Hyperpat\’s HyperDay

SF, science, and daily living

One Very Wrong Choice

Posted by hyperpat on November 5, 2008

At this point in time (9AM PST), with 95+% of precincts reporting and with a current 400,000 vote margin, it looks like Proposition 8 banning gay marriages will pass. I am very sorry to see this. A break down of the votes by county shows a very predictable pattern: the urban areas of the state are almost totally against this proposition, while the rural areas are heavily in favor of it, a split that matches up with normal labels of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’.

It shouldn’t be this way. Regardless of a person’s general political leanings, this proposition is on its face a direct endorsement of discrimination, a statement that some people are less equal than others. As it is a constitutional amendment, it will be very difficult to fight this in the state court system, and it is unlikely the U. S. Supreme court will take any action, as lacking jurisdiction over state law in the absence of any clear point in the U. S. constitution that would prohibit such a law – although they did take action on interracial marriages in 1967, and it can at least be hoped that this proposition can be attacked on the same grounds.

In an election that saw the first Afro-American president elected, a very nice indication that long held biases and attitudes about race have been overcome to at least some degree, this result indicates that there is still a long way to go to change attitudes about sexual preferences. And the advertising that went on in favor of this proposition was, to my mind at least, absolutely despicable, with their false-to-fact statements and pandering to fear and religious bigotry.

Today, at least, I’m not proud of being a resident of California.

2 Responses to “One Very Wrong Choice”

  1. ernestt said

    Same sex marriage supporters have played the “victim” role in portraying the Catholics, Mormons, or other Christian faiths as “hateful” and “discriminatory”.

    They demand “respect” through force while indoctrinating our school children, having marriage licenses issued unlawfully, overturning the overwhelmingly supported Prop. 22, rushing to get married “legally” before Prop. 8 was decided, then challenging the will of the people on Prop. 8.

    People of faith will defend their beliefs upholding the moral principles of marriage and protecting their children from the promoters of an immoral lifestyle. This moral battle will continue. Immorality is not “equality”. “Respect” is not force. “Education” is not indoctrinating kindergartners. Defending religious beliefs is not “hate speech”. Protecting marriage is not “discrimination”.

    The “alternative life style” typically attacks viciously, smearing persons or institutions be it governments, politicians, businesses, corporations, religious bodies, or educational institutions opposing any part of their agenda. They play the “victim” to gain sympathy for being a “discriminated minority”. The “real” victim will be people of faith who they label as having “hate speech” or “discrimination.” Look what has happened in Massachusetts or Canada for challenges to faith.

  2. hyperpat said

    “Defending religious beliefs” crosses the line into intimidation or worse when it impacts those who do not subscribe to those religious beliefs. Religion, regardless of brand name, has historically been the worst offender in terms of the inhumanities it has allowed, supported, and willfully imposed on those who are not of the faith. The state should not be allowed to impose limits on a church, as what a group of individuals wish to believe is their business, not the state’s, but at the same time any attempt by those same individuals to impose their values on the entire society should be attacked for exactly what it is – an attack on the freedom of others to think, believe, and live their lives as they wish to.

    Marriage in this country is a civil contract between individuals, and the state of marriage endows those individuals with certain benefits, rights, and obligations. It’s boundaries must be set so all have an equal opportunity to partake of those benefits and shoulder those responsibilities when and as they wish to. Any church is free to decide that certain unions are not a marriage within their own institution, but such definitions should not, and I believe cannot legally under the U. S. Constitution, be imposed on the entire society if they restrict anyone from the civil rights and benefits that the civil contract of marriage confers. For more of my thoughts on marriage, see my earlier post on this subject.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: