Proposition 8: Eliminating Gay Marriage
61Yes, no, or ammend?
When I stumbled upon the question "do you support Prop. 8?" it crossed my mind that, if I even knew what it was, I'd not have liked it. New laws usually sicken me and turn me off strongly to anything the government tries to do, whether it's for the good or harm of its people. Living in SC currently, this law hardly affects me. It's a case where California [yet again] cannot seem to make up its mind just where it wants to stand on issues. This issue, to top it all off, is really mundane.
Gay marriage, an act between two consenting [I certainly hope so] members of the same gender, is something it seems we as Americans can't decide where we want to fall with it. Homosexuals have always been on the left of the taboo line, even with Roman and Greek cultures riddled with it for centuries. Europe probably had its version of the "dilemma" but shrugged them off as witches and burned or drowned them. Modern western culture, for all of its worship of science and its seeming grip on morality of persons, cannot [and I propose] will not ever settle on this issue. I think in America our nation will be dead before we can make a decision.
Gays are people too. Whether or not they have the right to be married is more a personal issue than a corporate/federal issue. A state ought to decide what is right for each state, then each member of the state should either opt to transfer to another where their views are expressed or they should remain in their state of residence and keep moot on the subject.
California (to everyone outside the state) has long been viewed as a crazy state. A state that elected an ex-Mr. Universe to office of 'Govunuh', a man who hides behind his hypocritical facade of false and pretentious accents. A man who, though once considered "conservative", has mangled his own political lense so badly he can't see left or right.
Californians would be wise to vote against the proposal. Allow gay marriage in the state. Why would this work?
1) if you let people get what they want, usually they shut up
2) rights to all people is supposed to be part of our government
3) California could potentially house every gay couple with plenty of room to spare!
Why, now, would someone like me, an openly moderate individual support something that is considered 'so far left'? Well, first off, what is left and right? Since when was left truly progressive and the right truly regressive? There are places where both are moving forward, but the left will forever be moving backwards in economics. Is the progress merely a socio-moral progression? It appears so to me. We're just defining less and less what is right and wrong and taking more and more time to do so, consulting even more stupid and useless people on the road to the decision.
For God's sake, just allow the people to wed. We're a nation hellbent on becoming so absolutely moronic that we won't even know how to tie our own show without the UN's help.
Don't support this proposal. Just make it happen. Once and for all, make CA a place where these people feel a little relief. I don't choose to swing that way, but many do, and whether you see it as right or wrong, they apparently see it as "right." Don't deny them what they are looking for. If they find happiness, do you want to be the person who takes that away from them?
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Thanks very much for your hub. I have trouble understanding why anyone would want to exclude a category of people from getting married especially when it has no impact on them.
Hate, Larry. It's spite and hatred.
Shades: Agreed. This isn't even about faith. I can still go to any church with or without gay marriage. It has nothing to do with me. And even if I were to base this on the Bible, there would be no fire from heaven to Sodom and Gomorrah. That's just a dumb argument to instill fear, and as you said, spite and hatred.
Larry: Glad you liked it :) You asked, I answered truthfully. I hope others can see this too, before it's too late to make a difference.
It seems to me like gay marriage should be distinguished somehow from heterosexual marriage. I definitely think gays should be allowed to marry, but it shouldn't follow all the same ceremonial traditions as marriage between opposite genders has for thousands of years.
But yes, there's no reason to disallow anyone love and happiness in their life.
Why, Maestrowhit? I mean, what difference does it make how gay people get married? I can't fathom how anything that a homosexual couple does getting married an any way whatever has anything to do, even remotely, at all, with heterosexual couples. It's like saying that if you use the same crust to make a chicken pot pie that you do to make an apple pie, somehow something happens to make apple pie less American.
I have tried very hard to fathom the connection, but beyond an emotional one, or a religious one, I can't for the life of me find how one has anything to do with the other.
It may very well be an emotional thing, and if it is, it isn't very strong. The opinion itself isn't very stong. I really wouldn't care either way. But the connection is about bride and groom. The whole hetero-marrigae rite is based on those opposite poles. WIth gays, it would be something different. Im not saying they wouldn't benefit from all the same legal and social ramifications. And actually my vision of it would serve more to honor gays than to exclude them. If it doesn't appear that way in my writing, perhaps I should be more descript.
Here in AZ it's proposition 102 - yes to ban, no to give it a thumbs up. On the radio today I heard a commercial that was blatantly trying to appeal to the emotional argument. It went like this:
Man: I asked my father the secret to a happy marriage and he said respect. A woman should respect her husband.
Man: I said, well what about the woman? And my father said a man should just love her. A husband should simply love his wife.
Man: Well obviously he knew what was right because they've been married for a long time...so vote yes on proposition 102 and keep marriage between a man a a woman.
I was laughing so hard I nearly side-swiped the car next to me.
If religion wants to perform only heterosexual marriages...fine. But if it's a civil service, then any consenting adult should be able to marry any other consenting adult regardless of race, creed or gender. And if the couple wants to put two grroms or two brides on their cake...hooray for them. They aren't mocking traditional weddings...in fact, I would say that they wouldn't be fighting so hard to simply have a right we all take for granted if they didn't believe in the institution so much.
I'll be voting no on prop 102.
