There are no non-religious arguments against gay marriage. And religion has no place in government. If you support Prop. 8, then you support the idea that tradition and religion — not reason — should be enshrined and enforced by government. Even though our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and says nothing about tradition.
Let me be blunt: If you don’t think gay people should be allowed to marry, you’re a bigot. And your attempt to amend the Constitution is an attempt to inject religion into politics. Worse, it’s an attempt to make unfairness into law.
If you’re a Republican, you supposedly believe in small government. That means the government stays out of people’s business, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody. Gay marriage doesn’t hurt anybody. Therefore, if you’re a Republican, you should oppose Proposition 8.
If you’re a human, you probably believe government should be fair at the most basic levels. Not discriminating on sexual preference counts as “fair at the most basic level.” Therefore, if you’re a human, you should vote NO on Proposition 8.
If you don’t want to help set a precedent that government has a business in controlling individual freedoms that have no ill effect on society, then you should vote NO on Proposition 8.
Pretty simple, really. ---Scot Hacker in his blog post Amendment Song
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
QotD on Prop 8
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
David,
I think you´ve spelled it out nicely...of course, the editing machines, once seen as white hooded lynchers (now, thanks to the last 10 years or so think they need not hide themselves), will have none of reason...they, interestingly enough, once again become amongst the ugliest criminals...those who inspire crimes of hate and EXCLUSION become the outcasts...outcasts of their own undertaking.
YES! See the comments in the thread below, for proof....
By all means, let those opposed to gay marriage deny it, rail against it, and inveigh against it. But how can they not see that denying me marraige is IMPOSING their beliefs on me, whereas allowing me gay marriage does nothing to them?
Sorry, but I'm totally one-track about this topic now. This has been such a precious, marvelous gift, I am literally terrified at losing it.
IT
Oh IT, whatever I was going to say is lost. It doesn't matter, I am really moved by your words.
Hey IT, email me if you would, one of these days, I have something I'd like to share with you and your BP.
festinalente07 at gmail you know how it goes.
Anyway, back on track, IT and no one else should be denied this right.
That blog link is excellent - thanks for putting this out here David.
Yesterday, in Los Angeles, there were rallies conducted by black clergy both for and against Prop. 8. The L.A. Times had both a story and a opinion piece about them.
The story is here -- Black clergy both for and against gay marriage speak out: Dozens of ministers exhort a crowd at Crenshaw Christian Center to vote for Prop. 8, which would limit marriage to heterosexuals. In Leimert Park, three clergy members speak against the measure.
The opinion piece, by Steve Lopez, one of the Times's more gad-fly columnists, is here -- Wielding religion as a weapon against gay marriage.
They say pretty much what one would expect them to say.
The most interesting comment was in Lopez's column. It about Geoff Farrow, the Roman Catholic priest from Fresno who was fired last week for saying from the pulpit that he would vote against Prop. 8. Lopez noted:
"Farrow's ouster wasn't surprising, because the Catholic Church is one of the leading supporters of the Yes on 8 campaign. Speaking up for the dignity of gay people must be a greater sin than being accused of molesting minors, which has frequently resulted in a mere transfer to another Catholic church rather than dismissal."
That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
There's a article in today's Wall Street Journal on Prop. 8 -- Gay Marriage in Peril in California.
The article says in part:
"A state ballot measure to ban gay marriage in California is gaining momentum, with polls showing almost even odds of it passing after trailing by double digits a month ago.
"In June, the state legalized same-sex marriages. The next month, Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, was put on the ballot for November. Initial polling showed that a majority of Californians were likely to vote against Proposition 8. A Sept. 18 poll by the San Francisco-based Field Poll found the measure losing 55% to 38% among likely voters.
"But now the measure is favored 48%to 45% among likely voters questioned in an Oct. 17 poll by Survey USA of Verona, N.J. The poll's margin of error, four percentage points, means the results were a statistical tie.
"A group leading the fight against the measure, Equality for All, said this week that one of its internal polls shows Proposition 8 leading by four percentage points. The close results of that poll, too, may suggest a dead heat as the Nov. 4 election approaches."
The whole church/state debate is a little bit of a red herring since much of current law is an institutionalization of our values. We value home ownership, so we allow people to deduct mortgage interest. We value education, so we devote a significant amount of money towards it.
The idea that any law would be "religion-free" is perilously close to a law being "value-free" (since the vast majority of people get many of their values from religion). While I get the point, the idea that our religious faith should not be enshrined in law both ignores history and is impossible.
