No on Proposition 8

By Julianne Dalcanton | October 31, 2008 1:42 pm

As has been discussed on CV before, Californians have an opportunity to vote on a ballot initiative to invalidate gay marriage in the state. While we’re being all endorse-y today, I’m throwing my two cents in with a link to a piece by a friend of mine:

We used to joke about it, or sort of joke, whenever we drove up to Vancouver to visit friends. “We’re married now!” We’d cry, after crossing through Customs and handing over all our papers and the Mermaid Girl’s birth certificate with both our names on it. And then, on the way home, as we passed the Peace Arch: “Not married any more! Hey, girlfriend!”

It wasn’t that funny, though, to tell the truth.

Read the whole thing, and then come back and tell me how giving this family legal protection has damaged the fabric of Canadian society.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Personal, Politics
  • andyo

    The ads running here in LA for prop 8 are just plain disgusting and full of lies. I still can’t figure how most religious campaigns into politics are so full of bullshit and yet people don’t realize how obvious it is that religion is used to mindlessly manipulate people. There is NO other reason than a religious one for even mildly educated people for not wanting gay people to marry, or for homophobia in general. Hopefully people will have 10 seconds to google those “cases” those weasels are referring to to realize that the injustice is running the other way.

  • Carolyn

    I’m a Canadian – and I’m amazed how much of a non-issue gay marriage has been since it was settled. We just had a national election, and nobody really said anything about it. I see “he was nominated by his husband” or “she and her wife” on the reality shows from time to time, with no apologies or caveats. Its really quite something to see the change.

  • tacitus

    Only once America overcomes its inherent social conservatism (which will happen, but not for a long while yet) will gay marriage / civil unions no longer be an issue to be fought over at the polls.

    A successful two-term Obama presidency will help since he has been able to energize the newest generation of American voter like no other Democratic presidential candidate has for decades, but it does have to be a successful presidency.

  • Aaron F.

    What a fantastic piece of writing! I am sending this to all my friends right now… even though none of them live in California.

  • Gavin Polhemus

    They are looking for money until midnight tonight to counter the huge advertising blitz being put on by opponents of same-sex marriage. Go over there an give them a few bucks (or a lot of bucks). The need to counter the lies so people are at least making an informed choice.

    http://www.noonprop8.com/

  • Ella Porter

    Which parent – the father or the mother – should a child be denied?

  • Ian

    Exactly, it’s all and well that you believe a certain way, but then it becomes a problem when it affects and confuses innocent children. But, why cause a big deal about marriage in America when there are already rights for domestic partnerships? How about let’s leave it to Canada and let those with confusion make up their minds there. If not Canada, there are plenty of other countries that homosexuals can move to and evoke their rights rather than stubbornly proclaiming that they deserve certain rights in the United States. It’s appalling how stubborn and arrogant pro-homosexuality people are. Homosexuality is an abomination, not a sublimable way of life.

  • spyder

    Which parent – the father or the mother – should a child be denied?

    As Gary Larson used to say: “Unclear on the concept.” But you have to love the solipsistic argumentation of the undead.

    And just to get the next solipsistic, twittering-nabob’s thought-stream clear, if it is okay in all these other countries to choose to live one’s life as one chooses, then Americans who want to be free to live their own lives, under the guarantees of the US Constitution, should move out of the US to be free. Wow, i didn’t know we had bottomed out to this depth yet. For sure, we must ban all cognitive liberty, you bet ya.

    Staggering, absolutely staggering.

  • Ellipsis

    That, and 1) the fact that the economy is not crashing and burning in Canada because there was/is no mortgage crisis here, and 2) the leader of the country, while hardly the greatest, is not a complete fool, are two of the many other reasons to just pick up and move to Canada. Seriously. Especially if McCain somehow wins: just apply for jobs here and leave. And with global warming, Canada is getting nice and toasty warm, and America …

  • Ellipsis

    … can be left to the morons that elected GWB.

  • ST

    Spyder, do you think that condescending a question is answering it? What precisely do you hope to accomplish with that sort of performance? Honest question.

    The reason why Obama is interesting is precisely because unlike most “smart” people, he is not about marginalising the majority to feel better about himself. Aftreall, changing the country ultimately means changing the opinions of the people living in it. More of his kind, and we might actually be able to make a change – because he tries to relate to people and let them see his point of view, and not merely insult their intelligence.

