While debating the issue of discrimination to the Prop 8ers at school today, one of the ladies asked why gay people aren’t happy with calling their legal relationships “civil unions” because in California, “civil unions” are afforded the same rights from the State as legal marriages. (These laws don’t afford equal health care benefits or recognition by other states or by the federal government, however, but that’s for a different blog).
My response was that in order to afford equal protection under the law, -which you cannot have if you seperate an entire group of people based on who they are and label them differently- we could take the religious term, “marriage” out of our law, keep it in the churches, and call all legal marriages “civil unions” so that the legal definition is not the same as the religious one.
You know what she said? “I don’t want to degrade my marriage by calling it a civil union.”
Wait, so a civil union is a step down from marriage? But it’s legally equal… you said so yourself. Why wouldn’t you be happy with a civil union?
She told me she had already answered my question. Yes, that was all I needed to hear.
Chris Said:
on October 29, 2008 at 10:50 am
Those who support Prop h8te cannot see the bigger picture; they don’t have the intelligence. It’s unfortunate that people which such low tolerances in this day and age are still allowed to vote. Maybe that’s the real problem we should be addressing: if you get your facts from the real world, you can vote. If you get your “facts” from a 2,000 year old book, you can’t. Period.
We’ll call it “Proposition 69,” just because prudes wouldn’t get the reference anyway.
normbetland Said:
on November 12, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Chris, being a Minnesotan, I cannot support Prop 8 with my vote, but I can support its idealogy. I won’t fight it with you because you simply do not understand it. But I find it humorous, and I hope you are joking for your own sake, that you are so pissed about people banning certain others from marriage but then propose something equally, if not moreso, “unequal” as making your ability to vote based on your religion.
Regardless, the Bible is a more reliable source than some homosexual on the street wanting others to validate his sin with their vote.
Tony Said:
on November 13, 2008 at 6:38 am
So we should now discriminate against people who we think are not intelligent enough to vote? It’s comical to observe the hypocrisy of people who demonstrate the same low tolerance that they despise. And one clearly do not have the facts if one disregard’s the significance, influence and timeless truths of that same 2000 year old book. Do some honest research and one will begin to see how that book influenced our Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, and many of our laws. Lastly, look up “prudent” or “prude” in the dictionary. The original meaning of the word was a positive one, but it has now come to mean something very different. I think this misuse sprung from people who don’t like being told that they are wrong, no matter what the real world says.
lunawolf Said:
on November 13, 2008 at 10:41 am
“Regardless, the Bible is a more reliable source than some homosexual on the street wanting others to validate his sin with their vote.”
You just pegged yourself a bigot. You said in another post you didn’t have a problem with gay people Way to go.
tami Said:
on November 13, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Here we go…AGAIN!
How does gay marriage affect anyone else’s marriage? Instead of trying to stop gay people from getting married, how about people focus on trying to stop the 50% of heterosexual couples who get married from getting divorced.
I am laughing out loud at people who say bring up the Bible as the reason gay people shouldn’t get married. What’s funny is they throw around these so called “anti-gay” passages but ignore the others not too far away that says don’t eat shrimp, don’t get pierced and don’t wear a garment with two different clothes.
I am a Christian too AND I am a lesbian. This is the way God made me and whether or not I ever get married, this will be who I am. I can be celibate for the rest of my life and guess what, I will still be a lesbian.
Why is it I never hear of priests or pastors refusing to perform second, third of fourth marriages? I thought divorce and remarriage is a sin? Oh yes, that’s right…since the majority does it, it must be OK…
http://pinkchocolatesunshine.wordpress.com
lunawolf Said:
on November 13, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Here Here Tami!
In fact, the worst possible argument anyone can bring up is the one that involves Biblical law. The Yes of 8 campaign itself told its volunteers not to bring up the subject of religion or the bible. Their whole argument was about people suing churches in Massachusetts. Once they hooked people on that, then they could hand out their pamphlets that talked about the downfall of society being the consequence if Prop 8 didn’t pass.
In order to try to counter the argument that supporters of prop 8 are bigots, they were trying to leave religion out of it. However, when you take away the bigotry, you have no reason not to let gay people marry. I asked the supporters what right they had to legally invalidate someone else’s relationship and they could not answer! As I said above, I asked them if they would be ok with “civil union” and they said no way! These people can’t even see what they really are.
It’s ok. I do have hope now that Prop 8 passed. Because the H8ers are going to push it so far that it will finally reach the Feds someday and it will never, ever, ever stand up to the Fourteenth Amendment. That is why the anti-gay people are fighting so hard to keep having votes in States. They are trying to keep it State law so it won’t go to the Federal courts.
tami Said:
on November 14, 2008 at 7:49 am
“when you take away the bigotry, you have no reason not to let gay people marry.”
So true, so true!
Chris Said:
on November 16, 2008 at 9:17 am
normbetland- I love bigots who think they’re intelligent. They really are entertaining.
Unfortunately, it does nothing to validate any claims you’re trying to make, unless you’re claiming that you don’t know enough about the world to get up in the morning. That one, I’d buy.
kashicat Said:
on November 28, 2008 at 10:31 am
> While debating the issue of discrimination to the Prop 8ers at school today, one of the ladies asked why gay people aren’t happy with calling their legal relationships “civil unions” because in California, “civil unions” are afforded the same rights from the State as legal marriages.
To which my own answer is always, “If it walks like a marriage, talks like a marriage, and quacks like a marriage – IT’S A MARRIAGE.” Period.
They just don’t want people joining their exclusive little club.
The argument that gay people should accept a “degraded” name rather than (implicitly) “sullying” the name of marriage by using it shows that those insecure heterosexuals’ own confidence in the institution of marriage is so weak that they want to exclude people from it who want to participate very badly, but who will show them up for not valuing it themselves.
If marriage is so great and important, it can survive being extended to other citizens equally. If it’s so weak that it could somehow be “degraded” or “destroyed” by extending it to others who value and want it very badly — then it’s the heterosexuals who have a weak concept of marriage.
lunawolf Said:
on November 28, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Very, very good point. In the few months after prop 22 was overturned and gay people were marrying in California, I didn’t see one single hetero marriage suffer. I did, however see gay people heartbroken to be oppressed one more time by the Tyranny of the Masses, a majority vote.