Something Rotten in the State of California
So, California (home of San Francisco and North Hollywood) went and legalized same-sex marriage a while back. There were lots of happy marriages finally recognized by the state. People who had already made commitments to each other were able to get the same tax breaks, custodial control, and other benefits afforded to married folk.
Then, Proposition 8 appeared on the ballot. It was a little confusing, because the motion was to define marriage as including one man and one woman, specifically. So, voting YES on the proposition essentially meant casting a vote for adding discrimination to the state constitution. I was surprised that the proposition existed, since it sure didn't seem like gay marriage had disrupted anything since it had been legal there.
What's surprising is that there are apparently more voters who are happier with discrimination than inclusion, and yet that very fact proves that the majority really has nothing to worry about in the first place. It's not like the state would require gay marriage. I mean, what's the threat?
Sadly, there are parts of the apparent majority who are so adamant about their fear of same-sex marriage, that they'd revert to crime to make their point. So much for righteousness.
I'm hoping that the election and successful administration of Barack Obama will create a change in attitudes, too. Bigotry is a choice.
Posts
7 comments:
Psst, one thing the MSM will NOT tell you... 70% of those "bigots" were African American.
I do not or would not assert that African Americans are beyond practicing bigotry just because it's been perpetrated against them.
One other quick point - I don't have cable, and I don't watch MSN (assume that's what you meant).
I based my opinion on this post on the happiness I saw for myself in couples finally being able to share things with each other legally in California, then being ostracized by the state just a few months later. (And having their property vandalized by "pro-marriags" thugs.) Friends of mine.
I ask again, what is the threat?
MSM=Mainstream Media. I'm sure there are plenty of single 50+ year old men who would be happy marrying their widowed mothers. They would be happy plus they could share things legally. Why stop there?
I don't understand the correlation. Incest is a clearly-defined crime, not a government-regulated institution.
My main point is that CA already removed discrimination by opening the parameters to allow these marriages. Then, only months later, there's a huge outcry to end it. What happened in those months to prove to the entire state that a huge mistake had been made? How badly did the institution of marriage corrode? How many 50+ men petitioned to marry their widowed mothers?
Once the social stigma is removed, a lot of them will. Incest is a crime...now. Give it 20-30 years. But I'm not even talking about the sexual aspect of marriage. In my example, I'm redefining it so that two older people can live together to legally share their stuff. Or how about two roommates? Maybe three roommates?
Regarding the roommates, here's my opinion - so what? Marriage has been defined and re-defined in the past. It's been fairly arbitrary throughout history, and yet the traditional marriage has survived.
If two roommates are willing to offer half of their lives to the other and vow in front of a judge, pastor, or priest that they'll stay with that person for the rest of their life in a bond of love, signing off on possessions, power of attorney, etc., why is that bad? Why should that not happen?
It's almost completely contrary to the generic idea of "family values" to limit who can marry. Sure, there might be degradation and sham marriages in the same-sex community, but there are those (~50%) in hetero marriages already. Weddings for easier citizenship, Elvis weddings, etc.
Conversely, there are actually people I know who love each other and are intending to spend the rest of their lives together, but might not have any power to make a critical medical decision down the road. I don't agree with the government passing a law that discriminates based on gender. Why stop there?
Post a Comment