Just a Passing Thought:
Proposition 8, which seems to have made thousands of married couples in California suddenly unmarried by its passage, is a strange beast to me. First off, it puts a human rights case to the popular vote. Had slavery been ended this way it's likely to US would still have several slave states.
But along with that comes another bemusing observation: the campaign to legally screw over gay families--and make no mistake, when your marriage is dissolved by popular fiat, that's exactly what has happened--is run primarily by two groups who really shouldn't be tossing rocks at others' marriages.
First is the Mormons. Presumably they want the traditional marriage to be restored: That is, the marriage should be defined as being between a man and four women.
Second is the Catholics, who should honestly know something about gay culture, and who presumably want the definiton of marriage to be restored to one man and ... Well maybe one woman and ...
Well, anyway.
posted by Metro @ 3:05 pm
16 Comments:
Did it actually pass? Hm. That is scary.
I agree that the Mormons & the Catholics should not be throwing the proverbial stones here.
What's proposition 8?
Thread up on my blog for you, Metro.
I wonder how long it will take for people to realize that discrimination against gay marriage is a silly as the miscegenation laws.
Actually, I wouldn't be against poly marriage as long as women my age could marry all the young men who are being thrown out of the cults so that old farts of men can marry young girls. Like that's going to happen.
Dear Monsieur M
Are you suggesting that your personal view of Morality (or is that imMorality) is to prevail over a Democratic Majority, however large ?
... seems resonant of attitudes have carried over from Catholicism ...
....... but again, how seriously are we to take the views of Californians - don't they account for 80% of Global Warming Emissions with their multiple vacations in Las Vegas
GE
Perhaps a quick visit here may explain the needs of religions with respect to marriage.
@WC
Yeah. One step forward, Mr. Obama, one step backward, Mr. Ratzenberger.
@philipa
Proposition 8 repeals the right of homosexuals in California to marry--a right given them by the state's Supreme Court less than a year ago.
@silverstar
I'd be totally in favour of poly marriage--I knew a girl named Polly in school, and she should be allowed to marry anyone she wants, dammit!
@g eagle:
So human rights should be subject to repeal by democratic vote?
Homosexuals were granted the right to marry in California. They have now been stripped of that right, in the absence of any visible harm the practice might do to society.
If this became common practice in the world, how many sub-classes of citizen would that create in England, do you think? Would Turks be one sub-class and Muslims a different one? Catholics? Or could we just go back to calling 'em all "wogs"?
@Archie:
Thanks for the link. I haven't had time to see it yet, but will ASAP.
Thanks for the link.
Interesting political conundrum. Thanks for explaining, Metro.
Interesting political conundrum. Thanks for explaining, Metro.
Seems like repetition time on the ol' Metroblog today.
Seems like repetition time on the ol' Metroblog today.
Oh--and I was referring to the repeated last line of my own comment, rather than philipa's double comment.
Just proves my point :-S
Folks, the passage of Prop 8 in California had nothing to do with discrimination/hate against the gay community. It had everything to do with smacking down a loud activist collective claiming to represent all gays, which they don't.
The proposition had to do with redefining the word "marriage." Nothing else.
The gay crowd already has the same civil rights of the heterosexual community.
California has an odd process that allows that Ballot Initiatives, no matter how absurd, may be placed on the ballot for public vote, and all that's required for such initiatives are filing fees and 5,000 petitioner signatures.
The passage of Proposition 8 did nothing other than to squelch the ongoing in-your-face publicity stunts by a small percentage of members of the gay community.
Married folks have rights, too, and many of us prefer to retain the definition as between a man and a woman. That's not discrimination. Prop 8 defends OUR lifestyle, not the other way around.
"Married folks have rights, too, and many of us prefer to retain the definition as between a man and a woman. That's not discrimination. Prop 8 defends OUR lifestyle, not the other way around."
Hetero folks do not have the right to define marriage, though - or at least shouldn't. And many hetero folk also agree that the definition of marriage should include gay relationships. Your lifestyle doesn't need defending. Your lifestyle is not threatened at all. You are not the ones being discriminated against - and yes, a hetero-only definition of marriage IS discrimination. Yes, they may have the same civil rights, but the state should not legislate what is a marriage and what isn't and exclude gay marriage from that definition. THAT IS DISCRIMINATION.
@Bunk:
Welcome. Pleasantly surprised to see you here.
Prop 8 certainly was all about discrimination. Discrimination--the act of treating a group differently, in this case based purely on sexual orientation.
The "gay crowd" has all the same civil rights as heteros. Except one.
They were granted that right, and through a malfunction of the democratic process it was stripped from them.
Thank god voting rights aren't subject to the same ridiculous repeal.
If you believe Prop 8 did nothing, I think you're not paying attention. It leaves thousands of families in limbo, thousands of businesses suddenly taking an unexpected hit, and thousands of committed, engaged couples who have to call themselves "partners" instead of married. Try calling your wife "partner" in all your dealings.
Legally, doesn't it also deprive those partners of certain basic rights that the holy word "marriage" automatically conveys?
Economically alone, repealing gay marriage was a bad idea. Socially it's a disaster.
The good news is that Prop 8 passed by a razor thin margin. The change is inevitable. I'd stock up on towels and toasters if I were you.
For myself, I'd rather the state stopped "recognizing" marriages, and instead let people get on with it. However, since marriage confers a benefit on both the married couple and on society, not to mention the millions of dollars worth of licenses sold annualy, this seems unlikely.
And of course there's the fact that people want their marriages recognized, to carry some special weight.
And clearly, in California, a certain proportion want to keep that recognition exclusively (and discriminatorily) for themselves.
"Married folks have rights, too, and many of us prefer to retain the definition as between a man and a woman. That's not discrimination. Prop 8 defends OUR lifestyle, not the other way around."
You realize, don't you, that this is on the order of someone saying, "Men have rights, too, and many of us prefer to retain button-up shirts as men's clothing. That's not discrimination. A law making it illegal for women to wear button-up shirts defends our lifestyle, is all." How can you possibly take yourself seriously and still say things like this? If you complain first that there is no material difference between civil unions and marriage and thus that gays should just shut up, you cannot plausibly then say that marriage has something special that you want to keep for yourself: that, by definition, is a material difference! Jeez...
Thank God i live in CT where this shit is not happening. The only state besides MA that allows it.
@pugs:
Am I ever wrong or what. I thought you might be in Georgia!
Post a Comment
<< Home