should you be interested in helping the No on Prop 8 campaign, please go to the No On Prop 8 "What You Can Do" web page and do at least one of the five things suggested. I personally just wrote letters to the editors of the Imperial Beach Eagle & Times, the La Jolla Village News, the North Park News, the Poway News Chieftain, and the San Diego Daily Transcript. (Apparently, however, the letter submission limit has been reached for the U/T and the Reader, which is a good thing!) I have also given money to the campaign.
Thanks!
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 37
... and HORAAY for love !!!
If it matters, I'm a 61 year old straight man who's been married (to a woman, the same one) for over 35 years. The mean spiritedness and lies of the pro 8 campaign are as vicious as anything I've seen in my adult life.
Civil marriage is about property. It has nothing to do with religious marriage. Divorce is universally recognized under the law in the US even though some religions don't recognize it. We ought to have a legal view of marriage that ignores people's religious beliefs. If religious groups don't want to sanction same sex marriage they don't have to.
Everyone deserves love, and everyone deserves equal rights. Let's take that to the polls!
When you get down to "brass tacks", there is NO WAY that ANY such legislation is Constitutional!!! Regardless of what happens now or in the near future with unconstitutional legislation such as this bill, IT WILL BE OVERTURNED BY A FUTURE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE IT IS EXACTLY THAT "UNCONSTITUTIONAL"!!!
"Equal rights" MEANS "EQUAL RIGHTS" for ALL!!
I love my country, I love what it stands for and I love the Constitution of the United States of America BECAUSE it allows for every, single, solitary citizen living here to be on an equal footing with every OTHER single, solitary citizen living here!!!
Just as the old "separate but equal", so called "Jim Crow" laws passed during a time in our history when prejudice against African Americans and other people of color was rampant were later overturned, SO WILL EVERY SINGLE LAW LIKE PROP. 8 BE EVENTUALLY!!!
Institutionalized discrimination in any form must be defeated
It is not right, I hope that it does not pass.
I want to scream at the TV every time I see those darn commercials supporting it.
Having tolerance for sexual deviancy does not mean that we also have to degrade marriage from wholesomeness to being a mere recreational relationship.
And the arguments about depriving the homosexuals of their civil rights by denying them marriage is just a whole lot of malarkey. A 'civil union' has essentially all of the same basic legal benefits as a marriage.
From what I've read above, I see that there are a lot of misguided individuals here on Gather. What a shame.
Of course, it could be that Eben is deleting all opposing viewpoints. If so, my comment will probably be gone tomorrow. I'll see... Hopefully, this will do some good.
If Proposition 8 passes, it will NOT single out the homosexual population for differential treatment. Instead, it would treat everyone the same.
For example, if a group of people decide that they would rather drive on the left-hand side of the road, we don’t have to provide them with left-hand streets - rather, we treat everyone the same and mandate which side of the thoroughfare everyone must drive. We treat EVERYONE the same regardless of his or her preferences - that’s not discriminatory.
What Proposition 8 really does it stop the recently imposed preferential treatment of a select group of people. Let's return to treating everyone the same.
The California Supreme Court might actually have engaged in judicial misconduct by declaring marriage to be one of the basic inalienable rights. Such a right does not come from the California Constitution itself and would require its own constitutional amendment to valid at the constitutional level.
Anyone who votes 'no' on this proposition is doing the state of California AND the United States of America a big disfavor.
I am definitely voting YES ON PROPOSITION 8 and implore all California voters to do the same.
Three states down the commode is three too many - let's make it just two. Or, better yet, none at all.
But all of that does not persuade me to accept that our society should be designed around their desire to call a genderless union the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman. It is not! And all the king’s horses and all the king’s men saying it is cannot make it so. I don’t blame them for wanting it and a whole list of unfair nesses corrected but this thing goes too far. We need the State, and all of us, to stop ignoring the elephant in the room. Marriage is all about being the only logical place that brings the two genders together in such a profound way and for a purpose more important than a vehicle for love and sex and for avoiding hurt feelings for a special group. We need to realize it is in the States interest to give this little element of guidance to our people to say that the preferred union of couples is the one that will create a family that can procreate and have the advantages of a mother and a father for the children that will come and be nurtured to have every benefit such a family can bring. The state needs to stand behind that family, make it feel special and strengthen it and help it be as successful as possible in its particular purposes and pursuits of happiness. Watering down marriage to include genderless unions won't make the world a better place for those that follow us. Sorry, it just won't. For whatever it is supposed to help, it will further weaken the institution that brings new people into the world and nurtures them to productive happy lives.
You're living in the past. Wake up and smell the future.
It's apparent to me that you lack a full comprehension of this subject. I admit that I don't either.
But, I am aware that a passage of Proposition 8 will not result in a difference in rights between heterosexuals and homosexuals. It does not prohibit homosexuals from getting married. It reads, "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.". There is nothing therein outlawing a homosexual from getting married. The difference would be in the desirability of getting into a recognized marriage. It fails to prohibit a marriage ceremony between two persons of the same gender, so the ceremony could theoretically still take place and be recognized in other states. Of course any eligible adult could marry someone of the opposite gender, regardless of his or her sexual orientation, and still have it recognized in California. And, all of the same rights would still apply.
Incidentally, I stand behind my use of 'deviancy', although that term probably wasn't the best choice, as it implies straying from the norm. 'Inaptness' would probably have been better.
But, homosexuality deviates from nature's intended use of the genitalia. Thus it is an improper use, from a biological perspective, hence inappropriate.
I also view pedophilia and bestiality as being sexually deviant in nature. Neither has yet been accepted in the United States, so the term is more appropriate for these.
It's quite clear that we're both too stubborn to change our viewpoints, so we'll just have to continue looking at this differently.
Am I bigoted or prejudiced? Not according to the dictionary. Here are some links to an on-line dictionary (Merriam-Webster):
bigot
prejudice
deviant
inapt
Have a good day.
Your argument is bull, I'm sorry. By inserting that sentence into the State Constitution, the State effectively denies gay couples all the rights normally accorded to married couples, period.
Defending "the institution of marriage" is no excuse for discrimination. It was just 41 years ago that miscegeny laws still existed, preventing couples of different races from marrying. They were wrong, and this law--this perversion of the Constitution--is wrong as well.
Sad day that 8 passed. I can't remember the commedian who remarked, "I was really concerned about judicially mandated gay marraige... until they told me it was optional..."
However, I noticed that George Takai said that 8 does not legally amend the California State Constitution. Constitutional amendments have to start with majority votes in the State Assembly and Senate before going to the voters for ratification.
If he's right, 8 will not overturn the judicial ruling requiring the State to make marraige available to same sex couples.
"Gay marraige somehow invalidates or degrades the concept of marraige..." False. Marraige certificates and the rights that go with them are completely unchanged by the expansion of marriage to same sex couples.
"Gay marraige runs counter to our historic concepts of marraige..." So what? Culture is not a matter for enforcement by the State. The State's role is to protect the rights of its citizens. See above.
"Gay marraige opens the door for other expansions of marraige, such as bigamy, etc..." So what? See above.
Additionally, on that point, isn't it a bit odd that the Morman church was the primary underwriter of the "Yes for Prop 8" campaign?
Thanks for the soapbox!!!
rbs