CE Week #12: “Across U.S., Big Rallies for Same-Sex Marriage”
SAN FRANCISCO — In one of the nation’s largest displays of support for gay rights, tens of thousands of people in cities across the country turned out in support of same-sex marriage on Saturday, lending their voices to an issue that many gay men and lesbians consider a critical step to full equality.
The demonstrations — from a sun-splashed throng in San Francisco to a chilly crowd in Minneapolis — came 11 days after California voters narrowly passed a ballot measure, Proposition 8, that outlawed previously legal same-sex ceremonies in the state. The measure’s passage has spurred protests in California and across the country, including at several Mormon temples, a reflection of that church’s ardent backing of the proposition.
On Saturday, speakers painted the fight over Proposition 8 as another test of a movement that began with the riots at the Stonewall Inn in New York in 1969, survived the emergence of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, and has since made enormous strides in societal acceptance, whether in television shows or in antidiscrimination laws.
“It’s not ‘Yes we can,’ ” said Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco city supervisor, referring to President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign mantra. “It’s ‘Yes we will.’ ”
Carrying handmade signs with slogans like “No More Mr. Nice Gay” and “Straights Against Hate,” big crowds filled civic centers and streets in many cities. In New York, some 4,000 people gathered at City Hall, where speakers repeatedly called same-sex marriage “the greatest civil rights battle of our generation.”
“We are not going to rest at night until every citizen in every state in this country can say, ‘This is the person I love,’ and take their hand in marriage,” said Representative Anthony D. Weiner of Brooklyn.
In Los Angeles, where wildfires had temporarily grabbed headlines from continuing protests over Proposition 8, Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa addressed a crowd of about 9,000 people in Spanish and English, and seemed to express confidence that the measure, which is being challenged in California courts, would be overturned.
“I’ve come here from the fires because I feel the wind at my back as well,” said the mayor, who arrived at a downtown rally from the fire zone on a helicopter. “It’s the wind of change that has swept the nation. It is the wind of optimism and hope.”
About 900 protesters braved a tornado watch and menacing rain clouds in Washington to rally in front of the Capitol and on to the White House. “Gay, straight, black, white; marriage is a civil right,” the marchers chanted.
In Las Vegas, the comedian Wanda Sykes surprised a crowd of more than 1,000 rallying outside a gay community center by announcing that she is gay and had wed her wife in California on Oct. 25. Ms. Sykes, who divorced her husband of seven years in 1998, had never publicly discussed her sexual orientation but said the passage of Proposition 8 had propelled her to be open about it.
“I felt like I was being attacked, personally attacked — our community was attacked,” she told the crowd.
And while some speakers were obviously eager to tap crowds’ current outrage, others took pains to cast the demonstrations as a peaceful, long-term, campaign over an issue that has proved remarkably and consistently divisive.
“We need to be our best selves,” said the Rev. G. Penny Nixon, a gay pastor from San Mateo, Calif., who warned the San Francisco crowd against blaming “certain communities” for the election loss. “This is a movement based on love.”
The protests were organized largely over the Internet, and featured few representatives of major gay rights groups that campaigned against Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote after trailing for months in the polls. The online aspect seemed to draw a broad cross-section of people, like Nicole Toussaint, a kindergarten teacher who joined a crowd of more than 1,000 people in Minneapolis.
“I’m here to support my friends who are gay,” said Ms. Toussaint, 23. “I think my generation will play a big role.”
The big crowds notwithstanding, it has been a tough month for gay rights. Proposition 8 was just one of three measures on same-sex marriage passed on Nov. 4, with constitutional bans also being approved in Arizona and Florida. In Arkansas, voters passed a measure aimed at barring gay men and lesbians from adopting children.
That vote was on the minds of many of the 200 people who protested Saturday in front of the State Capitol in Little Rock. One of those, Barb L’Eplattenier, 39, a university professor, said some of her gay friends with adopted children were fearful of state action if they appeared in public. “They think their families are in danger,” said Ms. L’Eplattenier, who married her partner, Sarah Scanlon, in California in July.
The protests over Proposition 8 also come even as same-sex marriages began Wednesday in Connecticut, which joined Massachusetts as the only states allowing such ceremonies. By contrast, 30 states have constitutional bans on such unions.
