I read a blog earlier today, God Bless America , from a woman who was glad that proposition 8 had passed in California and I found myself becoming furious.
As usual, the way I handled that anger was to channel it into writing, so here we go…
I voted Yes on 8 as all of you know. And I am proud to say that 5,725,000 other people feel the same way I do. Once again the Sanctity of Traditional Marriage is sacred again. But, as one spokeswoman for the Mormon Church says in an interview this morning, "This measure in no way changes anything for Gay Rights." It's true. We will continue turning a blind eye to same sex couples co-living together and setting up housekeeping. They will still be covered in the insurance offered by various companies. Even though I disagree with couples living together outside of Marriage this also covers those who do. This woman continues on by saying, "...All this measure does is define that the Sate of California can only recognize a Marriage as Traditional, between a man and a woman.
First off, marriage as we know it today is not “traditional.” Traditional marriage is long gone (and good riddance).
Husbands are no longer required to fully care financially for their wives without reciprocation, no matter how rich she is and how poor he might be. In traditional marriage, women were not able to enter into independent contracts without consent and their husbands could sell off any of their property without any form of permission. Not too mention that there was no way to prosecute a husband for raping his wife, no matter the circumstances, since it was considered the same as “raping oneself.”
That's traditional marriage and I don’t know about you, but for me there's no sanctity in that kind of ownership masquerading as partnership.
I also think the overall idea that marriage in itself is sacred is completely false. For me, it's the LOVE inside a marriage that’s sacred and that must come from within and be realized over time through little sacrifices in the day to day trappings of being with a person.
The true problem is we don’t know how to define marriage. (All dictionaries do is track common usages of terms, so that is not the place to go looking.)
We know what it does; it turns strangers-at-law into next-of-kin, but not what it is.
The most popular forms of marriage until the 19th century were common law marriages. Common law marriages are acknowledged by the law without being a creature of it and show us that neither the content of marriage (day to day) nor the legal form (rights) requires different genders.
Yet, even knowing that, the law still can't find a way to define marriage.
I also don’t think that civil unions are the answer. Because what does it really say about society when the law offers civil unions with the perceived same amount of rights, but without the “sacred” title of marriage? That is more offensive than no rights at all because the civil union scheme intentionally distinguishes differences between homosexual couples from heterosexual ones. We are essentially degrading gays by offering a separate-but-equal civil union while still denying them the social form of marriage.
(I do want to point out that civil unions are no where near equal to marriage. you can find a great summary here.)
Moving on to another issue that will soon be coming up in this State. Gay couples being allowed to adopt or foster children. The State of Arkansas voted Yes on Prop 8, also took it to another level… It will soon become clear if we need to follow Arkansas lead on Gay Couples being able to adopt or foster children. As for me, I disagree with the whole adopting thing. I believe that a child should be raised in Traditional Home with Traditional Values. Being Gay is a choice. Your choice. And I commend you for that. But, it does not mean that being Gay is Right.
Ok, wow. I don’t even know where to begin.
First off, the traditional home means very little today what with divorce, single parenthood, standard adoption, family guardians, and in-vitro fertilization.
Second, a lot of these couples already have children through past relationships. In fact, the 2000 census reported 594,000 households as being headed by same sex couples (that number doesn’t even take into consideration all the people that didn’t divulge that information) with 55 percent having children under the age of 19 in the home. Yet heterosexual families are still going about there daily lives just fine.
People need to understand that the true threat to marriage is DIVORCE. That’s right people; not what gay couples do in the privacy of their homes, but what you do in yours. And yet, where are people raising millions of dollars to outlaw divorce? Or shotgun weddings in Las Vegas? As long as that continues the “sanctity” of marriage will never be more than a joke.
Voting Yes on 8 does not make anyone racist it only defines what California wants, No Gay Marriages Allowed.
That definitely is true. It is not racist, but it is bigoted since this is clearly an attack on gay marriage using the pretense of "saving" heterosexual marriage.
It's also unequal, as any law is unequal if it draws upon or enhances the view that some group is held in morally less regard.
So lets call a spade a spade and be honest with ourselves.