Why legislate hate?




There is a growing group of people that think that the word 'marriage' belongs to them and them only.


They have added prop 8 to the California ballot to eliminate same sex marriage.


Why? What do they have to lose if two people in love can marry? Why limit marriage?


Is YOUR marriage threatened by someone elses?


Does my marriage make yours pale in comparison?


What about Jewish marriage? That's different. So is Muslim marriage and Polynesian and many others.


What about divorce? Do you know anyone that has been divorced? Don't they reduce the value of marriage? Are folks excommunicated for divorce? Should they be? Were your parents divorced? Till death do us part right?


Every person should have the choice to marry the person they love. It’s a personal and fundamental freedom guaranteed by the California Constitution.


This just pisses me off.


I am not gay but why legislate prejudice?


Most sections of California law prohibit discrimination based on a long list of protected classes, including sexual orientation, gender and gender identity. LGBT Californians are protected from discrimination in securing employment and housing, accessing government services and participating in state-funded activities. LGBT people are also protected under the state’s hate crime law.


Proponents of Prop 8 make many misleading assertions in their new television ad.

Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs.

Fact: California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.

Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.

Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

Fiction: Same-sex marriage would be taught in public schools.

Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it. A Sacramento Superior Court judge has already ruled that this claim by the proponents of Prop 8 is “false and misleading.” In fact, the “case” that is cited in the ad is from Massachusetts…the proponents knew what California law said, so they used another state, again to mislead voters.

Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…

Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that we’ve already voted on this, that judges should not protect rights and freedoms, and that somehow what happened in the past should be the guide to our future. This campaign is not about what happened nearly nine years ago. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to eliminate a fundamental right for one group of citizens.


More to come when I am coherent again.

11 comments:

Rich said...

Fair enough. Why does the GLBT community need a piece of paper to validate their "love" for one another? What do they truly have to gain? If it be financial, I think that the real result is a certificate of commitment. Why does the government need to legislate who can be "legally married" and who cannot? The idea of marriage is born out of religion not out of law. Why do we need to waste our time creating a piece of paper that should already be clearly defined in our actions? Why waste my taxes on regulating who gets this "marriage" certificate anyway? It would seem to me that the agenda is to get the religious beliefs to change through the legal system. I think that you should stop dancing around the real reason for your stream of consciousness. Hey you invited me and this is my $.02

VC said...

The point here has nothing to do with religion and these folks are getting married at the courthouse in the same process that straight folks use.

What expense? Our legislature spends their time creating non-binding resolutions praising or complaining about Iraq and W so I think eliminating legalized predjudice is money well spent.

The expense involved locally is minimal to us the taxpayer (the clerks hourly wage) and the revenue generated by the purchasing of licenses more than likely offsets this minmmal expenditure.

However, the revenue generated in the wedding related fields looks to rise significantly if a whole new sector of folks now have the freedom to marry.

All the legistation does is eliminate a standing predjudice that disallows some people to a civil marriage.

No religion is threatened or even mentioned.

How would allowing Bob and Pedro get married at the courthouse change Catholicism? Or Judaism? Hell what about Scientology? How will it change?

I think the question here is really--why create a law that denies people a chance to marry?

No one needs a piece of paper to validate their love but why decide that a whole class of people don't get the same right that you do?

VC said...

Litmus test.

If we say no beacuse you are:

Black = Racism

Handicapped = Discrimination

From Pakistan = Discrimination based on national origin

A woman = Sexual discrimination

Jewish = Religious discrimination

All of these things are illegal.
In fact it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual preference as well.

So why is it ok to ban same sex marriage?

Why don't you think that is discriminatory?

Why is this different than plain old fashioned bigotry?

rich said...

Exactly! Remove the civil marriage laws completely! What good does it do? It obviously creates a point of contention for an increased amount of senseless lawsuits!

Again, I am not for the complaints against W and Iraq (another time). I would much rather see my government work on something a little more productive for the majority and stop catering to the minority!

But really why does the GLBT community need this? What good does this do for the country? Answer that and we can move on to the religion part. That is a real minor piece.

VC said...

Civil marriage--and that's what we're talking about here, nothing to do with any church--gives couples many benefits. Medical decisions, tax benefits and inheritance to name a few. So eliminating civil marriage is a bit extreme.