At a Boston rally on Saturday, Kate Leslie, an organizer, said the loss in California had certainly caught the attention of local gay men and lesbians who have had the right to marry since 2004.
“You’re watching people who could be you and are part of your community being stripped of their rights,” Ms. Leslie said. “And in some ways that’s why so many people are infuriated in Massachusetts and willing to stand up for a rally.”
In California, a State Supreme Court decision legalized same-sex marriage in May. As many as 18,000 couples married, some traveling from other states to tie the knot. Such marriages may be challenged in court.
David McMullin, a garden designer from Atlanta, was one of those who made the trip, marrying his partner in Oakland, Calif., in September, in part to let their two adoptive children feel part of a married family.
“We just want our kids to know we’re O.K.,” said Mr. McMullin, who had come to a protest in front of the Georgia State Capitol. “We have rights as people even if we don’t have rights as citizens.”
Supporters of the proposition have repeatedly argued that Proposition 8 was not antigay, but merely pro-marriage.
“The marriage is between a man and women,” said Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind passing Proposition 8. “If they want to legalize same-sex marriage, they are going to have to bring a proposal before the people of California. That’s how democracy works.”
Equality California, a major gay rights group here, indicated this week that it would work to repeal Proposition 8 if legal challenges fail.
Such dry approaches seemed a million miles away, however, from the boisterous scene in front of San Francisco City Hall on Saturday, where as many as 10,000 people gathered, carrying signs, American flags and even copies of their marriage licenses.
One of those was Lawrence Dean, 57, who had married his partner, Steven Lyle, in San Francisco in July. It was the fifth time that the couple of 19 years had held a ceremony to announce their commitment, and, of course, accept wedding gifts.
“If we keep this up, maybe I won’t have to again,” Mr. Dean said, looking out at the protest. “I have enough pots and pans.”
Reporting was contributed by Robbie Brown from Atlanta; Steve Barnes from Little Rock; Christina Capecchi from Minneapolis; Francesca Segrè from Los Angeles; Katie Zezima from Boston; Ashley Southall from Washington; Steve Friess from Las Vegas; and C. J. Hughes from New York.
Well, I must say I personally hope Proposition 8 is overturned in California, and hope that such freedoms are passed on throughout the country. America, as a nation, seems to always need to have one group in which to discriminate against. From its birth, it has been African-Americans, though now to a much lesser extent that before thanks to the civil rights movement. Now, it seems as though America has a new target: homosexuals. Such rallies against Prop 8 are as widespread as the civil rights rallies were in the 1960s. When I look at bans like Prop 8, I see America’s next Jim Crow, and I am disgusted by it. Now, I’m not gay myself, but I just cannot stand to see such discrimination. Marriage is a right that should be guaranteed to everyone. Just imagine what it would be like if you were told you weren’t allowed to marry the person you loved. It’s wrong to stop such unions. That one gay couple has had to marry five times because of all the shifts in law just appalls me, because it should have only had to be once. And the Arkansas measure barring adoptions for gay parents is equally repugnant. The main arguments supporting such bans are also, on a legal basis, completely false. Since the main support for such bans is religious, they cannot be applied to politics and laws; the 1st amendment, with that separation of church and state, forbids it.
Connection: Initiative Petition/ Referendum, because Proposition 8 was started from a petition from anti-gay marriage groups and was put on the ballot and passed as a referendum.
I’m not going to post an opinion on this topic because I do not wish to be lambasted for how I feel because it is not up to you to tell me whether or not what I feel is right or wrong. I think that this article was written from a relatively objective standpoint. There were quotes from supporters of both sides of the argument and they were from individuals who sincerely cared about what they were rallying behind. While it is impossible for an article to be written about such a heated topic without being somewhat biased, it was a compilation of research from numerous individuals with obviously varying views on the issue. The more conservative view of this topic vilifies the homosexual in the following quote, making them seem greedy and as if they married to receive gifts, “It was the fifth time that the couple of 19 years had held a ceremony to announce their commitment, and, of course, accept wedding gifts.” To the gays affected by Proposition 8 and all the others that passed on November 4th the ban on marriage is bigger than marriage, it’s about protecting their families, plain and simple. “some of her gay friends with adopted children were fearful of state action if they appeared in public. “They think their families are in danger,” said Ms. L’Eplattenier, who married her partner, Sarah Scanlon, in California in July.” This is clearly a heated issue and depending on your beliefs you feel differently about it. A lot of this depends on where you are from.
