I think Keith really sums up a lot of my feelings here. But just to offer a few more reasons for why the passage of this amendment is cruel, inhumane, and just plain terrible, I'm trying to think of all the possible reasons someone would have voted for this law.
"The Bible tells me homosexuality is wrong."
Fair enough, and I truly respect whatever religion you believe in. I think one of the main Biblical passages people reference to prove this is when Lot (I think it's Lot - please correct me if my reference is wrong here) ends up staying with his family during the night close to Soddom. Late at night, two men come to his tent, wanting to have sex with him. Lot says no thank you, but the two men persist, apparently supposed to appear evil. Why doesn't anyone tell what happens next in the story - that Lot offers up his two young daughters for sex instead? I understand the guy was scared from two people who were obviously invading his privacy, but doesn't that technically make him the worst father EVER?
EDIT: If I've got this right, the Bible also tells you not to judge, lest you be judged. And to love your neighbor. And to treat people the way you would want to be treated. Isn't this passage a miserable failure to do all three of these things?
"I don't know how to explain to my children what they see when we pass two men holding hands on the street."
First, you're assuming a child would see something wrong with that. Children aren't born with the idea homosexuality is wrong, right, or just an aspect of life - they're taught it. And secondly, if you're too cowardly to explain something as simple as the idea of homosexuality, (in child terms, it's as simple as "a boy falling in love with a boy or girl falling in love with a girl") perhaps you should rethink this whole parenting thing. There's a lot of way more awful stuff in the world that extends past homosexuality you'll have to explain to them. When you think of rape, starvation, genital mutilation, and genocide, alongside hundreds of other terrible things that happen in this world, doesn't explaining a form of love seem like a wonderful thing to tell your children about?
"It's a question of protecting the sanctity of marriage."
I'm sorry, but this argument is old and desperate. It's actually a question of stripping someone of their civil rights as an American. You forget that heterosexual couples don't have to be in love - don't even have to KNOW each other - to get married in this country. It's a wonderful country we live in, and no one would ever think of taking that right away from the people who have it now. Oh, except California. And in many other states, they'd stop it from even happening.
"The more gay couples we have, the more gay kids we'll have."
While I know this isn't true, I'll suspend my logic for a moment and go with this. And I don't see a problem with that. Perhaps they're afraid their own child may be approached by a gay friend of theirs, asked on a date, and become uncomfortable. Shouldn't they be taught to react like all other similar situations? If you're not interested, politely decline. If you are interested, take it slow and enjoy yourself! Besides, when I look back on my history of dating and sexuality, all, and I repeat ALL of my uncomfortable experiences were with MEN.
Perhaps I'm missing something I've forgotten here, and I'd love to be enlightened if that's the case. Because at the moment, I find this a simple, unconstitutional amendment. You grant something to one American that you won't grant to another. You're not allowed to do that in this country, no matter who you are. I'm hopeful that this will be taken to the supreme court and be repealed. So does Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at the end of the referenced article.
I can't wait to call Tom my husband. I'm so unbelievably thankful for that right. And it makes me heartbroken that in California, nearly 40,000 people had that right and that joy briefly extended to them and then taken away. It marks the first time in American history where a right was granted to someone and then taken away. It's brutal, and it's a terrible treatment of our fellow citizens.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Why don't we just ban all Marriage? I mean, what does the government really have to do with getting married? That way, everyone can just be married in the eyes of their church/family/rock etc and can go into a civil union with one another.
In fact, I don't think we should even ban marriage, I think we should just not worry about it. I mean, personally for me, if I love someone the last thing I'm going to care about is what the government thinks about it. And yeah, I may not be granted the same rights as other americans if I decide to marry someone that is not considered acceptable, but there's a lot more important liberties that we are not offered by our government which we aren't talking about.
I know this is a big issue to some people, but with all of the horrible things that are wrong with our society, I wonder why so many people decide to make this the issue they will fight for.
Whatever we decide to do, I hope we just get over this quickly so we can concentrate on issues like poverty, economic slavery, and all of the things you mentioned ie: Genocide, Genital Mutilation, rape, starvation, etc.
I dunno, maybe I'm just missing something, or maybe people just aren't ready to deal with the bigger problems.
PS. Regarding all of the examples you gave, I agree with you, they're pretty silly. I don't know how people can take themselves seriously arguing shit like that. But if you give them the chance, people will find a way to justify just about anything.
Another reason (more like excuses if you ask me) is "judicial activism".
Many abide by the belief that if it's the will of the people (as shown by votes on such legislature in the past), the judges shouldn't overturn the will of the people.
And while this is an admirable belief, it's stupid in this context because it's documented discrimination. And the courts have been known to usurp discrimination. Arnold was right about that.
It kinda galls me that so many are willing to overlook the core ideals of their party (help everybody or rights for everybody with no gov't involvement) to treat others as less than others.
Needless to say, I was pretty ashamed of my state at that moment.
I'm totally for making marriage a strictly religious label, and having all secular unions classified as "civil unions." Seems to me the best way to equality. And I think there are so many people fighting for this issue because in some way, each side believes it's a no-brainer, and something to vote on and get out of the way. But we can't even come to a resolution on THAT.
And Lisa, I promise I don't blame you personally for the stripping of civil liberties going on in your state right now. Though I do think it's kind of funny that currently Connecticut is more progressive than California... when did THAT happen??
I think I understand why this is an issue for so many people. Regardless of if the actual thing is a big deal or not, like you said it's more about why we can't just get over that whole thing. I think it comes down to people not liking homosexuals, and that's the real problem. And so we use something like "Gay marriage" as a symbol to address the larger issue of bigotry. I do understand that, and I do respect people for standing up against it.
Still, I wish people wouldn't be content with fighting these relatively easy fights, and be willing to tackle some of the bigger issues facing us. I guess I just grow impatient with people who think that voting for Barack Obama is going to significantly bring us closer to the society we ought to be. And after the election, I saw everyone switch their attention from electing Barack Obama to standing up against prop 8, and I just got discouraged. It leaves me wondering when we're going to care about economic slavery and poverty and reclaiming our civil liberties. Because these things are much harder to take care of than it was to elect Barack Obama president, and it's going to take the majority of us actively participating in our government to fix them. And so when we go from electing Obama to Prop 8 to... I don't know... recycling or whatever, it re-enforces my observation that our generation is a lazy generation, easily pacified with various multimedia stimuli and distracted with small issues which have little to nothing to do with the significant problems in our country.
So I agree with you, and I do understand the Prop 8 debate. I just wish it wasn't the only thing I hear about from our generation. I really do believe that one day we will be able to break out of this daydream we are fed and will help realize the promise of our country and our society, but sometimes I just get so discouraged. Anyways, I guess what I'm saying is just as you said: "each side believes it's a no-brainer, and something to vote on and get out of the way." I'm ready for that to happen more than most I think. I still say the government should just refuse to recognize any marriage. I wonder what the argument is against that?
Post a Comment