The America we should be: vote no on Proposition 8
Over the past few weeks, I’ve seen demonstrations in support of Proposition 8 in and around my neighborhood in Oakland, California.
If you don’t know by now, Proposition 8 would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to legally marry. Proposition 8 proponents have refused to comment on whether they would actively seek to invalidate the marriages of those couples who have been united since same-sex marriage was legalized in California.
Let me be perfectly clear. I am, to the very core of my being, opposed to Proposition 8. I believe that passage of Prop 8 effectively creates a religious dictatorship in California and would export bigotry and discrimination to the rest of the nation and the world. I believe that the right to marry is universal, constitutionally protected, and that it is a civil rights issue to the core.
And that’s why I can hardly keep myself from jumping out of my car when I see African Americans and other people of color demonstrating in support of Proposition 8, and why I can hardly breathe when they are also women. Notwithstanding the fact that slavery itself was only abolished in this country about 150 years ago and discrimination in all forms is still thriving here, interracial marriage in the United States was still banned in 17 states as late as 1967. That is forty-one years ago. If there were a Proposition 8 41 years ago, Asians, blacks, Samoans, and Hispanics I saw with a Yes on 8 signs this weekend, it would have been about you. Interracial marriage was banned because it was considered unnatural, it was thought to be “against God’s will,” and it constituted illicit sex. Sound familiar?
That long, rich history of marriage-related discrimination in this country ought to be enough to get any thinking person, and particularly a person of color, on the side of the Proposition 8 opponents. For whatever reason — probably the simple fact that it’s human nature to find someone out there you disagree with and go messing around with their lives — that doesn’t cut it. And that brings me to women.
Less than 100 years ago, women in the United States would not have been allowed to vote for or against Proposition 8. In some countries, they still cannot. In the U.S., women were still considered chattel who could not own their own property or even the clothing they wore until 1890, when Kentucky finally changed its laws. The Equal Rights Amendment, which says “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex,” wasn’t even proposed until 1923, has only been ratified by 35 states, and is still not part of the U.S. Constitution.
Then there’s the religious question. Proposition 8 comes from a fundamentally religious argument — our society rejects homosexuality as a sin that is specifically proscribed by the Bible. But here’s the thing: the Bible is not the law. If it were, we’d live in a pretty chaotic, contradictory society that allowed for putting people to death for all kinds of minor and outdated offenses and let guys like King Solomon have as many wives and concubines as they want. And don’t get me started on the teachings of Jesus — nearly all of which flatly contradict the spirit in which Proposition 8 was proposed at all. And before we use religion — again — as a tool for oppression in this country, can we please remember that our nation was founded on the principle of religious freedom and that our Constitution was created out of the desire for a democracy that did not specifically endorse one religion over another, did not put the beliefs of one religious group over the beliefs of others, and did not force its citizens to believe and act based on the will of a religious majority?
It is unfathomable to me that America can have such a deep wellspring of hate and violent discrimination from which to draw its lessons, and that we can still have Proposition 8 on our ballot; that we still have not risen above petty, passionate, semantic bickering about who has the right to be a legally sanctioned family. It’s unthinkable to me that women and minorities can look past not just their own history but the active discrimination that still thrives in this country, and still try to find a target for their own bigotry. And it’s frankly abominable that so many people feel it’s acceptable, in 21st century America, to create a “separate but equal” caste out of productive, successful, law-abiding citizens with whom they happen to have a “lifestyle” disagreement.
Proposition 8 is un-American. Period. And I am begging you, no matter what your personal or religious beliefs may be, live your own life. Go your own way. Teach your children that they don’t have to worry about being discriminated against or marginalized in this country, no matter what future determinations our society decides to make about who is “anti-family” or “against God” or somehow the unacceptable “them” to the greater “us.” Because make no mistake: as long as we think discrimination and marginalization is ok, we’ll never stop trying to pick on somebody. In the future it could be the anti-technologist religious sect or heck, scientists and software engineers, or the half-robot people, or why not, women again, who are somehow picked out as somebody that it’s ok to hate and make laws against. Think this is about the children? Unless we make a stand as Americans and human beings, no child is safe from becoming a victim of somebody’s beliefs.