  • Alsee

    Ella Porter, you are absolutely right.
    Which parent – the father or the mother – should a child be denied? We need an immediate constitutional amendment banning divorce.

    Ian, you are absolutely right.
    Exactly, it’s all and well that you believe a certain way, but then it becomes a problem when it affects and confuses innocent children. But, why cause a big deal about marriage in America when there are already rights for domestic partnerships? How about let’s leave it to Canada and let those with confusion make up their minds there. If not Canada, there are plenty of other countries that interracial couples can move to and evoke their rights rather than stubbornly proclaiming that they deserve certain rights in the United States. It’s appalling how stubborn and arrogant pro-interracial people are. Interraciality is an abomination, not a sublimable way of life.

    Please post more justifications against gay marriage, kthnxbai.

  • http://www.mpe.mpg.de/~erwin/ Peter Erwin

    Ella Porter @ 6:
    Which parent – the father or the mother – should a child be denied?

    As Alsee (#12) points out, the logic of your argument is that divorce should be banned.

    But, hey — you shouldn’t stop there! Sometimes one parent dies. So should widows and widowers be forced to remarry?

  • A different opinion

    I’ve always had a problem with the whole “Marriage is the foundation of our society” cr*p.

    You watch enough history channel and you begin to realize that in our most primitive state, marriage has always been about contracts and the relative worth of the parties involved (as well as who has the freedom to execute the contract).

    It is one of the last vestiges of slavery existing in our society and should be banned in general.

  • Ed Gerstner

    Ian, if you truly feel that repatriation is a good idea, can I suggest that you and your fundamentalist friends consider moving to Iran. No irritating liberal media. Religious values placed squarely at the centre of government. What more could the Moral Majority wish?

  • chemicalscum

    Up here in Canuckstan (True North Brave and Free) we really like the legalization of gay marriage as it gives us a reason to consider ourselves different and morally superior to the barbarians to our south.

    Our current Prime Minister Harper, who got re-elected to form a minority government on only 37% of the vote, would dearly love to unleash his social conservatism on us and abolish gay marriage. He is however clever enough to understand that it would be electoral suicide, as though it would strengthen his core conservative vote it would weaken him with large sections of the electorate.

    Oh for the great days of former Prime Minister Poutine. The legalization of gay marriage. Being unwilling to join the coalition of the willing. Finally standing up to the banks and stopping them go into mergers, so that they would be big enough to compete globally in the sort of risky gambling that has proved to have been so disastrous for the US and the world.

  • chemicalscum

    Oh by the way I forgot the terminal interrogative – eh?

  • Francois Dufour

    To (16), my irony-o-meter is going in the red there. PM Poutine is rather fond of my stomach, don’t take him to the cold, bleak chamber of Commons. Could have been so much better if the pot decriminalisation act had time to pass before the election.

    Also, surely you are aware that, in 1997, Chrétien won a 155 seat majority with 38.5% of the vote. Count yourself lucky that Harper only go 143 with 37.6%.

  • spyder

    Spyder, do you think that condescending a question is answering it? What precisely do you hope to accomplish with that sort of performance? Honest question.

    Because, ST, i am not running for office, necessitating compromising myself to layers of hypocrisy; and i am not prostituting myself for fools. Nor am i at all interested in arguing religious arcana at this point. Human beings, who define their solipsistic realities in necessary relationship with invisible, masculine, anthropomorphic, energy entities, have never, will never, be approachable through argumentation.

  • http://silverlightme.net Al Pascual

    It saddens me that we are here in 2008 still discussing if gay people should have the same rights as other people. In California we will be voting on Prop 8, which would overturn the right of gay people to get married. This kind of proposition should, in this millennium, not even be discussed. Everybody should have the right to marry whoever they want. We should not discriminate against any race, religion, or sexual orientation. By doing so, we have proven that there is no equality under the law in California – for anyone.

    http://alpascual.com/blog/al/archive/2008/11/01/going-to-vote-no-on-prop-8-evolution-will-eventually-take-over.aspx

    Cheers
    Al

  • Jon

    Yes on Prop 8 – whats wrong with you people! You actions have consequences beyond the short term.

  • http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/ Dr. Free-Ride

    Yes on Prop 8 – whats wrong with you people! You actions have consequences beyond the short term.

    Yes indeedy — and can we see some of the empirical evidence that legal marriage between partners of the same sex has caused any more harm than legal marriage between partners of opposite sex? While California and Connecticut may not provide loads of data yet, Massachusetts and Canada might.

