Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Keep it simple...

repost as much or as little (or none) of this as you like:

Are you a California voter?

3 years ago, we had a commitment ceremony. It was presided over by a minister. 3 months ago we got married. It was provided over by a minister. California Proposition 8 isn't about religious rights. This is about denying religious rights.

You can't save marriage by destroying marriages.

A vote for California Proposition 8 is a vote to destroy my marriage.

A vote for California Proposition 8 is a vote to destroy my family's life.

A vote for California Proposition 8 is a vote to destroy my friends' lives.

A vote for California Proposition 8 is a vote to ruin the lives of ordinary Californians.

And I'm going to take it personally.

What? You don't vote? It's too hard? It's too inconvenient?

I'm going to take that personally too. An abstention might as well be a vote in favor. Get your sorry ass registered and out to the polls. Read up on the other propositions too. Read up on the candidates for office. Do your fucking civil duty.


( 36 comments — Leave a comment )
Oct. 14th, 2008 09:27 pm (UTC)
Serious question: will Prop 8 prevent an ordained minister from marrying a same-sex couple "in the eyes of God", or will it just remove "by the authority vested in me by the State of California" from the service?
Oct. 14th, 2008 10:08 pm (UTC)
Athiest here. Personally couldn't care less about "eyes of God."

What it would remove is the rights and responsibilities, the civil contract that goes along with marriage.
(no subject) - howeird - Oct. 15th, 2008 06:47 am (UTC) - Expand
indulge my curiosity - muttering_ogre - Oct. 22nd, 2008 07:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: indulge my curiosity - bovil - Oct. 22nd, 2008 07:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - buddykat - Oct. 14th, 2008 10:09 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bovil - Oct. 14th, 2008 10:11 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - buddykat - Oct. 14th, 2008 10:17 pm (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 14th, 2008 09:29 pm (UTC)
Oct. 14th, 2008 09:36 pm (UTC)
No worries, friend. We always vote absentee, so my vote against Prop 8 won't even wait until election day.

What scares me on your behalf is all the people you cannot reach with this post, because to know you and your husband is to already know how lame this argument is to begin with.
Oct. 14th, 2008 09:51 pm (UTC)
Buddy, if I had a vote I would be so there.
Oct. 14th, 2008 09:55 pm (UTC)
I haven't missed an election in the 30 years that I've been allowed to vote. I sure as hell won't miss this one.
Oct. 14th, 2008 10:00 pm (UTC)
Posted, and publicly -- with a few edits to make it more personal.
Oct. 14th, 2008 10:21 pm (UTC)

I'm voting absentee as well and I will be voting against Prop 8.

But I gotta say I really hate how things have gotten to this point.

As "warm 'n fuzzy" and emotionally appealing as demanding the recognition of gay marriages is, I think it a tremendously shortsighted move on the part of the gay community.

Demanding that recognition - as right as it is - is an "all or nothing" strategy. And the gay community political leaders knew damn well such a demand would evoke a huge backlash.

There are an awful lot of people out there - people who are reasonable, rational, caring, and otherwise thoughtful - who are simply uncomfortable with and opposed to the idea of same sex couples being married. This isn't out of any real anti-gay bigotry.

Instead it comes down to a matter of their religious faith and the current interpretation of that faith in which it precludes religious recognition of same sex couples - let alone recognition of their being able to marry.

No, those arguments against that really don't hold up to rational scrutiny. But then, religious faith isn't about such secular analysis anyway.

And before you jump on the argument that religious opposition to recognition of gay marriage is nothing more than religious folk forcing their religion upon gays bear in mind that the state's declaring gay marriages as being legal is, in turn, nothing more than forcing non-religious views upon the religious folk as well.

Neither way is right. Neither the religious forcing their views upon gays are right nor is the state or gays forcing their views upon people of faith is right. We live in a pluralistic society and have done pretty well at finding compromises to work our way past such differences.

And that's where things have gone wrong here.

Instead of pursuing legal recognition and acceptance of civil unions, the gay community pursued marriage first.

No, civil unions are NOT equal to marriage. Not the way we currently have things set up. They can have all the legal equivalence, if done right, but no they are essentially back to the level of "separate but equal."

