There is a proposition on the ballot next week in California, Prop 8. If passed, this bill will strip away the recently granted rights for gays and lesbians to marry. The fact that we are voting on this bill at all is an affront to the principals that this country was founded upon. It represents the ugliest part of our culture—the one dominated by prejudice and fueled by hate.
There is no choice but to vote “no” on Prop 8.
Let me just say that again, so I’m perfectly clear…NO ON PROP 8!
Today is Write to Marry Day, an international initiative where bloggers around the world are joining together to voice our objection to this abhorrent violation of human rights. My voice on the internet is small, but I believe that every bit helps—especially a cause as worthy as this one.
The people who are against same sex unions say that they’re out to “protect” the sanctity of marriage. I call bullshit. Allowing same sex marriages will not change these peoples’ world one iota. For these narrow minded, ignorant people this is all about suppression and control over something they refuse to understand.
When I was a kid, I imagined that the future would have flying cars, holograms and personal jet packs. But I never imagined a future where after the civil rights movement, we would continue to adopt campaigns of hate against our fellow human beings. I thought we were better than this. We are better than this.
I hope that someday soon the idea of same sex marriage will be commonplace and that my kids will be aghast to learn that we ever needed to fight for gay and lesbian rights. I imagine that they will ask me about this time and I will proudly tell them that there were people who stood up and said that this was wrong and that things needed to change. I will tell them that I voted against this detestable measure and helped our country live up to its promise and its potential.
No on Prop 8!
A big thank you to Mombian for spearheading this initiative.
5 comments:
While there are strong similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement, believing that gay unions are equal to heterosexual unions and that opposition to gay marriage is equal to the discrimination of race is a misconception.
If the state legalizes gay marriage, then suddenly marriage changes from a protected belief of a small minority, to the false impression that the state (which is an extension of the people) believes that it is morally acceptable to practice homosexuality.
As individuals, law abiding homosexuals should be entitled to every inalienable right held by any heterosexual; but as couples, gay relationships no longer hold an equal stance to the synergy of a heterosexual relationship. The answer lies in procreation—the primary responsibility of a family.
The gay agenda wants to redefine marriage as simply commitment, honesty, affection, and warmth between two loving individuals. If so then it simply becomes an equal protection issue and the gay couple argues they are being discriminated against for a relationship they claim holds equal commitment and value to the heterosexual relationship. This argument breaks down because it ignores posterity and procreation. Children are what differentiate the marriage contract from all other consensual adult arrangements. The state has always had a keen interest in the bearing and rearing of children. Indeed that is why the state got in the business of registering and recognizing marriage in the first place.
The point, both legally and historically, the gay family can ONLY exist as a product of government policy and modern science, and a dependence on the natural family. It is very clear that there is no natural procreative ability between gay partners. The procreative ability between heterosexual couples is, by contrast, perfectly natural, and dates back to the start of recorded history. The natural family would continue whether the government or science became involved or not. Thus, we see that a homosexual relationship is not naturally equal to a heterosexual relationship.
The Declaration of Independence proclaims that we are endowed with unalienable rights, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". John Locke, called this "natural law". Natural law is not a creation or product of the state, but was to be protected by the state as these are the natural rights of all men inseparably connected to being human. Gays may argue that they are in the pursuit of liberty and happiness, yet there is no logical means by which they are naturally in the pursuit of life. Indeed we may argue that the gay movement, by its very nature, is a movement in pursuit of death, its own extinction, for without the intervention of the state and modern science, homosexuality results in the termination of posterity. Thus, from the perspective of both science and state we can see that the union of man and women, with their resulting children compared to the gay union are polar opposites both in origin and fruit.
What about couples who are infertile? Many married heterosexuals choose not to have children, and others cannot because of medical problems or physical handicaps. But gays fought furiously to convince the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their books as a "disorder", or medical problem. The majority of the United States will now agree that homosexuality is not a medical problem or disorder. Even in perfect medical condition, a gay couple cannot procreate without the help of a third party. Therefore homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are inherently, and naturally, unequal. Gays should NOT shunned because of their beliefs and tendencies. Nor does this fact infringe on their God given rights. The argument is that the two relationships are very different from one another and for that reason they should be defined differently.
More here
You write eloquently, but you are wrong. The marriage contract, or a marriage license, does not stipulate that children are involved. There are many straight couples who are married who chose not to have children. By your definition, those people should not marry either. Your argument needs to apply to both homosexual and heterosexual couples to be accurate.
If you say that the "gay agenda" wants to "redefine marriage as simply commitment, honesty and affection" than what is your "definition" of marriage? Clearly to you a marriage is only viable if it's for the purpose of raising a family. This is just not the case.
You say that you agree that gays and lesbians are "entitled to very inalienable right held by any heterosexual" but clearly you don't think this way if you want to deprive people of the same rights as everyone else. This is why this argument is exactly like the civil rights movement.
i agree with DGB. your argument, jeffery, is totally wrong. what you fail to realize is that marriage is more than a commitment to have children. there are many other things that change when people are married. taxes, next of kin, hospital visitation, etc. to be so closed minded to think that gay people does not deserve to get married is akin to the belief that black people should not marry white people. yes, that used to be illegal too. by your own account, you make the case for letting government decide WHO should get married. oh, your infertile? no marriage for you because you can't have kids. so what is 2 men can't procreate together? it wouldn't make them any less of a parent to be raising a kid that wasn't biologically theirs. look at adoptions. bottom line is that marriage is a state certificate. by the state failing to grant that certificate to someone based on WHO they were going to marry is discrimination and unethical. that is what the supreme court ruled and that is what a modern society could do without. i can also do without all the hatred and bigotry that "yes-on-8" people are spewing from their closed little minds.
oh, and jeffery, homosexuality has been around from the beginning of time. since before christianity was invented to control the masses. yet, humanity has trucked on and procreated our way into 6 billion+ people depleting our natural resources. i applaud anyone who chooses not to have kids, because they are offsetting the effect of some people having too many.
Great post, DGB. Couldn't agree more. Enjoying checking out your archives, too.
(And, hey, thanks for the comment over there on my blog!)
Daddy,
No on 8!
Unless you know him, it sounds like Jeffrey Harmon is a bot. That's why there are no specifics to your post. This is some kind of automated-conservo-brainwash-manifesto that was sent out specifically to present the (articulately argued) opposing view on Write Day. Don't give "Jeffrey" the time of day!
Post a Comment