Skip to content

prop eight

October 23, 2008

While driving to orchestra on Tuesday night I was outraged to see a crowd of "Yes on Eight" picketers. It’s not that they were there that I found outrageous, but the content of their signs. The Yes on Eight campaign has very successfully obscured the truth in a number of cases, so I’d like to take a moment to cover a couple of the signs I saw, and why I think they are lies.

Prop Eight=Less Government
Actually, if you understand this please explain it to me. The proposition lengthens our state constitution and changes the way marriage is currently defined. I don’t understand how that is at all less government.

Prop Eight=Parental Rights
Outright lie. While this website has some rather biased rhetoric which I understand many will find objectionable, please read the quote contained from the LATimes and the list of education groups which oppose the lies told by the Yes campaign and who oppose the proposition itself. There is no underhanded attempt by the queer community to force kids to be told that it’s okay to be gay or that gay marriage is just as acceptable as straight marriage. We’d like kids to be told that, but we’re not trying to do that with our stance on marriage.

Prop Eight=Religious Freedom
Two points.
One: Actually, no matter how it goes someone is going to feel like their religious freedom is getting stepped on. I’d feel that way if it passes, but many religious people would feel that way if it fails.
Two: The issues I believe they are actually addressing with this sign is the right of churches to not perform gay marriages. Churches already have that right, and if it goes to court (or to a ballot) then I would support churches maintaining this right. When my parents were married in a Catholic church thirty years ago they had to prove to the church that they were a marriage the church could endorse, and I still believe a church should have the right to that standard. And guess what: churches still have that right here. Once again, I’m aware that I’m about to link you to a No on Eight sight which of course is biased, but it’s again the quote from an outsider which I’d like you to read. On this website, the third point regards churches having the right to not perform marriages. The state supreme court, as reported there, has said churches have this right. That site also has some information regarding my previous point, including pointing out an important legal difference between Massachusetts and California.

By all means, vote yes if you believe homosexual marriage is wrong. Just please be aware that some of the other reasons are skewed or lies.

8 Comments leave one →
  1. October 24, 2008 3:41 am

    I think the reason people are in such an outrage is that its like the gay community wants an endorsement of there lifestyle. Many people feel that marriage between a man and woman has never been “endorsed,” but rather accepted throughout the years. In second grade part of the curriculum is to teach about families and many people feel that by teaching there children about gay families they are some home condoning that its okay to be gay and have that lifestyle. I mean I personally think that is wrong, and that gay marriage should be legalized but I am not sure that people are ready to fully accept it as a part of society.
    Again I am a giant advocate of gay marriage but I do not know if people are fully ready to accept it. Maybe they will accept “unions,” but is that better than nothing at all. I mean right I understand being denied something you want so much, but right now smaller steps might be in order that massive jumps.

  2. October 24, 2008 3:45 am

    And the best part of my response is that I know absolutely nothing about this proposition only from what I have heard from others, sad huh?

  3. October 24, 2008 4:13 am

    I hope that if this amendment passes that these people ({BE66F84A-F38F-4858-9A7B-DF325F3AC9A0}&dist=hppr) are personally blamed for it. By doing what they did at this time they didn’t further their (and your) cause they set it back and people who take a stance even if all it is going to do is fire up the opposition make me angry. If they did this after more than say 10 or 20 states had allowed gay marriage then at least I’d respect their making a stand (whether I believe children should be used to make a political statement or not) but now they will be used as an example in every state who is trying to pass something like Prop 8.
    On a different note. Picketers should be banned on everything. All they ever do is alienate everyone- even the people they think they are supporting. People used to stand at the gas station and “supporting the troops by protesting the war” I never saw Nathan so angry and he was the one they were “protecting”. Picket signs should be left for people on strike and not for political agenda’s.

  4. October 24, 2008 4:44 am

    Omw really horrid timing on that. I don’t know what I think about how the subject ought to be taught to kids, but certainly the teacher should have thought more about the unintended consequences of her actions. Just tell the kids you’re getting married to a girl and leave it at that.

  5. October 29, 2008 6:13 am

    One more question
    I figured I’d ask it here in case anyone else cared to know. One of the commercials also says that in Cali gay and lesbian couples have the same rights as a marriage by way of domestic partnership its just a different name. Is this true because most of the news articles I found either agreed or didn’t refute it so if its not true what is the difference other than the name? While I was looking for it I found lots of fun facts about the Mormans involvement in the campaign and it makes me laugh at drama that occurred amongst those we know. Yeah I know I said no more politics but this one is beginning to anger me because everyone on both sides appear to be lieing about lots of things and I’m trying to find out which side is lying more.

  6. October 29, 2008 7:19 am

    Re: One more question
    Okay so here’s a pile of thoughts about the differences between a domestic partnership and a marriage.
    Firstly, as far as I know, Keith and his girlfriend are in a domestic partnership (that’s how they got ‘married’ housing). Allison and Hasan were going to get one to be able to live together. You and Nathan are married. That’s the social difference. Logically it makes no difference, but in the way the relationships are viewed by the general public it’s very different. That’s “what’s in a name”.
    As for the legality, here’s what I understand it to be. As a disclaimer, this is just me, without any research. So I might be wrong.
    In theory, as far as the rights granted by the state, at domestic partnership is the same as a marriage. That’s the way DP was defined in the state. That’s in theory. I don’t know the details, but I would be very surprised if it actually is like that. Lets face it, this would not be the first time where laws disagreed with each other.
    From what I understand, the Court’s decision to allow gay marriage hinged on “separate but equal” being a flawed concept, and seeing no reason to not let gays get married if we’re willing to allow gay DPs.
    Then there’s the whole deal of federally granted rights versus rights granted by the state. Because it’s the federal government which grants some rights about marriage, even if a gay couple is married in CA they are not equal to a straight couple. The figure I’ve heard is that there are ~1000 rights a gay married couple doesn’t get federally.
    So yeah, technically a gay couple in a DP has the same state rights as a straight married couple. In practice, socially speaking it’s very different, and in terms of federal rights it’s very different. I honestly don’t know about loopholes in state law, that’s just something I suspect. I’ve often heard the argument “those gays already have the same rights. Why do they have to steal our traditional marriage? It’s just a name.” My mental response, always, is that if it’s just a name, then why is it such a big deal to let gays use it too? Of course, you and I already agree that there should be no legal marriage anyway, and that would solve that argument.
    I’d say more, about having to put my foot in my mouth, and just how frustrating the lies on both sides are, and all that. But I’m falling asleep at the keyboard.

  7. October 29, 2008 4:07 pm

    Re: One more question
    Thanks that makes sense. Although just so you know (in case someone is thinking of doing it and asks about it) the “domestic partnership” that Keith his girlfriend and others we know did to get housing isn’t a “california DP” its just for Palo Verde/wherever for housing. Which is why some of us thought it was funny that Hasan refused to sign one with a guy even though there is no record of it anywhere other than Palo Verde. Gotta love the paranoia of straight guys lol.

  8. October 29, 2008 5:32 pm

    Re: One more question
    Oh yeah, some part of me knew that. This is why I shouldn’t be allowed to talk politics while falling asleep at the keyboard. I blame Erik…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: