In a decision of 6 to 1, the California Supreme Court had upheld the voter-approved Proposition 8, which prohibits same sex marriage. The Chief Justice, Ron George stated that an argument filed by gay rights activists doesn't affect the state constitution's equal protection clause to a dramatic degree that the Legislature needed to first approve.
The 18,000 same sex couples who married before the law took affect will be considered married, so there is a small victory. But that's not enough, as LGBT activists will not rest until same sex marriage is fully recognized. So, this evening, they're going to shout loud and clear that "enough is enough" when it comes to denying marital rights. Personally, as insipid as this measure is, the voters of California have spoken. However, The LGBT community must continue the fight for full recognition of their rights- and this includes the right to marry. 36,000 of their fellow community members enjoy that right. Now it's time for the rest to enjoy this right. so I stand with the protesters, and look for the day where everyone can be married, without regard to sexual orientation.
I still remain upset at the mainly out-of-state anti-LGBT rights activists who decided to meddle into California's business, particularly the Mormons (Latter Day Saints), who just couldn't stay in Utah (yes, I know, there are Mormons in California, too, but the LDS is based mainly in Utah...) and mind their own affairs. Perhaps it's time to ban the LDS from the planet, but then, what's to stop them from wanting to ban every goddamned thing else? My point is that just as the LDS and their minions have a right to worship how they see fit, and live however they like, the LGBT community deserves to have full marital rights and the fight must continue until the issue of same sex marriage becomes a non-issue. I liken this to the civil rights- and, more largely related, Stonewall- movements. This, the fortieth anniversary year of the latter movement, is just a continuing part of the unfolding drama.
There could be a ballot measure in 2010 or 2012 to overturn Prop 8.
(C) 2009 by Darren W. Alexander. All Rights Reserved.
California. The state of dreams, and of beautiful people. Only now, there's ugliness under that beauty (as if there wasn't any ugliness beneath the silicone looks in the first place), and 18,000 same sex couples are paying the price. All because some paranoid groups feared that two men- or two women- marrying each other would destroy the institution of marriage.
Proposition 8 passed by a margin of 52.5% to 47.5%. Both groups supporting and opposing this measure poured millions of dollars into this fight.
What I don't understand is why the very matter of two people marrying each other can bring out the worst in people? Yes, these bozos who voted in this ban have gay, transgender, lesbian, and bisexual family members. So I must ask this: can you who, one, have LGBT relatives, and two, voted for Prop 8 explain to those LGBT relatives- some of you who say that they love their gay or lesbian relatives- why you chose to vote for this divisive measure? Can any of you people- in good conscience- stand proud after saying to that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and/or transgender relative (or those LGBT relatives) that basically, "We love you, but we feel that marriage is too sacred for two people of the same sex to muck up?
I don't understand why, one, in the year of 2008, voters in one of the most liberal states in the Union decided to draw the line in what- yes- is a sacred decision. Why?
Preserving Marriage/YouTube
None of what these jackals say in this clip support the argument about why same sex marriage should be thrown in the fire. Let me tell you why: Their Argument (in bold print): Churches that rent out their facilities could be forced to perform same sex marriages WRONG! The church will have that right NOT to perform same sex marriages if they feel that it conflicts with their faith and/or beliefs. No government entity can tell a private church what to do, and I doubt very seriously if the California politicians would have forced the rule of performing same sex marriages on a faith institution.
Legal decisions based on faith are less likely to succeed. Oh, really? Care to explain this? Because just like the church DOESN'T HAVE to perform same sex marriages on their church grounds, the same sex couple doesn't have to get married at that church. They can change churches any time they like if the couple- or even gay or lesbian individual- feels uncomfortable. after all, I've been to churches where I've seen open hostilities toward gays and lesbians.
If Prop 8 fails, religious adoption agencies may be forced to place children in same sex marriages, or discontinue providing adoption services forever. Hmm-kay. Before I go on, isn't religion- excuse moi, faith institutions- trying to butt in the business of government? Just asking.
Anyway, that bit about religious adoption agencies being forced to place children in homes with same sex couples? Horse shit! If that faith-based organization doesn't want to provide adoption to same sex couples, it doesn't have to. Faith-based organizations are businesses, right? They set their own rules, right? They're not subject to rules that it feels is contrary to their beliefs? If they feel that providing adoption to same sex couples is contrary to their sets of values, I believe the state will respect this. If not, they can fight the state.
I doubt that Massachusetts, even as it's a heavily Catholic state, would ram this rule down Catholic Charities' throat. I believe there would have been exceptions made. (Besides, I don't believe any group that protects child rapos anyway...)
Based on past experiences, those who oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds will be labelled as 'intolerant' and increasingly subject to legal penalties and social ridicule.
Excuse me... fmlai/YouTube
Whassamatta? Can't handle disagreements? Okay, so you'll lose some friends because you stood up for your beliefs. SO FUCKING WHAT! If they don't support the fact that you're for- or against- same sex marriage, okay. Fine. You and the other party (or parties) have the option to end the friendship. As for getting fired just because you stood up for your beliefs, that's discrimination- that I'll hand to these jackals.
Nearly all schools teach health and sex...age appropiate lessons, people. Obviously, you can't show graphic pictures of naked folks in kindergarten class. High school, that's a gray area, I think (but that's just me).
...and that schools will be required to teach marriage as 'party A' and 'party B'... Okay, does this apply to private schools as well? Just asking.
There are some conservative school districts that aren't comfortable about teaching sex ed in any of the schools, and that's all fine and dandy. Meaning that this bullshit about schools being forced to teach that same sex marriage is equal to 'traditional' marriage is just that. Bullshit.
And finally, this 'gaining control' and being forced to give up free speech if you disagree with same sex marriage...where are these folks going with this? Who said anything about 'gaining control'? If you don't like it, tell me. I'll respect you, but I expect that same respect in return when I tell you my beliefs. You don't have to agree with me. I'm okay with that. Am I for same sex marriage? Yes. some of you in the audience will side with me. Some of you won't. Either way, I respect that.
(C) 2008 by Darren W. Alexander. All Rights Reserved.
In 2007, I had two short short stories published- both in local anthologies, "Unexpected Metaphors", in August 2007, and "See The Water Rise/Ver Las Aguas Subir", in November 2007. I'm a 2009 graduate of Humanity in Perspective, a academic year-long class run by Reed College and the Oregon Council of Humanities.