Connection: The effect of this issue itself on individuals and the impact of the article depend greatly upon the place in which they grew up, as we discussed in class. Those of us growing up in the Mead school system will give you a different experience than growing up in the Seattle school system or even the Spokane city school system.
Hey the law is the law. The people have spoken and the fact that gay people can’t get married in California is now certain. I personally am against gay marriage. The definition or marriage is even the joining of a man and a woman as husband and wife through a commitment to one another. It says nothing about two dudes wanting to get hitched. If they want to be together then they can just go buy a house or something. There is nothing limiting two people from buying a house together. It would be just like renting a house with some buddies during college, only there is a “deeper connection” between the two. People are always going to protest it, both sides and all, and I think that the ruling of the legalization of gay marriage maybe thrown on both sides for a while. It has to be the mass public that has to decide. I think that there should be a national vote on whether or not gay marriage should be legalized. If people want to see high turn out rates, I’m sure that that would bring out a lot of people cause it’s a pretty big deal all over the nation, even in cities that don’t have propositions for it.
Connection: This is a huge story for the media. Like Mr. Kautzman has said, “If it bleeds, it leads.” I know that this isn’t about people dying, but it is a huge topic that has people rallying on both sides and the media will always have all kinds of “fun” with this issue. Protests always hold a good story behind them, and this issue has plenty of them.
Proposition 8 is wrong on the most basic of levels. It’s banning marriage between people of the same sex. And that’s not even why it’s wrong! What is evil is denying certain people rights while granting others rights because of the way they are, how they were when they were born. (People are born gay; they do not choose to be gay. Why would they? Why would anyone choose to have disgusting bigots persecute them?) So this isn’t about the “sanctity of marriage.” This is about not letting gays marry because they are gay. Take Proposition 8 one step further, why don’t you? Don’t let gays drink at straight water fountains… Oh yeah, they realized that was evil when the Civil Rights movement began. Newsflash: this is a continuation of the same movement. Rights should never be abridged based on the way someone is born: be it sexual orientation or skin color. If you’re going to deny marriage to gays, then all marriages should be denied to everyone. EQUALITY. I guess that some people can’t grasp that concept. And all of these people in support of Proposition 8: you can’t vote on human rights. They’re not up for approval. They are INHERENT. So to all the bigots and racists in the world: I HATE YOU. If I am intolerant of those who refuse to tolerate, they will cease to exist. They’re only here because we let them be here. It’s time to wage war. It’s time to fight for liberty and our rights. I don’t have to be calm. I’m not looking to turn the tables; I’m looking to set them on fire. Evil must be rooted out and destroyed.
Connection: Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution says that states must recognize the documents of other states. Because two states allow gay marriage, all states must allow gay marriage. There can be no exceptions, or when I drive to Idaho they can say my driver’s license isn’t good over there and give me a ticket. Or that a divorce in Washington isn’t good in Idaho, so the marriage isn’t over. Absolutely ridiculous. NO EXCEPTIONS.
At this point, gay marriage is an issue so controversial that I doubt any amount of protest will change many minds. The fact that the issue is, at its roots, a moral issue makes it very difficult to sway public opinion. Like abortion, this is an issue that will be debated for years to come. Personally, I completely support gay marriage. I respect the fact that many believe that marriage is a right reserved for a man and a woman, but I feel that reserving any rights is an action which goes against the very foundation of our country’s constitution. Gay couples deserve the same rights—hospital visits, financial support—as straight couples. The idea of supporting gay unions, like marriage but with a different title, makes no sense. If the same rights are provided, why should the union be called something else just because both partners are of the same sex? Although I do not think that protests will carry the issue very far, I do think that laws preventing gay marriage are worth speaking out against.
Connection: Emotional Interests- Emotional issues are both the easiest to rally for and the most difficult to change. In this case, both interest groups, those supporting gay marriage and those opposing it, have a personal investment in the cause. Love and religion are two of the strongest human attachments. The fact that these two forces are, according to some, working on opposite sides in this case makes the argument very difficult to resolve.