    Honestly, it may be time to consider the possibility that, if your marriage feels like it will be weakened by the marriage of a gay couple, the problem is not with gay marriage but with *your* marriage.

  • Bill Lee

    It’s human behavior to always want more than what we have, especially to prove a point. before the marriage issue the homosexual comunity pushed until they were given civil unity rights. Now that’s not enough. They want to take marriage (Holy Matrimony), which was commanded by GOD in order to have sexual relations between a man and a woman into their own hands. The constitution gives us freedom of religion, so why does religion keep being taken away from us. voting no on prop. 8 is a selfish and arrogant act. We are being stripped of our beleif in order for others to have more of theirs.
    Homosexuals have been done a terrible injustice that may be to late to turn around. After months of research, I have found that no studies have been conclusive that geneticly a man can be born a woman or a woman a man. In fact the only thing proven in all studies is that this is a treatable condition. However, socially and politically we take the easiest way out which in this case is to run from the fear stemming from such a sensitive issue and give them their way.
    This could have been an issue taken into hand long ago and corrected However the easiest way was to let it fester. Corporate america and politics benifit by allowing any kind of community to grow in order to grow themselves. If pr0p. 8 does not pass it WILL be to late to turn things around and we will continue to be stripped of our faith.

  • http://telescoper.wordpress.com Peter Coles

    This is probably a bad time to ask, but what are propositions 1 to 7?

  • http://www.thechocolatefish.blogspot.com Yvette

    When I was working in California this summer I met a guy and his partner by chance who had just gotten married the first week it was allowed. Why anyone would want to deny them their incredible happiness when there’s so little of it in the world anyway is beyond me (and I’m still saddened that my own state outlawed this four years ago).

    Why anyone gives a damn about what people do or don’t do in their own bedrooms is completely beyond me.

  • Roger

    The Prop 8 vote will not affect what anyone does in the bedroom.

  • brandon

    I support Prop 8.
    First and foremost, I dont understand why so many people not in California are getting involved in this. If you guys care so much about allowing gay marriage, why dont you argue that in your own states that dont allow it?
    Secondly, marriage is between a man and a woman. The true meaning of two people getting married is for them to produce a biological child. I’m not against gays, but i think that it’s just not ok for gays to get married when they just can’t fit with the definition of marriage.
    Yes on Prop 8.

  • brandon

    Another thing–
    Voting yes on Prop 8 is not discriminating gays. By saying that yes to Prop 8 goes “against” gay marriage, it doesn’t mean that it discriminates against gay people, hate them, attack them in public or private, or think that they are evil. It merely means that they are against supporting these behaviors, and not doing so is the same thing as supporting those behaviors.
    So for those of you who say that yes on prop8 is the same as racial discrimination and anything of that sort, you’re wrong.
    For fricken sake guys, protect marriage. YES ON PROP 8!!!

  • http://www.thechocolatefish.blogspot.com Yvette

    Roger- of course it doesn’t. But why do people oppose gay marriage then? Because they have sex with someone of the same gender. So they DO care.

    And brandon, regarding your comments, I hope by your logic you’ve never had sex where the end goal wasn’t a baby. We should probably stop letting infertile couples get married too.

  • http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/ Dr. Free-Ride

    Taking away a right that gay Californians currently have *because* they are gay sort of seems like a textbook definitions of discrimination.

    You don’t like gay marriage? Then by all means, don’t enter into one. But if the states can be in the business of granting or withholding marriage licenses on the basis of whether the marriages conform to some particular religious definition of marriage, then look forward to the petition drive to put a measure on the ballot banning LDS Temple marriages.

  • Roger

    Brandon, if you want to know why people oppose same-sex marriage, then ask them. I suggest starting with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore. They will answer without mentioning the bedroom.

  • http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/ Dr. Free-Ride

    Roger, the Obama campaign supports a “no” vote on prop 8.

    Furthermore, it’s unclear if any of the politicians you cite would oppose same-sex marriage in circumstances where they didn’t feel that they needed to get the votes of a substantial portion of voters who oppose same-sex marriage. In other words, their stated positions are more accurately characterized as political rather than principled.

  • http://countiblis.blogspot.com Count Iblis

    If pr0p. 8 does not pass it WILL be to late to turn things around and we will continue to be stripped of our faith.

