« October Pumpkin Patch |Home| Total Power Thought for October 23 »
Powerful Response to Proposition 8
By karen | October 18, 2008
And fighting against the ones who are fighting against is still fighting against.”
(just a reminder to myself as I write……)
Here is the Powerful response….
(my own response follows…)
One of the issues that has caught my attention in this election year is something that I can’t even vote on,
(read The Honeymoon’s over as Mormon’s Lead the Revolt)
LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state.[24]
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.[25]
*******
My question is “Why”?
Why do we seek to “provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized”?
They say it is about “protecting the sanctity of marriage”.
“Protecting the sanctity of marriage”?
Why do people only want to offer that “sanctity” to people who look like them?
There are millions of devoted, loving, committed gay couples who contribute to society and live in peace and love and harmony.
Their relationships don’t look like mine. I don’t care. I’m sure that their relationship allows them to be their own highest self just as mine allows me to be my own highest self.
Rather than defining marriage in a more narrow way why can’t we start to define marriage in a more expanded and allowing way?
We don’t all have to fit into the same perfect little box.
“Children of God”.
(yes, even the ones who look different!!)
If I could vote, I would vote NO.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Topics: Living the Power, Real Life |
October 18th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Thank you for this post, Karen. It means a lot — and not just to those of us in California trying to protect our legal right to marry; this is the Gettysburg of the war for equality, for the entire nation. I’m sorry you can’t vote on this, too — but you can make a donation to the No On 8 campaign (even five dollars can make a big difference!). Thanks again — we need allies like you to be our voice.
October 21st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I find it unfortunate that the world continues to try and divide itself further and further because if it’s fears.
I remember reading about one solution, though not ideal, was a step in the right direction - that “marriage” would be a strictly religious term, and that another word would be used strictly for government / legal purposes.
Right now the definition of “marriage” in our country does not allow for an adequate separation of church and state.
It is pure hypocrisy to say that banning gays from marrying is to “protect the sanctity of marriage” simply because of that definition of marriage.
If religions want to ban gay marriages, while I feel that is unfortunate, then so be it. There’s plenty of religions and spiritual paths that embrace people of all walks of life.
But when our government is banning it, that is no different than when women and blacks didn’t have the right to vote.
We let gays vote. So why can’t they enter into a simple contract that gains all the legal benefits currently afforded to heterosexual married couples?
Sure, they could get a billion and one legal documents that all eventually add up to the same result as being legally married. But is that really right? To have gays spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to do something that heterosexual couples can do at the courthouse for under $100 ?
And yes, I know I’m exaggerating. It’s not really a billion and one…. it’s just a few million
There is great hypocrisy in this world, and the lack of true separation from church and state in a country that was supposedly founded on such separation is one of the most prominent and influential examples of that hypocrisy.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Chris,
I think you hit this one right on the head….
I think it is a civil rights issue…yet the news in my town (which more often than not, does blur the line between church and state. In Utah church and state are often the same, there is little separation.) claims that it is a “moral” issue and that they have a “moral obligation” to fight it….
and then I wonder how they can justify that with the teachings of Christianity which they claim sole ownership of….
didn’t Christ teach to “love thy neighbor” and “judge not”?
Geez, that’s what they taught me in “primary” when I was a kid….they forgot to explain that when we got to be a grownups that there would be people who were different…for some reason I thought that when Jesus said ‘love thy neighbor” he meant it unconditionally….but Not, according to the church.