Vote No on Prop H8!!!

I will make one last plea to Californians to vote NO on Proposition 8.  Here are some analogies that would repulse most, but are equivalent to the hatred inherent in Prop 8.

  • Internment of Japanese Americans (and other Asians) during WWII.
  • Not recognizing marriages of individuals who are not American citizens.
  • Prohibiting immigrants from marrying US-born citizens.
  • Preventing women from voting — they’re too “stupid” to know what to vote for.

So don’t be a bigot.  Vote NO on Prop 8. 

And for all those people who think that voting NO on Prop 8 means that children will learn how to engage in homosexual intercourse in school — seriously???  I went to public school in California.  My school barely had enough money to fund a health course for my class, let alone get into the details and intricacies of heterosexual intercourse.  This argument is the equivalent of saying that the Constitution should be amended to preclude freedom of religion, because we shouldn’t allow people to be free to practice Islam or everyone will grow up to be terrorists!

Do the right thing.  Vote NO on Prop H8.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Personal Pontification

3 responses to “Vote No on Prop H8!!!

  1. jrodri14

    there is very deep issue here at hand in terms of marriage. This problem will in no way be solved in this election. The door for conflict has been blown wide open, and the issue will go on to weig more important things in our country.

    We must truly look at the responsibilities of the state, and its need to promote the well being of it’s systems ability to provide freedoms and liberties for its constituents and to avoid creating inconsistencies for them that leads to moral dilemnas.

    If we are to be true liberterians, and propose a state of anarchy, we must therefore not ask the state to consider our contracts, agreements, rhetoric etc. in its decision making process. For example, absolutely free trade and economy. However, because we request help (Welfare, police, defence, social security), recognition (race, profession, sexual orientation, business, sexual orientation, single or married), and action (money, punishments, reimbursements, domicile, visitation rights) from the system, and beg often for its interference for its constituents, we therefore grant it a power. And this is it: discernment.

    It must have the power to categorize. Who is poor, guilty, friend, enemy, retirement aged, hispanic, white, black, architect, school teacher, lawyer, president, soldier, pilot, gay, straight, neither, both, single, married, owed to, owes, guilty, not guilty, afflicted, afflicting, is in georgia, is in texas, is in california, related, unrelated, etc. This is key to our system of law. We give it this power because of the complexity it has due to our requests of it. No one is exempt in this request by virtue of living here. Therefore, we cannot claim infinite equality from the law.

    This is fine. It’s ok. Anyone against it or that says it is not true is simply not looking hard enough.

    Proposition 8 proponents, and anyone who comes against it, are fighting over a power of discernment of the law, and that is the relational status that the law categorizes two people as “marriage”. The category has already existed for a long time, and the law has helped, recognized, and acted on this category. And therefore it has interfered. Once again this is ok. Because we expect this of the government. And if we do not consider this fair, than that person does not belong here, and probably not in any other government.

    They are absolute anarchists.

    Now, this is the danger that our modern day is putting before our government: regulating on popular basis what the different categories are, and furthermore, what their individual responsibilities, benefits, demerits, restrictions and other qualities are.

    So, the marriage contract, homosexual relationships, heterosexual relationships, polygamist relationships, incest relationships, and others are all recognized by the law and assigned a status, legal or illegal. This too is ok. They are each individual categories. However, the marriage contract is a far more formal category. The real differences between the different relationships are all implied by the different titles we give them, however the differences occur in reality. They are obvious. And no one can deny them. Any straight person who would say that their relationship is the same as that as any other relationship, gay or plural and so on, and believes it, is in serious trouble.

    Now, this is the problem of not supporting a measure such as prop 8. You force the law to take two VERY different relationships, with very REAL differences, make it dishonor those differences, and force them into a category that will provide the EXACT same qualities to both relationships. We do not need the law to do this, because it is already done. It’s called a union.

    Furthermore, we are forcing the law to take a category, called a contract, and force it into one of our most fundamental categories: a Right. We are confusing it with a real right: the right to hold a contract. Therefore, we remove a serious right: the right to exclusivity in any contract. And we will take it to the supreme court to do this.

    All in the name of equality. This is perhaps the biggest challenges this country will face. Are we going to force the government to hand over its power of discernment to our will and whim. And then, force it to close its eyes to real differences because of the word of the day, Tolerance and Equality, in this case, and then make it act irrelevant of those differences.

    The psychological impact that this will have on the future of this nation is unknown and could not be calculated. Because we will begin the eroding of value and difference for the law, we may affect the very nature of this culture in the future. And in no good way, because we may begin to affect the categories of the general culture and social structure because of its interdependence of with government in a negative manner, for example the many court cases already being held as well as their rulings show this. This is not a direct attack human rights and decency, and neither are people calculating to do this great harm to our nation. It is simply our inability to see past the real issues, and handle them as required.

    That there are ways to protect different groups from discrimination and that we can, with the law, is true. And we should definitely have them in play. But granting the formal homosexual union the same as the formal heterosexual union is not the way. This will unnecessarily inhibit the rights of heterosexual union.

    We should avoid this precedent at all costs. Because it is a precedent for lying at the fundamental levels of the government, not just at decision making and bureaucratic levels.

    Forget the problems for the two groups for and against gay marriage, we are entering a discussion of this nation’s government’s future, it’s quality, and possible eventual demise.

    to say the least, picture ralph wiggum getting thrown through a glass window and saying: “I’m a brick”

  2. Race is in no way, shape, or form related to sexual preference. Let me explain.

    I am white. Nothing I ever do will change my ethnicity, nor the color of my skin. No actions I made resulted in me being white.

    I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that same-gender attraction is not choice, but people are born with it. Take myself, for example. If I were attracted to men, yet my beliefs dictated to me that that is wrong, I would not be forced to satisfy that attraction and form a relationship with another man. While I may or may not be able to stomp out the attraction to the same sex, I can at least refrain from acting on those feelings.

    That is the difference between race and sexual preference. Yeah, not even close.

    Furthermore, it is naive of you to assume that just because your school did not teach sexual intercourse, that all schools don’t. My high school, for one, did teach it, and very explicitly.

    Yes on 8, No on Hate.

    God bless.

  3. Jesse – Sexual orientation is not a “preference,” and that is where your argument fails. Under your argument, if you were born black, why not just bleach your skin? You choose not to bleach your skin color, and that is your choice. Therefore, we can discriminate against you for taking that choice.

    I don’t know what high school you went to, but it sounds like they showed you porn or something. That’s something you should take up with your school board.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s