Effort intensifies for same-sex marriage ban
The battle over same-sex marriage in California heated up Thursday, when supporters of an initiative to ban it in the state’s Constitution submitted more than 1.1 million signatures in an effort to qualify the measure for the November ballot.
Representatives of a conservative coalition called Protect Marriage delivered boxes of signed petitions in each of the state’s 58 counties. Opponents immediately pledged to wage what is expected to be a costly campaign to defeat the measure if it goes to voters.
I don’t get what the fundies are protecting marriage from. Let’s be clear; allowing same sex marriage doesn’t require same-sex marriage. If the government updates the law to allow equal rights for same-sex relationships, I will not be required to get a divorce and marry some dude. Besides, George Clooney probably wouldn’t be available anyway so I’d end up single.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said two weeks ago that he would fight such an initiative, and the state Supreme Court is weighing whether to overturn or leave intact Proposition 22, an initiative approved by California voters in 2000 that barred recognition of same-sex marriage in the state. Justices are expected to rule in June.
Of course Prop 22 should be overturned. Prop 22 is discrimination similar to the anti-miscegenation laws overturned by the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967.
If Prop 22 is sent packing, that doesn’t mean that churches will be required to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Your church is your own private club and you can discriminate against anyone you please just like you can preach all sorts of harebrained ideas. However, the government shouldn’t discriminate. Equal rights and equal legal protection is only fair.
Backers of the proposed measure also have garnered endorsements from conservative and religious groups around the nation, including Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America and the Traditional Values Coalition.
Interestingly enough, anyone who would belong to or support one of the above organizations isn’t welcome in my home. I don’t allow religious fundamentalists/zealots/brainwashed assholes through the door. But I don’t have a problem socializing with gay men. I think the last one visited back in December when we had the Winter Solstice party. Note to self: have Janet give him a call and see if he wants to come down for dinner sometime.
I summed up the pros and cons of the same-sex marriage debate back in 2004, writing as Richard E. Normus:
Dear Dick,
There’s a lot of stories in the news lately about same-sex marriages in San Francisco, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, New York, and so on. It seems to be a really emotionally charged issue. What are the unemotional pros and cons so I can make my own informed decision?
Anne B. Less, Ian Togaf, and many others
Dear Loyal Readers,
Yes the issue of same-sex marriages is a hot button topic right now, so I’ll try to shed some light on the issue.
The proponents of same-sex marriages believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexual couples who have committed to spend their lives together. These rights include things like joint ownership of property, being treated as a spouse if their partner is in the hospital, being able to adopt a child as a married couple, receiving the same health benefits for their partners as heterosexual partners receive from their place of employment, and so on. As you can see, their arguments are quite compelling.
Equally compelling are the arguments from the opponents of same-sex marriages. Several thousand years ago, a group of uncivilized, superstitious, uneducated nomads wandering around in a desert decided that homosexuality offended an invisible man who lives in the sky. Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that this is reason enough to deny spousal rights to same-sex couples.
I hope this helps you make a rational decision.
Posted by: Richard E. Normus on 3/15/2004 8:49:40 AM
Or, maybe I’m getting the position of the Protect Marriage completely wrong. Maybe they’re opposed to gay marriage. I’m reminded of my answer to a fake letter back in 2003:
What’s Wrong With a Gay Marriage?
Dear Dick,
I’ve seen on the news recently that the Pope and President Bush have come out against gay marriages. Don’t they want married people to be happy and gay?Calvin Day
Atlanta, GeorgiaDear Calvin,
This is a very timely question that requires a serious answer. The dictionary defines “gay” as follows:
- Light-hearted; frolicsome; jolly
- Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
- Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
- Given to social pleasures.
Both President Bush and the Pope regard marriage as a serious commitment by two people who are in love. If a man and a woman, or two men, or two women, or one man and two women, or two men and one woman, etc., decide to get married they should do so with the understanding that married life is not always going to fun and games. There are going to be good times as well as bad times.
The President and the Pope object to the “Light-hearted; frolicsome; jolly” part of the definition of “gay” and don’t want to see people going into marriage with that attitude. These two fine leaders know about the high divorce rate and they suspect that getting married with a gay attitude is a big contributor to the problem.
Posted by: Richard E. Normus on 8/11/2003 7:15:09 AM
Yeah that’s it. It’s not narrow-minded bigotry; it’s their concern for the institution itself.
Or not.
Stumble it!
I’m pretty sure traditional marriage is polygamy, which despite what some residents of Utah, Arizona, and Texas would have you believe is not allowed in the U.S.
The real issue with gay marriage is that it would increase the incidents of divorce and domestic abuse, because obviously if more people are married, more people will get divorced, and since most domestic abuse is done by males, having two males get married to each other would increase the likelihood of one of the abusing the other.
Should I mention Poe’s law here, just to be safe?
There’s a reason we quite EGI. Just look at my post Life Imitates Parody Once Again for a prime example of Poe’s law. There’s a reason we quite EGI.
Oh well. At times like these I just thank god that I’m an atheist.
I think this is the part that a lot of people really don’t get. They’ve been so brainwashed into the idea that marriage = church that they suddenly have this asinine notion that “zomg if gay marriage is legal all churches will have to perform them!” They only entity that would be required to do anything is the government; they would be required to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. The actual ceremony can be performed anywhere — in a church that accepts them, at city hall, by a friend of the couple with a Universal Life Church ordination… and many of them do this *already* even without the piece of paper to go with it. The idea of “zomg what will the churches do” is a total red herring.
I expect I’m preaching to the choir here, of course.
You’re looking at a guy who found his wedding vows by doing a Google search of atheist weddings and found some which came complete with Mark Twain quotes. Technically the officiant was a minister, but he had no religious lines to say whatsoever.
So yeah, you’re preaching to the choir, as it were.