Monday, November 10, 2008

That's some good governatin'

From The Governator:
"It is unfortunate," Schwarzenegger said. "But it is not the end because I think this will go back into the courts. ... It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category."


[Update. I've never liked The Governator. (Well, I liked him before he was The Governator.) That being said, I'm glad he's speaking out on this. Anon asked how anyone could put same sex marriage in the same category as interracial marriage. Here's how. There's no difference between 'not different' and 'the same'. I don't see any difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage. I don't think anyone else does, either. They think they do, but that's just an indication that there's something wrong with them. I'm tired of giving arguments, but if you have some you want to offer you can. Non-anonymous comments preferred.]

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Schwarzenegger is stupid!!!. How you can put the gay marriage in the same category with 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry? Hei Schwarzenegger are you stupid? Did you hear you? All the gay people are sick.!!! This is a reality

Clayton said...

I can see why you've commented anonymously.

Steven said...

I absolutely agree. It is no one's (especially government)right to infringe upon the lives of others. There should be a law (or collection of rights authorized by the government and the people) that makes it an unalienable right to not have other's points of view impact your life, see what I am getting at...Constitution duh. The religious arguement is a mute point as well. "They can have civil unions and the same rights, but marriage is a holy union"--What about freedom of religion and separation of religion and state. If these people fully believe and have absolute faith in the sanctity of their marriage, then it is un-American to say otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Although the gays may overturn the state government in this fight against so called "equality", I just hope you all realize that canon law will never be overturned. The state can give you blessings, but the church won't. In a real marriage, the law certificate comes AFTER the sacrament.

Anonymous said...

You know what's a lifestyle choice? Religion. Why should your lifestyle choice override anyone else's. Jews don't try to ban pork in restaurants because it "lessons their sacred beliefs". Catholics can't make it a crime to serve red meat on Fridays during Lent. If Prop 8 was "about the children" why didn't it mention children at all? Why didn't the first tv ads mention children (you know, the ones about churches being taxed that the courts ruled were 100%)? Why didn't the Prop 8 supporters make a proposition allowing parents to opt out on any education about marriage or homosexuality if it was really "about the children"? Because wasn't. Not many people would have voted for the "Bigot's Last Stand" proposition if it had been accurately named.

Clayton said...

Anon @ 10:43,

I think most people are perfectly fine with that. I'll (hopefully) marry a woman someday, and I have a pretty strong desire to have nothing to do with a church. I don't see why homosexual couples should have anything less than what the law protects for me. I don't know many (any?) who think the law ought to protect more for homosexuals than it does for me. I can't demand that a church sanctions my godless marriage.

Andrea said...

Please do not I repeat do not compare your LOVE for someone of the same sex to the color of my skin. People know when I walk through the door. Gays can keep their orientation in the closet. If you come out and say I am gay that is your prerogative, I cannot come OUT and say I am black.

James said...

This is clearly a civil rights issue. When an amendment is forwarded which limits or removes an individual's rights then it is clearly unconstitutional and runs contrary to the principles and spirit of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is no different than limiting who can run for an office, own land, or vote in an election. The inalienable rights upon which our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written were intended to allow all individuals to equally participate in our society and be protected by it's laws. That's protected under the law, not persecuted. You would think that religions (who have their own histories of persecution) would know better. But then again it is as often religion which does the persecuting as is persecuted so I really should not be terribly surprised. There can be no exceptions to this protection under the law. Not for race. Not for gender. Not for religion. Not for political affiliation. And not for sexual preference. To remove the rights of one is to threaten the rights of all. It's that simple and it always has been.

Generally speaking "marriage" is a legal contract between two people (or in the past two families). If some wish to also adorn this arrangement in a religious ceremony (or blessing) than that's always been within their rights both legally and traditionally. But it should not be mandatory. Not in our country. There should be no limits of any kind placed upon who may enter into such unions. We do of course have some limits (and there are fair arguments for some - age for example) but they should be arrived at after those limitations are very carefully evaluated and debated fairly without bias. Religious objections are clearly bias and they certainly are not very strong arguments for opposing same sex marriage. The age limitation was done (I would hope) in order to protect someone who is too young or immature from being exploited or harmed. In my opinion that is a sound and defensible position from which one may argue (argue mind you not outright decide). Placing limits or outright denying marriage because a particular religion or god "says" it isn't "right" is not a sound argument. Certainly not in an advanced and thinking civilization. We need more thought and less theocracy in this country.

