CA Proposition 8: Bigotry in Disguise, Just in Time for Halloween

Previous Post: Clinton’s fuzzy memories Next Post: Change has come…and will continue to do so.

CA Proposition 8: Bigotry in Disguise, Just in Time for Halloween

On Nov. 4 people around the country will take place in one of the most monumental elections, and possible power shifts, in United States history. Much of the media exposure has rightfully been surrounding the race for the White House and our next Commander-in-Chief, but here in California, along with Arizona, New Jersey, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, citizens will also be voting on a number of different propositions including one which will create a Statewide Constitutional amendment defining once and for all marriage to only be recognized as being between a man and a woman. This clarification is being asked for by those against sharing equal rights with gay people who only want to get married and be recognized as such by their state governments. Let’s just look at that for one moment and I’ll put this into even simpler terms, the people voting yes on Prop 8 (as it is known in CA) are “prejudiced against one or all members of a particular group based on negative perceptions of their beliefs and practices or on negative group stereotypes”.

That last part is in quotes because it is the recognized government definition of a bigot.

I don’t toss harsh words around lightly and neither should anyone else in this battle of opinions, but this current fight to pass Prop 8 is too serious and life changing to be taken lightly. There is no reason, I repeat, no reason, to deny the right and pleasure of marriage to anyone, no matter their sexual preference. I have yet to hear a single argument in favor of this backwards and divisive proposal that was based on a shred of logic. One of the first things I heard coming from the other side was giving gay people the right to marry would be the beginning of the end for society as a whole. The Day of Reckoning would be upon us. Well, first off, we heard that in 2000 as well and nothing happened, and now others are saying it will be in 2012 at the end of the Mayan calendar. So something tells me if the end of society is around the corner, it’s not going to have anything to do with a couple of women wearing matching rings. Then comes the discussion around the end of procreation, since two men obviously can’t do it on their own. This is my favorite piece of paranoia since it makes even less sense than the world coming to an end. From 1959 to 1999 the population of the world doubled from 3 billion to 6 billion. According to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau the population is as of today at 6,730,193,803 and will crest 9 billion by 2040. Does it really seem likely that granting gay people the equal and fair right to marry will drop that number to zero? Do they picture in forty or fifty years the entirety of the world will disappear with some small surviving population of homosexuals laughing as their plan of world domination and destruction comes to fruition? This is text book fear mongering tactics and if they weren’t catching the attention and belief of so many people I would honestly believe it was a comedy skit. Tossing some more logic onto this, lesbian couples can most certainly have biological children of their own by choosing a donor or going to sperm banks and gay male couples can either go the surrogate route or adopt. There is never going to be a shortage of children to adopt, mostly born from heterosexual relationships who either didn’t want to or didn’t care enough to take care of them on their own.

Next we’re told that this is going to force parents to allow their children to be taught in school about acceptance of gay people and the homosexual lifestyle. I can understand their fears here. I’m not expecting everyone in the world who is homophobic to suddenly change, most of them will never change in their lifetime, but we can start doing our best to shift the incoming generation to a place of acceptance. Please notice, I said acceptance, not encouragement or enlistment. No one is trying to turn kids gay. The only thing kids should be taught is that it is not right to hate or discriminate against someone for who they choose to love.

Love. There is the real key to this whole debate. Supporters of Prop 8 argue they are protecting the sanctity of marriage. Here’s a few facts about how well the heterosexual population is protecting the sanctity of marriage right now: The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%, the divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%, the divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%. Exactly where is the honor and praise for the sanctity of marriage in that? Were all those couples just confused about what sanctity meant? Or maybe they just got it wrong on the first one, or second one, or third one…

The value and strength of marriage is not based around the genders of the people involved, it is based around the love and support they share and the desire to spend the rest of their lives together. Let me go back for one second and repeat part of that, the rest of their lives together. If a gay couple can make it the rest of their lives together, still as in love as they were when they first got married, it just might be time for them to start teaching classes at your local community college. As for children, it is in homes and families that cherish, celebrate and teach love where they will get the best upbringing, and those homes can be with straight couples or gay couples, it doesn’t matter in the least.

In California, this proposition was actually passed in 2004, but when it got up to the State Supreme Court is was overruled and deemed unconstitutional. I won’t claim every judge on the bench is a perfect human being, they are normal people and subject to faults, but in this case the only fault they were guilty of is having a conscience and following their moral compass. As a nation we have strove to end inequality decade after decade, generation after generation, and I hope that in the next generation we won’t even have to debate about this topic anymore because it will be the norm by then. Children will have grown up in a world not based around negative stereotypes and fear mongering, but a society of acceptance, understanding and respect.

If you’ve made it to the end of this political and social rant/essay, I appreciate your attention and thank you for reading. In no way am I trying to offend those who have their own beliefs about the homosexual lifestyle, just educate those who might be hearing differing facts on the subject. Also, not that this should matter, but I’m not gay or classify myself as a liberal. I’m a moralist and this is a simple clear case of right and wrong.

