Responding to a comment
My last post was about a civil rights issue, and those always tend to draw in new readers who leave comments disagreeing with me. This also happened this time, when a commenter calling himself sonAmerica wrote, and I thought I'd respond to the comment publicly.
Marriage has throughout history been between a man and several women, yet it seems like people are ignoring this issue, when focusing on the historical aspect of marriage.
Also, I'll point out that the argument from tradition is the same which was used when people tried to stop inter-racial marriages.
Marriage is a state sanctioned ceremony, which homosexual couples want to have available.
So, in other words, Gay people can't do what they want - which is to get married to the people they love.
And I did notice that you use the word "many" when talking about civil benefits. Why should Gay people accept that they have fewer rights than heterosexual people?
No, it's the bigots who want to change the Californian constitution to allow them to follow up on their bigotry, which is the problem.
Like the judges did in Loving vs. Virginia.
It's the job of judges to evaluate if any given law falls outside national or state constitutions, and if they do, overrule them. That's what happened in this case.
No, it allows bigots to make laws that discriminate against people because of their sexuality.
How dare they insist that the laws don't break the state constitution? How dare they keep people from being discriminated?
So, your right to be bigots should overrule the state constitution?
Proposition 8 is about changing the Californian state constitution in such a way that it becomes permitted to make laws that discriminate against other people because of their sexual orientation. There are many rights which are only accessible to people who are married - simple rights like the right to visit your partner in the hospital. Yet, bigots all across the US fight hard to deny such simple rights to others, simply because their sexual orientation.
I doubt you have any gay friends. You're certainly no friend to gay people.
Back when Loving vs. Virginia was won by the civil rights people, someone could basically had said exactly the same. And many would have agreed. Time, however, hasn't been kind to that side of the debate, for good reasons, and time won't be kind to the bigoted side in this debate.
In the long run, I believe that civil rights will win out.
"In fact, it's so important that we want to deny it to some people, because somehow, it makes it less important that everyone has access to it."
Bigotry, no matter how well you try to cover it, is not a pretty sight.
If you can vote in California, please vote no to Proposition 8. If you're marriaged, it doesn't make any difference to your own marriage, but allows others to enjoy the same benefits that you get.
I'll end this post by quoting Mildred Loving
Mildred Loving, Loving for All (.pdf)
Prop 8 isn't an issue about "rights". It is about preserving the definition of "marriage" as between a man and a woman.
Marriage has throughout history been between a man and several women, yet it seems like people are ignoring this issue, when focusing on the historical aspect of marriage.
Also, I'll point out that the argument from tradition is the same which was used when people tried to stop inter-racial marriages.
Marriage is a state sanctioned ceremony, which homosexual couples want to have available.
Gay people can do what they want, and they can even enjoy many civil benefits through civil unions and the such. But that isn't marriage.
So, in other words, Gay people can't do what they want - which is to get married to the people they love.
And I did notice that you use the word "many" when talking about civil benefits. Why should Gay people accept that they have fewer rights than heterosexual people?
Gay people aren't the issue here nor the problem.
No, it's the bigots who want to change the Californian constitution to allow them to follow up on their bigotry, which is the problem.
The problem is that 4 arrogant judges in black robes sitting in their ivory tower overturned the express will of a clear majority of California citizens when they ruled by fiat and illegally legislated from the bench when they unilaterally redefined marriage.
Like the judges did in Loving vs. Virginia.
It's the job of judges to evaluate if any given law falls outside national or state constitutions, and if they do, overrule them. That's what happened in this case.
Prop 8 allows the citizens of California to say no to Judicial Activism and Judicial Tyranny.
No, it allows bigots to make laws that discriminate against people because of their sexuality.
here are elements of the judiciary that are way out of control and are endangering the balance of power in our republic by getting involved in "legislating". This has got to stop.
How dare they insist that the laws don't break the state constitution? How dare they keep people from being discriminated?
Voting yes on Prop 8 will help put those elitist judges back in their place and let them know they cannot arrogantly overule the will of the people in a matter as fundamental to the future of civilization as the bedrock institution of marriage. That is something important enough that it should not be left to 4 elitist judges to impose by fiat.
So, your right to be bigots should overrule the state constitution?
Proposition 8 is about changing the Californian state constitution in such a way that it becomes permitted to make laws that discriminate against other people because of their sexual orientation. There are many rights which are only accessible to people who are married - simple rights like the right to visit your partner in the hospital. Yet, bigots all across the US fight hard to deny such simple rights to others, simply because their sexual orientation.
May I speak a word to my gay friends, neighbors, coworkers, and fellow-countrymen.
I doubt you have any gay friends. You're certainly no friend to gay people.
You are a minority and I'm sure you recognize that. And that is ok. But please show kindness and tolerance for the rest of us and vote with us to help preserve marriage as between a man and a woman
Back when Loving vs. Virginia was won by the civil rights people, someone could basically had said exactly the same. And many would have agreed. Time, however, hasn't been kind to that side of the debate, for good reasons, and time won't be kind to the bigoted side in this debate.
In the long run, I believe that civil rights will win out.
I know you may not have any personal parochial interest in voting yes on Prop 8. But as your friend and neighbor, I'm asking for your vote to help preserve the definition of this institution that is so important. Thank you.
"In fact, it's so important that we want to deny it to some people, because somehow, it makes it less important that everyone has access to it."
Bigotry, no matter how well you try to cover it, is not a pretty sight.
If you can vote in California, please vote no to Proposition 8. If you're marriaged, it doesn't make any difference to your own marriage, but allows others to enjoy the same benefits that you get.
I'll end this post by quoting Mildred Loving
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.
Mildred Loving, Loving for All (.pdf)
Labels: bigotry, California, civil rights, homosexuality, Proposition 8
posted by Kristjan Wager at 1:36 PM
View blog reactions
3 Comments:
I appreciate your allowing me to respond.
To compare racism to this is a strawman argument. Men and women are different. And that diversity is important. Each brings gender-unique and needed approaches to the raising of children. The definition of marriage as between a man and a woman recognizes that important contribution by both genders in the raising of our future generations.
I have no problem with gay people having civil unions for civil benefits etc, and they can live and do as they want. But as a society we need to promote marriage of a man and a woman, because that institution is critical for the future survival of society. And this issue is important enough that 4 judges ruling by fiat must not be allowed to override the will of the people on defining this most vital foundational institution of society.
Friends, please vote Yes on 8.
Kristjan, be aware that "sonamerica" has left the same two comments (word for word) on my blog related to Prop.8. He is apparently trolling the internet to find anyone who dares speak out against the proposition and dropping in some canned cut-and-paste arguments. Next he'll leave a link to an article that purports to show that gay marriage in the Netherlands led to a rash of out-of-wedlock births among heterosexuals. The causal link between these 2 facts is missing, of course.
Thanks Steve. He is of course welcome to post that link if he wants to do that, but that won't get him very far here. I know that study, and it's crap.
And even if there were, he would have the disadvantage of trying to convince someone of that, who actually understand the differences between the US and the Netherlands mentality on this area. Like my home country, Denmark, there is no significant stigma involved in getting born out of wedlock in the Netherlands. This means that even couples who have been together for decades might not be married.
In Denmark, what usually happens is that people get married after they get their first child. Not because of stigma, but because there are a number of legal issues that becomes much easier if the parents are married.
Post a Comment
<< Home