I'll add to my comment that I think Gay marriages should be just as sanctimonious and beautiful as non-gay marriages. I don't mean to say they should be some kind of reduction of the ordinary tradition. I'm saying they should be a tradition all their own. They should have the respect of distinction- not distinction in order to diminish. My feelings are positive towards would-be gay marriages.
How so? You mean like they can't wear tuxes and stand under a white arch decorated with flowers? I'm still trying to get at what you mean so I can understand you better.
The ballot measure is about according legal rights as exactly the same. There's no rules put in place about how or what tradition is to be followed.
In that case I'm off topic. Sorry. I think legal rights should be exactly the same, so that's the way I would vote. I brought up something having to do more with the institution itself and not the legality of it. My bad.
But to answer your question, I'm not saying there should be any rules disallowing gay marriage ceremonies from being exactly like hetero ones. I guess I'm saying that a tradition should start for gay marriages that honorably distinguishes them as being unique. Not unusual, or substandard. But standing alone in pride.
I've totally derailed this discussion. My apologies. Feel free to totally disregard me
It's a purely legal procedure. It has nothing to do with bias, faith, personal taste, or cermonial tradition. The reality is that gays are a functioning group of people wqith rights like we have. Voting for them is merely enaling them to live in their own little private world if they choose. It's what we all want after all, provacy to live as we see fit. Whether this is what we all feel homosexuality is morally is not the point. I think everyone on here is on that page, but to omit future confusion, this should help to clarify things.
Maestro, I would never want to or suggest you should be disregarded. Frankly, you bring up an interesting sort of side-topic. I think that, given the opportunity to get married finally, it will be interesting to see what new traditions do arise.
Modern western culture, for all of its worship of science and its seeming grip on morality of persons, cannot [and I propose] will not ever settle on this issue.
Homosexuals are widely acceptet and have been for as long as I can remember back here where I'm from, tho some speaks against same sex marriage(the angry old people, that just want to be angry, because everything was so much better 100years ago) it's a normal sight to see two men kissing on the street, and most people don't take notice off it anymore.
I agree on you post, good reading that supports my views on the issue, and I hope that the US will see some more acceptance of the "outcasts" in the nearest future.
And I think it would be good for California if all gays moved there, think of all the fashion, art, peace, love. Always someone that wanna hear about your problems and all join together in reunion. ;)
Plus more homosexuals could be the solution to overpopulation ;)
My believe we should let people marry who they want because if you deny them this right, they will feel they are second class citizen. If you highly disagree with homosexual marriage than rest assured your church/religious organization will not support it either, but why do you need to legislate the morality of others? In California we are not a crazy state I will assure you, we just happen to be a more diverse state where there is a larger mix of people. For years there has been a perception that in California we do things oddly, but I think other states have said this because they are envious somehow. California is one of the most beautiful states in the country and I love the diversity of cultures here. If we can accept other cultures, then we should be able to accept any group and grant them similar rights.
As for the thing on marriage I have an interesting take on this. Often married people can be condescending to someone who is my age and not married. Some have even implied that I must be lonely, which is far from the case. I have seen both sides of marriage, good and bad, and people should only get married if they really think it is something that will last forever. So many heterosexual couples take marriage lightly and enter and exit it as if it were trading in cars. So who are they to judge a homosexual couple who might be committed to each other for life. Mind you I do not want to enter a homosexual marriage myself, but if they want to this is their right and freedom.
Marriage has been trivialized in our culture, so it is very hypocritical for heterosexual people to argue that prop eight is holding up the sanctity of marriage. Some of the same people who say this have been married more than once, so was marriage so sacred to them? Hypocrisy can be an interesting thing when you look at it this way.
Good hub, t.keeley, thanks!
My personal take on this after three divorces is that nobody should be allowed to get married--but that's generalizing a personal issue, so maybe the right answer is just that Pam shouldn't be allowed to get married. (A policy I have adopted with my whole heart, I assure you. lol!)
Gay marriage would provide employment for lots of gay divorce lawyers. More to the point, as you say, it's ridiculous to block consenting adults from committing their lives to each other if that's what they want to do.
Here we have the whole country melting down around our ears and a few clowns are still are riled up about homosexuals. They should be riled up about how they are going to eat for the next several years.
I'm riled up about eating too. I did the math: my wife and I have only 15 bucks to a take a trip tis weekend to see the leaves change. Mark me on this....I will not support wall street. I'd sooner move to another country than keep bailing these fools out for their stupidity. !@$! Greenspan and his cronies. He made a "mistake" and he'll never admit to it nor will he feel it. I could care less about "Adam and Steve", honestly. I probably won't even be here to deal with any propositions.
This whole financial mess has barely started, t.keeley. Very soon here we will have an unsecured credit meltdown (credit cards) and soon after that (or simultaneoulsy) there will be healthcare meltdown. Most major hospitals are near insolvency due to the ever higher number of uninsured people that only have emergency rooms as a way to get care. The hospital here is near bankrupt because it can't raise its rates fast enough to cover the additional costs of the uninsured or underinsured. It's happening all across the country.
Plus, the unemployment effects of the credit crunch have barely started. If you think this is bad, wait until this time next year. We'll all be selling pencils on street corners, you watch.
The issue is not about hatred but choice of lifestyle. The hatred thing is taken out of context. You can like the person but not their lifestyle. It seem people want the consitution and laws amended to suit their own needs over the years.(ex Roe v Wade) That is your choice who you want to be with but dont throw it up in my face. It is no different than me throwing my beliefs up someones face.