I am still trying to see where religion is threatened. It's not mentioned in any way in the law nor can the guv'mint legislate any changes to religion. Seperation, remember?

Rather than ask why does the GLBT community need this? Why not ask why deny them. What harm does this do to the country?

Denial based on sexual preference or gender is illegal and morally wrong.

Why deny?

Rich said...

"Civil marriage--and that's what we're talking about here, nothing to do with any church--gives couples many benefits. Medical decisions, tax benefits and inheritance to name a few. So eliminating civil marriage is a bit extreme."

Medical decisions and inheritance to a name - see a lawyer. That was already an option.

As for tax benefits, they are in dire need of an overhaul. I think that the general population is being overtaxed as a whole. I personally would like to see them changed for every one not just a minority.

I still do not see why the GLBT community needs this, let alone cause my tax dollars to pay for this type of legislation. If they were being denied the ability to be together, to express their love for one another, then ok. If they were being taxed unfairly or being told that they are substandard citizens, again ok.

They are after a title or certificate or some other type of validation of their union, that has been traditionally denied. This tradition was started in religious faith communities.

The legal system merely adopted this ideology out of convenience. What started as a way to provide a "break" to the "family unit" and extended into the business world through insurance and the like has become a status certification much like a drivers license.

I have no problem seeing that the greater paradym of family unit has changed, but do have a problem calling them all married. In fact I am all for changing "civil marriage" into "civil unions" to allow for the GLBT community to partake in what they feel is being kept from them.

Besides, "Every person should have the choice to marry the person they love. It’s a personal and fundamental freedom guaranteed by the California Constitution", I don't recall seeing that in the constitution. Could be mistaken on that one.

The only think I see the GLBT community being denied is the legal validation of their love. Marriage is a religious ideal and in the spirit of seperation (remember?) the civil marriage title needs to be renamed.

wirecutter said...

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I could care less one way or another.
It doesn't affect me at all.

VC said...

I think Wirecutter has a point.
How would any straight person be affected?

Gay marriage is legal so the expense here is to now criminalize it.

So if we leave it alone then Bob and Pedro get married, have a party and go home. (Maybe spend money in California where we need it)

So, how are you as a citizen of Calif damaged?

Please be specific.

VC said...

So, you'd rather scrap civil marriage as a whole rather than let Bob and Pedro go down to the courthouse and participate?

In your scenario it appears that only churches will be able create a marriage. Everyone else would relegated to civil unions or domestic partnership whether they be same sex or otherwise. How is that fair for those folks who are not religious but want to benefit from marriage?

The idea that marriage was initially a religious rite is false.

Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species, a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs nicely.

Throughout history, and still today, families arranged marriages for couples. The people involved didn't and don't have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn't marry because they were in love but for economic liasons.

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

Paul is believed to have died in 64-67 AD but marriage has been around much longer.

The Chinese trace their history back long before the time of Christ and they had marriage-- it was a civil arrangement.

The evolution of marriage: a timeline:
(Complete article http://www.azcentral.com/families/articles/1101marriageevolution01.html )

Prehistoric - Marriage basically turns strangers into relatives, decreasing tribal tensions.

3,000 B.C. - Marriage first becomes the way the upper classes conclude business deals and peace treaties, cementing socio-political alliances. Ancient societies experiment with polygamy - and in the case of Egyptian royalty, incest among siblings - to forge strong bonds of civilization.

500 B.C. - Short-lived experiment in democracy in ancient Greece actually worsens the status of women. Love is honored - but among men only. In marriage, inheritance is more important than emotional bonds: A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative, even if she has to divorce her husband first.

Circa A.D. 550 - Emperor Justinian tries to enact a requirement for a wedding license, but the unpopular measure is revoked.

A.D. 800 - Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne outlaws polygamy. Germanic warlords, even baptized Christians, still acquire wives for strategic reasons.

900 - The Roman Catholic Church tries to require people to obtain the church's blessing of sexual unions, but is reluctant to thereby create millions of "illegitimate" children whose parents don't obey the edict. The church, however, wins a battle by denying royalty the right to divorce on a whim.