Like the right of women to vote, the abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, and the possible election of an African American man as President, this change is coming. There’s no good reason to tell gays they can’t marry, other than pure, naked, ugly discrimination. Don’t be the pro-segregationist of your day. Don’t become a villain in the story of America’s march toward tolerance and freedom. Vote for the America we should be, instead of the America we have been. Vote no on Proposition 8.
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
- | Zhang's Blog
- William Estep » What Time is it where you live?
- History will waltz at Fairly Ordinary
- Buzz Me » The America we should be: vote no on Proposition 8 « ed hayes . us
- Vote no on Proposition 8 « ed hayes . us
- Zeigen » Blog Archive » Congrats Obama!
- Marriage is for breeders? — BrainWyrms
- Keith Olbermann on Prop.8 | The Sweet Dick Blog!
- What Time is it where you live? | The Age of Will
It’s unfortunate that you are viewing people who disagree with gay marriage the same as you claim that prop 8 people hate gay people? God bless the fact you posted your opinion, but I think if you re-read it subjectively you’d see it as quite angry and hateful, much like the people who view this issue differently than you..
This all seems like common sense to me. There is way too much hate and discrimination in this country and unfortunately, as soon as homosexual couples finally obtain all of the rights they should have, the ignorant masses will move on to the next group that’s not like them and breed more hate. I just don’t understand.
I see you didn’t say anything women driving…Only kidding. Good for you, I still can’t understand why if people don’t agree with something they feel they have the right to ban it. If you don’t agree with it then don’t do it. What gives them the right to try and control other people.
Disgusting. This makes me wish I lived in California so I could help vote this down. Excellent post, I very much appreciated the referential links. If we don’t take the time to learn from our history, we are doomed to make the same mistakes.
Great post.
Mierst
“There are Two Things I Can’t Stand in This World: People Who are Intolerant of Other People’s Culture, and the Dutch.â€~Nigel Powers
Thanks for posting this. As a woman born, raised, and still living in the South, this election season has given me hope but has also made me very sad as I realized just how divided as a nation we still seem to be. I just can’t understand how people can be so very scared of someone because they are “different.” I always believed that as my career progressed I could move to an area of the country with values more closely aligned with my own, but it seems that no matter where you live, there are sad, scared people trying to cling to some imagined perfect past when everything was well and every person was the same and held to the same world view. Never mind that this country was founded by those trying to escape that very situation.
It seems that I can only do my part to educate people here, hope that California will do the right thing, and Alabama will be dragged into the 21st century as the tide turns for the rest of the nation.
(By the way, I think you mean don’t be a segregationist, instead of anti-segregationist in the last paragraph.)
Molly, this is an amazing blog post. I really appreciate your vehement passion.
“Interracial marriage was banned because it was considered unnatural, it was thought to be “against God’s will,†and it constituted illicit sex. Sound familiar?”
FWIW, this is actually true, biblically, of homosexuality (there’s plenty of evidence to support that in the Bible.) There is not, however, anything in the Bible to support interracial marriage as against God’s will.
You are correct, Molly, you can’t legislate morality. However, you can’t legislate immorality either.
Also, There are a number of instances in the Bible (that I think you need to dust off the Book and read it, not just Googled articles) where God and Christ showed their anger towards those who would not turn from their sin. Sodom and Gomorrah ring a bell? Money changers in the temple? I’m still a loyal listener/reader, and as such, I know you are a stickler for getting the facts straight.
Thanks,
–Brian
But we can still discriminate against smokers, right? Please!
Very well said, especially about the freedom of religion.
The fact that most of the people pushing for Prop 8 are stating that the bible says it’s wrong only prove the point more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Seems interesting, our own freakin’ constitution says that you can’t pass a law forcing religious beliefs on someone… if I’m in a religion that supports or doesnt care about ones sexuality… who the fuck is the government to tell me otherwise?