I must be confused somewhere. Gays in California had civil unions, all the legal protections as marriage. The people in California voted against gay marriage and four judges on a court over turned it. Marriage initially is a custom that has its basis in religion, and is defined as a union between a man and a women. My view is, why should gays have the right to attack a fundamental religious belief and take it for their own. Lets put the same kind of idea together, but a different topic. Lets say I am a white man and I want to be referred to as a(the "N" word). Do I have the right to under equal protection of the law make it mandatory for others to refer to me in that way because I want too. Whats wrong with having "Gay Unions" that have the same legally binding effect of marriage and let hetro's have their word, Marriage.
Terry - Big problem with that argument there. What about all the hetero couples that aren't married religiously..should we give them a special name too?
I'm a heterosexual married woman and I've never been married in a church. Marriage is not strictly a religious union.
I agree with Spryte, let everyone get married who they wants to. It does not mean I have to agree with their choices, but I can assume many people do not agree with mine either :). I am just tired of the hypocrisy of it already. We had a very annoying show on last night where this woman started talking about wanting to protect families from "them". It sounded like something out of a 1950's propaganda film.
That argument is a two way street. All I am saying is gays have the legal equality of marriage in a civil union, so why do they want to be like htero couples and call it marriage? A custom is a custom only as long as it applied. When marriage is defined as either or. Now if gays have that right, why should they discriminate between inter spieces marriage, or 50 year old men marring 16 year old girls or boys, why discriminate due to age? Also, religion views gay couples as a sin, and unrepentant sin. No better or worse than anyother. Where are the rights of hetro couples to retain Marriage between a man and a women?
Terry - Marriage is a word...civil union are just words. If it were simply a case of semantics as you say, I believe this issue would have resolved itself. However, your last line is the real crux of the issue. A right is a freedom..not the ability to bar a freedom of any individual based on race, creed or color.
Just to give you an idea of how absurd your last argument is...let's apply it to other situations where a group of people sought to deny the rights of other individuals:
1. Where are the rights of the white people to ride on a bus without black people?
2. Where are the rights of men who want to vote in an election without women?
3. Where are the rights of slave owners to own slaves?
The list can go on and on. There should never be such a thing as a right to deny a right...that's discrimination. Plain and simple.
At the end of the day "freedom of choice" remains just that and ultimately freedom is the conerstone of civilisation. It just seems we are a little Orwellian. My freedoms are bigger than your freedoms. LOL
Terry B. Davis, I have to say, that N-word thing has to be the most poorly constructed analogy I have ever seen. You managed to work more levels of fallacy in to that than a fruitcake has wierd, inedible pieces of... fruit-like stuff.
Then, you follow that up by trying to compare relationships between consenting adults to pedophilia and sex with animals. For starters, humans have no way to confirm whether or not an animal is "consenting" because nobody speaks their language and we can't just reckon a tail wag is a sign, so even if I gave you your ridiculous slippery slope logic your absurd "counter agrument" is beyond empty.
And unless you are a deviant yourself, I can't actually believe you don't understand the difference in the decision making capabilities of a child vs. those of an adult. Surely you understand there are developmental process still at work on the neurological and endocrine systems in humans at age 16, right? I mean, the only people I've ever seen argue that 16 is old enough for making good sexual decisions with any kind of stastical significance are 16 year olds themselves and the adults who want to get naked with them.
Terrible, terrible support for your arguments and, frankly, if you speak for those who share your beliefs, well... yikes. Echoes of antebellum America there. Scary.
I live and was raised in San Francisco, California. I am married with children. You have no idea how far and to what extremes the homosexual ideology has imposed itself on many Bay Area hetrosexual families.
I will refrain from detailing the confusion, intrusion and opposition some of the homosexual ideologies have created in our parental right to rear our children as we see fit.
Let’s talk common sense. First, marriage is an institution since archaic times. By legally denominating the union between people of the same sex "marriage" lacks common sense since in reality people from the same sex can't physically consummate the union of marriage. What is disturbing about your argument is that you are falling into the same trap many open-minded and nice people like yourself fall into and lose sight of essential truths.
In your attempt to be nice, you compromise common sense and essential points of references to categories that are essential to the continuance of all civil and thriving cultures. The sociological effect of calling something what it is not will only lead to slippery slope conclusions where society indubitably detaches itself from reality.
Proposition 8 will complicate the basic union of what constitutes the single most important unit of any culture and society, the family. The ramifications attributed to human interventions that change essential sociological categories defined by nature alone have ruined many cultures. It reminds me of a certain margarine commercial where a fairy godmother would appear and disintegrate a person who called the margarine, “butter”, with the words, “you can’t fool mother nature.
I can tell you also that this proposition is insidious since it is experimenting with children and it is too early to study the affect this intrusion into human nature will have on children.
mzford: compelling argument, believable too. I will continue to investigate. Luckily I do not live in CA and care to stay away from it at all costs. I have never experienced the detrimental effects of homosexuality you've mentioned, and if there really are things to worry about I will probably stumble into them at some point in time. :)
Thanks for the input!
Hi TKeeley et al, I'm really happy to see your thoughtful take on this CA Proposition. As in AZ (per Spryte) the wording on the prop is (deliberately?) confusing. You vote "No" to keep gay marriage allowable and "Yes" on the prop to disallow it. It has been nasty and underhanded here, with the "Yes" proponents showing TV ads showing a little girl coming home showing her mommy a book about a prince marrying a prince and that she says, "And I can marry a princess!" That is reaching to people's base, base fears and it completely false. The prop has NOTHING to do with sex ed in our schools.
