Questions for Anyone Who Voted for Proposition 8

“Can I vote on the legality of your marriage?”

I AM SO USING THAT!!!!!!!

I was so happy about the election yet this is just so bloody dismaying.
For the record, here in Canada where gay marriage is legal, when it was legalized the world did not fall apart and last I checked my heterosexual marriage is still fine and dandy thank you very much.
I really honestly don’t get how this can happen this day and age.
I seriously hope this fight rages on until there is real equality for all in the US, this is something that seriously needs to be fought for.
There is no way in hell discrimination should be put in a constitution! This is crazy!

I just keep thinking: If only these stupid, bigoted motherfuckers would pour this much moeny into fighting the gross (real)immorality of war.
Tiny-brained little sheep.

Do you think that banning gay marriage is constitutional?

I agree with kate, “Can I vote on the legality of your marriage?” — Best. Response. Ever.

It also wasn’t just straights that voted against gay marriage on Tuesday. I live in Florida and my employer happens to be a lesbian who I know for a fact voted against legalizing gay marriage here. I do not know exactly her position exactly since that is a bit more personal than we normally go. (She is NOT a conservative.)

My wife asked me last night if I would be upset if the government invalidated our marriage, and I can honestly say I would be ecstatic. The government should get their fingers out of the marriage business all together. I would still be married to my wife even if they took back the license. No one needs permission from the state to be married. They just can’t file joint taxes. (And in some states now, adopt children. But we’re atheists that’s never stopped us from eating them… why should it stop the gays from adopting them.)

Peace
Euthyphro

I was fuming about this all day yesterday. I couldn’t even bring myself to feel happy about Obama’s victory because this just cast a pall over everything.

Some friends from a local atheist meetup had the idea to stage a demonstration in front of the Mormon Temple in Kensington, MD during their festival of lights this holiday season.

If anyone in the DC/MD/VA is just as pissed off as I am about this and wants to do something about it, let me know.

If second-class citizenship is OK for same-sex couples, who else should have their rights restricted?

Redheads? Southpaws? Republicans? Mormons?

What surprises me is that all of the propositions which discriminated against homosexuals passed, but all of the propositions limiting abortion rights were voted down, including the one in California.

I guess two people promising to love one another for life is a bigger threat to Christianity than “murdering babies”, as they would say. There is at least a rational argument that could be made against late-term abortions (which many of the propositions were placing limits on), at least to me.

I am not suprised that no one that voted YES has had the balls to comment. Good work putting them in their place Hemant.

I’d ask them two questions:

“If marriage is so sacred to you, why do you cheat?”
Then, when they deny that, just shrug and say “Well, statistically I have a 60% chance of being right.”

Then follow up with “So, now that gay marriage is banned, you won’t be thinking about cheating any more?”

I suppose a question I’d ask would be “how does what they do hurt you?” I don’t think any naysayers would have a decent enough answer.

Greg and Darwin’s Dagger — I think a mistaken assumption of a lot of people is that because someone voted for Obama, that they are necessarily socially liberal. A good look in the exit polls shows that the ethnic group most likely to have voted for Prop. 8 were African-Americans, who voted 70-30 in favor (all other ethnic groups were almost evenly split). Now, this wasn’t the whole difference, but it was a big factor. African-American voters were largely mobilized through their churches, and — surprise — people who go to church a lot tend to be more socially conservative than people who don’t.

I don’t say this to “blame the Blacks,” but rather to point out that there may be a mistaken assumption that because these voters are Democrats, that they are also liberal. For the record, I don’t “blame the Blacks” — I blame the people who ran the “No on 8” campaign. They made a series of bad decisions about how to defend their position in what they should have known would be a bitter and difficult fight and thanks to their incompetence, my state’s Constitution now contains overt discrimination and I will have to work, very hard and for a long time, to try to make things right again.

So yeah, I’m kind of bitter.

Marriage has traditionally been the union of a man and one or more women before God. Taking God out of the equation, as what happens when atheists marry, redefines and undermines marriage for society. Let’s try to put a measure on the ballot calling for the banning of all atheist marriages.

Check out the Facebook group here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=34303668909

I once had a friend who was a fundie, and against gay marriage. She was actually quite intelligent, just brainwashed by the church, and this was the essence of her response as to why she was opposed to gay marriage:

1) There is no “right” to marriage.
2) If you allow gays to marry it means that my children will grow up in an environment where gayness is accepted as normal. I responded that gay people probably would not mind THEIR children growing up in an environment where gayness was normal. She said that it did not matter, it was still restricting HER freedoms. She then said who was I to judge whose freedoms were more important, hers or theirs.

