Proposition 8 – wtf?
Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage and said it was unconstitutional to deny anyone the right to marry.
This pissed many people off, and hence was drafted: Proposition 8. If passed, the proposition would change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California, and new section would be added stating “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, issued the following statement concerning California’s anti-gay marriage Proposition 8:
As an Internet company, Google is an active participant in policy debates surrounding information access, technology and energy. Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions — Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, all religions and no religion, straight and gay — we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues. So when Proposition 8 appeared on the California ballot, it was an unlikely question for Google to take an official company position on.
However, while there are many objections to this proposition — further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text — it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 — we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.
Go Google. Tell ‘em.
If you are in California (or just curious), you should check out more info about Proposition 8 on wikipedia.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Proposition 8 protects the family as the fundamental unit of society. It also protects the fundamental gender roles that society espouses.
On top of that, as other states and countries have allowed same-gender marriages, laws have been created to protect them. These laws generally discriminate against those whose conscience and religious beliefs compel them to not support same-gender marriage. Is same-gender marriage a greater right than the freedom of religion?
And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges.
I honestly think this is what is best for SOCIETY as a WHOLE. Marriage and family are the most fundamental unit of society. I will do everything I can do to make sure that they stay strong. Although death and divorce sometimes interrupt the ideal, everything that can be done to protect the family, needs to be.
61% of California voters voted to have marriage be recognized between “Man and Woman” under prop 22 in 2000. Four of seven Judges in San Francisco overturned the passing of prop 22. How can four judges justify overturning the majority vote? Google,
61% of California voters voted to have marriage be recognized between “Man and Woman” under prop 22 in 2000. Four of seven Judges in San Francisco overturned the passing of prop 22. How can four judges justify overturning the majority vote? Google says they don’t want further “government encroachment on personal lives”, you’re kidding! That’s exactly what the four judges did to the majority of the voters in California!
Look, it’s fine to have a strong view on things – but don’t be shoving it down my children’s throats in public school – don’t show pictures of two men or two women with children as an appropriate family structure – it’s just not right! That’s exactly what will happen if prop 8 does not pass, contrary to opponents of prop 8.
The majority in California was also against interracial marriage until the CA Supreme Court overturned the law banning it in 1959.
FREAKING 1959!!! I was ALIVE then!
…and it wasn’t made legal in all states until 1967.
Good chart refs at http://www.filibustercartoons.com/marriage.htm
People used the Bible to “prove” that blacks and whites shouldn’t marry…
Nobody’s telling you that you have to marry someone of the same sex, or a different color… they just want to be able to marry the person they love.
And as far as Civil unions, it’s not anywhere NEAR the same thing as far as rights go…
Good reference here:
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
BTW…If you’re for Prop 8 to defend “Traditional Marriage”, don’t forget the “Till death do you part” part…
and ask Sen. McCain about that in respect to his first wife…
I am a white male married to my wife for 15 years. Since June of this year, same sex couples have been allowed to married. This has not changed me or my marriage one bit. It’s not even noticeable.
What exactly are all of you in favor of Prop 8 afraid of?
Why are you so against people who love each other getting married? It forces absolutely nothing on you, and if you don’t believe in, or favor it, then so be it. Get on with your lives. And, contrary to TV ads, nothing will be forced down any children’s throats.
Read the facts instead of believing TV ads that are completely untrue and misleading. Because the majority of people voted a certain way, doesn’t make it right. If the majority voted to segregate blacks and whites, does that make it right? I know gay couples who have been together for 20, 25, 30 years. For them to marry will make no difference in your lives.
The pro prop 8 comments here are archaic and very depressing. Where are we as a civilized culture?
[...] fact, that post on prop 8 received more comments than any other post written here thus far. Many of the commenters are [...]
When same sex couples claim the “right” to impose and promote thier lifestyle on and to others through legalization it is done in the name of being open-minded and tolerant. When those valuing traditional marriage express their opinions, they are labeled bigots. Seems hypiciritcal to me that those seeking tolerance don’t offer it! I believe this speaks to the motive of the argument.
A parent in MA was recently jailed because he demanded parental notification that his elementary school child was being taught same sex marriage as equal to herterosexual marriage. What happened to his rights? Again, the “door only swings one way”! Because same sex marriage is leagal in MA, the state now usurps the rights of the parent to teach moral values. Does that not scare anyone?!!!! Think again if you believe this is a “live and let live” issue. This is the beginning of a fundemental change in the definition of rights as well as marriage!