Well, I can understand and sympathize with the people that are protesting proposition eight in California. But, I also wonder if such protests are taking place in states that passed similar laws. I think that since the margin was rather small and such protests are taking place, there should be some kind of revote although I understand that those interested in voting and voicing their opinion on the matter had their time to do so. I also do not completely agree with other states protesting about something happening within a state that is not their own as the laws made in one state apply only to that state. I think they should channel those efforts into their own state if they are so concerned. I also do not personally think that those couples that were allowed to marry based on the laws at the time should be affected by the change in law. “About 900 protesters braved a tornado watch and menacing rain clouds in Washington to rally in front of the Capitol and on to the White House.” Those in opposition are certainly dedicated to their cause as are those in full agreement with the results of the passing of the proposition.
Connection: Initiative petition and referendum. Proposition 8 was proposed by the people and passed by the people.
Wow. So I know in the constitution it only says something about a man marrying a woman, but I do not think it is fair for California to give the people the right to same sex marriages and then take it away. However, I do not think it is necessary for them to get married; they can just be “partners,” same with men and women.
I do not think it is right for the law to get into someone’s personal life. To some degree, it’s kind of like the government saying they cannot be gay; they should not interfere with sexual orientation. And how would the gay marriage movement affect the election?
In Arkansas, they banned gay men and lesbians from adopting children!! That state is basically saying that they cannot have children unless they go against their ways and… well, get pregnant. It would be a lot harder for men though. Tell me, WHY would sexual orientation have ANYTHING to do with taking care of children?? It is not fair for them because people can’t help who they are attracted to. And I’m sure that being gay does not affect your parenting skills.
I just don’t think any of this is fair to that community.
Interestingly enough, many protests were organized over the internet…
CONNECTION>>> I believe this article connects to narrow casting because I’m sure there are certain websites that are devoted strictly to this topic of same sex marriage. And this article could be linked to interest groups too because so many people are very passionate about this topic and want their voices heard by the entire country.
We’re a country of freedom right? We have freedom of religion, and we’re allowed to worship and practice what we want, where we want. It’s in our constitution. With that being said, what secular reasons are there against gay marriage? Austin mentioned “It says nothing.” What is “it?” Certain religious beliefs that say that we shouldn’t allow homosexuality? We cannot force our beliefs on others, and there isn’t any reason why homosexuality shouldn’t be recognized as love, and a union. People did not wake up one morning and choose to be gay, nor do they have a “disease” that causes them to like the same gender. People choose whom they love, with just as much power as a people chose how their voice sounds. It’s uncontrollable, and should not be punished.
Bringing up a point about the masses who believe it’s wrong, is a moot point in my opinion. Our country is built on the idea of protecting minority rights. We protected minority rights when we overcame slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregation. We protected the general rights of people when we gave woman the right to vote. Why should we stop protecting the rights of the downtrodden and oppressed now?
Connection: Interests groups play a large role. There is a great pressure on the government to make moral decisions for the American public and when pressure is put on the government, it causes inefficiency because politicians aren’t going to make a definite move in one direction or the other for fear of what will happen when the opposing interest group begins to protest. This is an example of why interests groups may be falling into the hyperpluralism theory. No great strides are being made, and it’s because reelection is only a few years away.
Love is a natural right; it isn’t confined by political or cultural beliefs. Love is broad, and essentially universal. James Madison basically copied John Lock’s ideas concerning natural rights involvement in government. He and the other founding fathers decided that the government should hold responsibility for protecting natural rights, or unalienable rights (These rights are showcased in the Bill of Rights). The first Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The main anti-homosexual argument: marriage is between a man and a woman is justified by the bible, by god. Therefore, proposition 8 is unconstitutional, because it is religion specific. Love is a natural right; homosexuality is a form of love, homosexuals should get married. Equality is a natural right, allowing gays to get married promotes equality, homosexuals should get married.
Proposition 8 violates our constitution, specifically the first amendment. I don’t understand how such a violation can be any more obvious. Proposition 8 is so embarrassing. Within the past two weeks, tens of thousands of people have been protesting. They have been saying: Proposition 8 is humiliating… America is supposed to be a nation that protects and accepts all, congress, stop being stupid and reject proposition 8.