We had many debates over this and I couldn’t get anything more than this response.

I think this is the line of thought of many who are opposed to gay marriage. Probably a majority of them aren’t able to express it coherently though, or just don’t have ANY rational argument other then “gayness is EVIL AND SIN!!!”

Anyway, I didn’t want to go further into it with her because I didn’t want to get in a big fight but my response would be as such.
1) Of course there is. Our legal code is built on rights. You have the RIGHT not to have your wallet stolen, or have someone assault you.
2) First of all this argument is invalid unless she really can prove that their marriage is in any way harming her rights, which you can’t do unless you build your argument on intolerance. Second of all the cascade effect argument is invalid. If you want to use that you shouldn’t allow ANY marriages, yes? Because CLEARLY:
Normal Marriages –> Interracial Marriages –> Gay Marriages –> People Marrying inanimate objects –> People marrying animals –> Adults Marrying Children –> Cats and Dogs living together –> Downfall of Civilization.

If you apply that logic to any other aspect of society (which you can, like free speech or even *gasp* freedom of religion) then the only logical result is that everyone should be locked in a padded room wearing straight-jackets all day long to prevent them from inadvertently setting off a chain reaction that will lead to the downfall of civilization as we know it.

Of course, you have to go back to the rights paradigm to refute the rest of their argument. In order for ANYONE to get married that means you are giving them a RIGHT to get married. That’s the foundation of our legal system. Read John Locke people, that’s who the constitution is based on.

Once you accept that there is a RIGHT to get married you cannot deny this right to any one group or it is basically racism.

And no, this does not lead to allowing adults to marry children or something. You know why? Because of RIGHTS again. A child has a right not to have themselves be taken advantage of or have their innocence taken away. Having an adult marry a child is basically slavery, since the child has no real say.

Anything between two consenting adults = fair game though, pretty much. As long as it doesn’t hinder someone else’s rights.

That’s why Prop 8 is unconstitutional. You can’t take away a right from any one sector of society.

JSug wrote:

He’s afraid that if they allow gays this one little right, it will start some sort of cascade effect. More people think it’s okay to be gay, and then more people will become gay. Leading to the eventual downfall of civilization. Or something.

Well, sure. After all, just take a look at the devastation where Belgium, Canada, Spain, and The Netherlands used to be. (*eyeroll*)

~David D.G.

“How is your marriage any more secure now that homosexual marriages in your state are broken?”

I’ll give this one a shot: at yoga class, I (a male) kept checking out my (female) yoga teacher’s butt.

I couldn’t figure out why I did that and then it dawned on me; it must be because gays are getting married.

/snark

Seriously, I don’t know what to say other than, while we’ve grown as a society with this election, we still have some growing up to do.

Noodleguy

Read John Locke people, that’s who the constitution is based on.

Not to pick a fight here but John Locke isn’t really the best constitutional precursor for an atheist, seeing that, in spite of the fact he was a Deist, his particular worldview was very much founded in Christianity.

Here is the first few lines from “Of Civil Government:”

It having been shown in a foregoing discourse:
1.That Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, or dominion over the world, as is pretended.
2.That if he had his heirs had no right to it.

The “rights” you are referring to, in John Locke’s opinion, come from God. (Or even T. Jefferson from the Dec. of Ind. “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”) He probably would vote for 8.

By the way. Addison’s play Cato and The Cato Letters had a far greater influence on American ideas and the founding of this country than John Locke ever did. Rome had a bigger influence than John Locke, and Rome was sacked some 1400 years prior.

Peace
Euthyphro

One silver lining for gay rights this past election day: my state of CT voted “no” for a constitutional convention which the bigots were pushing for, as it represented their best hope to overturn CT’s recent legalization of gay marriage.

The option to hold a constitutional convention appears on the CT ballot every 20 years, so it won’t be back until 2028. By that time, I doubt any anti-gay marriage amendment would have even the faintest chance (in fact, polls here show an existing opposition to such an amendment, though I suppose the same was true of CA…)

@Chris (in Columbus):

We do want you. We really do.

The tides are turning. I take heart in looking at the voting breakdown by age. Note that people under the age of 30, regardless of religious belief, voted overwhelmingly in opposition to prop 8. It wasn’t enough, but it was a very close thing. Assuming we don’t discover the key to immortality any time soon, it’s only a matter of time…

The prop8 is very important to the Fundys.
If they can get the marriage thing OUT of the governments hands and back to the original religious hands only then women will be back to what it was in the 1500s. No rights to anything!! the men controll all and women can not get devorsed and men keep everything when THEY declare the devorse and kick the women out. Prop8 is the first step. It will not really work and is pretty stupid but what else do you expect from THEM. This type of consperiacy sounds better then they are just hatefull bigots.
Spelling & grammer is the fault of the keyboard. I take no responsibillity for getting it right or wrong.

it is in fact possible to be a Christian and have a few working brain cells.