“It is unfortunate that Mr. Brin has been educated by the political actions of the gay and lesbian movement for the past 25 years such that at his young age he is unable to distinuuish between a true minority ( something you are born with and have no choice over)as opposed to a form of sexual behavior practiced by a wide variety of people by choice because it brings them pleasure.”
–It is unfortunate that Mr. Moore has been uneducated and remained ignorant about the gay and lesbian community for his entire life and at his (I’m guessing older) age is still unable to distinguish between fact and fiction. People don’t choose to be gay, but you do choose whether to be ignorant or not.
“When same sex couples claim the “right” to impose and promote thier lifestyle on and to others through legalization it is done in the name of being open-minded and tolerant. When those valuing traditional marriage express their opinions, they are labeled bigots. Seems hypiciritcal to me that those seeking tolerance don’t offer it! I believe this speaks to the motive of the argument.”
–First of all, gay couples do not try to impose and promote their lifestyle onto others. I think you’re confusing that behavior with those who are so prejudiced against any type of sexual lifestyle or commitment other than that between a man and a woman. Gay couples do not wish for everyone to engage in same-sex marriages the way those in support of Prop 8 wish for everyone to only engage in opposite-sex marriages. Your analogy is a bit off considering that gay people want equal rights for everyone and those in favor of Proposition 8 want to restrict the right to be married only to a certain group of people, thereby excluding the minority from enjoying their same rights. The definition of a bigot, according to dictionary.com, is: “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.” those in favor of Proposition 8 are utterly intolerant of Those who do not share their same religious beliefs and opinions on marriage. Hm…
Cate-Examine the wording of Prop 8 carefully. Prop 8 takes away no legal rights to same sex unions. Prop 8 simply protects the definition of marriage. While I don’t agree with same sex unions, I harbor no ill will to those who make such a choice and wish to take away none of the rights afforded such unions under the law.
What I do take exception to is that proponents of Prop 8 want to fundementally change the definition of marriage. Marriage has been defined from the beginning of time as a union between a man and a woman having the natural potential of creating offspring perpetuating the human race. Same sex unions cannot accomplish this through normal biological means.
You can call an apple an orange, you can even pass a law to call an apple an orange, but at the end of the day, it is still an apple! An apple is called an apple, because that is name assigned to the piece of fruit since the beginning of time. Since the beginning of time marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman.
Legalization of same sex marriage as has happened in MA has undeniably had implications on partent’s legal rights to teach thier children moral values at home vs. in the schools. The state is now obligated to teach that a same sex union is the same as marriage. That is clearly not correct by definition and is confusing to children.
I respect one’s right to make choices I don’t agree with. Just as you claim the right to voice your opion, I claim the same right. I am not imposing my viewpoint or do not hold hostility to you or anyone else. I am simply defending the definition of marriage.
Marriage is all about two people who love each other and commit to each other. That’s what marriage is. The marriage of two men, two women, or a man and a woman are all the same. What is it about marriage that you’re trying to protect, and why? I realize that there are those out there who are in favor of prop 8, but what is it you think marriage is? I know you think it should only be between a man and a woman, but what is your definition of what it means, and why should that definition be held to only a man and a woman? Oh, and for what it’s worth, Mr. Moore should be reminded that sexual behavior between a man and a woman brings them pleaeure too.
Listed below are the six consequences that the coalition for Proposition 8 has identified are likely to result if the proposition does not pass:
1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage.
The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)
Therefore, unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage is between any two adults regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there.
4. Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.
5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees may not say: “traditional marriage,” or “family values” because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is “hate speech.”
6. It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g., photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors cannot now refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors). Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money – that will be spent on such legal battles.
And think of all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this time. Where will it end?
It’s your children, your grandchildren, your money, and your liberties.
Lets work together to protect them.
Join with us in walking precincts and phoning voters to vote Yes on Prop 8.
I don’t think just walking around and phoning people is going to accomplish anything. To really make a statement, consider following the example of Thích Quảng Đức.
A few facts regarding prop 8 in California.
Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is “false and misleading.”
Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won’t affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.
Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.
California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.
California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.