Having recently attended my first gay marriage this summer, I will share my opinion. Love is love and it is (IMO) reaffirming to see two already life partners be able to make their union socially recognized. If my friends' marriage becomes a casualty of Prop 8 it will be devestating to them and to those of us who love them.
Love when we get to see "rational" debate on these pages. Thanks again, TKeeley!
np, mighty mom. I'm always up for rationalisation, even if I disagree with others' choices in life. Trust me, many people disagree with my choices too, so I'm in good company. The joy of it all is that humanity has been granted the option to live for itself and make its own choices. That same boon is also a curse in the same package. Man can do good and evil, depending on the circumstances of course. The key is to let everyone make that decision. If it is truly a detrimental offense then we will find out and hopefully bring those doing the damage to justice. We won't know til we find out though, will we?
I'm sorry I don't have more time to compose a thoughtful comment right now, but I've enjoyed reading the hub and the lively discussion.
I hope you'll forgive me for just plugging my own hub on the subject here; it's my own analysis of the Proposition 8 issue. For anyone interested, please check out http://hubpages.com/hub/Taking-Down-the-Straight-O and let me know what you think. Thanks!
Thanks, Sterling Sage. Will check out your hub. I'm clear on which way I'M voting next Tues, but always interested in how others see things.
Just to add another side bit of info. In yesterday's paper there was an article on Prop 8 and the Yes on 8 campaign being heavily funded by MORMONS. Now, California is NOT a heavily Mormon state by any means. And I know I am opening myself up here -- and I HAVE spent time in Utah and know that the vast, vast majority of Mormons are not in favor of polygamy, but...
Is it me, or is there something inherently wrong (ironic at least) with a RELIGION trying to change the laws in a state where they hardly practice? Not to mention a religion where a sect practices an aberrent form of marriage with multiple wives, often underage wives? And they're telling US in CA who we can and can't marry? Tsk tsk. Get outta my state and out of the lives of my friends.
Thanks MM for that input. I can believe it too, I've been to Uah numerous times and all. Not that it makes me an expert, but seriously...at least my church leaves others outside it alone.
I always read the fine print below the political ads to see who the funders/supporters of the issue are. The whole proposition thing makes me crazy. There are always at least 6 on the ballot. Judging by how I see many people make their voting decisions for the big ticket items (read: president), I really doubt that the propositions are being voted in or out by an informed public. But then, it's our right as voters to participate in the democratic process. Nowhere is it mandated (or legislated) that we have to educate ourselves -- just walk in and vote.
TKeeley -- I so enjoy your thought-provoking hubs and comments. Thanks for sharing hubspace with us! MM
I live (near) San Francisco and have absolutely no idea what "homosexual ideology" mzford feels she and her family are victims of. I know dozens of heterosexuals here, many of whom have children, and none of them seem to bear scars from the "homosexual ideology."
As for the consummation of marriage - that's intercourse, generally. I assure you, gays and lesbians can have intercourse.
The usual arguments about marriage being about procreation are not true (infertile and post-menopausal people get married all the time without any fuss, as do couples who choose not to have children). And there are plenty of families, with children, headed by gays and lesbians (although I suppose marriage opponents think they don't really count).
The only people that seem hell-bent on denying gay couples the right to (civil) marriage are religious fanatics who, if they were really concerned about the disintegration of marriage, would be focusing their efforts on minimizing divorce, not preventing people from joining and presumably strengthening the institution.
And, finally, I don't buy the "ancient traditions" argument. The definition of marriage has changed countless times over the years, generally as minority groups and women stop being treated like dirt/chattel and equality is tolerated. Only a few decades ago, interracial marriage was not allowed. Are these the vaunted traditions we want to return to?
Livelonger -- Of several excellent (and true!) arguments you make, my favorite is "If they were really concerned about the disintegration of marriage, would focusing their efforts on minimizing divorce, not preventing people from joining and presumably strengthening the institution." Bingo.
Today's definition of "family" encompasses many variations. Who has the right to tell me mine is less of a "real" family because it only contains 1 parent, or 2 parents of the same sex, or 2 grandparents raising the children -- or any combination of adults/children.
Get real, people. Gays deserve the same rights as everyone else has. Period. No exceptions.
But Mighty Mom...it's such a dirty lifestyle....I could never accept such pigs.
Marriage is either a sacred union of two souls, in which case no man (male or female) can judge whether or not any human relationship is meant to be. This divine judgement is reserved for your creator and him alone. Ministers, priests and the like who dare to sit on god’s chair to join two people in holy matrimony are way out of line and their pride is profane. God and only god can be the judge. For the religious among us, that is.
Or marriage is a simple, civil and legal contract between two (or more, as far as I’m concerned) people. It’s a civil right. A civil right that brings obligations. And any consenting adult can lay claim to civil rights, regardless their religion, race, gender or creed.
Mzford said: "Proposition 8 will complicate the basic union of what constitutes the single most important unit of any culture and society, the family. The ramifications attributed to human interventions that change essential sociological categories defined by nature alone have ruined many cultures."
