Yep.
“We just severely crippled your families, your lives, and your trust in your straight neighbors. Can’t we all just have a big group hug and forget our differences now?”
Fuck them. They are now my enemy.
I’m glad I wasn’t overreacting to that. Respect? Sure, I’ll give them exactly as much respect as they give me - and classify them as sub-humans who aren’t deserving of basic human rights.
Good god, what nerve.
Let’s get a proposition into the next election to ban Mormon marriages.
I’m on the same page with you here, but that is not the way to get results. Making it look like an either/or situation is just going to put a lot of people on the defensive. Threatening to take away state sanctioning of all marriage will make it look like gays are trying to damage “traditional marriage”.
I’ve slept on this and I am still inconsolably upset over the result. It ruins every bit of the happiness that I should be feeling about Obama.
History will judge the people who voted Yes on 8 and it will not judge them well. They will be in the same camp as the racists who tried to block the children in Little Rock from attending an integrated school. In the same camp as the sheriff who told Mr. and Mrs. Loving that they had to leave the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the same camp as the politicians who sent Japanese Americans to Concentration Camps in the 40’s.
How could this happen?
Did the thought ever cross your mind that there is no hatred whatsoever, but a realization that choosing a deviant sexual lifestyle does NOT serve as the basis for special privilege? I guess not.
I was thinking about this issue when i was on my run yesterday.
It strikes me that, in the right political climate, and with appropriately sensitive language, you might actually be able to sell this position, even to Christians. Instead of making it about taking something away, use the argument that your (Christian) marriage is between you, your church, and your god. There is no need for the state to get in the way, and if you’re a true believer then your marriage should need no state sanction anyway; the sanction of your church and your god should be enough.
The state is going to get out of the way completely. All we ask is that, if you would like your union recognized by the state for the purposes of taxation, benefits, etc., etc., you come down to the county clerks office (or wherever) and register.
I realize that i’m splitting some hairs here, and i know that it’s still going to be seen as a threat to “traditional marriage.” I’m just not feeling especially charitable towards the Christian churches right now. After it became clear that Prop 8 was going to pass, my wife even suggested (only half-jokingly) that we get a divorce, and only re-marry when it’s legal for gays to marry.
What “choosing”? What special privilege? The “privilege” of two consenting adults getting married?
Good to see that you perpetuate the very hate that you deny exists. Bigoted asshole.
Fuck off.
(sorry Bricker, looks like I need more than one day to get on board with the ‘let’s play nice and use logic and goodwill to get people to give our families the same legal protections’ thing. I’ll try again another day.)
Look, kids! A genuine old-school reactionary! Remember not to point or stare. He doesn’t know any better.
Go fuck yourself. You’ve never been less welcome in a thread, believe me. You’re a neanderthal who will find yourself on the wrong side of history in a much shorter time than you imagine. You will find yourself on the same bench with Orval Faubus and Bull Conner, and no one will mourn your passing except those who share the same wrong-headed attitudes.
You picked a VERY bad time and place to act like an ass.
It’s unfortunate that every time you start to look human, you have to make some dimbulb mistake like posting this and make us all realize that you haven’t got a human or humane bone in your goddamn body. Or maybe it is fortunate, in that it reminds us not to trust you as far as we can throw you.
Well, since this seems so objectionable to some of you, what would you propose? Greater levels of hate and derision?
If the vote had come out in your favor, would you then ascribe to the suggestion in the quote box above? Look, there is strong feeling on both sides. It went to a vote, one side lost. End of story—for now, at least. If you want to take further steps, fine. But demonizing the other side, IMO, is a healthy reason the proposition passed. I for one am sick and tired of being called a bigot and homophobe just because I don’t see SSM fitting into society the same way you do. I’ve consistently defended gay rights, both here in SF (where it’s hardly needed), and in TX, as well. The question is to what degree is marriage a “right”. We disagree on that. And on the value of holding onto the traditional meaning of the word. I don’t think badly of gay people. I think they were born simply being attracted to the same sex. (Most, anyway, I do think some people choose it, as well. But that’s irrelevant.) I think society needed to make accommodation for that reality. We have. I’ve proposed on these boards before that the best thing to do is to demand all the legal benefits of a marriage, but leave the word alone. That’s a “rights” argument gays would win MUCH more easily. Some find it inadequate. I view that attitude as grossly unreasonable.
Think about it. No one is stopping you from spending the rest of your life with the person you love/ Why not focus on that? That’s the thing that is so important, isn’t it? Is your partner going to think less of you, or your relationship, if you don’t do something that society restricts you from doing?