What’s next? We’re going to pass a law that states that you can have multiple wives, just because the mormon religion believes it?
What about passing a law that states that you can’t eat anything on a certain day because the Jewish religion is fasting?
The fact that this is a religious matter only furthers the point that it SHOULD NOT be on the ballot at all this election, and the fact that it is is disheartening and disappointing.
Flex that function key tomorrow:
Eff 8.
(freakin awesome post, Molly)
The wikipedia article on miscegenation (a tough word to spell…) is an interesting read. At the time, Jerry Falwell (!) was a defender of segregation and railed against integration because it could lead to miscegenation. Also at that time, Christian groups claimed that several verses in the bible (Phinehas, curse of Ham) referred to and forbid miscegenation.
Yet another reason to like Molly, and we get yet another avenue for Molly rants! Too much goodness to pass up.
Radical right evangelicals, like our current Presidential administration, believe they are doing God’s will in doing what they are doing. And once someone has invoked the name of God, too often reason goes out the window.
At the risk of going off topic, Obama said the following in his 2006 speech ‘Call to Renewal’ Keynote Address:
“…Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
Separation of church and state, anyone?
If marriage is a religious rite, then the government needs to cease issuing marriage licenses and instead issue only civil unions that are available to everyone regardless of gender.
For an incredibly complete (and non-partisan) discussion of Biblical references and interpretations of homosexuality in the Bible, please see this site:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
And note that the people who run the site have this to say on their efforts toward education on both sides of this issue:
“We have been unable to change the beliefs or actions of *any* of these hundreds of people on even *one *point related to homosexuality. Their views appear to be fixed. It is doubtful that much progress towards compromise on homosexual rights can be made by means of dialogue. We don’t expect that the attached essays will change the beliefs of many visitors to this web site. However, the essays may help people understand opinions that are not their own.”
Yes, the Bible mentions homosexuality. As the site notes, “The Bible refers to specific homosexual behaviors in a few passages. All references are negative.” And yes, I’ve read them. Also, per the site, there are absolutely no specific mentions of homosexuality in the context of committed relationships. If you choose to interpret every part of the Bible literally, or at least the parts that fit your current world view, we will never agree on the subject of whether homosexuality is a sin.
But you should know that the Bible also specifically forbids interreligious marriages, and those passages were wrongly interpreted to mean interracial marriages (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/interace.html). Nevertheless, we have no laws against Christians marrying Jews or Muslims, and actually, if you wanted to play this game all day long, which I don’t, you could cite 1 Corinthians 7:39,
“The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”
So, if my husband dies, I ought to, Biblically, at least, marry anyone I want … *even a woman.* But you can see that these are just the games we play with a complicated and ancient and mistranslated text, and none of these games change the fundamental fact of my argument, which is this:
THE BIBLE IS NOT THE LAW.
This debate of “don’t tell me what I can/can’t do” will never end. It’s something that has been going on since the beginning of time, and I doubt it will ever end.
I don’t live in CA, but if I did, I would vote YES on Prop 8. Why? Well, because marriage is only around because of the church. Marriage was instituted because the USA began as a Christian nation, and marriage is a Biblical principle.
I have no issues whatsoever with gay people. I do, however, have an issue with redefining something because we can. Marriage is not, and should not, include same sex relationships. It’s unBiblical, and that’s where marriage originated, so that’s where I feel it should stay.
This is my political opinion, and I get to have it. Ok? Ok. *wink* Hah!
And, I have no ill feelings toward you, Molly. I understand your frustration, and love you as a journalist.
We all draw our lines somewhere. You just have lower standards for marriage than others.
Yay Molly!
great post molly. some of the other comments astonish me!
Re: – tylerleisher
“What’s next? We’re going to pass a law that states that you can have multiple wives”
That’s exactly what’s next. Why can’t two women who love a man equally marry? Thats discrimination. There’s no good legal reason a man or woman shouldn’t be able to have more than one wife or husband. Right?