    Go to Saudi Arabia or Iran and ask for political asylum there on the grounds that you are have to tolerate gay marriage in your home country. :)

  • mcc

    First and foremost, I dont understand why so many people not in California are getting involved in this. If you guys care so much about allowing gay marriage…

    Do you really want to start going down this path? The only reason proposition 8 has any chance of passing is the enormous and disproportionate amount of out-of-state money its supporters have taken in to run dishonest ads for the measure…

    This is probably a bad time to ask, but what are propositions 1 to 7?

    Assuming you’re serious: 1. Build a bullet train from SF to LA 2. Require livestock be kept in humane conditions 3. Issue a bond to fund children’s hospitals 4. Require parental notification for abortions by minors 5. Shift drug law enforcement from incarceration to rehabilitation 6. Harsher sentencing for some crimes, particularly gang-related offenses 7. Breaks the kneecaps of California alternative energy under the guise of promoting it.

    The state issues a voter information guide with text of all 13 propositions plus arguments for and against, if you’re a California voter you should have received this in the mail already.

  • Tercel

    Voting yes on Prop 8 is not discriminating gays. By saying that yes to Prop 8 goes “against” gay marriage, it doesn’t mean that it discriminates against gay people, hate them, attack them in public or private, or think that they are evil. It merely means that they are against supporting these behaviors, and not doing so is the same thing as supporting those behaviors.

    When people say things like this, I tend to conclude that they really don’t understand that they are bigots. It’s hard to put myself in their shoes, but I figure that they don’t want to be bigots, and that they probably don’t feel like they imagine a bigot feels. After all, would you actually expect to hear one of these people admit “yes, I hate gay people, and I want to discriminate against them and take away their rights.” ? I’d be surprised to hear such an admission, even though that is exactly what prop. 8 would do.

    I think it may be more persuasive in arguing with these people to point out that their behavior is bigotry, is discriminatory, is wrong, and is unamerican — whether they want it to be or not.

    Claiming “I am not a bigot” doesn’t make it true. You’ve got to actualy not be a bigot

  • brandon

    Yvette,
    why are u always talking about sex? Gay couples can have all the sex they want, but I’m talking about marriage here. Most people get married to have children; that’s a main purpose of marriage. If you think that gay people merely want sex, then why support gay marriage?
    Vote yes on prop 8 people!

  • Roger

    their stated positions are more accurately characterized as political rather than principled.

    Yes, there are probably politicians who just support same-sex marriage to get the gay vote, or who just don’t want to be labeled bigots.

    I am disgusted by all the dishonest TV ads against Prop 8.

  • http://www.baytzim.com/ Cain Hamm

    Christians! Don’t be fooled by a Mormon LDS trick! Save Christianity and vote NO on proposition 8! See http://Batyzim.com/ for the real, Christian, story.

  • Stefan Gruenwedel

    When I visited the Sacramento County Office of the Clerk-Recorder on June 17, 2008 — the first day that gays and lesbians were allowed to marry — I spoke with several couples who were getting married. The facts spoke for themselves as to why Proposition 8 is not only bad but hurtful. This short video I made is a response to a common argument espoused by the Yes on 8 campaign, namely: why should gays care so much about getting married when they already get recognition as domestic partners?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3A-LKL9Z1k

  • http://www.thechocolatefish.blogspot.com Yvette

    brandon, ok, let’s talk about marriage then. I happen to know several heterosexual couples who chose to get married but, for one reason or another, to not have children. I think everyone reasonable will agree that it’s none of our business as to why this is, but if they love each other and want all the entitlements they can receive under the law because of their union they are more than welcome to that, as people get married for a lot of different reasons.

    So tell me, brandon, in the context of marriage what should we do about all these couples who don’t want kids? And why would/should there be any difference between one being a male and one being female? Why should we care at all?

  • Juan Jaasiel Rodriguez Ornelas

    there is very deep issue here at hand in terms of marriage. This problem will in no way be solved in this election. The door for conflict has been blown wide open, and the issue will go on to weig more important things in our country.

    We must truly look at the responsibilities of the state, and its need to promote the well being of it’s systems ability to provide freedoms and liberties for its constituents and to avoid creating inconsistencies for them that leads to moral dilemnas.

    If we are to be true liberterians, and propose a state of anarchy, we must therefore not ask the state to consider our contracts, agreements, rhetoric etc. in its decision making process. For example, absolutely free trade and economy. However, because we request help (Welfare, police, defence, social security), recognition (race, profession, sexual orientation, business, sexual orientation, single or married), and action (money, punishments, reimbursements, domicile, visitation rights) from the system, and beg often for its interference for its constituents, we therefore grant it a power. And this is it: discernment.