The issue, Tom, is when one faith group uses the power of the ballot box to impose their values on another group. In the case of gay marriage, the desire of conservative Christians to impose their values on me despite my protest, deprives me of something profound. My exercise of the right to marry, on the other hand, has NO EFFECT on the rights of conservatives to free practise of their religion.
As David said below, the right to swing one's fist ends when they hit my nose.
Until we live in a theocracy, no single group's values should trump any other single groups values.
IT
And some good news for Prossy - she can stay in England -
Pray for Katie and Cynthia - off to film more stories of gays, lesbians, transgender Christians in Africa
More about the lies in this news article:
The measure's supporters warn that teachers will be forced to tell young children about gay marriage if the measure fails on Nov. 4.
Opponents of the measure say that's deceptive because schools already are required to teach tolerance of gays and lesbians, and the ballot measure won't change that.
"I've seen the spots on the TV, and (legalized gay marriage) just isn't going to require any kind of teaching of personal relationships or lifestyle," said state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, who has joined the state's largest teacher's union in opposing the measure. "That's just not an accurate statement or portrayal."
But the truth has little to do with this campaign.
Very very depressed here.
IT
The real question is.....
Should straight people be allowed to marry?
After all, half of them do such a bad job at it.
NancyP
something is wrong with the word verification, it actually makes sense ("eaters")
Front page story in today's Los Angeles Times -- No on 8 lead is eroding in polls: Most voters reject a ban on gay marriage but the margin is closing. Experts say the tally is hard to predict.
The story says in part:
***
While California voters remain closely divided on the question of gay marriage, a majority oppose a measure to ban it, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.
But the poll also found that support for Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to disallow same-sex marriage, has gained somewhat since a similar survey was taken in late August. The latest results show 44% in favor and 52% opposed, with a margin of sampling error of 3 percentage points.
Recent polls commissioned by groups for and against the initiative have showed it passing, though most political analysts put less faith in polls funded by partisans than in those conducted by independent groups like the Public Policy Institute.
***
The Proposition 8 battle has emerged as the most expensive of all of this year's ballot measure campaigns, and has aroused strong passions on both sides. As of Wednesday, Yes on 8 campaign committees had raised $26.7 million while the No on 8 committees had brought in $26.1 million
***
Baldassare, the president of the Public Policy Institute, said his poll also found that those in favor of the proposition tend to be more passionate than those on the other side.
***
Although many voters on both sides know exactly how they are going to cast their ballots, a chunk of voters in the middle are not just undecided but "conflicted," he believes, on the question of whether to ban gay marriage. People are "moving back and forth on this," he said. "It's a very volatile electorate."
Yeah, Volatile. Let's deprive a whole class of people of the right to marriage because we DISAPPROVE of them.
By a 50% vote. TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.
Oh, but we require 2/3 to raise taxes.
WTF is wrong with CA?
Loving v. VA was in what, '68? It wasn't till the 90s that a majority of Americans agreed with inter-racial marriage.
We have learned nothing.
IT very depressed....
I hate to dump on your depression, IT -- but Loving v. Virginia was 20 years AFTER the 1948 California Supreme Court case, Perez v. Sharp, that found California's ban on inter-racial marriage unconstitutional.
Incidentally, the law that the California Supreme Court struck down provided, " no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race."
Sounds very similar to Prop. 8, doesn't it?
Yes, Primrose, but the CA electorate seems hell-bent on reversing that sort of progressiveness!
Will the CA decision of June be another Perez, or wll it be a mere blink of hope snuffed by bias?
(But please do dump on my depression... ;-)
IT
For a good summary of the polling data, see this site. It's also a good tracker for all the other issues coming up this November.
those in favor of the proposition tend to be more passionate than those on the other side
Maybe because those in favor know they won't be called "FAGGOTS!" (and treated accordingly) for their "passionate" efforts? [We LGBTs being the persons for whom "passion" is, in itself, recently criminal :-/]
JCF, keeping the faith. Just barely.
Tom also seems to suggest a very common fallacy amongst the religious when addressing agnosticism / atheism. To whit, "without religion, there can be no morals/values/etc..." This is patently false.
Sure, to certain types of religious people, morals & values exist because "god" said so, and will punish us if we don't obey (BTW, I don't hold to this "abusive parent" model of the Creator, but that's neither here nor there).
But Tom, try and imagine the viewpoint of the non-religious. Can you see how puzzled they are by claims of moral superiority from people who gather once a week and say they're drinking the blood of a 2,000 year old Sky God ? And these people suggest they have the only legitimate source of "values" ?! ;)
Post a Comment