First of all, thanks Molly for sharing your opinion. Thank God the right to free speech hasn’t been eliminated in this country… yet.
As I was reading this, I knew somebody would bring up the Sodom and Gomorrah stuff. I think a closer read of the story will reveal that the sin of Sodom was not just homosexuality, but out of control sexual deviancy to the extreme. Frankly, I’m not sure if I’m more disgusted by the brutal sexual behavior of the men of the town, or by Lot’s offer to give up his two daughters to be raped instead of his visitors (Gen. 19:8).
Interestingly enough, Jesus’ anger in the New Testament appears to be directed primarily at the religious establishment. To a woman caught in adultery he offered grace and forgiveness (John 8:1-11), to the religious leaders of the day he proclaimed woe and condemnation.
Thank you Molly for the really outstanding post. I hate that the comments for this post have become filled with “Christianity is right, and you mis-quoted us” type of comments that are usually reserved for a flame war.
This article is more about progressive standards and universal freedom than it is about arguing over whether or not belief systems need to be thrown out the window. I was, for around 15 years or so, a practicing southern baptist. So i’ve seen and heard it all. From both sides. The reasons I left are personal, but I will say… Oppression is oppression. It doesn’t matter what you call it. And exclusion on a societal scale has no place.
Molly, thank you for pointing out the elephant in the room. We all need to be reminded sometimes, what it means to be progressive. And that our past is a great help to making sure our future is seen with clear and un-hindered eyes and minds.
Sincerely. Justin Cash.
I love you Molly Wood!
I read the post with your voice in my head, and that was the ultimate mollyrant. How anyone can live their life based on a random old book is beyond me. Religious people are amazing, sad, and a little funny.
Well said, Molly.
And don’t bother dusting off that bible; there’s much better fiction out there.
Nobody gets to impose their apprehensions on someone else’s life. These are very small, selfish people indeed.
Such a powerful post Molly, I salute you!
Though I don’t live in United States and can only be an outside observer to the issue I, nevertheless, feel somehow proud and uplifted by reading such a beautifully put together argument from a person I regard so highly.
I think it is great that you decided to put your opinion out, the World can’t have too much reasoned argument at the moment.
All the best from Amsterdam.
Indeed a great post. My only beef with the whole situation is why do we have to redefine the word in the first place? Marriage has been understood and accepted as what it is (man and woman) for hundreds of years yet now its meant to mean two very different things?
If you suddenly put pears in a pie can you then just arbitrarily call it apple pie? Apple pie is made with apples, not pears and after a hundred more years it should be fair to say you could order apple pie (maybe in pill form) and know exactly what you’re getting.
It seems trivial however I believe that quite simply the terminology involved has a significant part of evoking such resistance. I’d like to think most people when down to wire accept that the religious freedoms we are so lucky to have here apply to all citizens. Things would be much easier to resolve if people could broach these topics from a more tactful direction.
Quite simply, give all lifetime-committed couples the same benefits (if any, ha!) as a married couple. Just don’t call it marriage, because it isn’t.
The post was very moving and caused me to ponder why people feel that they must deprive others of their rights. I feel that throughout the history of this planet some person, group, or class has always tried to impose their views on others not as an option but as a mandate. Religion and government has always been a part of this quandary.
I love you more then ever now.
I think this video makes Molly’s case very poignantly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H3kxDFgmu8
I couldn’t agree with this post more. For those that feel the Bible gives them an excuse to hate gays, I feel the need to remind you that you’ll go to hell for wearing a cotton-poly blend. Leviticus 19:19 – “Don’t wear clothes woven of two kinds of material.” Have a nice day! :0)
Yes Molly, you’ve hit the nail on the head: this is an issue of equal rights! Thanks for writing this up, I agree 100% and I voted NO on proposition 8.
Thanks for being bold enough to come out in favor of marriage equality Molly.