Heaven forbid we complicate a basic idea. Throwing girl children away in China really complicates that basic idea of the perfect family. Crack babies being dumped in garbage cans complicates the basic idea of family. Fathers who molest their children complicate the basic idea. Mothers who drive car loads of babies into rivers complicate it. Divorce complicates it.
Frankly, dude, the idea you are arguing for is a nice principle in fairy books, but it doesn't exist. What DOES exist is human beings who love other human beings and open their lives to yet other human beings. And human beings who don't.
You want to point out deviants and blah blah... deviant behavior does, will and always has existed, and totally regardless of who is F-ing who. Love is love. Denying loving people the chance to share love will not remove evil from this world. It only lessens the opportunities to mitigate the damage.
Do you realize you are actually arguing AGAINST love in the name of God?
I also don't agree with prop 8. Two consenting adults should be allowed to marry each other. If it's against your religion that's ok, but that's the point. This is a government issue not a religious issue and really shouldn't be a proposition.
Live and Let live! There is simply not enough love in the world to go around so why stifle it. lifestyles is simply a different issue.
If people of the same sex want to get married then thats up to them.I have no problem with that.But I feel that the ceremony should not be performed in the church or carried out by any one in the clergy.
KEELEY,I notice that you are from south carolina,how do you think gay marriage would be received within the borders of your city?
Great hub, and I agree 100% (with the hub). The question of the ceremony to me is something to be decided within the church, (and I am not touching that one with a ten foot pole!) in my opinion. Is this the best thing our legislatures can find to do with their time? Seriously people, we are in a full out economic meltdown, we have the lesser of 2 evils running for president, and this is what the legislature has deeemed important. And don't forget if it does pass it maybe due to what else is attached to it. Our elected officials have long since determined that to vote on each subject seperately would "not be effective" so they lump many together.
It's the mormons pushing the ballot, blogging2. So naturally it's the reason for our meltdown. It's God's judgment on his people for allowing homosexuals to marry...or even be civilly joined together.
Let well enough alone, it doesn't effect us personally. I start having issues with the issue when it seeps into the church, but otherwise, leave it alone. I don't care where the ceremony is as long as the institution is not being hypocritical in allowing it.
Bill, it's possible SC would sooner pass thru the gates of hell before allowing something like this to happen...lol
Marriage is a sacred oath between two souls and therefore anybody who wants to take such an oath should be allowed to do so. But I have my reservations whether the same sex couple should have the same rights of adoption as heterosexual couples (A child who hasn't matured may have unconventional role models.... I don't know I am not comfortable with adoption) In other aspects like marriage, inheritance and divorce matters the laws of the land shouldn't be discriminating one citizen against another. This is my take on this contentious issue.
TKeeley -- you old dog, you. I totally missed your comment of 22 hours ago. Not sure exactly where I was then. Of course you are right. Because as we all know, "cleanliness is next to godliness."
This is a classic separation of church and state issue. The Mormon Church has NO business trying to change STATE law in CALIFORNIA. None! If they want to outlaw gay marriage in Utah, let them. There appears to be no separation there, and that's the way they want it. Ok. Utah gays can come here and be married. And, they will find several welcoming churches to perform their ceremonies, too.
Yep, they don't call us the "land of fruits and nuts" fer nuthin! You don't see a whole lot of people running around here shouting about CA being the home of the free and the brave -- but that's exactly what we are. And I sincerely hope we get to stay this way.
I have nothing against Mormons, but they can be a little aggressive on many issues. Just the other day I was approached by two missionaries and just kept walking, but they would try to engage me in conversation. They and the Jehovah's Witnesses, which unfortunately I have past experience with, both use aggressive conversation tactics to try and recruit people by passing out literature. In the old days it was door to door, but now that more people work their tactics are going to malls and bus stops, or basically anywhere people are sitting alone. Unlike the Witnesses that do not believe in participating in politics, the Mormons are spending a large amount of money on campaigning. No offense to any Mormons, but they do like their brand of Christianity and push it, but other sects have also been responsible for pushing prop 8 here in California.
My personal opinion is no I do not agree with same sex marriages, but at the same time I do not agree with people just getting married to get married. We have a high divorce rate in this country, so in my mind it is much more hypocritical for a hetero couple who get married multiple times than a same sex couple that actually want to live together and make a life together.
People always have the right to go to a church that will not allow such unions, but that is the only place people should care about it. Same sex couples should be guranteed the right to get married if that is their desire, and why stand in their way? Really I think there is so much money wasted on this when we could have spent all the money for prop eight on something important such as education, or helping natural disaster victims get back up on their feet.
I agree with you Mighty Mom, I think here in California we care more about universal freedoms. I would probably only either want to live here in Hawaii or California. I like the diversity found in these states.
SwP- Those places are also good sunshine states. But honestly most of the west coast I have seen lots of diversity(including seattle, WA where I reside now). In the east coast Washington DC, NY city, Boston and Miami are pretty diverse too.
I agree Oregon and Washington also have the same attitudes. I was just speaking from experience of the states where I have spent time, Hawaii, and the state where I live, California. On the other hand, Southern California where I live tends to have some very conservative voters, but this is balanced out by the rest of the state. Many parts of the east coast are diverse also, I did not mean to imply this was not the case. What I mean when I am referring to diversity is states where people seem to think Californians are odd, and I often actually hear these sort of comments mostly in the mid-west, in my experience. You are right, in other places where there is more diversity people tend to be more open to new ideas.
