I have lots of things I want to post but this started as a comment on a friend’s post and got sort of long so it gets bumped to the front of the line.
I am sad to see that Prop 8 made it. I am happy that it only passed by a small margin. That is a vast improvement over the last 15 years. We have a hard time seeing that when we are surrounded in the Bay Area by people that mostly don’t even blink about gays.
Religion was a big motivator in the fight for Prop 8 and it just boggles my mind. My approach to the entire Christian vs Gay thing is God created mankind with free will. Mankind had to be able to make his own choices, God has angels for blind worship.
Ergo, it is important that each person makes up their own mind. No one that claims to be a christian should be able to enforce how someone else lives. They can say how they think someone else should live but according to the very premise of their faith, they should not force someone to choose their way. God wants people to choose to be with him and choose acts that follow in Jesus’ footsteps. Prop 8 goes against the very grain of their religion.
We do have laws but they should be about things that affect others. Gays getting married doesn’t do a thing for Male/Female couples.
Not that the upper levels of Christianity think that is the opposite against the foundations of their religion. To them it is about power.
Also I don’t think Prop 8 is so much about hate as it is about fear. The top levels probably do look like it is about hate, and the extremists too. These are also the ones most true Christians are embarrassed by. But I think most of the 51%, it is about fear and control of something unknown. It is about a lack of understanding and following the loudest voice.
While I am upset that Prop 8 passed, I am not devastated. One of the these I use to justify Bush getting a second term is that things had to get this bad for the country to vote someone like Obama into Office. Prop 8 passing is a huge media frenzy. It gives the lack of rights that gays have an actual point of reference. 15 years ago, people around me didn’t think that gays were discriminated against (I was in Colorado and knew so few gay people so I had no reference to know the validity of this general assumption). Now I think it is pretty well known across the entire country. I think this is a very solid platform in which to address change.
Personally, I think everyone should be required to have a Civil Union which would be like a Justice of the Peace marriage and if they want a Church wedding, they could do that as well. The Civil Union would take care of all the government/legal stuff. The Church wedding (or whatever) would be the ceremony that matters to people. I read that is how weddings are handled in Russia so I don’t think it is that different of an idea.
In Soviet Russian, civil unions marry YOU!
this shouldn’t surprise anyone
But while I’m glad prop 8 passed… I totally agree with your last two paragraphs.
Yes… I’ve been called a bigot, because I won’t bend my definition of marriage. I suppose most people call it traditional marriage, for several thousands of years worth of tradition I can see why. So, I’ll take that label if I must, but the first amendment allows me that freedom to have my own opinion no matter how contrary it is to how others feel.
Now, because I believe God gave us freedom of choice, and because I also believe that God is the only one fit to judge. I honestly don’t care what sins other people commit so long as they don’t harm other people, pets, environment, etc… I have gay family members and I love them just the same.
If you get a civil union, or a domestic partnership, and then get married by whatever church agrees to do the ceremony, I’m all for it.
What I find unfair is that as a state, we’ve voted all the rights of spouses to those joined in domestic partnership, but the feds won’t recognize it, thus denying roughly a thousand federal rights (not the least of which is filing taxes on the 1040 form as a couple).
Though, domestic partners making good money and roughly equal money, filing as single for federal may make good fiscal sense… but it doesn’t make it fair.
Call me names, but it’s true.
Actually, if gays not getting marriage licenses is unfair, then so is me and my girlfriend not being able to get a domestic partnership…
Re: this shouldn’t surprise anyone
The reason I disagree with arguments like this, as much as they may make sense, is that it’s mildly missing the point.
Yes, marriage benefits under federal and state laws may be different, and favor people one way or the other. It’s not entirely fair either way, depending on how you look at it, but that’s the way it is and it’ll be a lot of effing hard work and a sea change in perspective to change tax laws surrounding marriage. I can dig how people don’t like how marriage has been elevated such, and it’s cool to dislike it or have issues surrounding it on those terms.