A)I am not a Christian, but I know plenty with working brains. I have no doubt there are more.

B)Not what I was saying at all. My point was that Locke’s entire political philosophy is based on Natural Rights bestowed by God. It is the first premise and foundation of the social contract. (By the way I wasn’t saying anything about where “[I] think Natural Rights came from…” and to clarify, as an atheist, it would be hard to imagine my thinking they were bestowed by a Creator).

C)We have no reason to believe that T. Jefferson was referring to John Locke, it is much more likely that it came second hand through George Mason and the Virginia Bill of Rights.

D)Cato’s Letter were influenced by John Locke; the forming of the USA was not so much. This is jacked from Wikipedia because I didn’t feel like digging my copy out to peruse the introduction:

it is estimated that half the private libraries in the American colonies held bound volumes of Cato’s Letters on their shelves.

You can’t say that about Locke’s “Of Civil Government.”

By the way it’s not to the Epistulae of Cato the Younger I was referring, but the collection of Enlightenment Letters entitled The Cato Letters. Cato was just a pseudonym.

E)Addison’s play Cato is prominent in the most well known quotes from the Revolution. Again jacked from Wiki, no need to dig.

“Give me Liberty or give me death!” – Act II, Scene 4: “It is not now time to talk of aught/But chains or conquest, liberty or death.”

“I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” – Act IV, Scene 4: “What a pity it is/That we can die but once to serve our country.”

“It is not in the power of any man to command success; but you have done more — you have deserved it.” – Act I, Scene 2: “‘Tis not in mortals to command success; but we’ll do more, Sempronius, we’ll deserve it.”

Cato was the most acted played in the New World from the time it hopped the pond till a little while after the founding of the Nation. In fact Washington had it put on for the soldiers during their winter at Valley Forge. There are more quotes and tidbits but like I said above I don’t feel like digging.

F) I never doubted or mention anything that would convey that Locke’s ideas were unoriginal. I just feel he is given credit for ideas that were expanded on and spread by other less well remembered individuals. That, of course, does not make Locke less brilliant, or less influential, his influence just was as direct in the American Revolution as the above.

G)I dare say that your love affair with Locke is blinded you from being objective about the facts. He was brilliant, but he is only THAT important to philosophy not to the American Revolution.

H)Montisique? Did you mean Montesquieu (French Guy, Separation of Power)? I promise I am not being a dick here. I just am not sure, if this is who you meant. (If so). Maybe he was an influence on Madison and possibly Jefferson, but not on the people as a whole, as is the case with The Letter’s and Cato.

Is comment Hi-Jacking wrong?

@Hemant

If you would prefer I am sure we could move this discussion else where.

Thank you for this.

As a gay person, this felt like a punch in the gut. The fact that so many voters feel that way about people like me just hurts.

Chris (in Columbus), Catherine, and everyone:

As a straight person, this felt like a punch in the gut to me, too–not only because I have gay relatives and friends, but because I officiated at a gay wedding in August. My neighbors did me the honor of asking me to become deputized by Santa Clara County to perform their ceremony, and I did so with great pleasure. I practiced reading the vows aloud every night for two weeks and was thrilled beyond measure when the wedding day arrived. It was a beautiful ceremony and I can truly say I have never seen a couple more in love than the two women who got married that day. I am sick at heart about Prop. 8 and I don’t know what to say to them. I have been out of town and have not seen them since the election. Does anyone have advice for me on what I can say to these wonderful ladies? What can I possibly say?

On Locke-divine command theory is intensely problematic as a basis for an ethical system. Is an act right because God commands it or does God command an act because it is right? If the former is true, then God could consider that say, eating babies, is moral starting right now and it would be. It the latter is true, then there must be some feature of these acts that leads God to command them so there is no need to bring in the element of divine command to find the feature that makes an act moral.

Also THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT! Seriously. It is not a part of US law, so no part of the declaration is viable as a basis for law on the grounds of being included in the declaration. What is however, a part of US law is the first and fourteenth amendments as well as supreme court rulings. 1) Loving v. Virginia established that marriage is a civil right protected under the fourteenth amendment. 2) Lawrence v. Texas concluded that sodomy laws had no rational basis and therefore violated the fourteenth amendment. 3) Brown v. Board of education ruled that “seperate but equal” was inherantly unequal. The first amendment bans the practice of discrimination based exclusively on failure to adhere to a certain religion’s tenants. Imagine the uproar if I started banning people who fail to uphold the ramadan fast from being foster parents or having legal marriages.

