Nov 13 2008
Proposition 8
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!
3 Responses to “Proposition 8”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not A Member? Register for Free!
I just think that the athiest world and much of the secular world really just doesnt know anything about Christianity because all they see are these fake as Christians around everywhere which are everywhere so how can you blame them. I think your right to have a Rude attitude. But why is it though that If I think that a marriage should be just between a man and a woman….And I think that a child should have a mother and a father…..Then according to the gays Im full of hate…..I hate them because I dont agree with thier new ideas that they just made up….Theres been gays goin on forever this is nothing new just go back to keepin it to yourself because it makes the rest of us puke……Nice post though….
Thanks for your comment. I was raised Catholic and am very familiar with Christian beliefs. I think that we are all entitled to have our own beliefs, but that in the eyes of the law both beliefs should be equal. There is separation of church and state for a reason and I think we need to make this distinction before passing laws that discriminate. This is the world we live in and we have to face the realities. I guess I am a bleeding liberal. But another point I would raise is that homosexuality has been going on since Ancient Greece, but it was not labeled as some abomination because it was accepted as part of the culture. It wasn’t hidden, but just the way the world was. Much like today. Thanks again for your comment. I appreciate all points of view.
Hm, I’m not sure how one precisely distinguishes between “fake” Christians, and real ones, but being Orthodox, I’m pretty sure that all of you post-1054 schismatics are fakes, unless you are willing to rejoin the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church whose Ecumenical Patriarch resides in Constantinople, but I’ll check my religious beliefs at the door, since what is at stake with gay marriage is one of civil rights. No, their not just for women and African Americans any more, at least if you believe that civil rights encompass all those fundamental privileges to which all people, all citizens, ought to have access. Of course in Holy Church, marriage is a sacrament, but if one is worried about this sanctity being desecrated, then marriage ought to only be performed by a religious leader, and in a house of worship. For example, what does one do with secular marriages performed by a justice of the peace like in the United States, or even an atheistic one as was the case in the former East Bloc countries? Eastern Europe felt no need to come up with new concepts for domestic partnerships because ?marriage? was a term too religiously loaded, neither does the United States feel the need to use a different term for them, nor nullify them because they were performed by the state and not the church. I would say that if marriage is a specifically religious concern, and ought to be reserved for religious couplings, then all non-religious couplings, gay or straight, ought to be civil unions and not marriages. However, not all religious groups agree on what constitutes a religious marriage. Quakers for example, and some Anglican churches, perform gay marriages. So, one cannot say that it is simply a religious versus secular/atheistic concern. What this problem does bear witness to is the fact that language is a malleable medium, culturally specific, and subject to change. Nothing linguist is atemporal, not even ?marriage,? alas. For nostalgia?s sake I?ll say once more that one hundred years ago in the US, it was felt that interracial marriages were not legal marriages (although they may have been religiously valid), but the definition and legal status changed. Ok, so at least with this example the marriages in question were between men and women, but in male-female marriages supposed 5,000 year run, marriage also included at times: incest (as was the case for the despotic families of ancient Egypt and Rome), and polygamy (as in current Muslim practices and my favorite ?fake? religious group, the Mormons). Marriage thus: 1.) has not remained in a vacuum over the course of human history and 2.) has changed significantly and legally in very recent history. Now, how is this a civil rights issue? Well, if some, but not all religious groups accept gay marriage, and at one time there were religious marriages that were not recognized by the state, but now are, then its wholly conceivable to have the definition of legal marriage changed to include same-sex couples. I can?t conceive of any other reason than an inherent homophobia that would deny gay citizens equal privileges under the law. I would like to hear a reason that isn?t homophobic, but mostly for the sake of having the chance to deconstruct it and unearth that kernel of homophobia, which is at the center of any anti-gay marriage stance. And we need only to look as far as the last friendly commentator?s post for the proof in the pudding. In the end, yes I am a devout Christian, and I also know that not everybody accepts those beliefs, and some people down right hate them, and I am thankful to live in a country where one doesn?t have to accept my beliefs, nor be subjected to them. I extend that same civil courtesy to gay men and women who want the opportunity to enter into the bonds of marriage. And, ok, a little Christian commentary: if what is at a stake from a religious perspective is marriage?s sanctity, then it is not the state to defend that sanctity. It is up to the individual religious communities to teach what is and is not acceptable, and if someone from that community wishes to love and marry someone of his or her sex, then it is up to us, or at least me, to meet them with love and kindness, and understanding, not condemnation or persecution, for none of us are above transgression. I think Christ may have some of his own commentary on these virtues, but I?ll leave it as a homework assignment for the fake Christians out there to find, and perhaps in doing so, they will find their way back home