Sadly, what you saw today is not at all surprising to me. The fact that black people were once were treated as second class citizens just as gay people still are in many places does not seem to enter into the equation. From what I can tell, being born a black gay man or lesbian is one of the toughest cards you could be dealt in modern America. Its a sad truth but hopefully one that is changing with younger generations. My partner and I are fortunate to have loving families who accept and support us unconditionally.
I guess this protect-the-tribe tribe-and-cast-out-the-outsiders type behavior is not all that surprising either. Any subgroup of people will often worry only about themselves even at the expense of others. Gay men have also been know to be unbelievably crass towards the rights of lesbians or the transgendered. It’s a “we’ve got ours you go get your own” mentality. Its repulsive to witness no matter who is doing the discriminating and it always right to call people out when you see it in action.
Like it or not, “marriage” is a legally binding contract administered by the State, not the church. With this legal contract come thousands of protections and obligations at the federal , state and local level that bind these two people together under the law. The term “marriage” is simply not equal to “civil unions”. Those who suggest that gay people just shut up and be happy with civil unions is similar to the sentiment that black people should just shut up and be happy with their “separate but equal” school facilities the were relegated to in the 1950′s.
If conservative religious people want to discriminate in their church they are free too, but they can not discriminate in the courthouse because the laws of America are bigger than just their beliefs and our system of law was set up to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. In the modern industrialized world you are not married until the state says you are married. A church marriage is just a ritual in which you may or may not choose to participate but has no weight until those courthouse documents have been signed and dated. In the US, the term “marriage” has legal weight to which gay families have a fundamental right as equal citizens. If the religious right wants to have their own special little club then let them go off and find another term because “marriage” is not theirs to control.
Thank you so much for saying everything I wish I could have said!!
Hi folks.
As I’ve watched the chaos unfold across the Net in regards to Prop 8- with a large portion of it’s American population directly involved with Prop 8- I’ve not fallen on any particular side.
Watching the hate and the threats and attacks and the disbelief from both sides has reminded me of the reasons I prefer to avoid politics in general.
I write here- not to enter into the political fray- but to offer an explanation of something that might have been lost in the chaos.
In the last two months- starting from an initial state specific broadcast- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ leadership has advised/proposed and supported it’s members in leading and assisting in pro-Proposition 8 activities. These have included donating funds, holding and participating in various events, being online and social proponents, and working at call centers.
As a citizen of the Web and the state of Utah- in addition to my membership in the LDS church- I’ve observed the causes involved in Prop 8 and their various complaints. Both sides are using various tactics and lines in support of their cause- this is politics.
The conflict has escalated- often in reference to the Church’s participation and activity level of it’s membership. Reports of death threats; broken or stolen materials; blatant and crass insults- these all directed towards people on the pro-Prop 8 side.
I’ve seen the disregard and blind eye some of the pro-Prop 8 folks have had towards the other side of the issue. I’ve zealots and dissenters.
I don’t support either sides etiquette for the most part. Their actions seem to imply that nothing has truly grown up in the world of politics and issue campaigns- humans haven’t really gotten beyond a lot of their blindness. All that has been accomplished is a hundred new ways to attack and attempt to oppress one another.
My keynote of this post- after all that is said- is what I believe to be the underlying belief behind the Church’s and it’s membership’s actions.
Because- to be absolutely clear- the cause of the Yes on 8 coalition is to at least some degree separate from the LDS church’s.
Let me explain.
There is a fairly simple and quite universal explanation for why there are issues with the practice of gay marriage. Our species- and most animal species that are easily thinkable of- has a general logic oriented around male gender and female gender interaction. You break that logic- you undermine a large portion of what makes our species work- reproduction; survival habits; cultural development; etc.. Our species has broken many habits over the last 100+ years- but none quite so fundamental to the overall structure and development of the species as a whole. This is the short- and not close to entirely comprehensive explanation of why gay couples/marriage/whatever you want to call it- is hazardous- if not inherently bad for the human species- irregardless of your moral, religious, or political belief.
