Please vote "NO" on California Proposition 8

[tugrik]

I'm not a terribly political person, but I have to admit -- this whole Prop 8 thing is seriously annoying me. Now that it's heated up enough that it looks like there's a chance it might pass, I have to voice my opinion on it, even if it means risking a too much of my usual 'neutral stance' with friends and folks here on Livejournal. That's why this is a rare-for-me completely public/un-locked post.

~~~~

For the non-Californians out there: Prop 8 is an attempt to change the California state constitution to abolish the existing legal right for couples to marry regardless of gender. No matter how it's trying to be 'sold' to the public, in essence it's a discriminatory attempt to legislate the removal of rights based solely on sexual orientation. It boils down to one group of people telling another, "we don't want you to have the same rights as us." They are using scare-tactics and bullying to try and get their way... and unfortunately, those tactics have been working.

Because it is primarily driven by a religious viewpoint, I view Prop 8 as an improper mixing of Church and State on top of being a basic human rights issue. Nobody should be able to change constitutional law to enforce the codes or morals of their religion. What's next? Outlawing other religions other than your own? Removing the rights of citizens who choose not to follow a religion at all?

No matter how laid back and 'don't raise a fuss' I usually am about politics, I feel that it's important to stand up and say This Is Not Right. Why are people so threatened by gender issues and marriage? In what possible way can it hurt you when two people get married, no matter what genders they happen to be? If your religious or moral influences say otherwise then please use them as guidelines for your own behavior; don't go project them on others.

Even though I am a straight man, I'm still affected by the outcome of this measure. It will have a hugely negative impact on my non-straight friends and neighbors. It will establish the principle that some people are "less equal" than others. Even if I was being completely self-centered about it, a victory for Prop 8 gives far too much power to religion's political influence in general -- eventually leading down a road where my life could be legally regulated or harmed by someone else's religious beliefs.

~~~~

So what can I do to help? I feel that speaking up is the most important thing, which is why I'm making this post. I'm talking openly about this issue with family, friends and neighbors. Also, because I have the means to easily make them on my large-format printing equipment, I'm going to make a batch of "Straight People Against Prop 8" bumper stickers. One to put on my car and a ton more to give out for free.

Anybody else want one? If you're local, just drop by and I'll give you a few. If you're elsewhere in the state and want one mailed, just drop me an address (tugrik@gmail.com) and I'll send a few out in an envelope. If you've got ideas for the stickers' designs, please send them my way and I'll gladly print them up (it's just plain, bold text right now, as I don't have much artistic skill).

I think everybody should spend at least a little time talking about this issue with not only their friends and family, but their community. Meet those around you and see how they feel, no matter what their sexual orientation. Hopefully after you meet those around you and find they are just as human as you are, you'll realize: when it comes to making laws, treat humans as humans, not as 'gay' or 'straight'. It's the right thing to do.

Comments

[toob.livejournal.com]

Thank you, Tug.

[grian-ruadh.livejournal.com]

Well said, Tug.

[zorinlynx.livejournal.com]

I wasn't too surprised to see this crap in Florida (Amendment 2) but California? Wow.

We must all do our part to fight this ignorance. I really don't understand why people feel so threatened by gender and orientation issues.

I made a similar post about Florida's Amendment 2.

Eternal vigilance indeed... *sigh*

[aaaamory.livejournal.com]

HP is going to be removing health care for opposite-sex domestic partnerships at the end of this year. After that, I will have to figure out what I'm going to do about health care.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Thanks for speaking up. I know it's very unusual for you to talk politics, but you're right. This is more than politics. It's narrow minded bigotry trying to amend the state constitution in order to enshrine itself.

Unfortunately, it's still considered acceptable to lash out at gays and lesbians, even in an age when lynching blacks and stomping on women is no longer acceptable.

[darkwolven.livejournal.com]

Here here. I'm nervous as hell that 8 may pass. California is a bell weather state and if it passes, it won't look good. I live in MA, so it was fortunate that my hubby and I could marry this year, but I was beginning to feel like -we- were being unethical with MA being the only state until the recent flip of CT. Argh, it really bothers me.

My mate and I even tried to do our part by taking part in a study that was done a few years ago about the differences in legal economic statuses between marriage and civil unions. (http://www.equalmarriage.org/pdfs/EconomicCosts.pdf) Many people have this idea that a civil union is JUST LIKE marriage. I find that many neutral people that first are against marriage think this until they are shown that factually it isn't the same.

Cali was one of the FEW places that actually gave equal rights on the state level, BUT still what you end up with is 'separate but equal' and we ALL know how that worked out in the past. Maybe that's the drawback about CA though. Maybe straight people don't see enough evidence that civil union is vastly different than marriage because as it is now, they feel like they own marriage like it's some kind of club you have to apply to get into. It sucks to say, but I think CA would have a better shot if those civil union protections weren't there.

[shatterstripes.livejournal.com]

<3

[flipperanubi.livejournal.com]

Thank you, Tug... although this measure failing won't immediately rectify my situation (boyfriend is Canadian, which means it's a federal issue to get him in the country), it's going to make people sit up and take notice. Someone said, "What happens in California spreads eastward." So true.

I am curious if anyone can shed some light on an issue. I've heard the argument from Proposition 8 supports saying, "Don't force your beliefs on me." While I agree with that sentiment, having NO desire to force my beliefs on anyone... is that possible in this case?

Gay marriage would be either legal or illegal. One would be for, or against it. Since both sides won't be happy at the same time, and the decision is a boolean... one side will ALWAYS be forcing it's belief on the other side, will it not?

