Today, I want to talk about why I voted NO on Proposition 8. For my friends who don't live in California, the Wikipedia definition of Prop 8 is:
Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. If passed, the proposition would "change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California." A new section would be added stating "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."In essence, Prop 8 takes away the rights of same sex couples to marry in California. I find this not only un-American, but disturbing at a very deep level. Prop 8 is bigotry codified in law. Americans should be better than this. We should know that in our country all people are equal under the law and have the same rights under the law.
I was so proud when I read that my employer publicly took a position to oppose this proposition:
However, while there are many objections to this proposition -- further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text -- it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 -- we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.This morning, I saw a link to a video that Lawrence Lessig made about his opposition to this initiative. Take a look at what Lessig has to say on Prop 8:
7 comments:
There's a real danger in rewriting a constitution! PROP 8, if passed will LEGALIZE INCEST!
Vote NO on Prop 8!
Vote 'yes' on prop 8. This is why.
Proclaimed gays actually enjoy all the rights and privileges that not proclaimed gays do. Simply saying "I'm gay" does not take away any rights nor does it open up to discrimination.
I can say this because a law passed in 2003 is very clear and allows all forms of domestic partnership the same legal rights as any other form of domestic partnership included marriage contracts. The language is very clear. Take a look for yourself. The law is under family code 297.5.
Proposition will not take away any rights afforded to same-sex relationships. It is a defensive measure to make sure that parents can raise their families the way they want to. Right now under education code 51890 schools are required to teach children about marriage.
The public schools and teachers unions seem to be pretty strong in declaring that they will not teach about this in schools but in the brief time that same-sex marriage has been legalized it already has been taught in schools. To find out for yourself just go to Google and type in "California field trip to view same sex marriage". Young children were brought several hours away to view a same sex marriage. How many non-gay marriages to teachers bring children to? Could this actually be reverse discrimination?
Furthermore, it's the teacher's union that is up to this point this single largest contributor in support of the 'no' campaign. Can we honestly expect that teachers won't choose to teach children about this topic in a way that won't bias the students? There is so much we don't know about same sex inclination.
Furthermore, there is significant anger on the part of many pro same sex marriages. Giving this kind of legal standing could cause significant reverse discrimination. Right now there is no discrimination. In the future there could be discrimination. Fight reverse discrimination. Vote "yes" on proposition 8.
Ball boy,
Reference to California's domestic partnership law is a non-starter. I invite you to read the California Supreme Court's opinion on Prop 22, which demonstrates that Family Code section 297.5 is simply the latest attempt to circumvent constitutional protections through laws that purport to be "separate but equal."
Another red herring is the education issue. Today's editorial in the Sacramento Bee (which joins virtually every major newspaper, both California senators, the current and former state Superintendent of Public Instruction, etc., in rejecting Proposition 8) makes the point particularly well:
"If you only watched TV ads, you might think Proposition 8 had something to do with sex education in public schools. It doesn't. It says nothing about education.
"If you don't like the way sex education is taught now in your local school district, you'll still have to fight with the local school board to get changes, whether the measure passes or fails. Under current state law, school districts 'may' provide sex education (and 96 percent do). The curriculum is decided by local school boards. The state only directs that local boards meet certain broad criteria. Instruction must:
• 'Be appropriate for use with pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities';
• 'Encourage a pupil to communicate with his or her parents or guardians about human sexuality'; and
• 'Teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.'
"School districts across the state take very different approaches. What students learn in Sacramento City Unified may be different from Western Placer Unified. Some districts don't offer sex education at all.
"Your vote on Proposition 8 won't change any of this.
"Dragging schools into this campaign is an effort to obscure the real issue, which is: Proposition 8 is about changing the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
"It is reminiscent of an 1872 California law that said 'no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race.' That was a stain on California history. Proposition 8 would be another. That's the real issue and the reason we urge voters, again, to vote 'No' on Proposition 8."
As for the "significant anger" expressed by some who support gay marriage, perhaps it would do you good to stand in their shoes for awhile. Also, since you characterize Prop 8 as "a defensive measure to make sure that parents can raise their families the way they want to," I suppose your would also favor a constitutional amendment eliminating the right of interracial couples to marry. After all, some racist parents would probably prefer to have public schools refrain from teaching their children about civil rights in general.
Proposition 8 seeks to constitutionalize discrimination. That, my friend, is Un-American no matter how you slice it.
This is not about equal rights, this is a moral and social issue. The social side is why protect gays through the institution of marriage. There is no additional benefit to society by protecting a gay couple than to protect singles. Marriage between sexes provides positive social benefits to society that gay couples do not provide. I was very sad to see that Google supports this and I will no longer be using Google or any Apple product.
That'll show 'em!
Proposition 8 defines marriage between a man and a woman.
If we lived in an isolated village of 30 people, we probably would not allow same-sex marriage for fear of our village becoming extinct. Once the village grew to a sizable amount we would probably still not allow it because it would slow down our progress as a society. Bringing children into the earth is not just a burden to the parents, it is a beautiful thing. Bringing children into the world and raising them in a loving home is probably the most productive and fulfilling thing a husband and a wife can do.
If you are able to have children, then why not be a part of this wonderful experience and responsibility. It is a service to those children you bring into the world. Seek out a companion whom you can love, whom you can marry, and with whom you can rear children. That is part of the purpose of life.
If my father or my mother had decided to unite only with someone of the same gender, then I would not be here today, nor would anyone who reads this for that matter.
Please consider why it is important to vote YES on Proposition 8.
Interesting how we think this will impact perception. It's a little late for that--most kids have seen that there are all kinds of relationships and all of them can "work" or fail. TV, online media, etc. Prop 8 can't change fact or really alter perception. If anything, perception and fact will simply change how Prop 8 is interpreted in local CA courts (rather like it is interpreted in these very interesting comments).
Post a Comment