The reasoning more directly related to the LDS church- the cause of great fear and reaction- is that the acknowledgment and acceptance of gay marriage by government and society in general will have a dire effect on the unit which is the family.
Under the definition of the LDS Church- the family is a unit lead by a mother and a father- who usually bare and raise children; preparing and educating them for life outside and inside of the family. Components can be lost- as a parent or child dies or the parents divorce- and they can be gained through adoption or re-marrying.
“Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”(http://tinyurl.com/3dxjsk)- which is to say that gender is a component of the entire individual. It cannot be lost- nor gained- and each gender has specific components.
Things have grown chaotic in the world of families due to divorce, war, and other conflicts. Woman have taken many of the traditional male roles- and men have taken over many of the traditional female responsibilities. But would you say that you could just switch a man out for a woman- and things would be exactly the same? Can gender really be tossed out as a key human differential?
I do not believe it can- and nor does the LDS church in general.
“The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”- which is to say that the LDS church believes that all children deserved to be raised by a mother and a father- male and female- “… within the bonds of matrimony,”(Marriage). Would we not all agree that the two genders have a strangeness and character all their own? Shouldn’t a child being released/kicked/sent/allowed into the rest of the world be educated in the reality of both genders and have a direct connection to them both? One could say that there are ways to resolve that question- to avoid it- or alter it. I would say that to avoid or attempt to alter the reality of gender- and its implications within the family/marital and human structure is just plain stupid- or in other words- not thinking.
There is religious backing for opposing gay marriage.
There are scientific reasons for opposing gay marriage.
Then we hit the politics again.
I’ve heard the Civil Rights argument again and again.
Often following the logic that government should not get involved in issues such as marriage in the first place- leading to a contradiction of sorts.
If government- American government in particular- is responsible for enforcing and assisting in defining the rights’ of it’s citizens- eventually its’ limits must be defined or at least dealt with.
Should a government be able to enforce or define non-hostile human interactions?
Should government curtail actions and interactions that might be defined as harmful to or by the few?
Those are all questions you must ask yourselves.
Should government define marriage- enforce it- and act upon it? And if so- what reasons should exist for it to do so? Why do married couples get benefits not made available to their non-married or totally signal relatives? Why is there any political, religious, scientific, fiscal, social, or commercial in general difference noticed in regards to the male-female legally married couple?
All of these questions have answers- which as interpreted by the LDS church (its membership; myself included; and the God we believe in) distinctly describe that marriage between a man and a woman in legal and holy matrimony is what marriage is and what will always should be- in the eyes of government and society in general.
In closing- I would like to say that I appreciate the fact that you- whoever you may be- have taken an interest in humanity. I would hope that no matter your opinion on any issue- you continue to do so.
I would also like to reinforce/remind you all of the fact that humanity can learn from its mistakes- and irregardless of specific beliefs- we can treat other people and their opinions with at least some basic level of respect and dignity- with the goal of assisting in peaceful and kind manner all those around us.
I wish you all good lives- a decent election day- and God’s blessings.
PS: For the source of the quotes above- read “The Family:A Proclamation to the World”- and official document of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints- http://tinyurl.com/3dxjsk
For information regarding the LDS church’s official stance regarding same gender attraction- read this article here- http://tinyurl.com/3fukez
For more information on the LDS church in general- visit http://tinyurl.com/59u5bc (FYI- “Style guide note: When reporting about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, please use the complete name of the Church in the first reference.” I presume they use “Mormon” because people use that as a reference- and even I mess up on the exact name style)
For the main website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints visit- http://lds.org/
And as a final note- I do not hold a central leadership position in the LDS church- and my words are spoken from the perspective of a member- and do not officially define the intentions or mindset of the LDS church.
