Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

I was (am) 100% against prop 8. I voted no without any hesitation. I did, however, take the time to read both sides of the argument. The supporters contradicted themselves in a few areas. The most major being the fact that they claimed to not be taking away anyone's rights, when the title of the proposition itself was "eliminate the right of same-sex marriage". If I had been even considering voting for this discrimination, I still would have raised an eyebrow. The phrase "eliminate the right" should never be in consideration for amending the constitution.

The vast majority who were publicized for this (meaning the supporters) used religion, God (capitalized as I'm referring to a specific and widely believed Christian god), and their personal definitions of marriage as their excuse for taking away the right to marry from a group of people. I heard many times they did not want their children to be taught that it is right for two men or women to be together because that is not how their god intended it to be. Maybe not all supporters thought this way, but that is definitely the mentality that was publicized the most. I have never believed that using religion was an excuse to discriminate upon other human beings. It's a bizarre way to scare people, but it seemed to have worked. The school issue (as in children being taught about marriage) has been proven wrong countless times. I for one never learned a thing about it while I was in school (and that was just last year, so my memory is quite fresh). We are taught about reproduction and health. Not sexuality, love, or marriage. If we were? California law allows, or requires, parental choice to opt their child out of the course.

The excuse about being ok with homosexuals, but not with them getting married, was also seen way too much. These people used the idea/opinion that marriage is solely preserved for a man and a woman to share their lives together before their god. This was very wrong, considering the act and idea of marriage has been around since the beginning of time, while their religions have not. I've made the mistake a few times to say that marriage has nothing to do with religion. While I know that it is not based on religion, I understand that it has been pushed into religion quite a bit. That does not, however, make it solely for or about religion. Atheists, agnostics, etc. alike have been married through nonreligious (not necessarily nonreligious so much as a nontraditional christian base) ceremonies. While someone who practices a wedding usually makes it a religious ceremony.
If it is such a big deal to have two homosexuals pledge themselves to each other in this church... why is it ok for two heterosexuals, who do not believe (or praise/recognize) in the existence of the god who's teachings are taught there, to do the same?

As for the civil unions.. The very definition says they are identical or similar to marriages. They do not give all of the rights or benefits of marriage. Similar... but not equal.
As if the prop itself was not sickening enough, they twisted the words and actions of the opposing side in their favor. I doubt anyone does not know about the field trip incident, where the children's images from the trip to their lesbian teacher's wedding were used without the permission of their parents (who ok'd the presence of their child[ren]) to promote yes on 8... The parents were sickened and outraged, and demanded the pictures stop being manipulated against them.
I saw an ad the other day, using Barack Obama's picture in favor of this prop. That made me want to cry. He was against this, and this made me very proud. He does not himself think marriage should be between a man and a man, or woman and a woman. However he knows that votes need to go toward the greater good of society (therefore, equality and against the separate but equal mentality), not toward how you want other people to live or believe in.

"I keep hearing this term, 'redefining marriage'. If this country hadn't redefined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967! The parents of the president-elect of the United States could not have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that; if this country had not redefined marriage, some black people still couldn't marry other black people. It is one of the most overlooked, and cruelest parts of our sad history of slavery." Taken from the mouth of Keith Olbermann. Beautifully said, this quote is only one small part of his amazing speech of protest against Prop 8 (that's the link to the youtube video).

The most barbaric arguments I heard are hardly even mentionable... The most outrageous being about being wed to other animals. This is a human problem, let's not bring any other species into it. In our law, no other animals but ourselves have legal standing. It's just plain silly.
I also heard one about incest. This one is an entirely different issue in itself. I'm actually still trying to form an educated opinion on this one myself...

I am optimistic that this will be overturned. It is clearly unconstitutional. If it is not overturned through rightful complaints, it will show up again. And we will defeat it.
Equality lost 52-48% this year. In the year 2000, a mere 39% of Californians voted against the discrimination. The number of people who support equality are growing. =]

Basically, I am disgusted with the amount of people who voted for it. I am appalled that it would even be an issue to allow two lovers who happen to be the same sex share their lives as wife and wife, or husband and husband. It is very pathetic indeed. But I have not given up, and I know many others have not either.

Craaaaap. Wall of text... I tried to include everything I've learned about this whole thing... and I'll probably add more as opposed to spamming my journal with multiple entries.