I am like you, Sweetiepie. I may personally oppose gay marriage, I m more like the wintesses and feel I am not needed to convey my own agenda thru politics.
For those who are interested, I am starting a radio-blog and have writtena hub about it on here. Go check it out and listen in. Prop 8, Gov. Palin, and this econoomic meltdown will be huge topics. I'll also be taking call ins. It will be a regular show, once I figure out the schedule. Hopefully you will all be regular listeners!
I think it is a little known geographical fact that the USA is curved. Those people who are not firmly enough rooted in their belief systems tend to roll to the West Coast. It has been this way since the Gold Rush of the 1840s -- the adventurers and wild guys and gals came west because this is where attitudes were more open. Eventually, some people decided roots and conservative beliefs were a good idea after all. These people migrated to So Cal and settled in Orange County, Palm Springs and San Diego (leaving Hollywood as a liberal oasis). Those who yearned for still more freedom headed north to Oregon and Washington.
Hollywood...sums up everyting wrong with the USA.
Is radio blog over on digital journal. It is a good way for backlinks, I am getting some already. Is this the same website?
good luck on your radio blog T.keeley!!!
Can't people just live and let others live?
MightyMom- According to your theory then the washington people should be most open (you made my day)..hehe
SwP- Funny that you mentioned midwest I had a similar experience
I once had a old lady ask me do girls marry snakes in India?
Yes they do. I told her all the thin slimmy heroines you see in Bollywood are the offsprings (ofcourse I am little on the generously endowed side hence an exception)...LOL
(In Midwest we were travelling to Mount Rushmore on the way in Sioux city restaurent was asked this question)
Also, we have the wonderful Indian tribes such as the Pechanga and the Morongo, who have regained strength by building casinos that bring in revenue. Unlike the greedy Las Vegas casinos, Pechanga and Morongo actually give money back the community and jobs. The Indians were here first, then came the Spaniards and the missionaries, so there has always been a strong Catholic influence in California. Later on Mexico took over California, which was given the the US after the Mexican American war. So you did have some wild immigrants coming out to explore gold and find new farm land, but we have always had some very ultra conservative religious types from the start. San Bernardino was known for several religious groups that founded the area and others did not even want to be affiliated with them, they were that radical in their ideas.
t.keeley,
"It's the mormons pushing the ballot, blogging2. So naturally it's the reason for our meltdown."
Please do not push your tolerance and bigotry agenda on me after a comment such as this. To me this is the epitmy of the pot calling the kettle black.
I would make some intellengent points here, but they would not even be considered I am afraid because of religious intolerance and bigotry.
I am a LDS member and find your comments offensive and uneducated.
It never ceases to amaze me how many Christians fail to see the satire in my comments.
It's funny how you claim I'm pushing an agenda froma small comment that was sarcastic in every respect. The other funny thing is that we've already established that your Christian denomination is pushing for prop. 8. You're not the only ones, but you all make up a large number of that proposition. That, after all, is the fact.
And yes, I've heard mormons and other christians say homosexuality is the reason we're in an economic meltdown. You can deny it til you're blue in the face...but I still believe the people I've talked to in person.
Thanks, the comment made me chuckle a little bit knowing I stillg et to people uninentionally. If I wanted to attack the LDS group, trust me, I would. And you would know it without a shadow of doubt in your mind.
Keeley we are in a economic meltdown because of the decisions our leaders have made.
I know Bill. It was sarcasm, that's all.
Keeley- I guess you do a very good job getting people worked up. After the initial brush I had with you now I will make sure to take your words with grain of salt...LOL
You are so mis-informed.
The heated issue of same-sex marriage in California is one that many are still seriously considering their position on - before they cast their vote on Prop. 8 in November, which would amend the state Constitution to only recognize marriage between a man and a woman. Before making that final decision, here are some important concerns to consider..
http://hubpages.com/hub/Truth-About-Same-Sex-Marri
tDMg
LdsNana-AskMormon
So let me see if I understand LdsNana -
Same sex marriage should not be allowed because it threatens your religious views? And it's not considered discrimination because you believe that homosexuality is a choice...
Well..hmmm...thanks for sharing that. I'm still voting to allow same-sex marriage since it doesn't threaten my religious beliefs one bit. Kinda great that we live in a country that allows for religious freedom and in my particular case, freedom from the oppression of your religion.
As for the argument that homosexuality is a choice...if that's the wall of denial you need between you and the real world in order to feel safe, I'm not going to be the one that delivers the bad news.
I am a vegetarian. I don't believe in eating meat, personally. In fact, I find it revolting. It would be *absurd* for me to foist my views on other people through the legislative process by banning the sale and consumption of meat. I don't like meat? Fine. I don't eat it. If you want to eat meat, you should be able to if that's your preference. (And those really are my beliefs)
Spryte: well said. The widely disproven myth that homosexuality is a choice is a central part of their position, and as such, they will firmly deny any evidence to the contrary.
LOL! Funny video Ralph!
ldsNana...lol. That's all I'm going to say. Read your own hub and see the comment I left a few months ago. Don't toss things in my face that I've already thoroughly review.
You have religious views--lovely. Beautiful, even, because so do I. I am very conservative by nature. I don't. however, expect others to be the same way.
If you must further protest for mormonism, you may be alone on it. Frankly Americans are in stanch opposition to your views...and frankly I am too. I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TELLING ME WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG!
