![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
One of the side elections I'll be watching with interest on election night is how California will vote on Proposition 8. Proposition 8 would do three things: it would put the language that "marriage is between a man and a woman" into the constitution; would overturn the California Supreme Court ruling that gave gay people the right to be married in California with the same legal protection as any married couple; would not allow the public schools to teach that same-sex marriages are in any way equal to a "traditional" marriage.
Anyone regular reader of this blog knows where I stand on the issue (even if I don't get to vote on it, not being Californian). But because I literally cannot comprehend how gay people being able to marry threatens my 'traditional' man/woman marriage in any possible way, I went to what Goggle suggested was the largest Pro-8 site to see what they had to offer.
They have a "Why Vote Yes" page. Here's the entire argument: The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters; it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision. This decision has far-reaching consequences. For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.
"By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.”" Why, yes. And I still fail to see what the problem is with that, or how having a man marry another man or a woman marry another woman affects my commitment to Denise in even the slightest way.
I prowled around on the site for more argument. Mostly, it boils down to this: if Prop 8 doesn't pass, then our children are going to be taught that being gay is acceptable. There's lots of 'scary' stuff about children having to learn in school that it's okay for a man to love another man. There's a video prominently featured on the site, which is a Massachusetts couple who brought a lawsuit against their school system when a second grade teacher read a story called "King & King" to the class -- a tale of two princes who fall in love with each other, marry, and become co-kings of their land rather than king and queen. They are outraged and appalled that their child had to hear this. (The Mass. Supreme Court ruled against them, BTW.) Why, no second grade child should have to know about gays.
I listened to that and thought of substituting racial overtones for the gay ones. What if the book were "The Black King" -- would they be objecting that their second grader is being taught racial tolerance, that skin color shouldn't matter, that people with different pigmentation should be able to live together in harmony?
At the end of the video, they try to turn this into an "intolerance" issue: ROBB WIRTHLIN: "And no longer is it OK to disagree, that if you disagree with a particular lifestyle or behavior, you are now wrong, you are now bigoted. It's no longer a difference of opinion, you're now wrong. ROBIN WIRTHLIN: "...And the tolerance that the gay community cries out for is not demonstrated to people who have differing points of view. There is no tolerance. The hate, the... the disparaging remarks, the hostility that we faced, were so astonishing. We sincerely wanted to, umm, just protect our children while they're children, not have them face adult issues while they're children. There's a long enough time in their life when they can work through adult issues, but we just wanted them to have a carefree and protected childhood."
Oh, those poor persecuted straight couples...
Anyone regular reader of this blog knows where I stand on the issue (even if I don't get to vote on it, not being Californian). But because I literally cannot comprehend how gay people being able to marry threatens my 'traditional' man/woman marriage in any possible way, I went to what Goggle suggested was the largest Pro-8 site to see what they had to offer.
They have a "Why Vote Yes" page. Here's the entire argument: The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters; it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision. This decision has far-reaching consequences. For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.
"By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.”" Why, yes. And I still fail to see what the problem is with that, or how having a man marry another man or a woman marry another woman affects my commitment to Denise in even the slightest way.
I prowled around on the site for more argument. Mostly, it boils down to this: if Prop 8 doesn't pass, then our children are going to be taught that being gay is acceptable. There's lots of 'scary' stuff about children having to learn in school that it's okay for a man to love another man. There's a video prominently featured on the site, which is a Massachusetts couple who brought a lawsuit against their school system when a second grade teacher read a story called "King & King" to the class -- a tale of two princes who fall in love with each other, marry, and become co-kings of their land rather than king and queen. They are outraged and appalled that their child had to hear this. (The Mass. Supreme Court ruled against them, BTW.) Why, no second grade child should have to know about gays.
I listened to that and thought of substituting racial overtones for the gay ones. What if the book were "The Black King" -- would they be objecting that their second grader is being taught racial tolerance, that skin color shouldn't matter, that people with different pigmentation should be able to live together in harmony?
At the end of the video, they try to turn this into an "intolerance" issue: ROBB WIRTHLIN: "And no longer is it OK to disagree, that if you disagree with a particular lifestyle or behavior, you are now wrong, you are now bigoted. It's no longer a difference of opinion, you're now wrong. ROBIN WIRTHLIN: "...And the tolerance that the gay community cries out for is not demonstrated to people who have differing points of view. There is no tolerance. The hate, the... the disparaging remarks, the hostility that we faced, were so astonishing. We sincerely wanted to, umm, just protect our children while they're children, not have them face adult issues while they're children. There's a long enough time in their life when they can work through adult issues, but we just wanted them to have a carefree and protected childhood."
Oh, those poor persecuted straight couples...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
How, one wonders, is same-sex marriage any more an "adult issue" than man-woman marriage?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
One of the successes of the conservative movement over the last three decades is their adoption of the victimization tactics successfully employed by the minority and feminist rights activist of earlier decades. Despite the evidence.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Why Homosexuality Should Be Banned (http://www.maniacworld.com/Why-Homosexuality-Should-Be-Banned.html).
(And no, it's not anti-homosexuality.)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Yikes.
From:
no subject
I know an anti-gay marriage woman with a peace symbol on her car. What's that about? I'm so tempted to alter someone else's private property.
Anne
From:
no subject
As if that attack isn't outrageous enough, at a recent Prop 8 rally an official campaign spokesman actually compared the right of same-sex couples to marry to the rise of Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany. Watch the video.
This insanity needs to stop. Prop 8 needs to be defeated. It's wrong. It's unfair. The people supporting it are fanatical, intolerant and willing to do and say anything to eliminate our rights. Period.
We cannot let them succeed."
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
A few years ago, when gay marriage first hit the news, my dad brought the subject up. He asked what I thought about the issue, probably guessing correctly how I'd answer. And--more importantly--he wanted to know why I felt that way.
First I explained to him that I was a lot more comfortable and not threatened by gay relationships than I thought he might be (confirmed), and that I thought it odd for the government to get involved in matters of who someone fell in love with. I told him I thought it particularly important for civil marriages and that I believed it would be less of an issue if churches or individual priests/pastors wanted to opt out of performing such ceremonies. (Reminded him that the Catholic Church refuses marriage to anyone non-Catholic, one/both parties have to convert first. Somehow, this goes on without law suits.)
Then I explained that gay couples had no protection under the law. "We have 200 years of accumulated law protecting the rights of each party in a marriage ... on everything from hospital visits to custody to inheritance. 'Domestic Partners', straight or gay, would have to build all those protections from the ground up."
No, I do not know if I persuaded Dad. The important part to me--the part that makes this memory so special now that he's gone--is that he came to me to get information and "the other side of the story". I treasure many memories like this, knowing that Dad valued my logical thinking style and ability to articulate.
So, that phone call is what was really going through my mind as I filled in the ballot on Prop 8. What an all-round good thing it was!
-P