Freedom of religion. That means the freedom to choose one's religion or to not. If I as a heterosexual man can marry a woman without a church service or any affiliation with a church (which is how I would personally prefer it) than why can't any two people regardless of their sex be afforded the same right? If I can get married without any church involvement than under what logical argument can the church (or those who follow one) opposed anyone else that right? There is no sound argument to deny them. The only argument that can be forwarded is one entrenched in bigotry, dogma and hatred. And those are the kinds of arguments which lead to atrocities and which diminish the bright promises upon which our nation was built. I for one hope we can correct this injustice. I was deeply ashamed of California for passing this and feel it put a blemish on an otherwise momentous election night. It places obstacles in what promises to be a brighter and more hope filled future.

Anonymous said...

It wasn't that long ago that inter-racial marriages were against the law. It wasn't that long ago that women weren't allowed to vote. It's really embarrasing that our country is still discriminating against gay people. It appears that gays are the last minority group that it's acceptable to hate. We need to overcome this as a country and as individuals. There has to be a solution to the gay marriage debate. I have one: Civil Unions must replace marriage licenses. A Civil Union certificate and a Marriage Certificate must be two separate things - then, and only then, will the Church have the discretion to marry or not to marry. But in the State's eyes, everyone can join a Civil Union. We can solve this. Yes, we can!

Clayton said...

Andrea,

With all due respect, no one (yet) is comparing skin color and homosexuality. You're right that it's easier to hide sexual orientation than skin color (not sure why this matters, why should anyone have to hide either!?!), but I don't see why that matters.

Think about interracial marriage. While the race of the partners is immutable, the decision to marry is just that--a decision. Now, if someone said that this mattered, I'd tell them to stuff it. It shouldn't matter to anyone whether two people from different races wish to marry. I'd say the same for homosexual couples. At no point does this involve a 'comparison' of the love between two people and the color of your skin.

Margie said...

Two of my friends--a heterosexual couple--were wedded in lodge in a beautiful woodlands surrounded by three dozen of thier closest friends and family. We all will never forget the day we participated in this lovely occasion. They didn't even bother to obtain a marriage license.

Several years later, while having a great time in Las Vegas, on a whim they decided to pull into a Drive-Thru Chapel and were united by Elvis and received a marriage license.

All that hooting and hollering about "protecting the sanctity of marriage" is misguided. What's so santifying about Drive-Thrus and Elvis? Any people making a commitment to one another, that's santifying.

Anonymous said...

Hi Margie, I appreciate your opinion, its a lovely story. The only thing that is misguided is your use of the word "marriage", you see if they are both men, its not possible for them to be truly married. But I suppose if you adopt the word as being something defined by yourself, then you are indeed correct. But the majority of individuals do believe marriage is the union between 1 man and 1 woman. Why does people have to change the meaning of that word and then claim we are the ones causing all the trouble. We are not, we are living in a reality that was defined way before our time. Literally you are wrong, metaphorically or symbolically you are different.

Anonymous said...

I"m Bi-sexual and I want to marry both partners. One male, one female. LGBT are only concern about L& G maybe T. WHAT ABOUT BI? If you're only fighting for one person marriage, you're leaving us out! Gays and Lesbian community are discriminating against Bi sexuals who wants to marry too. If you are going to fight against prop 8, don't leave us out! GO FOR POLYMAMIST MARRIAGE. We can use the same argument. Bi-sexual's rights are the same as Gay and Lesbians right?

Anonymous said...

So many activists against prop 8 say this lifestyle won't be taught in schools. I think it unwise to leave that matter to the lawyers, agendas and public schools. We christians want the freedom to teach our kids our beliefs, and hope they make good choices as adults. Prop 8 is also about standing for marriage being between a man and a woman, the best example for children to have and learn from, about being a wife, mother, husband, father. Before various bureaucracies, agendas litigate or use lawfare to blur it to mean almost anything, and being equal to HSM the state will be required to teach it as equal In ALL school levels, and condemn or penalize those who disagree with the lifestlye(s). I also suspect the only way to avoid the "bigot", etc. label in all these controversies is to keep silent and not disagree with any of these liberal agendas. Sorry, but you can't pick which issues churches can speak out on. You can't allow churches to only speak out on "approved" issues like nuclear weapons, global pollution, and then try to bully them or smear them when they suddenly don't follow your orders in other issues. I don't oppose civil unions, I understand they are recognized in California but understand why prop 8 opponents need to hitch this issue to civil rights, interracial marriage (I don't oppose that either). To some, it will be to use the term "marriage" as a weapon for their political agenda.

frankg, poster