And I still like you Molly Wood- even if your religious logics or comments aren’t so hot. Sodom and Gomorrah- the Children of Israel in the wilderness- Christ’s acceptance and love of the sinner- but not of the sin and the belief in repentance- changing one’s action/sin. And there is this whole parts about skirts and animals thats all kind of kinky and a bit odd- but thats just the Old Testament in general.
Man- those were some long posts. Oi.
What a great post. Thank you for that. I am in NC worried about Liddy’s “godless” ads affecting voters who, well, don’t listen to anything else and I forget that there are other big things happening across this country!
I truly hope California is as liberal as I have been led to believe and will NOT pass Proposition 8. I’ll keep my eyes on your part of the country and hope for the best.
Thanks for the great post! I am digging it and plugging it on my own blog.
OH Molly! How is it that I always agree with you on this stuff?
This is very well thought out and I say Yay!
And Thank you for putting into words the things I think.
I simply do not understand why there are still people who want to force their opinions on how to live on the rest of us. How are they so sure they know the ONLY right way?
As someone directly affected by legislation like this and recently married abroad because U.S. churches and states continue to snub same-sex marriages, I thank you with sincere gratitude and admiration. Your point about those who have been persecuted now discriminating and ostracizing others rings so true. Were only all citizens of this country so quick to stamp out hatred and discrimination as they are to throw up labels and walls…this might be a kinder place to live for everyone. I fear the next few years may test these values significantly.
One thing that needs to be communicated is that pro-prop8 people are not anti-gay. If you have any sort of Christian upbringing, you are taught that you are to act Christ-like towards all. Being anti-gay, racist, etc.. are all anti-Christian.
Most people who support prop8 from a religious view feel that the prop is all about the definition of marriage. That cornerstone of society is the family and that the deterioration of society can often be tied back to a fundamental failure in the home.
Prop8 is about keeping marriage defined in the traditional sense, between a man and a woman. I am all in favor of having other civil unions available to gay couples that extend certain privileges such as insurance benefits, next of kin, etc… That is only fair and the right thing to do. What I ask and other supporters of prop8 ask is that marriage itself, be left off limits to anything other than the traditional definition as we hold it sacred and ordained of God.
I also fear that when we open up marriage to interpretation, we enter into a slippery slope. What is beyond gay marriage? Plural marriage? If you open marriage beyond the scope of the traditional definition, then is it not also only fair to open it up all of the way to anyone who wants to marry in any way? Where does it end before marriage is made a into a complete mockery?
Molly, that was a brilliant post. You preach the kind of tolerance that a certain fellow would have back in the day. I think those ‘Christians’ might know who I’m talking about. If only they shared your (and his) compassion instead of clinging to a dusty old book.
Absolutely stunning post, although I think you may have brought a whole lot of storm your way. Most of the negative comments about this post are grabbing on to something, because they have just been blown the !@#$ away by… The Molly.
You just brought the whole thing home with this post.
Minorities and women are not the only ones who have been discriminated against, persecuted, and mistreated. In spite of the “separation of church and state” the US Army has driven LDS (Mormon) people out of their homes, confiscated their property, and ordered them to be murdered.
An executive order making it legal to kill Mormons in Missouri wasn’t repealed until 1976! People have been trying to use the law to fight the LDS church since the 1830′s.
The leaders of the LDS church do not hate gays. They are not bigots. They have no problems with gays having every right that heterosexual couples have. They simply do not want the definition of marriage to be changed to include same-sex unions. If same-sex civil unions were made equal to heterosexual marriage, that would be fine.
The problem with redefining marriage to include same-sex unions is the fact that churches can then be sued by gay couples for not including them. Gays can try to use the courts to try to force churches to do things that they know are wrong.
The separation of church and state goes both ways. Religious groups shouldn’t force their beliefs on anyone, but the state should not dictate what churches can believe or teach.
Les,
Marriage is not being redefined here. Just like many other words, different cultures and different groups use one word for two different meanings. Christians use the word God to talk about one being, and Hindus use the word God to talk about a completely different being or set of beings.