However, such a recognition would've been key to demonstrating to the majority that gays are worthy of such recognition.

Should gays have to prove that they are "worthy?" In an ideal world, no. In the real world? Well, every other minority has had to prove their worthiness before the majorities of the day. One advantage of having to go through such proving is that once achieved it tends to stick.

Having such approval "forced" upon the majority through court action or through the passage of laws only freezes the process and actually draws it out. Just look at the fight over abortion still going on.

That, I fear, is what we have here. The gay community has sought to take a short cut to the end goal. The risk here is that this will fail and thus cause equally as powerful laws to come in place holding back such recognition as would've advanced it.

Given the overall conservative nature of the US, the overall conservative nature of most Californians, and given how offensive the idea of gay marriage is to people even moderately religious, I think pushing this hard, this early for it has been a grave strategic error.

Mind you, I say this as a guy who supports full legal recognition of gay relationships and full acceptance of gay "marriage" through whatever church blesses the union.

I'm hoping enough Californians will see the essential rightness of such recognition and defeat Prop 8. But I curse the political players in the gay community who have forced this issue in this way. To me, even though it is the rational and ethical thing, demanding recognition of gay marriage before achieving widespread acceptance of civil unions is only inviting disaster at the polls.

Oct. 14th, 2008 10:26 pm (UTC)
Just something to think about Madoc, straight domestic partnerships aren't "Separate but equal" either. They have restrictions on them as to when they can be filed for (age differences, minimus age requirements), and are not treated as "married" for tax purposes either.

So the legal equality has to change for all, first. Not just gays.
(no subject) - madoc62 - Oct. 14th, 2008 10:48 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bovil - Oct. 14th, 2008 10:29 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - madoc62 - Oct. 14th, 2008 10:44 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - feyandstrange - Oct. 15th, 2008 01:27 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - madoc62 - Oct. 15th, 2008 01:37 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bovil - Oct. 15th, 2008 01:44 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - madoc62 - Oct. 15th, 2008 02:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bovil - Oct. 15th, 2008 02:23 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - feyandstrange - Oct. 15th, 2008 01:58 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - buddykat - Oct. 15th, 2008 03:04 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - yarnaddict - Oct. 15th, 2008 04:24 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - madoc62 - Oct. 15th, 2008 02:39 pm (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 14th, 2008 10:44 pm (UTC)
I've counted 3 "No on 8" signs within a 1-mile radius of my house -- in my little gentrified barrio, where I'm one of the few non-Spanish speakers! Soon to add a sign in my front yard too.

At the (gay) wedding T. filmed last weekend, they were handing out "No on 8" bumperstickers, so we're all decked out.

(And duh, we're registered, our families are registered, & all voting "NO" on this most ridiculous piece of tripe.)
Oct. 14th, 2008 10:55 pm (UTC)
Any local campaign office where I can go to get signs?
Oct. 14th, 2008 11:34 pm (UTC)
(no subject) - voidampersand - Oct. 15th, 2008 02:09 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - galtine1 - Oct. 14th, 2008 11:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - voidampersand - Oct. 15th, 2008 12:24 am (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 14th, 2008 11:51 pm (UTC)
*sigh* I'd vote "No" if I could... not living in CA kind of foils that, though. But my family is still there, and they're all voting No.
Oct. 15th, 2008 01:23 am (UTC)
One can also vote early in many jurisdictions. As soon as I'm un-dizzy enough to stand - probably Thursday - I'm going down to City Hall to vote early! And HELL NO on 8.

And if my sorry crippled too-sick-to-work self can vote, nobody else has any excuses.

Oct. 22nd, 2008 08:01 pm (UTC)
Vote, you say? I never miss a chance to injure the body politic. (The only election I ever missed was the special one to fill my friend and congressman Leo Ryan's seat when he was murdered, and that's because I was at college in New Jersey and didn't hear in time.)

Even though I don't generally push my political views (most advocacy being self-defeating, unless done in a careful fashion, as few commentators bother to preach beyond the choir), I suspect you can guess mine: that I take this attack on your and others' marriages as a grave affront, and its dissembling rhetoric an unforgivable insult to my own "traditional marriage".

Civic duty? I keep trying! ;->

All the best,
Rick M.
( 36 comments — Leave a comment )