Los Angelinos won't naturally see the corner of Imperial Highway and Yorba Linda Boulevard in Northern Orange County, if they can conceive of where it is, as a mirror of social change. But every night last week dozens of people were demonstrating on both sides of Proposition 8, the attempt to roll back the California Supreme Court's decision in May to end the state ban on same-sex marriages.
The marching formed a revealing pattern. Late in the afternoon a group of middle-agers (with a few kids) would start waving "Yes" signs only to be equaled in number by young people waving "No on 8" signs, some handmade, by dusk.
Both sides believed they were standing up for the best traditions of this country. Some of the "Yes on 8" signs made the argument that voting against this civil right was a vote for "freedom of religion" and "free speech." Meanwhile, on Tuesday and Wednesday at least, I noticed that the only demonstrators carrying an American flag were those with "No on 8" signs.
American history, logic and justice are on the "No" side.
The "Yes on 8" forces are trying to win by confusing people about what this proposition means. Freedom of religion or free speech is not at stake. Our governments -- local, state and the federal government -- regularly license activities by consenting adults that some religious groups find incompatible with their beliefs. But do the existence of state liquor licenses imply a curb on the freedom of religion of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? And what about the Food and Drug Administration's monitoring of pork products? Is this, in any way, an attempt by government to hamper the religious practices of Orthodox Jews or Muslims? No, of course not. Our earliest founders were Puritans who had experienced discrimination because their beliefs and practices differed from those of the Established Church in England. As a result, from the Mayflower through the formation of the United States, our civic leaders sought to create a society where individuals were free to practice whatever religion they chose and where government would remain neutral on religious preferences.
The "No on 8" kids carrying the US flag had it right because Proposition 8 would do what this country was set up not to do: to use government (state government, in this case) to take sides in a religious debate.
In its decision, the Supreme Court of California did not mandate that churches perform same-sex religious ceremonies or that same-sex marriages be discussed in schools. It is left to churches and school boards to make those decisions.
Voting "Yes," on the other hand, would place a clause in the California state constitution that would discriminate against gays and lesbians. It would send a message that as a matter of principle same-sex marriages were illegitimate. One handmade "No on 8" sign in Yorba Linda pointedly reminded passing motorists that some of the same arguments used by the "Yes" side were once trotted out to outlaw interracial marriages. Indeed, until the Supreme Court of California's decision in Perez v. Sharp in 1948, interracial couples did not share the constitutional "right to marry" in California.
Somehow gays and lesbians forming enduring, loving couples is a threat to traditional families. It boggles the mind why American society would have an interest in promoting promiscuity and a sense of exclusion in our community. We are your friends and neighbors. The "No on 8" kids marching in Yorba Linda get that. The fate of this issue is still too close to call. But if "Yes" should eke out a victory tomorrow, it is only a matter of a few years before this blot on the California constitution is repealed. Let's hope that we don't have to wait more than a matter of hours for Proposition 8 to be consigned to the ash heap of bad political ideas.
PLEASE take a moment, go to the site, and post YOUR story. The more voices we have the louder our message will be. . .
That's not me "holding my breath until I get my way".....that's "I refuse to be taxed AT ALL until equal - period".
Now you may all vote on THAT!
Some people argue that gays are not a protected class of people regarding legal rights because homosexuality is not proven to be a genetic characteristic or predisposition, but is instead a choice. If that is true, then heterosexuality is also "a choice" and not genetic. Therefore a legal prohibition against heterosexual marriage is just as valid (and as nonsensical) as a prohibition against homosexual marriage.
Most of the arguments against gay marriage are based on religious beliefs. But "freedom of religion" also means freedom _from_ the religious beliefs of others.
All that aside, however, the truth is that restricting the rights and freedoms of any group or class of people based on a shared characteristic is unfair and will not stand up to legal scrutiny. Like any arbitrarily prejudicial laws such as keeping women from voting or blacks from using the same public bathroom facilities as whites, prohibition of homosexal marriage will ultimately fail.
To those who propose "separate but equal" civil unions, it might be argued that all marriages whether homosexual or heterosexual should be legally defined as civil unions, while both the definition and the act or ceremony of "marriage" should be left to each person's or couple's church or religion.
For the Referendum and for future understanding on how to move these people to tolerance, acceptance and a more genuinely loving attitude for all parts of our society we will need to go to them and show them who we, as gay people, are. EQUALITY FOR EVERYONE - NO MORE "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL" Let's ask to speak at their churches when the Referendum comes.
As ALL of these ANTI-LOVE, ANTI-FAMILY amendments and propositions continue to keep LGBT American's legal status as SUB-Americans, don't you feel good as U.S. tax-payers, knowing that your own state and country says your family and children are worthless in the eyes of the law? Pissed yet? If not, keep paying your taxes and acting like everything is OK; keep playing by the rules, even though these "rules" do not even INCLUDE you.
Self-respect and self-esteem...............anyone?
GAY TAX PROTEST - http://www.gaytaxprotest.blogspot.com/
How, exactly, does same-sex marriage threaten opposite-sex marriage?
I hear a lot of talk about same-sex marriage destroying the institution of marriage and "family values", but I've yet to see a single cogent argument as to HOW same-sex marriage would bring about such destruction.
So please, enlighten me.
As for destroying the institute of marriage it is like calling Ripple wine a fine Napa Valley Cabernet. If you keep serving Ripple and calling it Napa's Finest you degrade the image of Napa wines. Divorce, infidelity, abuse, and other actions likewise degrades the institution of marriage. Please do not degrade the institution of marriage.
Everyone deserves equality under the Laws of the State. “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal” If you wish to make your Religious Ceremonies between a man and woman only so be it. The Constitution grants you the right to worship your religion as you please. What you do within the confines of your church is your own business, but don’t drag your narrow minded bigotry into the main square and demand we all worship as you do. It is un-American, un-patriotic, and frankly it goes against my Christian beliefs of tolerance and respect.
At some point we have to draw a line of what is a marriage. The written definition passed into law was done so with input from all parties in an American way.
As I said before feel free to hold what ever ceremony you wish to have in your own church. Exclude whom ever you choose in that setting, the constitution guarantees you that right. As for the rights of others, our fore fathers put it well when they said “Don’t Tread on Me”
The United States Constitution guarantees we are all equal under the law. That is the ideal to which all true Patriots aspire. If you are unable to understand that I feel sorry for your ignorance.
The funny thing is, the Yes on 8 people are making this out to be such a doomsday scenario. Our children will be taught to tolerate gay people in school! Oh no! Or that churches will be taxed, or forced to perform gay marriages. Well, a "no" vote on 8 simply retains the status quo - gay marriage has been legal in California for almost 6 months, and society as we know it has no collapsed. In fact, none of the things they're claiming are true. (And if you're really worried about your children learning that two people of the same sex can legally commit to each other in a consensual, loving way, California law allows you to send a note to school allowing your child will be able to abstain from class. Or you could just send them to a different school.)
I really see no reason people would vote FOR prop 8, unless they believe their religion should govern all law, regardless of the religion of others (possible), or they have an unfounded hatred/fear of gay people (probable). Aren't conservatives supposed to want less government intrusion in our lives? And liberals want the government to protect rights?
No pun intended, of course...