Sunday, October 19, 2008

Proposition 8 and equal rights

I was just visiting my mother in Danville, and I saw an unfortunate number of signs pushing for a Yes vote on proposition 8. This deeply disturbs me, even more than the McCain Palin signs I saw all over Tahoe this weekend. What gets me the most is the yes on prop 8 sign works a propaganda approach saying that it is protecting our families.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, here's the downlow:
Proposition 8 was introduced to the ballot for the november 4 election to eliminate the law that says marriage, in California, is legal between a man and man or a woman and woman. This law was established by the CA supreme courts this last winter. And I thought it was long overdue, but now some special interest groups are trying to change it. According to some of their commercial they are saying that teachers (that's me) will brainwash their children to believe that homosexuality is ok. The unfortunate addendum that they are missing is that they will be the ones who have brainwashed their own children to believe that love can only occur between a man and woman.

There was an interesting letter to the editor in Saturday's SF Chronicle that was from a mother explaining what a difficult thing it would be to tell her daughter that not all people are allowed to love each other, only men and women.

I believe this to be a civil rights issue that should not be ignored, if you live in California and you vote for prop 8, I believe that you are voting to take away human dignity and rights that all people deserve.

Vote no on prop 8!


  1. I'm with you 100% on this one!

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. thanks for this post.

    i don't agree that this is really about civil rights. what civil rights don't they have?

    people say, they can't marry who they love? but i don't think the government's recognition of marriage has anything to do with love. it has more to do with stability, order, and building a nation.

    the best place for children is in a family with a mom and a dad (and yes we need to work on the divorce rate).

    i think it's okay for the state to promote these relationships.

    while i still think it's okay for homosexuals to have civil unions and also adopt.

    the state is just encouraging an institution that is best for children.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. emily,

    You answered your first question in your second paragraph in the form a question. Congratulations, you're a monstrous tool!. And by the way, that's not an ad hominem because it's true.

    The rest of the second paragraph just barely makes sense but I think you're claiming that the government shouldn't allow for same-sex couples to get married because you personally don't think that the government should recognize marriages based on love. I have news for you emilly, the government doesn't recognize marriages based on love. It recognizes marriages based on paperwork. And regarding the order and stability sentence, what makes you think that same-sex marriages don't have order.

    Your wording is unclear in the following sentences, but if I understand, you believe that that the children of same-sex couples are not as functional compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. And that by having same-sex parents, this somehow deprives children of a nurturing home. The American Psychological Association has found this to not be the case and the only injustice that occurs to the children is discrimination because of their parent's sexual identities. I have provided the link for you at the bottom of the post. Emily, you are literally homophobic.

    Personally, I would hope that someday the government can get out of marriage altogether. They should rename the marriage license to a civil union license and let the churches deal with ceremonial marriage.

  6. Well said Daren! I just received my absentee ballot a week ago in St. Kitts, and there is definitely a vote of no on 8 headed to CA!