That, friends, is for God to do. Not Bush, not cheney, not California, not no one. es, a double negative. I'm that upset that I've been called misinformed.
I AM NOT FREAKIN' MISINFORMED
Tell me, all, when the last time you've read books by Darwin, Nietzche, Marx, Jefferson, Wesley, or Verne? If the answer to that question was "far too long ago", don't knock on my door.
Spryte: ditto.
Ralph: it'd be funnier if my face wasn't so bloody red right now.
Livelonger: thank God you commented like that. I needed the chuckle ;) And I ditto that comment too :P
Really great Hub, I do believe same sex marriages should be allowed, and wherever the individual wants to have them, be it in Church or a Registry Office. Only God has the right to judge, and if two people love each other I can't see him complaining. Also, many people in wheelchairs get married and they often cannot consumate their marriages, but does this make them less valid? I don't believe so.
I couldn't agree more on this article as you should read mine "Gay Rights in Todays Society" it drives my point home too. Great Article!!
Tonight my husband and I had this discussion...while we were out having dinner and although he is voting the same way, the discussion was rather funny as I thought for a moment he was on the "other side."
His argument was that the word "marriage" strictly denotes a religious union of male and female while a civil union is more appropriate for homosexual unions since it's outside of the religious venue.
"So we aren't married?" I asked.
"Of course we are married!" he said.
"We weren't married in a church though...so aren't we just civil unioned?" I argued.
"Actually...the JOP was a non-denominational minister," he said, "therefore we're married."
:)
I tell ya...once you start getting into semantics, it's very complicated. Heheheh!
Misty: it's a tough subject for everyone, including myself. I have come to the conviction that even if I disagree with it, personally, I cannot control everyone's moral decisions. Believe it or not, I just heard tonight President Washignton used to consider homosexuality a capital offence in the military. Apparently he'd put to death homosexuals. Seems the more I study America's beginnings, the more I find it wasn't freedom of religion, it was freedom of Christians. They'd stifle any sort of religious opposition to the ruling powers...hence why we never saw an outright pagan King in England. It's either sad or twisted..or both.
Spryte: funny story :P I needed an uplift.
AEvans: I'll check it out!
You mean they didn't have the "don't ask don't tell" policy in Washington's army:-)?
TKeeley -- where can I tune into your radio blog? MM
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/T-Keeley
That's my profile. From there you should see an available segment for tomorrow at 4 PM. I'm hoping that I can figure out how to work it in time so I can make it happen! I'll be taking call ins, I have yet to outline the 30 minutes, but it should be pretty easy.
The funny thing about prop eight is even if 99% of people were going to go out and vote for it tomorrow they could not stop same sex couples from getting married. They would simply have a personal ceremony and not have it legalized. Remember Rock Hudson? Well he got married and played a very heterosexual man in the movies, but this was simply covering up who he really is. Since the history of time people have been in same sex relationships, so this is nothing new. Let people do what they like as long as they are not hurting anyone, and same sex marriages hurt no one, and actually probably make a lot of people feel better than depriving them of their civil rights. I do not agree with drinking, smoking, and owning guns, but if these rights are protected, then why cannot same sex marriages also be honored? As I said I think a same sex couple who marries for life are far more responsible than hetero couples who get married several times just for kicks. Sometimes hetero couples could have dated to figure out if they were compatible with, but they jump right in and get married right off the bat. One lady we knew had been married three times by the time she was 25. Most same sex couple who want to get married have faced discrimination against their unions, so they are far more committed than some 19 year kids who just want to try on marriage. In the end, if you do not agree with same sex marriage keep in mind voting against it is not fair to your neighbors. tkeeley seems very informed to me, just for the record.
You don't agree with drinking? Oh dear...I'm a beer drinker...guess we can't be friends anymore :P
Oh I know such a shame :P Well just because I do not like drinking does not mean we can't be friends LOL. But you see the irony here? Do the prop 8 people see this?
To Quote Sakespeare "much ado about nothing" Is America not the land of the FREE?
Well...there are religious issues with homosexuals. I don't condone the activity myself, I usually discourage it unless the couple is so set on it that there's nothing to convince...and if someone in my church is practicing it then it's highly hypocritical, you know? But yes, I cans ee the silver lining. Live, let live, it sounds really swell and ideal, but the reality is that we have our problems with things. Homosexuality is a bit different than drinking, in all honesty, but yes, you can have equal issue with my drinking as I do with Joe Blow's homosexuality. And that makes sense to me :)
There is a difference between homosexuality and drinking, but my point is just because I do not agree with something does not mean others should not be allowed to do it. Honestly on a personal level I do not agree with homosexuality, but that is my personal opinion and no one else's business. It means I would not do it myself. I hate the social scene and would not want to be around people who drink, but would feel more comfortable around gay people who are sober. Just my experience and opinion.
Understood :)
I think it's possible that degredation of cluture leads to national decline, but then again I'm not going to be the one to make that list up. I know some include gays on that list, I personally lean towards stupid people.
The ones that play hot potato, no just kidding :).
Watch the potato jokes.
They always lean to Irish mockery :P
countrywomen says:
“Marriage is a sacred oath between two souls and therefore anybody who wants to take such an oath should be allowed to do so. But I have my reservations whether the same sex couple should have the same rights of adoption as heterosexual couples”
When my daughter was younger and went to the first class of primary school, one of her classmates was this girl of whom the parents were lesbian. She wasn’t adopted; one of the mothers was her biological mother. And I can tell you that this girl was perfectly normal. She understood that most kids have a father and a mother, but she didn’t feel like an outcast. She was (and probably still is) a girl like any other girl of her age.