Here’s probably my best question:

You say that gay people do not make good parents, so it’s your word against that of the Child Welfare League of America, American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and the North American Council on Adoptable Children?

I voted against prop 8 and for Obama, and I’m a 56-year old middle-aged fatboy (well, I COULD stand to lose 10 pounds, the doctor says). I’m also an atheist, and I gotta tell you even my RC wife admitted the ads were off base with the forced elementary education gambit. I predict the law will fall on challenge when it AGAIN goes to the California Supreme Court. My carpool buddy is a conservative xtian, and I’ve been pretty low-key with my refutation, but it won’t be long before I lay it out further- I’ve already told him it’s a Civil Rights issue, and will be overturned yet again. I’ve even included the idea that it isn’t for a church to decide what constitutes marriage. Superstitious mofos, anyway. Dayamn!

On the idea of homosexual couples not being good parents:

My daughter’s best friend is the daughter of a lesbian couple. She is one of the sweetest, most well-adjusted, best behaved kids I have ever had the pleasure of knowing [besides my own, of course :-)].

I have said it before, but I still just can’t understand why the fundamentalists fear homosexuality so much. I just really don’t understand it.

Darwin’s Dagger wrote:

It is an inherently unfair reality, but by pressing for gay marriage a decade before the nation was ready for it, gay couples have ensured that it will remain illegal in most of this country for the next half century.

Tell me, DD. Who wrote these passages?

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

Who is it that we credit with this passage:

“… the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”

Are you setting the timetable for another man’s freedom?

What is time for, if not for the fight for justice?

Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

I just asked a prop 8 supporter if I could vote on his marriage, and he said, “No. I’ll let God vote on my marriage!” I asked him why he didn’t do the same on Tuesday? He had no answer. I fully knew that the challenge wouldn’t sway him, but I did take delight in making him feel awfully uncomfortable. Sadly, he’s sort of a friend, but bigots receive no sympathy from me.

Help fight against the LDS
The deserve to lose their tax exempt status for urging the sway of legislation. If we file enough complaints they can’t overlook us all.

As much as I enjoy debating Locke, and as much as Cathy’s terrible, terrible misrepresentation or misunderstanding of him disturbs me, I have to say two things:

a) that I feel bad for hijacking a completly unrelated thread.
b) I’ve had this same argument about property rights / Locke on 6 different occasions in 6 different contexts over the past two weeks or so, and although this is the only one where his religious views came up I am SICK of this debate, mmmkay?
Sorry to blow you off or whatever but I honestly have work to do…

ANYWAY I still just feel sick over Prop 8 and its ugly compatriots. My gay friends are horrified, one couple was planning on getting married in California but I guess that won’t be happening.

I can’t say I like the “Just wait it out” theory, because I doubt the bigotry will be going away any time soon. Maybe once the older generation of fundie dies off the new generation will be more accepting. At least that’s what the polls suggest.

I don’t think that’s any excuse to stop working at it though. If anything we must push the issue harder now then ever.

Are you setting the timetable for another man’s freedom?

I’m not, the nation is. Every time it has been asked this question, it has said “no.” It has not said “no” merely by overturning court cases or enacting laws, but by amending constitutions to specifically enshrine this particular form of discrimination into the highest law of the state. The result will be, even when the nation or a state is ready to accept gay marriage, that those constitutional changes will still be enforced. The Supreme Court could declare these amendments unconstitutional, but good luck with that in the Roberts, Scalia, Alito Court. And given the choice, most Americans would probably choose to amend the national constitution in favor of such discrimination rather than against it.

It was a tactical error to inspire the creation of so many legal roadblocks by pushing for this before people were ready. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the true and right and just thing to do, but merely that doing the right thing, as is often the case, has vastly complicated the road to justice.

What is time for, if not for the fight for justice?

That’s the only thing it is good for.

Next time I hope they won’t be able to lie to the public so easily. All their accusations about gay marriages being taught in schools were continued…even after the California School Board came out and vehemently denied these claims.

If they didn’t have their made up facts I wonder if they still would have won?

I disagree that prop 8 was a civil rights issue; this was a moral issue, which is why many churches joined in on the fray. On the basis of what has already happened elsewhere in the nation, I do believe that legalizing gay marriage would directly affect religious freedoms–all in the guise of “equal rights”.