1000 - Catholic clergy are no longer allowed to marry. Upper-class marriages are often arranged before the couple has met. Aristocrats believe love is incompatible with marriage and can flourish only in adultery.

1200 - Common folk in Europe now need a marriage license to wed. Ordinary people can't choose whom to marry, either. The lord of one manor decrees in 1344 that all his unmarried tenants - including the widowed - must marry spouses of his choosing. Elsewhere, peasants wishing to pick a partner must pay a fee.

1500-1600 - Protestant moralists elevate the status of marriage over the Catholic gold standard of celibacy, but enact even stricter controls over annulments.

1769 - The American colonies, basing their regulations on English common law, decree: "The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything."

1800 - Marriage for love, not for property or prestige, is gaining wider acceptance. But women are still completely subjected to male authority.

1874 - The South Carolina Supreme Court rules that men no longer may beat their wives.

1891 - England's Parliament passes a law that men cannot imprison their wives (or deny them freedom of movement from the home).

1900 - By now, every state in America has passed legislation modeled after New York's Married Women's Property Act of 1848, granting married women some control over their property and earnings.

1920s - The Roaring Twenties bring about the biggest sexual revolution in marriage to-date and divorce rates triple. The Supreme Court upholds people's right to marry someone of a different religion.

1965 - In Griswold v. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court overturns one of the last state laws prohibiting the prescription or use of contraceptives by married couples. Seven years later, the right to use contraceptives is extended to unmarried people.

1967 - Interracial marriage is decriminalized in all states when the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes.

1968 - The Supreme Court upholds the rights of children of unmarried parents.

1969 - California adopts the nation's first "no-fault" divorce law, allowing divorce by mutual consent.

1970s - Most states overturn rules designating a husband "head and master" with unilateral control of property owned jointly with his wife.

My point here is that we as a human population evolve and so do our institutions.

Civilization did not start with Christianity and marriage has been different things to different religions at different times.

I still fail to see where allowing a same sex civil marriage will begin the downfall of any church.

What I do see is people saying, “…you can’t (blank) because you are (blank)…” and that is discrimination plain and simple.

Rich said...

Love the timeline. Thanks. I had to take a break somewhere around 1200. Whew!

"In your scenario it appears that only churches will be able create a marriage. Everyone else would relegated to civil unions or domestic partnership whether they be same sex or otherwise. How is that fair for those folks who are not religious but want to benefit from marriage?" - See civil union idea.

"The idea that marriage was initially a religious rite is false." Ok. I am saying that the tradition of marrying man and woman and denying the GLBT community appears to have started in the religous community. Not debating the historical facts of marriage. I would like to point out that this country was founded on the idea of religious freedoms (among other important ideas) and over the years those ideas have popped up from time to time in monuments and money.

You make a good point about the average "straight" person. I think that the ASP should be enraged that his/her tax dollars are being spent to ensure that a minority group that is not being denied any individual fundamental freedoms has been validated or accepted "legally".

I think that the ASP should be saying "what about my rights?" Why am I voting on an issue that I already spoke on and was subsequently overturned by a court judge? I spoke once already. Why am I forced to be concerned with a minority issue? What is being done about my economic future? What is being done to ensure my kids health care system staying intact? What is being done to clean up the crime in my city and state? Why does it seem that the ideas that are better funded get better representation in my government?

My bottom line is not to support nor defend any of the commercials you have seen, but to say that it is a waste of good taxpayer money to even entertain such an idea. I understand that Under California’s
domestic partner laws (Family Code Section 297.5) they have rights and benefits identical to those of spouses. So I am still struggling to understand why this needs to happen. Why do we need the legal system to identify what appears to me to be a religious issue?

Can't wait for your next TWO replies.

Penelope said...

Wow- I love controversial subjects. In my mind, this is useless dribble. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I have to say that the commercials do make me angry- especially the one with the kids at the wedding- how low can one get! This was so wrong!
We do not need how to be married, get married, with whom- it is a piece of paper that grants you some legal rights of ownership in a relationship- I think you spelled that out pretty well.
I saw an interesting scene yesterday- confused person? Had a sticker for Obama and Biden, and then a yes on 8.......