Vote Yes on 8!
Posted by Nathan & Valerie at 12:26 PM |
Valerie and I don't live in California anymore, but as one who spent his youth growing up on the sandy beaches of California, I still feel I am a part of that great state. I couldn't say this any better than what has already been said, so I'll quote:
In 2000, by over 61%, California voters chose to pass legislation that read: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Sadly, because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people's vote, California now needs to repass this measure as a constitutional amendment to restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
The Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters; it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision.
This decision has far-reaching consequences. For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergartners. By saying that a marriage is between "any two persons" rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of "marriage." This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.
Proposition 8 is NOT an attack on gay couples and does not take away the rights that same-sex couples already have under California’s domestic partner law. California law already grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple. Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else.
Passing Proposition 8 protects our children and places into the Constitution the simple definition that a marriage is between a man and a woman.
Previous Posts
10 Comments:
good luck dude.
I think the tide has turned (See the Washington Post article today).
Thank you. I'm going to plagerize (I have no idea how to spell that) your entry on my blog. I will give you credit of course. I wanted to say the same thing and why reinvent the wheel when you just said my words exactly.
Marriage equality is a family values issue! Why shouldn't same-sex couples and their children have access to the 1,049 rights and benefits that come with marriage? Like the right to visit a loved one in a hospital, or to file joint tax returns. Marriage as a term has evolved, it used to mean a man with many wives, than it was a woman being the property of her man, now it is about love and financial planning. Gay & lesbian couples should have the same access to this beautiful institution and would only serve to strengthen it. Don't hurt our families, vote NO on prop h8!
thanks for this post.
Marriage is our culture’s ultimate expression of equality–it takes one man and one woman to create children. Even if a marriage can’t have children or choose not to have children the definition of their relationship expresses this equality.
One could see a lesbian union as a marginalization of men, or a homosexual union as a marginalization of women.
I don't believe government should sanction the marginalization of any gender (or more importantly, parent). And even though some families can't have children, or choose not to have children, you can't separate the child-issue from the marriage issue.
there is a great discussion here:
http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/separate-but-equal/
yes on prop 8!
p.s. your blog is on a black list. awesome right?
go here:
http://lezgetreal.com/2008/10/yes-on-prop-8-blog-roll.html
"California law already grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple. Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else."
You won't be losing anything you already have. This Prop simply reiterates the definition of the term 'marriage' as between man and woman. If you want to be domestic partners or marry in another state, you have that choice.
Emily: That is awesome! My first blacklist/hate comment! I've arrived!
I also find it funny that antagonists to Prop 8 think proponents of it are 'haters' and are just trying to stop them from being a gay family. Quite the contrary, but that's what they want to think we are doing. I'm all for gays hooking up and doing whatever it is they do if that's their prerogative. I don't condone it but it's their agency - free will - to do so. I just want the term 'marriage' to remain as it has for over 6,000 years: between a man and a woman. Why do we have to decide the definition of it after all these years? If it changes to mean 'party A and party B' then why can't 'party B' be a dog and 'party A' a man... and that's just wrong. but that's what kind of can of worms this would open up. it would let the courts decide what they want the definitions of things to be in society.
The family is the backbone of society and marriage is the beautiful uniting of man and wife (in holy matrimony) to be able to unite their love and produce children. Despite what pro-gays will say, there is NO OTHER WAY to have children in this life. And that is why man and woman were meant to marry each other. From Adam and Eve down to our day.
Nobody is hating on anybody's lifestyles, although we may disagree with them.
Also, as has been brought up before: if Prop 8 fails schools will be forced to teach our children that what we today term 'alternative lifestyles' are normal and appropriate - thus overriding or contradicting parental teaching that is contrary to that. We don't need to subject our children to this stuff at an early age. There are plenty of articles around to back up that argument.
Plainly put, marriage is between a man and a woman. Has been for over 6,000 years and should continue to be. I have no clue why Massachusetts and California have recently decided that the definition of marriage has been wrong for all these eons. (Actually I do have an idea but am not going to get into a religious comment here).
The opposition’s claims that their self interests are not being met are just selfish. They have no right to impose their moral views on our children. ESPECIALLY without our consent. It’s more than just “love” at stake here. I think it’s important to recognize the human rights of the children involved. France rejected same sex marriage because it trampled the rights that children have to a mother and a father. Their pursuit of self interest at all costs is selfish. Making our children be exposed to same sex marriage ideas corrupts their impressionable minds.
MONTREAL, March 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In late January, a 30 member parliamentary commission of the French National Assembly published a 453 page Report on the Family and the rights of Children, which rejected same-sex marriage.
DeSerres, told LifeSiteNews.com “Referring to the rights of children as a human rights issue, the report argued that children ‘now have rights and to systematically give preference to adult aspirations over respect for these rights is not possible any more.’”
In the report, the commission says that “the child represents the future of society.” The commission asks legislators to make sure that “children, confronted with mutations in family models, be fully taken into account and not suffer from situations imposed upon them by adults.” It adds: “The interest of the child must take precedence over adults’ exercise of their freedom (…) including with regards to parents’ lifestyle choices.”
I think that before making a decision about Prop. 8, we should consider how this will impact our friends, neighbors and maybe even our children - not while they're in school, but when they're adults. Gavin Newsom outlines it pretty well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW2BGqnEXag
This is a message for anyone who would use the Bible and/or their Christian faith to claim that homosexuals deserve anything less than completely equal treatment under the eyes of the law, including the right to marry the person of their choice.
It took almost 2000 years for extremist Christians to fully acknowledge the evils of slavery (which is clearly condoned in the Bible). Their mainstream brethren finally helped them understand.
It took even longer for extremist Christians to accept the right to vote for women and non-whites. Their mainstream brethren dragged them along.
It took even longer for extremist Christians to acknowledge that segregation was wrong. Their mainstream brethren showed them the way.
It took even longer for extremist Christians to tolerate the right to inter-racial marriage. Their mainstream brethren set the example.
In 2008, many church goers, clergy members, and religious scholars from around the Christian world respect gays and lesbians as equals, deserving of equal rights in the eyes of the law and, more importantly, completely deserving of God’s love - unconditionally.
There are currently hundreds of rights afforded to married couples that are excluded to same –sex couples. Even if you favor allowing some sort of domestic partnership which provides these rights, you’ve got to understand that separate but equal is not equal under the US Constitution (see Brown v Board, 1954).
Modern science is in complete agreement that sexual orientation has fundamental genetic, biologic, and developmental origins which establish sexual orientation by birth.
God doesn’t make mistakes, and God doesn’t want you to treat others as if they were mistakes.
"If it changes to mean 'party A and party B' then why can't 'party B' be a dog and 'party A' a man... and that's just wrong."
This is blatant dehumanization... how is a man and his dog in any sense comparable to two human beings?
Post a Comment
<< Home