California gay marriage foes set up for utter humiliation
California, of all states, is least likely of all states to pass a ban against gay marriage. In fact, they have the strongest and most active liberal base of all states, and their supposedly conservative governor has not only failed to endorse the ban but has outright spoken against it. In fact, such a ban would fly completely in the face of California's historical heritage as being a front-runner for civil rights for minorities of all classes and stripes. If the proposed ban goes on the ballot and is knocked down, then the court ruling passed recently will essentially have been given the blessing of the state's voting population.
Foes of gay marriage have a great deal of disappointment in store for them. After all, the greatest fear of those who are truly wicked and depraved is NOT retaliation. What they fear the most is a society that has fully embraced the idea of justice, for the truly depraved can never succeed in a society that is just. Vengeance is but fleeting, and it is the crack of the morally insane.
If passed, the amendment would override the ruling in "In re Marriage Cases" that struck down both the 1977 law and Proposition 22. The Constitution, as amended, would add a new section (Section 7.5) to Article I, placing it between the state Equal Protection clause and nondiscrimination in business and the professions. The proposed language reads:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Only this, and nothing more.
Now, a question. Since the amendment change will appear on the November ballot in California, what is in it for me to vote against it? Keep in mind that I am a middle-aged white male, married to a woman, and we have three children (all boys / all straight). I am also a Presbyterian Elder, a military veteran, an electrical engineer (employed), a property owner (not a renter), and I have no current political affiliations.
Again, what is in it for me to vote against a "one man / one woman" marriage amendment?
Note that I am not asking who is right and who is wrong. Nor am I condemning those people arrayed on either side of the issue.
I am only asking a question, so please keep your answers civil, and lacking in fallacies of reason and false data.
Thank you.
_________________
Absolutely nothing, either way. It boils down to doing what you think is right, just as it does if you get paneled on a jury. Just one of the duties of citizenship.
It is difficult to see how your relationship with your wife would change in either way, nor would the lives of your sons change in any way. And (unlike a bond issue or tax referendum) you can't really put a dollar figure on it (although I would imagine both sides may try).
It really boils down to an issue of rights and how you see that. Society has formally moved away from the idea that being gay is a treatable mental illness - some people are just gay. Do we give them the legal benefits from the long term relationship contract called marriage, or do limit their relationship to "friendship?"
Personally, I think the idea of people voting on other people's 'rights' can be problematic - for example, the kid with Asperger's disease that was voted out of the class in an election by the teacher. The kid has a right to be in the class, unless he is disruptive, in which case he should be removed (by judicial action of the teacher or principal, not a vote). But I would argue that the kid has an inherent right to be in the class - it doesn't depend on the inclination of his peers.
Absolutely nothing, either way. It boils down to doing what you think is right, just as it does if you get paneled on a jury. Just one of the duties of citizenship.
No better response. No elaboration needed.
_________________
The_Chosen_One
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,357
Location: Looking down on humanity
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Only this, and nothing more.
Now, a question. Since the amendment change will appear on the November ballot in California, what is in it for me to vote against it? Keep in mind that I am a middle-aged white male, married to a woman, and we have three children (all boys / all straight). I am also a Presbyterian Elder, a military veteran, an electrical engineer (employed), a property owner (not a renter), and I have no current political affiliations.
Again, what is in it for me to vote against a "one man / one woman" marriage amendment?
Note that I am not asking who is right and who is wrong. Nor am I condemning those people arrayed on either side of the issue.
I am only asking a question, so please keep your answers civil, and lacking in fallacies of reason and false data.
Thank you.
Say if you did vote on it, does anybody besides the person counting the vote and yourself have to know who you voted for? Afterall, your vote is meant to kept private, and the people counting these votes (whether in elections or referenda) are meant to sign statutory declarations that they will not disclose the inforamtion they come across. Which means the only way someone else could find out what you voted for would be if you told them yourself. Or maybe it doesn't work that way in the US, which means that no-one can mind their own business.
_________________
Pagans are people too, not just victims of a religious cleansing program. Universal harmony for all!!
Karma decides what must happen, and that includes everyone.
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Only this, and nothing more.
Now, a question. Since the amendment change will appear on the November ballot in California, what is in it for me to vote against it? Keep in mind that I am a middle-aged white male, married to a woman, and we have three children (all boys / all straight). I am also a Presbyterian Elder, a military veteran, an electrical engineer (employed), a property owner (not a renter), and I have no current political affiliations.
Again, what is in it for me to vote against a "one man / one woman" marriage amendment?
Note that I am not asking who is right and who is wrong. Nor am I condemning those people arrayed on either side of the issue.
I am only asking a question, so please keep your answers civil, and lacking in fallacies of reason and false data.
Thank you.
The queers just won't shut up. The more we're attacked and mauled by thugs, the less enjoyment we get from being attacked and mauled by thugs. The more we are denied the same rights as others, the more it sticks in our craw. On the other hand, the "Religious Right" will eventually lose interest and find someone else to annoy.
What do you have to gain? Let's first examine what you have to gain from ignoring the issue: absolutely nothing. This issue will just keep coming back until we have closure. The gay community needs closure, and I am sure that you want your peace.
Last edited by Griff on 06 Jun 2008, 11:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
only if the mexicans don't show up to the polls and mexicans hate fags.
really? maybe i just encountered different ones. i normally end up seeing the hyper-masculine or christian response.
You probably mean 'the conservative Catholics,' many (but by no means all) of whom are of central- and south- American descent.
i mean more culturally, not simply saying that illegals will vote.
No. You might find this surprising, but the Latin populace has very similar attitudes to the white, non-Hispanic populace. Their youths are just as thuggish as any, but teenage brats don't seem to vary much across cultural or ethnic lines. The only group that consistently shows greater opposition to gay marriage is the black populace. American Latinos may be mostly blue collar, but they are still very successful due to their preservation of the nuclear family. Their ability to fall back on cousins, uncles, and so forth has prevented them from being hit as hard by poverty and economic problems. Homophobia is usually correlated with economic hardship. Well, the numbers say that the Latinos are poor, but their culture makes them rich in a way that we have all but forgotten. I honestly don't think that true homophobia ever really took root in the Latin population. Just typical teenage thuggishness, which is a universal. Otherwise, I think that our immigrants should be more recognized for their resilience and their integrity.
Besides, they're going to constitute the majority of the American voting population within a few more years. That'll make me a double-minority. Kissing up starting now would be wise. Consider yourself warned.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
California Teen killed by sheriff deputy |
13 Mar 2024, 3:10 pm |
I'm 29. Can I live to see gay marriage in Japan? |
14 Jan 2024, 10:54 pm |
Greece Has Legalized Same-Sex Marriage |
16 Feb 2024, 11:04 am |
Autistic people and marriage |
11 Mar 2024, 3:26 pm |