Am I a bigot for supporting what I feel to be morally right? Where is the line drawn? Can there even be a defining line? If those who support gay marriage avidly attack those who don’t, does that make them a bigot towards supporters of heterosexual marriage?

You’ll notice that no one that supports prop 8 has posted on this blog, and it may be for two reasons:

1) From reading the posts, this is clearly not an attempt at discussion, but at attacking people for doing what they felt was right; why post when it will not be discussed, but sworn at and venomously attacked?

2) Any attempt at discussion is impaired because the two sides operate on fundamentally different frameworks–where is the common ground to build on?

I could tell you that I have a deep interest in protecting the rights of people, and that each person is a unique and wonderful creation. I can also tell you that this will be immediately dismissed by someone because of the stance I take–which is, supporting marriage as defined in heterosexual terms. I do support all the things I’ve listed, but I feel an obligation and need to take a stance on moral issues such as this.

I agree that those in heterosexual marriages have their weaknesses, as we see divorces, cheating, etc. That is irrelevant to this discussion, though. The discussion seemingly should be on clarifying whether this is truly a civil rights issue, or a moral issue.

Regarding the original questions:

1-irrelevant. Voting yes on the proposition would have had nothing to do with the security of my marriage. Seems to be more of a flailing attack at an imagined reason for voting yes.

2-I don’t know what I’d say. What would I say to the children of heterosexual parents who aren’t married? Both are sad and unfortunate situations, and both will impair these children in ways that I believe deal with God, our purpose for life, and other beliefs that aren’t associated with the atheistic mindset.

3-Of course you can vote on the legality of my marriage. The question is, do you want to because of the moral issues associated with the institution, or out of revenge and spite?

4-It’s hard to say how this vote changes my life. Granting the fact that I’ll be accused of being brainwashed, I do believe that passing this amendment protects religious freedom.

5-Again, this seems to be an irrelevant question. It is based on the assumption that voting yes on the proposition truly was based on bigoted hatred. Do you really want to discuss the fundamental reasons for voting yes or no on the proposition? Or are you just trying to air out your frustration and anger? This isn’t about being proud of an action; it is about doing what I feel to be morally right.

6-I haven’t had a chance to discuss this with my gay friends yet. We have divergent work schedules. I don’t think I’d say anything, really–just listen to them and try and understand how they feel.

7-Bringing gay friends closer to Christ–what an interesting question. “Coming closer” is something my gay friends would have to do out of their own drive and desire. This amendment itself is not associated with such an action; the consequences, including anger and perhaps hatred towards religious institutions in general may be an impediment. Of course, I’ve known and read of people who have come quite close to God (and Christ) without the aid of institutions. When they’re ready, the organization God has set up will be ready for them.

8- Why would I lie to my children about a moral issue? Of course I would tell them that I support such a proposition, and teach them (in the context of religion–again, something that fundamentally sets our discussion here at odds) why I did.

9- I don’t think I’d “defend” my position to my children; rather, I would teach them the principles I’ve learned in my life about marriage, our relationship to God, and their divine potential. What they do with that will again be their choice, as with the homosexual coming closer to Christ.

10- It depends on what you mean by lifelong commitments. I have lifelong commitments to friends, so I am not against that. That is part of who we are as people. I do not support the nature of commitment that is contrary to what I believe God has dictated regarding marriage and raising children. This, again, is in context of religious belief.

11- I think this will have (and I read here that it already has) an emotionally hurtful impact on gay people. I don’t know if that is a bad thing, though. It seems as though we are trying to rationalize our actions through legislation, and yes, even hiding behind the “civil rights” front. I would say the same to those who cheat on spouses or lie and steal from others. I am unsure what this amendment will do in affecting young people–I personally hope that it will help them to understand that they can establish a family unit of their own and contribute to society.

12- I cannot speak for Jesus in this matter. I do believe that the religious beliefs (I call them truths) I have founded my morals on were given from Jesus. He would find a way to let each of us know–no matter our mistakes and faults and erroneous beliefs–how much worth we have, how much he loves us, and especially correct us where we are wrong (this ties back in to 11 where I state I don’t believe hurt emotions is necessarily a bad thing).

All in all, this has been a long post and I can only imagine the myriad responses I could get from this. If we truly want understanding and to find common ground, then let’s have a real discussion. otherwise, the following posts will follow the usual negative, angry blast as the previous 60-odd ones have. And that takes us nowhere.

