Prop 8: Sad

[thistlechaser]

As of 6:30 AM this morning, with 94.6% ( 24073 of 25423 ) precincts of reporting, "yes" (change the California constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman) has passed.

Yes: 5,125,752 52.1%
No: 4,725,313 47.9%

I know I say this all the time, but I just don't understand it. If you do not like gay sex, if you do not want to be involved in a same-sex relationship, then don't. Why do these people feel like they should be able to force their opinions onto others?

Also, why would anyone feel that anything anyone else does can change the quality of their marriage? (Or whatever the wording of that stupid fear was.) The value of your marriage is set by you and the person you're married to, not by anyone else. If you let others set the value on your relationship, then something's very wrong...

Thankfully the California Supreme Court has said repeatedly they'll overturn this (again) if it passes. Thank god (irony!) that progress will be forced upon people; even if they're dragged kicking and screaming, we will move forward to a less hate-filled future. I'm just sorry it has to be forced on people...

Comments

[tacrozar.livejournal.com]

The religious right likes to oppress the freedom of others because it is against their own beliefs. Ironic isn't it? America was founded on the belief of freedoms... two of them being religious freedom and freedom from oppression. Its pretty obvious that there still are more conservative californians.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately there are many right wing people in CA. The state is so big, there are lots of conservatives spread out in our open areas and farm lands. :/

[veloxe.livejournal.com]

I think it's kinda silly. I mean, if gay marriage is allowed, then pretty much your argument about why it would matter for anyone not gay.

But then if gay marriage isn't allowed then whoppy crap. Not gonna stop gay people from loving each other deeply and living together and doing everything as if they were married anyways. Personally I think the whole concept (marriage that is) is kinda over rated since if any 2 people truly love each other it doesn't matter for shit what anyone else thinks. That's how I look at it anyways.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Personally I think the whole concept (marriage that is) is kinda over rated since if any 2 people truly love each other it doesn't matter for shit what anyone else thinks.

Totally agreed. *I* wouldn't want to get married, but I think anyone who does want to should be able to... no matter who they love. The two people in love are the only people who should be able to decide this.

[wanderingscribe.livejournal.com]

While I understand where you're coming from, it's not quite as simple as that. If gay marriage isn't allowed, that means that the protections that are given to married folks in the eyes of the law don't apply to gay couples, which can mean a lot.

Watch this (http://www.logoonline.com/video/index.jhtml?id=1594453&vid=272319) and you'll see what I mean. Especially "Benefits, Or Lack Thereof".

[atdelphi.livejournal.com]

What baffles me is the idea that civil rights should ever be put to popular vote. We had one (extremely right-wing) politician in Canada named Stockwell Day who proposed putting to referendum any matter that garnered the signatures of at least 3% of Canadians on a petition - hoping to aim this at same-sex marriage and abortion rights. Within a month, more than 3% of Canadians had signed a petition demanding that his name be legally changed to Doris, and that was the end of that.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Within a month, more than 3% of Canadians had signed a petition demanding that his name be legally changed to Doris, and that was the end of that.

*rolls* That's great!

What baffles me is the idea that civil rights should ever be put to popular vote.

And totally agreed. It's a right, why is it up for debate?

[veloxe.livejournal.com]

God bless 22 minutes!

[iamthesteve.livejournal.com]

What I don't get is that probably everybody who voted against gay marriage is probably for pro-life.

These pro-life want babies put up for adoption. I just don't understand why they are making these kids have an even SMALLER chance of getting adopted now.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

That's a point, too. :/

[phoenix-leandra.livejournal.com]

Because heaven forbid they should be raised by t3h gey! They'll catch it! And it'll warp their brains to sin and satanism!

/s

Sad to think some people actually think that way...

[gab.livejournal.com]

On the plus side, look how close it was. That makes me happy. It's kind of like when they were trying to abolish slavery all those years ago... They decided that it wouldn't work then, but the seeds were planted. It took them a while, but they finally abolished it. And we've made great progress. We're still making great progress. Things are changing, and pretty soon, those people who voted to pass prop 8 will have to change, too. Sooner than later. It will come. :)

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Progress for sure! I'm just impatient, I guess. :)

[peppygrowlithe.livejournal.com]

I'm an optimistic person. I believe that people generally make the right decisions over a long period of time, even if they make silly mistakes in the process. I can usually see both sides of the issue, and even if I take a strong standpoint, I usually understand the opposition very well.