What bothers me, though, is that those reasons don’t justify supporting Prop 8. Saying that a certain subsection of the population cannot wed based on the idea that marriage itself is flawed… I can’t articulate how wrong that feels to me. Prop 8 is poison that helps exactly no one. Saying “I voted yes on 8 because the Feds won’t recognize domestic partnerships as ‘marriage’ and that’s not fair to unmarried couples”… yeah, I’m sorry you and your girlfriend can’t file jointly for federal taxes, it’d be nice if people could get these benefits and not necessarily have to deal with the loaded gun that is the word “marriage,” but for godssake don’t piss on other people’s parade just to make a damn point.
Sorry to mini-rant at you, person I don’t know,
capnkjb
Re: this shouldn’t surprise anyone
“I honestly don’t care what sins other people commit so long as they don’t harm other people, pets, environment, etc…”
I am 100% with you on that.
I think your point about needing to separate out civil unions and religious ones is dead on. So does my mother, who is strongly in favor of prop 8, and actively lobbied me to side with her. (I took that as an opportunity to actively lobby her for the alternative. Turnabout’s fair, after all.)
I don’t think that people who voted for prop 8 were scared that gays getting married meant that heterosexual marriages meant anything less. (Their rather unfortunate choice of “save marriage!” as a slogan aside.) I think they had two concerns: First, in their minds the word “marriage” means the religious union, and they don’t want it used for a civil union of couples that their religion says shouldn’t be, well, joined.
Second, they didn’t want the State to tell them how to run their religion. Specifically, they don’t want their priests being told that they have to perform a civil union for couples where it’s against their religion for them to be wed. Basically, the priest doesn’t want to sign a piece of paper saying “yes, you’re married” when God’s looking over his shoulder saying “you know I told you not to do that.” Or put another way, this one’s a perception thing, where by endorsing the civil union (with his or her signature) the priest could be perceived as giving the couple his thumbs up. So the priest is stuck making a choice between not being able to do a civil union at all, or acting in a way that conflicts with what he teaches from the pulpit. The first, from their perspective, goes against all their traditions. The second is unacceptable.
I think if someone put forth legislation that separated out the civil portion of marriage from the religious side and called it something different from marriage that it would pass. Which is basically what you said: Make all couples go down to the courthouse to register their partnership. If a couple wants a religious ceremony as well, they have that option providing the religion supports it.
Compromise, in this situation, will go a long way. Or so I believe. Sadly, I get the impression both sides are so mired in trying to convince the other one that they’re wrong that it will take a while for progress to be made. Which is unfortunate.
First, in their minds the word “marriage” means the religious union, and they don’t want it used for a civil union of couples that their religion says shouldn’t be, well, joined.
Second, they didn’t want the State to tell them how to run their religion. Specifically, they don’t want their priests being told that they have to perform a civil union for couples where it’s against their religion for them to be wed.
But… but… but… in order for the first thing to happen they’d have to repeal freedom of religion! ‘Cause there are actually religions that think gay marriage is fine and good. Unless we have an official state religion there will always be marriages that to one religion are fine but to another would be disallowed.
And it’s exactly freedom of religion that protects them against the latter – no religious institution will ever be forced to perform a gay marriage if they don’t want to as long as we still have the first amendment. Afterall, we don’t force jewish synagogues to marry muslims or mormon temples to marry protestants.
(this isn’t anything against you since I know this isn’t actually YOUR position, just, ahhhhhh, it makes my brain flip over just seeing these arguments in text!)
“First, in their minds the word ‘marriage’ means the religious union, and they don’t want it used for a civil union of couples that their religion says shouldn’t be, well, joined.”
But marriage ISN’T always a religious union. Plenty of people are married in non-religious ceremonies already.
That point aside, I agree with the idea of separating the civil unions from religious ceremonies.
Wow, great post! : )