Regardless of how you feel about the issue, you should at least base your vote on facts, and not on misleading statements.
I truly pity anyone who reads scripture of a any religious text literally — not to mention the ridiculous logic that sexual orientation is a choice, as if every gay person does not try to live the lie as long as they possibly can while blaming themselves for what they are taught is so “evil” even though it is found throughout history in all cultures and everywhere in nature….until that one day they realize that continuing to live that way not only hurts them emotionally but is so unhealthy to their mental being.
But there are still those who wish to force them to continue to live this way to the point where they get married with opposite sex and then even have children – they are able to bond w/ there mate on some level but they are never really in true love with them – and eventually it eats away at them and when they do finally accept that it is NOT a choice, they end up destroying relationships with their mate, children and the realize there entire life has been a lie – but only then do they truly feel free and accepted (if not by everybody – then at least the two that matter God and themselves!)
Now I submit to you – one of the best dialogs on the subject that helps demonstrate who it can be so easy to pick and choose words and interpret literally and what a different heathen world we would live in.
THE WEST WING “THE MIDTERMS”
WRITTEN BY: AARON SORKIN
DIRECTED BY: ALEX GRAVES
JENNA JACOBS, CONSERVATIVE RADIO TALKSHOW HOST – I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
BARTLET – Yes, it does. Leviticus.
JENNA JACOBS – 18:22
BARTLET – Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here.
I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. (small chuckles from the guests) She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, and always clears the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?
While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath, Exodus 35:2, clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?
Here’s one that’s really important, ’cause we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes us unclean, Leviticus 11:7.
If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side?
Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
Jenna Jacobs fidgets uncomfortably.
BARTLET – Think about those questions, would you?
—-LASTLY, FROM MY FAVOITE BUMPER STICKER: FOCUS ON YOUR OWN DAMN FAMILY! -JOEY
i agree wit joseph. a word to crystal; home girl. show me one place in the propostion that states the affects all that ish. so go home, vote for mccain, and shut the fuck up with your life. thanks =]
Why does ANYONE care what other consenting adults do? I’m not personally for same sex marriage, but I support those who are. I’m a life-long Conservative Republican! I’m also a life-long Californian and I attended public school from Kindergarten to College. So did my children. None of us were taught about marriage in school, gay, straight or otherwise! We learned about marriage at home! I have already voted by absentee ballot and I voted NO on Prop 8! This is not about gay rights. It’s about human rights.
Marriage is about love and commitment, not sex. Same sex couples don’t have any more sex than other couples. They shop, clean house, cook, just like everyone else. I know a male couple who have been together for 25 years and have been celibate for the last 20. They are together because they LOVE each other. Love is Love!
It is unfortunate that Mr. Brin has been educated by the political actions of the gay and lesbian movement for the past 25 years such that at his young age he is unable to distinuuish between a true minority ( something you are born with and have no choice over)as opposed to a form of sexual behavior practiced by a wide variety of people by choice because it brings them pleasure.
It has been the goal of the gay and lesbian movement to hijack the work of Martin Luther King and others , declare themselves a minority group, and thus have access to all sorts of rights regardless of very legitimate moral and ethical questions which have serious ramifications for our society in general.
In addition Mr Brin also is under the mistaken delusion, as are many Americans. that our “certain inalienable rights” declared in the constitution means we have a right to do whatever the heck we want and to hell with what anyone else thinks about it. As the Judeochristian heritage of our country has been eroded by those who consider themselves intellectually superior and without need of a moral compass we have seen these ideas become more and more prominent to the extent that we now have unprecedented legal action challenging the family structure which our country and our faiths have been built on for hundreds of years.
Can it be that our forefathers were so wrong and we modernists have come to realize that we are actually the enlightened ones and by damn we should be able to have men having sex with men. women having sex with women, and even getting married because I think I am in love with a same sex person? Or could it be that we have drifted away from the God who created us and our country and actually pursued our own agendas and lusts no matter what anyone thought or how it affected those around us? Surely not. Lest we offend anyone- let us all do what feels good. Surely we do not need to look to the welfare of our society first and ask if our individual rights should be subject to what is best for all of us as a country and a society. Surely we will be different from nations and kingdoms of ages past who saw their very existence wiped out as they declined in morals. We are a country of rights gone amuck, where all think we have rights that were never given, and where morals are all relative.