There is no rational for the other side in this one. There is simply no basis for this proposition passing. Even if we choose to not challenge Christianity and/or its views on homosexuality as a sin, it simply doesn't make sense. Isn't a high divorce rate and a considerable amount of domestic violence a greater threat to marriage than homosexuality? What if I want to have a gay Pagan marriage, or a marriage under a religion that doesn't treat homosexuality as a cardinal sin? If we can pass laws to prevent gays from marrying, shouldn't we also pass laws preventing anybody who isn't Christian from doing the same, presuming it is a sin to not accept Jesus into your heart? Is it fair to criminalize pastors who interpret the Bible differently? Do these people genuinely believe that "separate but equal" still works?

This doesn't even touch upon the fact that there is genetic evidence for homosexuality, thousands of cases of it (not just dominance, but actual homosexual preference) in nature, and the theories on as to why it's evolutionarily advantageous. I didn't think we would need to justify it.

I know, I know - I'm preaching to the choir. I don't have to convince you of anything. I just wish I could hear some reason other than "I don't want my child to grow up gay". There must be some convincing, reasonable, logical argument for proposition 8 that I simply have yet to hear that justifies such a blatant manipulation of civil rights. I refuse to believe that half of the state of my birth simply voted this way "because they don't like gay people". The world in this day and age simply does not work like that.

[quasilemur.livejournal.com]

As an issue, it even goes beyond one's feelings on homosexuality or same-sex marriage:

People actually voted to change a constitution to take away people's rights. Period.

That is a terrifying precedent, and if these people could see an inch beyond their pastor's opinions, they'd see the very real possibility of it biting them in the ass down the road.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Replying to you in reverse order:

I just wish I could hear some reason other than "I don't want my child to grow up gay". There must be some convincing, reasonable, logical argument for proposition 8...

I had had a couple vocal Conservatives on my friends list, but in the past month they all unfriended me for political reasons (*rolls eyes*), so unfortunately you won't find that info here. It's really too bad, as I (apparently unlike them) enjoyed hearing the other side of the argument.

I'm an optimistic person.

You know I'm pretty much the opposite, so take the rest of this with that grain of salt.

I believe that prop 8 passing came out of hatred and fear and a desire to make everyone else act "right" (right according to them). The whole "Of course my religion is the only right one!!! You better get into line and believe or you're going to hell!!!" type thing. Religious people can be bullies, and they're amazingly two-faced ("love thy neighbor"? What, unless he's a fag?).

Blah. I could rant forever about this. Prop 8 passing really doesn't surprise me, unfortunately. I do not believe that the general population will do the right thing, I believe it has to be forced onto them and eventually they'll get used to it and accept it. *negative*

[firebyrd.livejournal.com]

I can't speak for most people out there, but our prophet encouraged LDS people in California to vote for it. So in the case of Mormons, it's because many of them feel that it was God's will that they vote for it. Me, I can't reconcile that with a number of other things, including the persecution /we/ endured because of having marriage practices outside the norm, but my opinions are pretty worthless in this case. Utah already went this route some years ago, and though I voted against the constitutional amendment, it passed resoundingly.

I don't understand where other Christians are coming from though, since they don't believe in prophets receiving revelation from God in this day and age and the stuff in the Bible is so vague and in a section they normally ignore...

[tharpy.livejournal.com]

Thankfully the California Supreme Court has said repeatedly they'll overturn this (again) if it passes.

I hate to burst your bubble here... but the purpose of making this a constitutional amendment is so that the California Supreme Court CAN'T overturn it. That's the reason its an amendment and not just a regular law. Its up to the US Supreme Court to invalidate now.

I agree with your post though ;-;

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Aw man, if that's the case, shoot me now. :/

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

I'm watching a news story on this now. Law suits are going before the CA Supreme Court now to overturn it, so maybe not? Quote" It's up to the California Supreme Court to decide if Prop 8 is valid" (because it's discriminating against people).

[socksofjello.livejournal.com]

Over a thousand reasons to vote no.

They legalized discrimination. Legalized discrimination. Why can't they see what's wrong with this?

