Post by David on Oct 25, 2009 15:49:28 GMT -5
'Whether you're a news junkie or just a dedicated reader of gossip blogs, chances are you've heard the term "Prop 8" - which focuses on a line in the California constitution stating that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid - thrown around everywhere from CNN to Lindsay Lohan's Twitter. Thursday frontman Geoff Rickly explains what this ballot initiative means for same-sex marriage and why it's so important to know what you're voting for (or against).
Due in part to the recent controversy surrounding the California Ballot Initiative Proposition 8, same-sex marriage has become a hot-button issue across the entire country. At the forefront of this national debate are political luminaries such as former Miss California Carrie Prejean and the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. President Barack Obama says same-sex marriage is good, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich says same-sex marriage is bad. Lucky for you, the editors at Alternative Press have asked the singer of a rock band to weigh in.
"But, Geoff, what exactly is Prop 8?"
Well, in the general elections, people vote for the next president of the United States, as well as our state representatives and a number of locally elected officials. However, on most ballots, there are a number propositions about changes to state and local law. It's called a proposition because it is proposed by citizens who are able to get the required number of signatures to raise the initiative. In the case of Prop 8, 1,120,801 signatures were collected by the organization Protectmarriage.com (more than 690,000 were needed to get the issue on the ballot). Among the many controversies surrounding the initiative - which passed by a slim margin of less than 5 percent - were claims that ballot propositions can often be confusing and are commonly left blank, as wells as arguments that since it was a revision to the California constitution, it should not be decided in the general election.
"Wow, Geoff, I never knew that the initiative and referendum process could be so much fun!"
Yes, intriguing, but enough about the legal system. Let's get down to the juicy bits of the issue: Should same-sex marriage be legal?
My thoughts are simple: Yes, of course it should. The way I see it, government is only any good for protecting and serving its people. Whether it's from natural disasters, crime, bigotry or countries that wish to bomb us into oblivion, our country must protect its people. In this case, there is no threat to any heterosexual citizen if same-sex marriage is institutionalized. None of the benefits of "traditional" heterosexual marriages would be lost. Furthermore, the notion that homosexuals are perverts coming to corrupt our nation's children has long been dispelled as the ignorant, intolerant nonsense that it is. Even in the most secluded areas of the country, people are beginning to understand and accept people of all sexual orientations, just as they understand and accept people of every race, religion and creed. In this case, the government should be protecting the rights of its lesbian, gay and transgender population and serving all of its citizens equally.
"So why would anyone be opposed to that?"
One of the main arguments against gay marriage is that it is not keeping with Chistian definitions of marriage. Christian law states that homosexuality is wrong. Unfortunetly, it also says shellfish is an abomination. (Leviticus would have had a controversial food blog, apparently.) It says you can stone your wife if she is unfaithful to you (yes, it means pick up a rock and beat her to death, not take her for a ride on the Pineapple Express); you shall not wear mixed fibers (life without cotton/polyblends? Is spandex suxh a crime?); ans you can sell your daughters into slavery (eBay would be insane). Contrary to popular belief, we as a nation do not follow the letter of Biblical law. Why should we start here? Why should we start with gay marriage? Are we really that scared of people who aren't like us? We have attempted to make America a nation that represents liberty, equality and justice for all people. Equal rights and equal protection under the law means that this country must protect marriage for all if it protects marriage for one.
"I see what you mean. Are there any historical precedents in this matter?"
Fifty years ago, interracial marriage was still illegal in some states in this very country. Now, that notion seems ludicrous. Seriously, even those cross-burning idiots scratch their white-sheeted heads and say, "Well, shucks, that ain't very fair," when they hear that little factoid. We sometimes ask ourselves how we could have been so blind. It is against the teachings of the Bible to allow divorce, and yet that is obviously legal and necessary in our country. Hell, we base popular reality TV shows on it like it's a sport. The truth will win out. History is a steamroller. Same-sex marriage will become legal, and its opposition will be left in the dust. In 50 years, I certainly don't want to be the anit-same-sex-marriage bigot that my grandkids are making fun of at the dinner table before they race off on their hoverboards into a bright utopian future while I sit there, crapping my diapers.
"Shocking yet thought-provoking, Geoff. Thank you for making op-ed pieces fun again!"
No need to thank me; it's what I do. But seriously, folks, isn't it obvious that we should lead with our hearts and show compassion to all people? Anyone looking for the government to recognize his or her love should be granted that right. If we decide that marriage is a religious institution, following a strict religious definition, then let's remove it completely from our civil law and make our legal designation a non-denominational, non-prejudiced civil union. The same protections and rights could be provided for every domestic partnership. Those wishing a religious ceremony could then have one at their place of worship. We could all have our beliefs while respecting each other's rights. Now that would be truly civilized.'