    It must have the power to categorize. Who is poor, guilty, friend, enemy, retirement aged, hispanic, white, black, architect, school teacher, lawyer, president, soldier, pilot, gay, straight, neither, both, single, married, owed to, owes, guilty, not guilty, afflicted, afflicting, is in georgia, is in texas, is in california, related, unrelated, etc. This is key to our system of law. We give it this power because of the complexity it has due to our requests of it. No one is exempt in this request by virtue of living here. Therefore, we cannot claim infinite equality from the law.

    This is fine. It’s ok. Anyone against it or that says it is not true is simply not looking hard enough.

    Proposition 8 proponents, and anyone who comes against it, are fighting over a power of discernment of the law, and that is the relational status that the law categorizes two people as “marriage”. The category has already existed for a long time, and the law has helped, recognized, and acted on this category. And therefore it has interfered. Once again this is ok. Because we expect this of the government. And if we do not consider this fair, than that person does not belong here, and probably not in any other government.

    They are absolute anarchists.

    Now, this is the danger that our modern day is putting before our government: regulating on popular basis what the different categories are, and furthermore, what their individual responsibilities, benefits, demerits, restrictions and other qualities are.

    So, the marriage contract, homosexual relationships, heterosexual relationships, polygamist relationships, incest relationships, and others are all recognized by the law and assigned a status, legal or illegal. This too is ok. They are each individual categories. However, the marriage contract is a far more formal category. The real differences between the different relationships are all implied by the different titles we give them, however the differences occur in reality. They are obvious. And no one can deny them. Any straight person who would say that their relationship is the same as that as any other relationship, gay or plural and so on, and believes it, is in serious trouble.

    Now, this is the problem of not supporting a measure such as prop 8. You force the law to take two VERY different relationships, with very REAL differences, make it dishonor those differences, and force them into a category that will provide the EXACT same qualities to both relationships. We do not need the law to do this, because it is already done. It’s called a union.

    Furthermore, we are forcing the law to take a category, called a contract, and force it into one of our most fundamental categories: a Right. We are confusing it with a real right: the right to hold a contract. Therefore, we remove a serious right: the right to exclusivity in any contract. And we will take it to the supreme court to do this.

    All in the name of equality. This is perhaps the biggest challenges this country will face. Are we going to force the government to hand over its power of discernment to our will and whim. And then, force it to close its eyes to real differences because of the word of the day, Tolerance and Equality, in this case, and then make it act irrelevant of those differences.

    The psychological impact that this will have on the future of this nation is unknown and could not be calculated. Because we will begin the eroding of value and difference for the law, we may affect the very nature of this culture in the future. And in no good way, because we may begin to affect the categories of the general culture and social structure because of its interdependence of with government in a negative manner, for example the many court cases already being held as well as their rulings show this. This is not a direct attack human rights and decency, and neither are people calculating to do this great harm to our nation. It is simply our inability to see past the real issues, and handle them as required.

    That there are ways to protect different groups from discrimination and that we can, with the law, is true. And we should definitely have them in play. But granting the formal homosexual union the same as the formal heterosexual union is not the way. This will unnecessarily inhibit the rights of heterosexual union.

    We should avoid this precedent at all costs. Because it is a precedent for lying at the fundamental levels of the government, not just at decision making and bureaucratic levels.

    Forget the problems for the two groups for and against gay marriage, we are entering a discussion of this nation’s government’s future, it’s quality, and possible eventual demise.

    to say the least, picture ralph wiggum getting thrown through a glass window and saying: “I’m a brick”

  • SkyHook

    My personal opinion is that the state should not have any say about the issue of marriage at all. The very fact of a “state issued marriage license” is not only an infringement on personal liberty, but an insult to every citizen bound by such an invasive law.

  • Laurie

    Juan Jaasiel Rodriguez Ornelas — that’s the most intelligent discussion of the issue I’ve heard in weeks of blogging on the issue! Thank you!

  • Beth

    Marriage is not sacred anymore why take it away from the gays. That is horrible that people feel the need to but into other lives. EQUALITY our county has prized it for centuries. Why change it for the sake of “Protecting” marriage? Christians just want to change it to “Protect” themselves because they are homophobs. This is coming from a straight, christian.