Here’s another question: if you’re not going to respect the decision of your fellows Californians, why vote? If the process is illegitimate, why participate in it?
I’m loathe to post this, as I know where it will head. But I’m really sick of this holier-and-more-righteous-than-thou attitude. I probably won’t respond, as I’m quite busy these days. But I’ll try. In the meantime, feel free to search for discussions I’ve had on the subject with Miller and others.
Now feel free to respond telling me how stupid, bigoted, anachronistic, ignorant, backward, unenlightened, homophobic, hateful I am. You know, do the usual stuff to increase the likelihood that I (and others) will vote, and contribute, differently next time.
I hear that song in my head every time I think about this injustice. How many times is it now? Three?
.
What special privilege is that?
Remind me to respond to this later when I’m feeling more level-headed. At the moment I’m entirely too pissed off at the loss of my right to get married to have anything remotely constructive to say.
You’re going to draw a lot of negative commentary with this comment.
And it will be justified.
Look, I’m not one for granting special privileges to minorities. I despise “affirmative action.” I think it’s absolutely wrong to try to shoehorn in an Equal Protection argument and find, judicially, a right to same-sex marriage.
But none of that went on here.
Instead, this was done the right way: the voters were asked to make the correct choice – not to grant special privilege, but simply to acknowledge equality. This wasn’t a proposal to give each same-sex couple a marriage license and a $100 bonus; this was simply recognizing that they should be able to marry the person of their choice.
And the voters refused.
Now, if there’s something I believe in more strongly than the need for equality, it’s our notion of self-governance. It’s the right of the voters to do this, but it doesn’t make it RIGHT. And more to the point: I believe that this is something that’s reversible in the very next election, because an effective campaign can (and will) be created to highlight the grave injustice that this decision of the voters will cause. In other words, I believe that the voters can be shown how wrong they are, and that they will respond appropriately.
There’s no special privileges here. It’s wrong of you to say otherwise.
And pretty fucking low, too.
How nice. It’s win-win for you. If the deviants are nice to me, I’ll feel good about taking their rights away. If they’re mean to me, I’ll feel really, REALLY good about taking their rights away.
Go fuck your stupid, bigoted, anachronistic, ignorant, backward, unenlightened, homophobic, hateful self.
We’ve BEEN nice. Doesn’t get us jack shit.
This has been my position for years, even through being yelled at here as being “against gay marriage.” If you want to be in a governmentally recognized domestic partnership, go down to the court house and have it licensed and registered. Then you will be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities attendant thereto. If you wan to be religiously, spiritually, or socially (big BBQ in the back yard) married, go crazy, meeting whatever requirements your church or spiritual house demands you meet before they will solemnize your marriage. That way, if you want to belong to church that says only left-handed Scandanavian ballroom dancers can be “married,” fine. Be married in Crazyland, I don’t care. Meanwhile gay couples of faith can be married in churches that accept them – and there are many – and have the same right to hold themselves out as married as anyone else.
Separating the social/religious concept of “marriage” from the legal/governmental concept of “domestic unions” also neatly spikes the guns of the religious right, who can no longer claim gay people are threatening “the institution of marriage” by expecting and demanding equal rights under the law.
Everyone has to have their union registered, if they want it governmentally acknowledged – doesn’t matter if you’re gay or straight. Anyone wanting to be married has to find a a religious/spiritual/social entity that performs marriages and that will agree to marry them – doesn’t matter if you’re gay or straight. This is the way many European countries already handle it, and it seems to work for them.
I would, but Clothahump set the bar really high.
But they are stopping them from something, otherwise there wouldn’t even be a ballot initiative. If it’s so unimportant, why change the constitution? It’s important to people on both sides – if it wasn’t there wouldn’t be an amendment. The amendment is written in very clear and plain language – it excludes a minority from a right to marry the person they love. It was voted in by a majority who gain nothing from it but an exclusive right not given to a minority.
It has been repeatedly re-iterated throughout American history – even if facilities or institutions are different in name only they are still inherently unequal. Drinking fountains, schools, marriages – it doesn’t matter if you believe sexual orientation is something one is born into or something one can change, it’s still fundamentally wrong to oppress a minority by a simple majority vote. Traditionally there were no interfaith marriages – why not ban that as well?
That’s patently false and absurd. Look at the rights afforded gays here in CA now and 20 years ago. Now niceness may have had little to do with it. But rational did. The argument for “rights” was simply a more rational argument.