O, and if we’re promoting hubs on the subject, then let me join LdsNana-AskMormon by presenting a slightly different view:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Thoughts-on-Gay-Relationsh
I like your analogy, Livelonger!
tkeeley,
I think you were being overly sensitive as the potato joke has nothing to do with being Irish.
Sorry, Sweetiepie. I was only joking. I like cracking irish jokes whenever I can, considering I'm irish. They say if you can make fun of yourself...
Here is another hub I found on this subject. Very well-written. I did not write it. It's an excelltent hub:
It is cool. Just wanted to clear that up.
Yeah...I thought the " :P " was indicative of my joking. Next time I'll be a bt more careful.
No worries.
Having written on this subject in two hubs, perhaps those interested in this particular subject would be interested in viewing: http://hubpages.com/hub/California-Issues-on-the-N and http://hubpages.com/hub/California-Issues-on-the-N
Seeing California as a "crazy" state.. I suppose folks have thought that for a long time. Of course I know many who would cite the "imbreeding problems of Kentucky that have fostered generations of idiots as well. (actually I do know some rather smart folks in Kentucky.. just not a majority)
Thinking this does not affect others in other places is sort of naive since if it can happen here, it can happen where you are. The issue is one of law, not of morals or religion.
When churches are the ones issuing marriage licenses, gays wanting to marry will just go to one of the churches that already perform the ceremonies and have done for many years now. As long as it is a matter of law, denying the right to marry to same sex couples is un-equal treatment under the law. No on 8 if you value equal treatment under the law.
True story...this just happened tonight.
*phone rings*
First off, you have to understand how rare it is that our phone rings since my husband made sure we were on a no-solicitation list. I didn't recognize the caller ID, but I figured...I'll answer it and have some fun with the solicitor who made an end run around my do not call me list.
"Hello...may I speak to (husband's full name here)?"
"May I ask who is calling?"
"This is (I forget her name) calling from (can't remember the group) to remind you to say "Yes!" to Proposition 102!"
"Actually...I've already told my husband to vote no."
"You did? May I ask why?"
"Yes. Because we're married heterosexuals and if he doesn't do what I tell him he won't get laid for a very long time."
"Uh..."
"Isn't marriage wonderful?!"
Then she stumbled through the last part so fast...something about that this phone call had been brought to me by the sponsors of proposition 102 and then a sudden *click* as she hung up.
Do you think she'll call back?
spryte,
You are smart to get on that no-call list. I seriously must do that. However, I have been thinking of creative ways to get rid of the telemarketers lately, especially the annoying political ones LOL.
Ananta- Maybe the other female was like a strong male role model. I surely hope the girl grows up as normaly as other girls of her age. But you already mentioned it as one of the woman happened to be a biological mother and there is nothing that can be done about it(unlike adoption). Maybe I am side tracking from the main issue which I do support.
SwPie :) Feel free to use mine if you want! I have another one to use as back-up.
So my blog radio show will cover prop 8 tomorrow. I'll be taking a neutral stance but I'm inviting callers to debate with me or others on it for about 15 minutes of the segment. Hope I hear from some of you!
what time shall we tune in tomorrow (in CA time, pls).
Meantime, I've just rejoined the thread and must say I find potato jokes personally offensive:-).
lol...that joke was the bomb! Thanks to Sweetiepie for a lot of confusion and fun :) I'm always up for a laugh. Luckily we sorted the confusion out!
CA time...I believe you're looking at 12 PM. It's 3 PM EST, so I think I did the math right.
Glad the potato joke made everyone smile :) Still feel silly sbout that.
There is nothing more beautiful then two people who love each other .
I don’t believe in role models, countrywomen. Both women were women. And their girl is a girl. No distorted view on reality, no outcast. Why would two people of the same sex not be able to raise a child? What does it take to raise a child? Love. Care. Discipline. I haven’t heard any compelling argument yet why two people of the same sex should not be able to raise a child.
Ananta- This was totally my personal opinion hence you are free to disagree with it. Since I was raised having a father figure and a mother figure felt having an imbalance may have adverse psychological issues on a growing up child. I totally agree kids need love, care and discipline. I don't know whether there are psychological studies conducted on kids growing up under same sex couples or maybe even single parent (which again was a very uncommon scenario from where I was raised). My understanding is very limited and hence acknowledge my ignorance in these matters if others have some studies or inputs then they can please add to this discussion.
I am as ignorant as you are, countrywomen :) I just find it hard to believe that same sex couples would make worse parents. If a woman has a child with a man, she can be a wonderful mother, yet she would be a less mother if she happened to love a woman?
Shadesbreath says:
14 months ago
I agree. Why deny people something as basic as choosing who to love? Particularly in a country where the separation of Church and State is purportedly the law of the land. Take out the faith based opposition to gay marriage and you don't have any opposition at all outside of a few who just "reckon it's gross." That's not really a reason to deny people happiness either.
If there is a loving, judging God, trust him to smite them down horribly and damn them to eternal hell when they die if they are wrong. But for now, since we all only get one crack at this life on Earth for sure, let people at least have happiness while they can.