?

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.

Comments

madoc62
Oct. 15th, 2008 02:00 am (UTC)
Andy,

You got that Bridge to? Damn, and here I was thinking I had the only deed to it. That guy I bought it from swore it was legit! :)

As to "marriage" vs. "trappings thereof" we'll never know.

I wish things were set up on this issue more like the French have it. Over there, as I understand it, "marriage" is purely a sectarian thing. The state handles what is essentially "civil unions" and that's the way it's been done for a long, long time. Since the Napoleonic era, at least.

Couples can go just for the civil union thing and not bother at all with the church. In the eyes of the state - and of all relevant laws - they are fully married. If they opt only for the church ceremony then they gain none of the legal stuff.

But, that's not the way things are.

Madoc
bovil
Oct. 15th, 2008 02:23 am (UTC)
As to "marriage" vs. "trappings thereof" we'll never know.

Read the position papers and the arguments. It's right there.

I wish things were set up on this issue more like the French have it.

Last I saw the French didn't sanction same-sex unions. It's the Spanish (and the Brits and a few Scandinavians) you're thinking of.

Over there, as I understand it, "marriage" is purely a sectarian thing.

You have it partially right. Many European countries separate the civil contract of marriage from the religious sacrament of marriage. A wedding by a religious officiant has no legal standing. A civil wedding is still a wedding, though, and the result is legally a marriage.

Of course, the mere fact that those Godless European Liberals (who mostly inhabit countries with state-established and -supported Christian religions, for some odd reason) do it would kill the idea here. Mexico does it too, and we don't want to be like Mexico, do we?

It doesn't matter. Contrary to your belief, that actually is the way things are.

We already optionally separate the civil contract of marriage from the religious sacrament. One can get married at a government office by a civil authority with no religious involvement, and that's a marriage.

We also already optionally separate the sacrament of marriage from the civil contract. I have (straight) friends who have had religious weddings with no license. I find it hypocritical that some of the devout see the license as being the lynchpin of the sacrament.

So, again, you've got an argument that holds no water.

Edited at 2008-10-15 02:34 am (UTC)

Latest Month

February 2014
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728 

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Paulina Bozek