I agree. What do you all think?
Due in part to the recent controversy surrounding the California Ballot Initiative Proposition 8, same-sex marriage has become a hot-button issue across the entire country. At the forefront of this national debate are political luminaries such as former Miss California Carrie Prejean and the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. President Barack Obama says same-sex marriage is good, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich says same-sex marriage is bad. Lucky for you, the editors at Alternative Press have asked the singer of a rock band to weigh in.
"But, Geoff, what exactly is Prop 8?"
Well, in the general elections, people vote for the next president of the United States, as well as our state representatives and a number of locally elected officials. However, on most ballots, there are a number propositions about changes to state and local law. It's called a proposition because it is proposed by citizens who are able to get the required number of signatures to raise the initiative. In the case of Prop 8, 1,120,801 signatures were collected by the organization Protectmarriage.com (more than 690,000 were needed to get the issue on the ballot). Among the many controversies surrounding the initiative - which passed by a slim margin of less than 5 percent - were claims that ballot propositions can often be confusing and are commonly left blank, as wells as arguments that since it was a revision to the California constitution, it should not be decided in the general election.
"Wow, Geoff, I never knew that the initiative and referendum process could be so much fun!"
Yes, intriguing, but enough about the legal system. Let's get down to the juicy bits of the issue: Should same-sex marriage be legal?
My thoughts are simple: Yes, of course it should. The way I see it, government is only any good for protecting and serving its people. Whether it's from natural disasters, crime, bigotry or countries that wish to bomb us into oblivion, our country must protect its people. In this case, there is no threat to any heterosexual citizen if same-sex marriage is institutionalized. None of the benefits of "traditional" heterosexual marriages would be lost. Furthermore, the notion that homosexuals are perverts coming to corrupt our nation's children has long been dispelled as the ignorant, intolerant nonsense that it is. Even in the most secluded areas of the country, people are beginning to understand and accept people of all sexual orientations, just as they understand and accept people of every race, religion and creed. In this case, the government should be protecting the rights of its lesbian, gay and transgender population and serving all of its citizens equally.
"So why would anyone be opposed to that?"
One of the main arguments against gay marriage is that it is not keeping with Chistian definitions of marriage. Christian law states that homosexuality is wrong. Unfortunetly, it also says shellfish is an abomination. (Leviticus would have had a controversial food blog, apparently.) It says you can stone your wife if she is unfaithful to you (yes, it means pick up a rock and beat her to death, not take her for a ride on the Pineapple Express); you shall not wear mixed fibers (life without cotton/polyblends? Is spandex suxh a crime?); ans you can sell your daughters into slavery (eBay would be insane). Contrary to popular belief, we as a nation do not follow the letter of Biblical law. Why should we start here? Why should we start with gay marriage? Are we really that scared of people who aren't like us? We have attempted to make America a nation that represents liberty, equality and justice for all people. Equal rights and equal protection under the law means that this country must protect marriage for all if it protects marriage for one.
"I see what you mean. Are there any historical precedents in this matter?"
Fifty years ago, interracial marriage was still illegal in some states in this very country. Now, that notion seems ludicrous. Seriously, even those cross-burning idiots scratch their white-sheeted heads and say, "Well, shucks, that ain't very fair," when they hear that little factoid. We sometimes ask ourselves how we could have been so blind. It is against the teachings of the Bible to allow divorce, and yet that is obviously legal and necessary in our country. Hell, we base popular reality TV shows on it like it's a sport. The truth will win out. History is a steamroller. Same-sex marriage will become legal, and its opposition will be left in the dust. In 50 years, I certainly don't want to be the anit-same-sex-marriage bigot that my grandkids are making fun of at the dinner table before they race off on their hoverboards into a bright utopian future while I sit there, crapping my diapers.
"Shocking yet thought-provoking, Geoff. Thank you for making op-ed pieces fun again!"
No need to thank me; it's what I do. But seriously, folks, isn't it obvious that we should lead with our hearts and show compassion to all people? Anyone looking for the government to recognize his or her love should be granted that right. If we decide that marriage is a religious institution, following a strict religious definition, then let's remove it completely from our civil law and make our legal designation a non-denominational, non-prejudiced civil union. The same protections and rights could be provided for every domestic partnership. Those wishing a religious ceremony could then have one at their place of worship. We could all have our beliefs while respecting each other's rights. Now that would be truly civilized.'
I agree. What do you all think?