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Because it's "OMG GAY!" and homosexuality is against the Bible... and we're all in the wrong for not believing that that the Bible is literal law. :/

[avocado-love.livejournal.com]

I've... been thinking about it. Now it's been a long time since I studied the constitution. 8th grade, I think? But if it's an amendment it's pretty hard core. Their best bet is to try to do what they are doing right now and take it again with the supreme court. It seems a lot like a lost cause.

This may have to go up to the Federal Supreme Court. IF they decide to hear the case (which they probably wouldn't because marriage is usually a state by state issue, but then again... maybe). Then that can go above the state amendments.

I'm just glad that there's a lot smarter people than I working on this. A lot of blacks have hoped to live to see a president of color in office. It's gonna happen. I hope to live to see a united states amendment where people cannot be discriminated against due to race, GENDER, disability or sexual preference.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Based on what I heard (half an ear, since someone else was commenting on it in the room at the same time) it sounds like the Supreme Court was saying having it go to a vote now was wrong (illegal?), that the process should have had it going to the lawmakers first (since it removes rights from a protected group) and only after that gone to a vote.

Sounded somewhat like a loophole (the Court didn't realize until now that it shouldn't have gone straight to the voters? o.O ) but I'll take anything I can get.

I actually agree with you on this

[pyraffxi.wordpress.com (from livejournal.com)]

Although I'm actually a fairly conservative person most of the time, gay marriage is something that I lean left on.

In 2006, there was a similar bill in VA. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601438.html ). It also did not pass, by about the same percent as in Cali. I voted against the ban.

As someone who still considers themselves a fairly conservative Christian, I think I know where that side comes from. Please take this as an explanation, not an excuse.

Leviticus 20:13 is the common verse cited. "If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination", sometimes 'abomination' is replaced with 'sin'. There is also the quote (Genesis 1:28) "be fruitful and multiply".

In a way, they feel that they are trying to save the world, even if the people do not want saving.

Re: I actually agree with you on this

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Please take this as an explanation, not an excuse.

Understood!

I'm anything but an expert on the bible, but Google came to my rescue on verses. I was pretty sure there were ones supporting it as well...

"1Sa 18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.


1Sa 18:2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.


1Sa 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.


1Sa 18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that [was] upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

"

That's almost hot! (Joke.) But if one were to argue that the Bible says it's what we're supposed to do, how are these people not also supporting slavery and the other bad stuff the bible was okay with (way way way back when)? How can people pick and choose which part of the bible they're supposed to follow?

[celeras.livejournal.com]

No offense, but the majority of people talking here are fucking clueless.

This didn't pass because of the legal rights that married couples are entitled to. It has nothing to do with discrimination, and nothing to do with 'teh gays'. When two people are married, the benefits they receive are NATIONAL. Taxes/protection and what not. Civil union offers most(not all) of the same benefits, but only on the state level.

These things cost the government money, and the vote is coming in the middle of an economic crisis. Two plus two.

The original poster of this blog saying it has to do with someones values: is ignorant.
The religious replies: are irrelevant.
The supporters preaching freedom: are clueless.
All of the above: is exactly why blogs aren't taken seriously when the topic is anything remotely important.

[peppygrowlithe.livejournal.com]

This didn't pass because of the legal rights that married couples are entitled to. It has nothing to do with discrimination, and nothing to do with 'teh gays'. When two people are married, the benefits they receive are NATIONAL. Taxes/protection and what not. Civil union offers most(not all) of the same benefits, but only on the state level.

These things cost the government money, and the vote is coming in the middle of an economic crisis. Two plus two.

You have an interesting point, though sourly spoken. It's perhaps the most convincing argument I've heard in favor of the proposition yet, although I'll concede, as I posted above, I've not heard a single rational explanation yet. Now, I'm a little confused as to how this isn't a question of values, when straight married couples will receive more national taxes/protection and gay couples will not, but I like the incorporation of economic concerns into an issue where I previously saw none.

May I ask if you believe, honestly, deep within your soul, if that is genuinely what was on the minds of those who voted in favor of it? I've not heard a word of concern about the cost effect, and I am fairly certain that if I haven't heard about it, at least half of the people following the proposition haven't either.

It may have been an economic issue for you, but to say that money is the only factor worth considering in proposition 8 is what I would myself consider ignorant.

[ilanarama.livejournal.com]

penknife has a great post on this, which you can probably find easily from her journal since it was just yesterday.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Huh wow, that was a great post, yeah. Thanks for the link!