Just because the Christian religions uses the word marriage, to mean joining of a man and women, doesn’t mean the US Government can’t use it to mean the union of two people. They are the same definition; it’s just that one is more specific.
Pie has two meanings. Americans usually think of a pie as a sweet dessert. However Italians may think of it as a food similar to pizza. Same word; two meanings.
I take it you would not be against replacing all references to the word “marriage†to “Civil Union†in the entirety of US, State, and Local laws? If you are so adamant on religious freedom, why do you now want to apply your religious beliefs to all of California? That is extremely hypocritical.
Kennon,
The United States began as a FREE nation, not a Christian nation. Additionally, since when has the Bible been a part of US law, and when have we had to comply with it?
Would anyone have a problem with redefining “gay” as a heterosexual? We should get that on the ballot! If I wanted to call myself gay and be heterosexual, the homosexual community would say “that’s not right!”
Marriage between one man and one woman was ordained by God through the church long before there was government. The fact that government has taken it and tried to apply ruling over it, is immaterial. If the homosexual community wants to enter into a covenant that was initiated by God and change it–they are not empowered to do so.
Go make up another word for a homosexual union it and get over it! Then if the states want to grant rights to people that choose to be gay, then they can do so. For all those that are claiming there should be a separation of church and state, stop using what God has ordained to try to make yourself feel like you belong! Also, stop casting your vote in the churches if there should be such a clear separation!!!
By redefining marriage to include gay couples, you are forcing your beliefs on me–the same complaint you have against me. Who’s the hypocrite now?
Kennon,
Please re-read my entire message as you missed the point. Marriage in the United States has clearly meant a single thing for hundreds of years and there is no reason to redefine it to mean something else or encompass something else. Your warping of my analogy is disappointing. Apple Pie in the US and even in California only means one thing and the analogy doesn’t involve other countries.
Your attacks on me are unwarranted and ignorant. I clearly said I support giving all the same benefits under the law to civil unions or whatever you want to call it. I only seek to protect what marriage is by definition. How we as a people communicate is our most vital asset and distorting words to change meanings only harms the language and evokes uneeded conflict. Committed gay couples simply need to find their own word to describe their union. I think your angst could best be served trying to dialogue with people opposed to equal rights because that should be the issue at hand.
Thank you, Molly, for standing up and making your views known. My married partner and I are sitting up tonight and watching the election results; hoping we will still be married in the morning.
Marriage is not a religious choice. My married partner and I hope to retired in two years. If we are no longer considered legally married tomorrow morning we will have to work at least an additional five years beyond that time in order to afford our retirement.
As you say, it’s not about religion, it’s about our rights.
“And don’t get me started on the teachings of Jesus”
Oh, please. It’d be fun.
The Christian Right is neither (also available on t-shirts: http://progresswear.com/christian_shirt.html ).
Now that Prop 8 has passed, we should just ask for the possibility for legal “binding” for gay couples to get the same legal benefits that married couples do… This legal binding would just be marriage without the word marriage in it… the so called good Christians wouldn’t hate it as much as they hated gay marriage.
Thank You!
It looks like I’m a little to late to post this but I feel like I should post this anyways. Let me make it clear, I believe that people can love who ever they want to. They should should also be granted the same rights that other married people have. But when two homosexuals want to have a religious ceremony(like a wedding) that is denounced by the church, then government shouldn’t force churches to have give homosexuals those ceremonies. That is exactly what Prop. 8 would have done and that right there is unconstitutional by having the government force the churches to perform marriages to homosexuals. Now I don’t live in California but correct me if I’m wrong that California all ready has a law dealing with civil unions that grant couples all the rights married people have, but not having done through the churches? I believe this is the appropriate way to handle this not just with homosexuals, but any non religious person. It doesn’t make since to me why homosexuals and any other person that doesn’t like religion would want to have a weeding when they know the churches don’t approve it. Anyways, just to let you know I still think your the best person over at cnet and if you leave then there is no point for me to watch cnet tv any more.