After seeing Keith Olbermann’s comment a few nights ago on “Countdown” I sat down and began to think about the infamous Proposition 8. I guess I should state from the beginning, like Keith, that I am straight, but I do have friends, many of which I would call family, who are gay. So my position on this issue does contain personal bias, but I am only human. However, as much as a supporter of gay rights that I am, I wanted to take a look at what the other side had to say about this and try to be fair and objective in putting my thoughts together.
My search for information led me to a website called protectmarriage.com, which deals with protecting children in relation to this issue. Now they list three points why people should have voted yes on Proposition 8. The first point discusses that Californians voted on this issue before (in 2000) and approved that marriage in California was defined as pertaining to a man and a woman, and only that marriage was valid and recognized in the state. The second point argued that four “activist” judges decided to overturn the law and ignore “the will of the people.” Let me stop here and say that these first two points appear logical and can be engaged from the opposing side in a variety of ways. So I give the supporters on this website credit for making two rational arguments, which I myself could take issue with in a logical manner but will let it alone for now. I say this because it is the third point that made me want to react.
In order to properly discuss their third point I want to be sure that I quote them directly and not improperly cite them:
“It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs”
Okay, first while I recognize the fact that this group is concerned with protecting children, let me say as a person who does not have children, this argument holds no water. In fact, I feel discriminated against because I do not have children and am being forced to tolerate the views of people who do. I am just saying here people… Now normally I would not continue to address the first part of the statement, since I do not have kids and why should I care what other’s people kids are taught in schools, but being a tax-payer whose taxes theoretically fund public schools in general, I will say this: kids needs to be taught diversity. If we stopped teaching the future leaders of this world about tolerating differences, then we might as well revert back to a nation of slaves. We are living in the 21st Century and children need to know history and they also need to know about the real world that they live in, and I am sorry “protectmarriage” people but that includes the homosexuals. Third, the second part of the statement discusses how Californians will be forced to tolerate gay life styles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of personal beliefs. Well as someone who is tolerant of gay life styles and supports gay rights, am I not now forced to comply with a law that is against my personal beliefs? Isn’t this statement already inherently discriminatory against those who are not just gay, but supporters who disagree with you but have to live under laws that you feel are “right”? And how do you come to the definition of marriage? I would hazard the guess that it is based on religion. Fine, I understand. We live in a country that has freedom of religion. But freedom of religion also means there is a freedom to not have religion. So as an atheist, I feel that the oppressive religious rhetoric and beliefs that infuse politics and laws, which discriminate based solely on religious beliefs, which are personal, automatically discriminate against me and a majority of other Americans I presume.
So who is right here? This is the point where I would invoke Olbemann and say that we have a country who had laws in some states up until about the 60’s that banned interracial marriage. Should we go back to those laws because some Americans would say races should not mix, and they would use religious propaganda to make their point? I don’t think so. I find it hard to by the argument of the “sanctity of marriage” when every 1 out of 2 ends in divorce. You can get married through a drive-thru window in Vegas for crying out loud. Are we seriously still having this discussion that marriage is so sacred and needs to be only defined as being between a man and woman? For me personally, I don’t care who loves who and who marries who. Frankly, it is none of my business and none of the state’s either. I would say outlaw marriage altogether because I feel the state has no place in anyone’s relationship or bedroom. And for those people who feel oppressed because they have to tolerate gay life styles even though it is against your personal beliefs, I have a newsflash for you and a different spin. Since children were brought up in this discussion let me say this: When I go to a restaurant or a store, and I am trying to enjoy myself and I have to see your kids screaming and making a scene that distracts me and keeps me from having a good time, I feel oppressed because you as a breeder had to bring your reproduced monstrosity of yourself and inflict it upon those who have chosen not to replicate ourselves and now have to deal with your screaming and misbehaved child. But I must tolerate it because some people have kids and are allowed to bring them to public spaces. Well I guess I am forced to comply even though it goes against my own beliefs. I have to get over it. So for those who are hating the gays, and you feel like you have to tolerate a life style that you don’t personally believe in, here is the newsflash: GET OVER IT. Christianity is supposed to teach compassion, perhaps you should get a clue and read up about it.
My final thought is this, we could all be a bit more tolerant of people who are different from us. We should be open to those whose beliefs do not necessarily coincide with ours because it is the only way for opposing parties to learn anything. It is really the only way to advance tolerance. I hope Californians will keep this in mind as the battle rages on. My love and support to the gay community and I wish you the best of luck in the fight!