Friday, September 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
- Miles
- Atwater Village, California, United States
- A somewhat neurotic L.A. native who, well, wants to change the world.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(158)
-
▼
September
(16)
- Paul Newman
- Gay Marriage
- Mike Marmer
- Yankee Stadium
- No Deal
- Brad PItt and Gay Marriage
- The Economy Is Tanking
- Jesus Is A Friend Of Mine
- I Love The Internets Part 7,896
- The Banking Mess Brought On By Greed
- Get Out The Vote
- Sarah Pallin
- Obama
- 9/11
- Reason #8,754 Why I Love The Internets
- Lipstick on a Pig
-
▼
September
(16)
Good Reads
- Al Martinez
- Americablog
- Angry Red Balls
- Atrios
- Atwater Newbie
- Axis of Justice
- Bionic Farmer
- Carl Waiting
- Climate Crisis
- Copyranter
- Cuong
- Curbed L.A.
- Daily Kos
- Dave
- Defamer
- Eating L.A.
- Faces of Sunset Blvd.
- Franklin Avenue
- Here in Van Nuys
- Jasmyne Cannick
- Jen
- Joel
- Ken Levine
- L.A. City Nerd
- L.A. Streetsblog
- Leroy Sievers
- Lt. Watada
- Melissa
- Metro Rider LA
- Michael
- Militant Angeleno
- Monthly LA Bike Rides
- Pat Chat
- Save Darfur
- Sonyl
- Steve
- Taco Hunt
- Talking Points Memo
- Washington Monthly
- Will Campbell
- Witness L.A.
4 comments:
Prop 8 isn't an issue about "rights". It is about preserving the definition of "marriage" as between a man and a woman. Gay people can do what they want, and they can even enjoy many civil benefits through civil unions and the such. But that isn't marriage. Gay people should be treated with kindness and respect, like anyone. Gay people aren't the issue here nor the problem. The problem is that 4 arrogant judges in black robes sitting in their ivory tower overturned the express will of a clear majority of California citizens when they ruled by fiat and illegally legislated from the bench when they unilaterally redefined marriage. Prop 8 allows the citizens of California to say no to Judicial Activism and Judicial Tyranny. There are elements of the judiciary that are way out of control and are endangering the balance of power in our republic by getting involved in "legislating". This has got to stop. Voting yes on Prop 8 will help put those elitist judges back in their place and let them know they cannot arrogantly overule the will of the people in a matter as fundamental to the future of civilization as the bedrock institution of marriage. That is something important enough that it should not be left to 4 elitist judges to impose by fiat.
May I speak a word to my gay friends, neighbors, coworkers, and fellow-countrymen. You are a minority and I'm sure you recognize that. And that is ok. But please show kindness and tolerance for the rest of us and vote with us to help preserve marriage as between a man and a woman. I know you may not have any personal parochial interest in voting yes on Prop 8. But as your friend and neighbor, I'm asking for your vote to help preserve the definition of this institution that is so important. Thank you.
Give me a break. The legislature of California has twice voted to support gay marriage, only to have those votes of the representatives of the people of California vetoed, so that the Supreme Court of California could make the decision.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed righteously that separate but equal is inherently unequal. Therefore, two consenting men or two consenting women should be able to marry each other just as man and woman can.
No harm, no foul. My getting married does nothing to diminish your marriage or any other.
If you really feel so concerned about "preserving the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman", I suggest you move to one of the 48 other states where that is still the case, but you better get used to moving a lot. Bon voyage.
I appreciate your allowing me to respond.
Men and women are different. And that diversity is important in parenting. Each brings gender-unique and needed approaches to the raising of children. The definition of marriage as between a man and a woman recognizes that important contribution by both genders in the raising of our future generations. Redefining out that essential element of gender will completely change the focus of marriage and the reason for why we promote it.
This isn't about two people showing their deep love for each other. This isn't about civil benefits. Both of those can be accomplished via other mechanisms, such as domestic partnerships, which is what they are for. There is no need to destroy the important foundational purpose of marriage in order to satisy the feelings of a few who want a stamp of approval for their personal choices.
Prop 8 isn't about rights or unfairness or inequality. Everyone is either a man or a woman. So they all have the right to participate in "marriage", if they so choose. Some may have no interest in joining into marriage of a man and a woman. And that is their free choice. But it is intolerant of the needs of the rest of society for them to then demand that marriage be redefined for all the rest of us. Changing marriage to include any combination of genders fundamentally changes the institution of marriage.
I have no problem with gay people having domestic partnerships for civil benefits etc, and they can live and do as they want. But as a society we need to promote marriage of a man and a woman, because that institution is critical for the future survival of society. And this issue is important enough that 4 judges ruling by fiat must not be allowed to override the will of the people on defining this most vital foundational institution of society.
Friends, please vote Yes on 8.
There is no evidence that children raise by same sex partners do any worse than those raised by different sex partners. It's a myth.
This proposition will do NOTHING to diminish heterosexual couples from having kids...or homesexual ones.
Your argument makes no sense.
The bottom line is this: if it's ok for the government to grant different sex couples the right to marry, shouldn't it be alright for the same government to grant the same rights to same sex couples?
Yes. It should be alright. And look, no kids threatened.
Post a Comment