I usually do not write about stuff like this because honestly I am not into politics or anything of the nature but one thing that has caught my attention is this Proposition 8 thing going on. I never vote but this might get me to vote, then again I don't know if I want to mess up by non-voting streak. Proposition 8 is a initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. If an individual votes "yes" then they are voting for only marriage between a man and a woman to be valid or recognized in California. If you vote "no" then you are voting for the fundamental equal rights for same sex couples to marry.
There has been much advertising by both sides of this issue on the radio and on television. The subject first caught my attention when the "yes on 8" commercials started coming on TV. They stated how same sex marriage would be taught to school children as being acceptable. OK, now this really caught my attention since I am the father of 6 children all 12 years old and younger. Then I started seeing "no on 8" commercials about the false claims made by the other side. The "no on 8" commercial had a big shot from the school district, I think the LAUSD saying that schools do not have to teach anything about marriage to children. Then I see a counter by the "yes on 8" people. They say that it is a lie and that it is mandatory to be taught to children in 94% or 96% of the schools. Anyhow, these people can be quite confusing. Who in the hell is telling the truth here. You can see why I don't like getting involved with stuff like this. Politics are made up of a bunch of liars! Who's the liars? Shit! I don't know!
No matter what they say about the teaching of it in school, it does not change my opinion on the subject though. I am "YES ON 8" because I do believe in traditional marriage. Even if they are not going to teach it to school children my personal beliefs is that only a man and a woman should be able to get married. Am I against homosexuals? Am I discriminating? Call it what ever you want. I don't hate anyone for what they do but that does not mean that I agree with what you do. To me being just being with the same sex is not natural and it pisses me off that the media is trying to make it seem natural. I mean, I remember as a kid that if you seen two men or two women together on television it was like "What the hell"! Now, it does not even surprise you that much anymore and no one is shocked to see it. I personally think that the kids of today are being brainwashed by the media and as a parent it is up to you to teach your child what is right and what is wrong. Teach them morals and values.
Forget the streak, I'm voting! Also, if "no on 8" wins I'm moving out of California because I think that will be the last straw with God! It could be the next Sodom or Gomorrah here and I'd rather be somewhere else. One more thing I wanted to point out is that it seems that some people who do not follow things to closely think that by voting "No" that they are voting that same sex couples should not be able to get married. It can be a little confusing for some people. I think the "No on 8" will get many votes by some people being confused.
7 comments:
I'm voting a big fat NO on prop 8 and here's why, Mr. Hobbie. Yes, it is confusing, but there is a bottom line to it all. Because marriage is a legal contract (you know, seperation of church & state), it's illegal for states to deny gays from marrying. That's why prop 8 was drafted. They need to change the states constitution in order to prevent them from legally marrying. You see, from the moment "we" denied these people from marrying, we were breaking the law!
So, you don't agree with gays marrying or even being together. Ok. That's your right. But, what I don't get is:
A: This country was FOUNDED by people fleeing religious persecution. So, by voting yes on prop. 8, you'll be willing to make religious persecution legal???? Really??
B: If this proposal is passed, we'll be making the choice to ignore our own laws and change them based on personal opinion! Do you believe that women should have rights? That women should be allowed to vote or own businesses? There was a time when a woman couldn't legally own a business because we were thought of as not smart enough! This really is the same thing. This proposal is made up by religious nutjobs, insecure hetero's and the plain old ignorant. In short, it's being pushed on-ward by personal oppinion and NOT a true legal standpoint. And, that's what makes it wrong.
I agree that teaching kids morals is very important - like teaching them to follow the law! I also want my child to learn that discimination is wrong in any form. I want my kids to understand that same sex couples are NOT stealing the spotlight from straight folks! And, I really think that's the most disgusting part of it all. All the poor straight folks afraid that their marriages won't be "special" anymore. Boo-hoo! I'm straight and think it's the right thing to do. Just like all the other people who believe that we should be following our own bloody laws!
Not a CA citizen, so I can't vote, but if I could, I would vote no. Allowing gay couples to marry does not fundamentally change my marriage in any way. If Adam and Steve wish to go to the courthouse and get a marriage certificate, that's their business as I see it. Whether they marry, are forced to settle for civil unions, or are denied all rights and simply must live together, my marriage certificate to my husband is still valid and unaffected. Just as it's unaffected whether the straight couple that lives next door to me is married. I'm still married regardless of whether they are or not. I think possibly the silliest argument is that it somehow "cheapens" my marriage. Excuse me?? I just want to tell all the people who try that argument that my marriage really has nothing to do with it, but thanks for your concern.
The Vatican made a statement today that made me think. They said that Priests should be tested mentally to see not only whether they can stand being celibate, but whether they are homosexual. While on the surface, it's somewhat insulting to gays, when you dig a little deeper, it's more damning for the Catholic church. It starts out by seeming to imply that homosexuality is a mental illness. The problem is, if it excludes you from the Priesthood, are they admitting that it cannot be cured? Let's say, for argument's sake, that they are right, and it's all a mental disease. Then, we have to determine whether it is more like schizophrenia or more like depression. If it can be "cured" then why are they being excluded from the Priesthood? If it cannot be cured, then wouldn't that make a very strong case that for whatever reason, God created them that way?
I presume CA is California and to be voted on by Californian residents. Such important legislation should be at federal level, whatever the outcome!
There's a hundred reasons why this could not be done on a federal level, either to allow or prohibit gay marriage. The simplest answer is that it's a state's rights issue, and to enact it at a federal level requires a constitutional amendment. Furthermore, just the process of amending is not favorable to either side of the issue, and even if a limitation on gay marriage is passed, I believe it would be likely to be striken down by the courts.
Now is it a state court or a federal court?
At this point, it would be state courts, which is how this whole issue came to be in the first place. If an amendment went in, it would be federal.
See, the main reason it's a state's issue is because of our tenth amendment. It basically says that any right that hasn't already been granted to the federal government is a right of the state and the people. When our country was founded, there was no need to define marriage, so it was not addressed as a federal issue. That means it's up to each individual state to decide what defines a marriage. A federal law won't do it because it isn't a right granted the federal government, and therefore, we'd have to move to the next step of doing an amendment.
But to pass, it's a fairly complicated procedure. The easiest way is by 2/3 majority of both houses to pass it, then send it to the states where 3/4 of the states must affirm it. Naturally, there have been VERY FEW amendments because of this.
Pretty complicated system which probably has its upsides and downsides.
Post a Comment