Click here to read more and donate to the fight against Prop 8.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Tags: ballot, bigotry, california, discrimiation, election, fairness, gay rights, heterosexual, homosexual, lifestyle, marriage rights, prop 8, proposition 8

Posted in Politics 3 years, 3 months ago at 10:55 am.
8 comments

Paul

By taking a quick glance across the animal kingdom, it may be surprising to some to note that several species live in monogamous relationships. This phenomenon is observed in both the greater and lesser species. Surely there must be some benefit to living such a monogamous lifestyle or it would not exist. Such monogamous relationships, or marriages if you will, seem to naturally exist as if some underlying advantage could result. Evolutionary biology provides an answer to the quandary. The goal of every species is survival. The key to survival is passing on your “genes.” In order to accomplish this, a species must maximize its reproduction and maximize their offspring’s survival. Turns out, for some species the best way to accomplish this is by the father sticking around and helping the mother. Each gender of the species provides essentials of survival and thus a marriage is formed. Thus marriage can yield an evolutionary advantage. So, biologically speaking, much prior to governments issuing licenses, marriages existed to bear children and assure that genes proliferated. This type of marriage could only exist between a man and a woman. As languages evolved, English was born. The word marriage was used to define such relationships between one man and one woman. Surely, other relationships exist, many of which are full of love, but these would not be called marriage. Marriage has always described the coming together of a man and a woman to unite in love and initiate the bearing of children. Marriage is the gateway of the family. Biologically speaking, there is only one way to create offspring – this requires both a MALE and a FEMALE gamete. The implications of marriage go far beyond love. Defining marriage isn’t a task to be left to social experts, political activists or judges – The definition has been provided by nature itself and dates back to the beginning of life.
http://www.theendofthepage.com Luke

Your comment was very well written and very scientific, but in the center of your argument is the idea that granting the right to marry to gay people would somehow wipe out the existence of heterosexual couples and the natural state of procreation. Once again, I point to the fact that lesbian couples can still have biological children through a number of means and even gay male couple could also choose surrogates if they wanted to go that route. Society would never stop procreating due to the acceptance and diplomacy towards the homosexual lifestyle. Also, for every couple, gay or straight (which an increasing number of straight couples are already choosing), that decide to not have children, there is another couple somewhere else having two, three or in some cases twelve children. One of the arguments for Prop 8 is they say the same rights and privileges will be granted to gay couples in everything but the name of marriage, so in essence this once again goes against the idea of derailing the progress and nature of evolution. Population is absolutely not an issue in this discussion. Evolution will continue to keep our species going, but hopefully it will also mean that we evolve morally alongside evolving physically.
http://www.protectmarriage.com spencer

Proposition 8 is more than same sex marriage its about protecting our sons and daughters from growing up in a world that teaches that being gay or lesbian is just as normal as being straight. I don’t want my sons and daughters being taught as young as five years old in school that it is okay to marry someone of their same sex. It is about the principle of religion. And protecting what God has set up as the correct way to replenish the earth. It is marriage between a Man and a Woman. God set Adam and Eve on earth to have their posterity fill the whole earth. It goes contrary to the laws set up by God himself. I have nothing against gay or lesbian individuals. I believe they can live their life how they please. I am against the teachings that go against the teachings of God. And we must fight to protect God’s holy ordinance of Marriage between one man and one woman.

Please go to http://www.protectmarriage.com to read more about the benefits of proposition 8.
http://www.theendofthepage.com Luke

I respect your opinion, but here all you are doing is giving a religious reasoning to the same argument, the continuance of the species. You mention “replenishing the Earth”, but we are in a situation where the human race is far from needing replenishing. In fact, we are drastically overpopulating and overextending the Earth’s resources by incredibly dramatic amounts, specifically in the last 50 years. On a crucial religious note, it’s hard to delve into this area without finding contradictions, since one of the golden rules in the Bible is, and I’m paraphrasing, “do unto others as you would have done unto you”.
http://shakeandstomp.blogspot.com/ Respect

You said it perfectly! Prop 8 is pure bigotry. Thank you.
http://www.theendofthepage.com Luke

Thanks!
Paul

Luke you may have missed the aim of my comment. The underlying theme was suggesting that it’s not up to us to decide what’s right or wrong. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about what is natural and what evolution has brought us to. Regardless of technological possibilities that have been designed, the idea of homosexual marriage violoates the principles of nature. Some things aren’t up to us to decide.
http://www.theendofthepage.com Luke

There are definitely things which are not up to us to decide and one of those is who people should and should not spend the rest of their lives with. Bringing the idea of marriage into the debate over evolution still has a fault since no other animal in the living, breathing kingdom gets married. Humans are the only ones who have elevated a choice to become lifelong partners to an emotional, religious and government sponsored level. In fact, numerous species have absolutely no ties at all with the partners they choose to procreate with, either switching around inside a pack to spread the evolutionary seed as far as possible or changing up only once a year. I fully admit there are some that make lifelong commitments to each other, but there is no religious or federal connection to it, just the choice they make. What we have now is the government completely sponsoring one group of people to make that choice and giving them benefits when they do, then denying that same right to another group of people. If humans were to live purely on an evolutionary scale, marriage itself would mostly be wiped out and polygamy would be the norm.

The End of the Page