(“fundie”, by the way, is a play on the negative use of the same word previously in the comments–I’ve never identified myself as such before, probably won’t after this)

I do not believe any law can be applied retroactively. Those marriages still remain. But, we’ll see.

Indeed, those marriages have to count, its right in the constitution.

“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

ex post facto law = “Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively.”

It has not been satisfactorily explained to me what makes homosexuality “immoral”.

Me neither.

Actually, the reason I didn’t respond to fundie’s comments right off the bat was because the were so personal. I was bordering on off-topic, flame-style rage. For example, when fundie said:
What would I say to the children of heterosexual parents who aren’t married? Both are sad and unfortunate situations, and both will impair these children in ways that I believe deal with God, our purpose for life, and other beliefs . . .

I had trouble not taking it personally. I had heterosexual parents who divorced. I resent the idea that I was somehow “impaired” by their decision to divorce. If anything “impaired” me, it was the years before they decided to split up, when there was abuse happening. When my parents divorced, they knew it was better for everyone. I know I can’t take strangers on the internet personally. But it’s also hard for me to hold a meaningful discussion with someone who says single parenting or gay marriage “will impair” children, when I know it’s not true.

Do you think that banning gay marriage is constitutional?

Note the anti-gay people insist on amending constitutions to ban gay marriage. They did this even in Utah, which has always had a constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman (in three places, no less). Clearly, the anti-gay people believe state and federal constitutions must be amended in order to prevent gay marriage.

Am I a bigot for supporting what I feel to be morally right?

If you feel interracial marriage is immoral, you are a bigot.

@Allyson:

I resent the idea that I was somehow “impaired” by their decision to divorce. If anything “impaired” me, it was the years before they decided to split up, when there was abuse happening.

Boy, I think there has been a misunderstanding. Thank you for letting me clarify that I don’t espouse abusive relationships to remain as such. And I sympathize with your conclusion about the years before your parents’ divorce. When I speak of impair, that can mean a whole hierarchy of things, such as:

-impaired emotionally, having to overcome emotional barriers in one’s own relationships in the future, etct.
-impaired spiritually, not knowing one’s true nature and potential…of course, this one is the meat of the current discussion about for/against such things as prop8. I see this from the perspective of one believing in a God and our existence before/after this life. This is a difficult one to merely discuss–I claim that our nature, as derived from God, defines who we are and gives us a goal of what to become. Therefore, I claim that anything that distracts us from that impairs us. And you will most likely claim something opposite that; where can we converge for discussion?

If nothing else, I want to convey that I do not denounce someone for lifestyle choices made; I (and many like me) do not gloat over such things as prop8 passing; but that I do attempt to clarify where I believe something is morally wrong (see below). And that is where we fundamentally disagree.

@Steven:
Fundamentally speaking, if an omnipotent God really didn’t approve of something wouldn’t he simply alter reality to conform to his wishes? Even more telling, why would an omnibenevolent God want anyone to discriminate against any of his creations?

Your question raises an issue with core beliefs of at least my religion: God has rules and discipline that he lives by (yes, God has to be disciplined too–just like we, in imitation of him, must discipline ourselves to master higher level skills), and we are here to decide if we want to follow those same rules and discipline. We fall tremendously short, no matter the efforts, but fundamentally speaking we are given the choice between what he wants for us and that which is contrary to the rules he exists by.

And no, I don’t believe God wants us to discriminate (which is a word that can be turned to mean various things)….but I do believe that he has made clear certain things that are not in agreeance with those rules and discipline. And again, it is our choice to act accordingly or not. With all these things, I have noticed that posters here have apparently derisively asserted that the argument for prop8 is based on “the Bible tells me so”. Well, that is a distortion of their reality: to them, God has told them so, not a dead book.

I recognize that this is an atheist blog site, but if we are really to gain an understanding of either side of the disagreement then I need to put my position into the broader context of my belief system. You, too, have a belief system by which you operate from day to day (general you, the reader) and defines the value judgments you make; many of us simply have created or adopted systems that differ significantly from each other.

One last thing: religious freedom is impaired when a religious agency is forced to close its doors because it would not let a gay couple adopt a child; religious freedom is impaired when two doctors are brought to court because they would not artificially inseminate a lesbian couple, though other doctors in the area could have done it for them instead. That absolutely does affect the freedom of religion. My religious viewpoint doesn’t have to hold for those who don’t believe it–now I ask you: why does the viewpoint of those who support homosexuality have to hold for me? When the government starts interceding in ways mentioned above, then the government really isn’t serving all citizens.

Is this all really a zero-sum game? Must one side always lose?