  • John Emr

    I got married to my partner of 11 years at the Montage in Laguna Beach about a month ago. Why? I love him, and we wanted to make it official before our families. We have a right to do so in California, which is our second home. If prop 8 is passed, others right to marry will be taken away. Why, in 2008, are we taking away peoples rights? Will we still be married? It’s really going to hurt my husband, and our families if our rights are taken away. Life will go on, the seasons will come and go, and my love for him will continue to grow. Thank God Obama will be the president in a few months. May God bless those who liberate. May God bless those who oppress. Make no mistake, taking away our rights is oppression.

  • Erika

    I want to address Juan’s argument between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage . . . First of all I am going to assume that you have entered into both, hetero marriage and a homosexual marriage, or you are an expert devoted to the study of human sexual/intimate relationships. Clearly this would be the only way for you to know the “VERY different relationships, with very REAL differences . . .” I’m sure that you can agree on at least that part of how we gain knowledge and experience throughout our human life. And I would love a list of these so-called differences as well.

    I am a lesbian and I am engaged. I also spent several years in relationships with men. I can tell you from experience, the similiarities FAR outweigh the differences.

    You should research further the history of discrimination and rights and how closely your argument matches those that argued for segregation and insisted that integration would cause a huge collapse in our country. AND If marriage isn’t a right, or priviledge, then I am sure that all men and women are happy to give theirs up willingly, with the defeat of Prop 8. I hope they are also willing claim single on their federal and state tax returns, and are happy to burn hundreds of pictures celebrating the signing of their marriage license.

    I am not a second class citizen and my “union” is not infringing on any “union” between a man and woman. Further more, the next 60-70 years that I spend with my wife will not infringe on the 60% of born again christians that will divorce in the first 10 years of theirs.

    The only difference between me and the average committed heterosexual is that I will pay more in taxes, healthcare, property fees, contract fees, adoption fees, and a myriad of other rights that they may simply get to enjoy by taking a weekend trip to Vegas and saying a few things with Elvis.

  • Gwen

    To Juan above: There is no discernable difference between a marriage of two consenting adult women, two consenting adult men, or one of each. There are heterosexual relationships in which sex is never partaken. There are heterosexual relationships where anal intercourse is performed in a manner no different from two men. There are heterosexual relationships where vaginal penetration never happens but co-masturbation is performed in a manner little different from two women or two men. There are sterile heterosexual relationships with no offspring. You speak of discernment, but I question if there is anything to discern considering practices considered “homosexual” are entirely within the margins of heterosexual practices.

    To Erika above: Amen.

    Unlike Juan, I actually can speak from having experienced both heterosexual and homosexual marriage- with the same partner. Proof both of God’s sense of humor and her infinite providence, I am a woman born male. This cosmic error allowed me to meet the woman of my dreams, marry legally, and produce with her two adorable children before fulfilling my destiny by correcting my body to fit my soul. Even though I may have the magic piece of paper (for now), I still fear someday the prejudice still pervasive in America will somehow try and sunder a marriage now 20 years strong, clearly consumated, but quite clearly gay. I was married at 19 and remain married 20 years later- something less than 10% of all heterosexual teenage marriages can claim. I have two healthy and intelligent children working hard to become productive members of society. I am a gainfully employed professional, single wage-earner supporting my wife and family, and paid over $10,000 in federal income taxes last year even with my married filing jointly status and all the child deductions/credits. Explain to me again exactly how I am a threat to the fabric of American society and why marriage must be “defended” from me and those like me? I present a very traditional marriage profile viewed objectively. Heck, I’m downright 1950′s. Does the absence of a penis from the picture really change it?

  • nini

    I am so happy that Obama won, because the snow in Canada doesn’t appeal to me. But Prop 8 passed, and I’m tempted once again to move up North. The thing is, I’m not even gay!

    How can it be that a religious group of people can have so much say in what Americans can and cannot do? I can understand if you have a personal problem imagining two men or two women together, but I always thought one’s personal dislikes should not infringe on personal right. There’s so many things that people do that I dislike, but I believe that I have the right to do my own share of weird things, that they should be allowed too. To be allowed your freedom, you must allow others the freedom too.

    My personal religion (member of one) actually forbids marriage between a man and a woman. Maybe I should start gathering signatures for a Prop 8.2 for 2009 to ban marriage between heterosexual couples because it’s “un-natural” in my religion. Why not? Then no one will have the right to get married, and maybe then, equal rights would mean something.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Cosmic Variance

Random samplings from a universe of ideas.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »