Tuesday, October 21, 2008

California, Wake Up!

It is not hate to want to preserve marriage as one man and one woman. Marriage is not a right. This will not prevent hospital visits by gay partners, nor will it prevent one partner picking up the child of another partner, nor how the will is divided, or who is buried beside whom. Those decisions are not necessarily affected by marriage. Marriage is a privileged that should not be re-defined to force acceptance by the majority of the population.

So vote yes to eliminate the right of same sex marriage. If you want 4 judges to dictate how your state defines marriage then vote not to eliminate it.

It is unconscionable though that 4 individuals over turned 61% of the people's will to redefine the constitution of the state. The judges wishing to push their own agenda stepped on the will of the majority of the people. Stand up for your right to govern your state otherwise you will be governed by the "tyranny of the minority."

"Opposition to California Proposition 8: Hate in the Name of Love
by Dennis Prager

"Next to the presidential election, California Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America.
"It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.

"In 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had -- the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses). But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.

"As a result of this judicial act, the only way to ensure that we continue to define marriage the way every religious and secular society in recorded history has defined marriage -- as between men and women -- is to amend the California Constitution. It is the only way to prevent the vote of one judge from redefining marriage, as was also done in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Which is why Proposition 8 exists.

"But even though California voters decided by a large margin to retain the man-woman definition of marriage, passing Proposition 8 will be a challenge.

"First, the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition's wording to: 'Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.'

"The reason for this change is obvious -- to make the proposition appear as a denial of a basic human and civil right.

"Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses. And even those who believe that any two unmarried people who want to get married should be given a marriage license should regard as wrong an attorney general changing a ballot proposition's language to favor his own social views. What Brown did was attempt to manipulate people who lean toward preserving the definition of the most important social institution in society -- people who have no desire whatsoever to hurt gays -- to now think of themselves as bigots.

"According to Sacramento Bee columnist Margaret A. Bengs, 'a recent Field Poll analysis found' that the new wording by Brown 'had a 'striking' impact on those newly familiar with the measure, with a 23-point swing against it.'

"What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create.

"And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society.

"The second hurdle for Proposition 8 is even greater: the multimillion dollar campaign to label proponents of Proposition 8 "haters" and to label the man-woman definition of marriage as "hate." Or as they put it: 'Prop 8 = Prop Hate.'

"It is apparently inconceivable to many of those who wish to change the definition of marriage that a decent person can want to retain the man-woman definition. From newspaper editorials to gay and other activist groups, the theme is universal -- proponents of traditional marriage are haters, the moral equivalents of those who opposed racial equality. As The New York Times editorial on the subject put it, Proposition 8 is 'mean-spirited.'

"But it is the charge of hate (along with bigotry, homophobia and intolerance) that is the primary charge leveled against supporters of Proposition 8. That's why one major anti-Proposition 8 group is 'Californians Against Hate.'

"Any honest outsider would see that virtually all the hate expressed concerning Proposition 8 comes from opponents of the proposition. While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show.
It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate -- because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree. Why should our generation be different?

"These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.

"Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?"


Ellie Monster said...

I do agree that marriage is a man-woman thing, but I think that a committed couple (even a man/woman who don't get married) should be able to commit or have paperwork done to legally "commit" them (not in the hospital sense).
Florida is proposing an amendment that will not allow non-married couples (gay or straight) to have this type of paperwork. It is amendment 2. And it is a stupid, sucky, improper, offensive amendment! If the Golden Girls were each others support people but unmarried, they would not be able to visit each other in the hospital because they were not married.

Mary said...

Thanks for leaving a comment on my blog! I am coming back to your site after I get back from Church tonight to get all caught up on you and your cutie-pie! LOVE, LOVE, LOVE your MCCAIN/PALIN stance! Whooo-hooo! I honestly think...just by my very quick glance at your blog...that we MUST be related! :-)

Christy said...

Hay I have my Vote yes on Prop 8 in our front yard!!! There are yes on prop 8 all over the place in our city and the cities around us. We live in a pretty conservative area and it seems that overwhelmingly in our area that people want to preserve marriage but then again we live in the subburbs not the wacky heart of LA.

Christy :)

Anonymous said...

Just a quick note to say that if your son or daughter, whom you love with all your heart, told you as they grew into a beautiful adult that they were gay or lesbian, and as they cried into your eyes to tell you how insulting it felt to see you vote "Yes on 8", you might have more of a connection to the pain, hurt and "hate" you claim to see from those who are voting No on 8. In such a scenario, your own child would think you "hate" them, even if you explained your opinion in a loving way. Since gays are a minority, it's amazing that close to 50% of the people, most of them NON-GAY, are out supporting No on 8 out of respect for others, even if they themselves are married and straight. 80% of Californians did not support the courts decision in 1948 to overturn the ban on interracial marriage, so clearly there are examples of courts doing society a justice by not listening to "the majority" as you state. But best wishes to you and I hope your children don't grow up to be gay, because that gay marriage discussion isn't going to be any fun! Peace.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, marriage does help these situations. I personally feel that this country stands for equal rights for ALL, not some. Hard one to debate though.