“Fundy” said

One last thing: religious freedom is impaired when a religious agency is forced to close its doors because it would not let a gay couple adopt a child;

Yes and religious freedom was impaired when they let black and white people marry each other and have children. It was impaired when we stopped putting single pregnant women in mental institutions and pressurizing them into giving up their babies for adoption in a “moral” family. When a “freedom” to do something impairs the right to be treated equally then it should be impaired.

religious freedom is impaired when two doctors are brought to court because they would not artificially inseminate a lesbian couple, though other doctors in the area could have done it for them instead.

Is religious freedom similarly impaired if a doctor refuses to treat a homosexual person for a medical condition? Is religious freedom impaired when an atheist is singled out for refusing to engage in school prayer? Surely the school has the freedom to hold to a religious view and impose it on everyone? No?

That absolutely does affect the freedom of religion. My religious viewpoint doesn’t have to hold for those who don’t believe it–now I ask you: why does the viewpoint of those who support homosexuality have to hold for me? When the government starts interceding in ways mentioned above, then the government really isn’t serving all citizens.

I support your right to hold a religious view but not to use that view to treat one group differently from any other. Government intervention to enforce equal treatment is not breaching your right to hold a religious view or to practice your faith. Only when your religious practices or views deny the rights of others should the state intervene.

Prop 8 enforces different rules for gay and straight couples with regard to marriage and denies equality of treatment to one group. Allowing gay marriage in no way changes the status of a heterosexual marriage. It isn’t even a religious issue.

Religions, as they tend to do, claimed marriage as a holy state. People made commitments before their community long before Christianity came along and added it’s own set of rules. Marriage may well have been part of early pagan beliefs but where does it say that it is monogamous and heterosexual? These rules were added later, much later.

So it seems that the problem is that Prop. H8 supporters don’t understand that we don’t vote on “moral” issues, but on legal issues. It is not the job of the government to issue laws on morality. That’s for each individual to decide. Of course, you are free to cede that right to a god if you choose. You are not free to enact laws that force me to agree with your moral judgement.

Personally, I think it is immoral to bring up children to be creationists. From a moral standpoint, I would be compelled to see that those children are taught real science. From a legal standpoint, I want everyone to have the freedom to decide how their children are educated. I would never vote to ban anyone’s right to teach their child creationism, but I do think it’s wrong. Immoral, in fact.

Think about whether you really want the government enacting laws based on morality. Because someday, we will outnumber you and perhaps then your persecution fantasies will have the potential to come true. The problem with that is that, unlike you, we don’t have any desire to tell you what to do with your private life and we don’t believe laws should be based on our morals.

Autumnal Harvest’s above post says everything I wanted to say 🙂

And to noodleguy, who said: “the flaming that is (already) happening” What are you referring to? who has already ‘flamed’ fundy? I see nothing but respectful (if _highly_ opposing) responses to his post so far.

@AxeGrrl

Well, mostly I was talking about the flaming that was happening in the 60-odd posts previous to “fundy”‘s post. There also was a particularly nasty piece of flame-work that was taken down after I posted. Most of these are pretty civil, you’re right.

Seriously, if California can’t maintain equal rights as of now, how much longer will it take for the rest of the states?

I think the question becomes: If gays are having their rights taken away in the name of supposed religious freedom, who’s next?

It takes a lot of effort to be so ignorant and prejudice in the age of information we live in…do people wake up thinking of all the ways they want to hate and seperate themselves from the world?
As a proud atheist, I love throwing around “god’s” words. If we were made in his image, then is god not the homosexual? the serial murderer? the convicted drug peddler? If Jesus watches, he must weep over a world with so little love and understanding. I fear in my lifetime, I’ll never see my hometown, let alone the WORLD, united against ignorance and xenophobia.

Buth then again, I never thought I’d see a president who wasn’t middle aged, white, male and christian. One divide down, several hundred to go…

(Sorry for posting a few days after the previous one, but, I’ve just now seen this thread and I felt compelled to reply.)

fundie: You’ve offered your Christianity-centric perspective. Here is my real-world-centric perspective. Some of the other people here have taken a much nicer and more respectful tone with you. I will not.

3-Of course you can vote on the legality of my marriage. The question is, do you want to because of the moral issues associated with the institution, or out of revenge and spite?

Out of revenge and spite. It would illustrate to you the sheer irrationality and stupidity of hijacking other peoples’ lives for purely selfish reasons, which is precisely the point the question you responded to was trying to make.

Besides: retribution for a wrong that’s already been committed, is more justification than none at all.