Which then makes me wonder if computers would be easier or harder to use if they were based on something other than binary. Rendering everything down to a boolean decision makes it so hard to get computers to do what you want. Yes, I'm a geek.

[inaki.livejournal.com]

I'll totally take a few of those stickers.

[tafyrn.livejournal.com]

seamora and I figured that a good slogan for campaigning against this bill is the following:

"NO on Prop HATE"

Because hate is what this is.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

California isn't as liberal as a lot of people imagine. Also, various religious organizations have poured a ton of money into some very hateful advertising. Honestly, I hold the cable company in the highest contempt because they're running these ads.

Here's some of the claims they've been making:

• Kindergardeners will be taught a homosexual agenda.
• Churches can be sued and shut down if they refuse to marry gay couples.
• Churches will lose tax-exempt status

etc. It's really angering because most of their arguments flat out _CAN'T_ happen. A church can't be sued for refusing to marry a couple, whether they're gay or buddists or covered in tattoos. This claim is just ridiculous. The only way the tax-exempt status of churches has been challenged is when they shift to being a political organization and begin campaigning for a side. Meaning that the only way this could happen is if the church officially supports Prop 8 and demands the congregation vote for it.

I'm really sick of the lies. Marriage by the state is nothing more than a legal document between two people. It isn't about religion at all. A buddist can marry an atheist. It's not about children. Two elderly people can marry. 60 years ago, California became the first state to remove the laws banning interracial marriage. It makes me sad to see the same hateful people looking like they'll probably win in their bid to oppress a new group of people. :(

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

The difference between married and not married for my partner and I last year was about $6,000 in additional taxes we had to pay for not being married.

Straights Against 8

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

Mail sent. Thanks, Tug. We should have been stomping for this sooner.

[cooner.livejournal.com]

I understand the desire not to force your beliefs, but as I see it, the facts are these:

1) By allowing same-sex marriage, gay couples can get married, and their relationships will have absolutely NO legal or tangible effect on existing traditional opposite-sex marriages.

2) By not allowing same-sex marriage, the religious right is FORCING their beliefs on thousands of gay couples and having a direct and detrimental effect on their lives, by not allowing them to share in a laundry list of legal, financial, societal, and emotional benefits.

An argument might be made if individual churches were being forced to perform marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs. But both the Supreme Court case and the legislation that was passed (and vetoed) a few years ago specifically deal with civil marriage, to be performed by a government agent or by a church that does allow it. No church is ever required to perform a marriage ceremony that goes against its beliefs.

[cooner.livejournal.com]

Thank you, Tug, for taking a stand.

I'm glad I'll be out there just in time to vote myself! Please watch for my voter registration in the mail! :)

[tafyrn.livejournal.com]

The "church" (Calvary Chapel) beside our home has "Yes on Prop 8" signs in the front. Last week, they were giving out lawn signs to their congregation, and rallying support for the proposition.

It's shameful and upsetting.

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

More like

"NO on Prop H8"

If one wishes to be 1337 about it...

[altivo.livejournal.com]

But that depends on income brackets. You could also end up paying extra for being married. It's a goofy thing about the way the tax tables are written, and seems to exist from a time when someone didn't approve of two income households. In other words, the woman was supposed to stay home and care for kids only.

[doctorpinkerton.livejournal.com]

Well said, Tug.

[inaki.livejournal.com]

I believe that's also illegal for them to do. That DOES violate their tax exempt status. You should definitely report them to the IRS.

[darkwolven.livejournal.com]

What Cooner said. Don't let people flip it like that. It's clearly a case of religious people forcing their belief on other people whether the others are religious or not, not the other way around. Simply their know of something is not a belief being force on them. They can believe it's wrong ALL THEY WANT. What they shouldn't get is the say so whether other people are allowed or not. That is discrimination and suppression at its rawest and TELL them that. It;'s the same logic used to discriminate against blacks in the 50's.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

I suspect it comes from a time when companies tended to provide health care, pensions, and that sort of thing. Not to mention that cooking for two is cheaper than cooking two separate meals. Married couples can have joint car insurance and stuff like that too. All of which gives them money benefits that individuals don't have. Plus, let's not forget that married couples are expected to breed. You get tax-breaks for sprog.

Below some threshold, an unmarried couple needed the additional income because they were less likely to have that sort of coverage. Not to mention that for a long time, it was harder for an individual to buy a home. The marriage 'penalty' has become more of an issue than it was due to Reaganomics.

But yes. The tax system is broken. Cost of living is another thing that's not considered in taxes. The amount I make living in the bay area of California barely keeps our bills paid and lets us put a little back. In some other place, we'd be quite well off. Yet I'm taxed on the amount I make without regard to where I live. Someone in Iowa making the same amount has the same taxes but FAR more disposable income. The saying goes, "Life's not fair."

[turbinerocks.livejournal.com]

. I've heard the argument from Proposition 8 supports saying, "Don't force your beliefs on me.

That's the argument bigots make, yes. There is no forcing anything, these are simply religious bigots who want to remove equal rights under the law from a select group of people. There's no rational argument to be made if you believe that gay people should have equal rights under the law.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

It's amazing how deep that analogy goes. Research the history of interracial marriage and you'll find that all of these arguments were made against it:

It will destroy the moral fiber of our country.

Blacks will use it as a way to gain access to and sexually abuse children.

Churches will be forced to perform interracial marriages.

Interracial marriages will result in mongrel children and destroy the future of the country.

Interracial marriages will result in sterile mules which will weaken our country (I'm not kidding here!)

etc.

Every single argument that's used against gay marriage was used against interracial marriage.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Except that someone living in Iowa doing the same job probably doesn't earn as much as you do, so it tends to level out.