Perhaps, along that line, there should be a referendum that would ban opposite-sex marriage and institute same-sex marriage— both civil and religious— and require only, say, 10% of the vote to pass (to have a similar chance of passing).

Then there’d be a very real chance of other people self-righteously claiming the right to marriage while stripping you of yours— and interfering with your religious freedom— for entirely selfish and generally untenable reasons. It might sober you up a bit.

Granting the fact that I’ll be accused of being brainwashed, I do believe that passing this amendment protects religious freedom.

Your religious freedom ends where mine begins. If you think you can violate mine (by forcing me, through civil law, to follow a religious aspect of your beliefs) while still expecting me to respect yours, then yes, I will accuse you of being brainwashed, not to mention ignorant:

There is a wall that prevents Church interference in the State. Interfering in civil rights for religious reasons has weakened that wall. But that same wall prevents State interference in the Church.

Which, in turn, means that it weakens the wall protecting your religious beliefs from the State. For example, there’s some tax money the State would like to start collecting from your Church.

it is about doing what I feel to be morally right

It says a lot about you that you think hijacking other peoples’ lives for self-serving reasons counts as “morally right”.

Your morals apply only to yourself. You don’t get to impose them on other people while still demanding their respect. The only thing you can do with this issue is to not marry someone of the same sex. You don’t get to force anyone else to do the same.

I don’t think I’d say anything, really— just listen to them and try to understand how they feel.

That assumes that you regard them as friends, not just as potential points on your religious scoreboard.

I think this will have […] an emotionally hurtful impact on gay people.

And a legally and fiscally hurtful impact on gay people.

It seems as though we are trying to rationalize our actions through legislation, and yes, even hiding behind the “civil rights” front.

We do not seek legislation to rationalize anything. We seek it to secure our civil rights from people like you who would take them away under the guise of “religious rights”, despite the fact that religious arguments do not apply to civil matters, and civil marriage does not affect religious rights (because it is not a religious institution).

I would say the same to those who cheat on spouses or lie and steal from others.

How about those who claim their religious freedom is being violated because they’re not allowed to violate other peoples’ religious freedom?

A different, yet relevant question: Why are singles discriminated against — with larger taxes? Whether uncoupled by choice, or by being left at the altar, or a partner dying before our nuptials — why are singles discriminated against? I often hear an argument that civil unions unfairly define same-sex unions as “separate but equal,” followed by intense grievance against the unfairness of society. I ask, “How would you like to be “separate and NOT equal” (under the tax law)? That is what singles face every April 15th. Shall singles begin a movement for equality? Let’s face it: society has placed a value on traditional families. I haven’t seen singles marching against this unbalanced favoritism. But perhaps the ultimate answer to all of this is to remove marriage altogether from governmental concerns and leave it to the individuals, their churches and community leaders to solemnize. Let’s leave it to individual choice, and remove government (taxation & benefits) favoritism in any of those choices.

The sanctity of marriage is only as sacred as the the individuals who are married because a promise made is only as meaningful as the person who makes it. That, at its core, is what a marriage ceremony is: two people vowing before their family and friends to do right by each other. How can someone say that any two people mean it more than any two others? Being married doesn’t mean that your life will be any better or worse. It doesn’t mean you will be successful providing for your family. It doesn’t mean that your children will be raised well or that they will be happy and fulfilled in their lives. Being married is as related to these things as wearing a suit is related to being successful in business. It gives you the right appearance, but what matters is what you DO when you wear it. Children thrive in environments where they are loved unconditionally. Where they are guided with compassion and intelligence. Does being straight make you a good parent? Just as much as being gay makes you bad parent. That is to say they are unrelated. Because sexual orientation is not your personality. It is not your world view. It is not your sense of humor, your hopes and dreams, your fears. It is not your morality. It is not your humanity.

Its appalling that prop 8 is up for a vote at all. Its clearly unconstitutional because it restricts freedom and prevents equality. Pure and simple.

i am an american living in the netherlands where gay marriage is legal. it’s very sad that people’s views are so distorted that they can’t see this as an equality issue. there are so many things people are denied when they aren’t married by law. marriage sanctifies a bond between two people. there are so many gay couples who spend most of their lives together. they deserve the same rights as any “straight” person. i grew up a mormon. the churches views are really skewed here. it’s just a total lack of understanding, and pure fear that’s instilled in their hearts by the leaders. i believe they will change someday.

Did marriage start as a religious ceremony? Was marriage around long before religions got their grubby little hands on the idea and put their gods in the place of a personal and private promise between people?

Take religion out of marriage and let them issue faith unions to their own cliques. The state doesn’t need to recognise them.