Ok, well I had to laugh when I read this quote, ““This is a movement based on love.” Pretty much summed up this whole issue…and I couldn’t help just picture two colorful hippie bums hanging on each other proudly displaying their wedding certificates in one hand and flashing the peace sign with the other hand. Well, first of all…I will say it bluntly…I’m appalled at same-sex “marriages.” When you might question, “Well, how about equality of rights and freedom of speech and expression?” And then I would say, “Well, then can I marry my spitting, farting llama?” How broad will we interprete this term “equality?” If we want to be all fair then how come smokers can no longer puff a cigarrette within 20 feet of a public building? Or how come we have to wear shirts into McDonalds? Or why can’t we have one big happy bathroom? If you want to get picky about equality, then you have to see all of the other issues that could be easily forgotten under that big umbrella. Furthermore, I’m appalled that these “couples” would even presume to adopt kids. What kind of an education is that giving to children? And honestly, I believe that child would be seriously messed up if she never had a mom influence in her life in the case of a gay couple or a dad influence in a lesbian couple. Where is this world heading to when a kid has to introduce their parents as dad and dad.
Connection: According to the definition of natural rights, they are “rights inherent in human beings, not dependent on governments, which include life, liberty and property.” I honestly believe that the scope of government has become way to broad and that sadly our rights have become dependent on government. Just as with the whole controversial debate over same-sex marriages, this is something that has become way too broad and we look to government to fix all or our problems.
“Someone once said racism is like cancer,” Ferris said. “It’s never totally wiped out, it’s in remission.” As much as people want to put a stop to racism, it seems to be rooted in them whether it is over another person’s skin color, their beliefs, or other differences. All we can do to help stop this though is to try and show by example and teach those willing to learn.
This jump in racist activity is to be expected with the election of Obama. There will always be radical people in America. And as it was stated in the article “Emotions are often raw after a hard-fought political campaign”. The larger portion of America has spoken though, and they have accepted an African American as President. And how do the crimes listed in this article differ from those that take place every day? If a person looks close enough and asks around in the right places they can find evidence of racism, threats, and defacing of property with ease. Of course this does not mean that these threats should be taken lightly though, Obama the President elect should be protected along with those who feel they are in serious danger.
Connection: This article is a connected to yellow journalism. I think that the author overplayed a select few situations, which have occurred at times before Obama was elected, and make it seem as if it was spreading throughout the whole country.
In response to Annika:
I disagree, in some aspects. There was an attempt to equalize the nation with the Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1935. Ratification of that would have created the issue of unisex bathrooms, and I can pretty much guarantee that having unisex bathrooms would scar any little girl who goes in to the bathroom and sees some strange man standing up going to the bathroom. The smoking issue is for the greater good of public health, I don’t know about you but I personally can’t stand the smell of cigarette smoke and disallowing the act in all public places was a very good choice on the part of the government. It may not be fair to the smokers but is it fair to the rest of us who don’t smoke for them to be filling our lungs with carcinogens, or for some creepy guy to scare the daylight out of a little girl? I don’t think so. I do agree with you on the fact that allowing gay and lesbian couples the right to a marriage equal to a straight couple. A civil union maybe, but not a marriage as defined by our good friend Webster. As far as raising children is concerned, I agree completely. What kind of social torture would that child have to endure and would it ever be worth that torture for the parents to have the joy of raising a child? I don’t think that the child will ever be deserving of that problem, no child would. I find it absolutely appalling that adoption is allowed by gay and lesbian couples. Children need the influence of both a mother and a father, it is vital to being brought up successfully in our society. It isn’t allowed for gay and lesbian couples to be foster parents so why would they be allowed to be adoptive parents? It makes no sense and seems to set a double standard.
In Response to Austin:
Although I disagree with your feelings on same sex marriage, I do agree with you on some levels. First of all, I do have to point out that your definition of marriage is inaccurate. According to the 2008 Miriam-Webster Dictionary, marriage is “the state of being united to a person of the same or opposite sex in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.” The definition itself seems to make clear that marriage is marriage, regardless of the gender of those being joined. Also, sharing a house with someone is nothing like being married. All rights that are reserved to spouses and family are easily and clearly barred from simple roommates. On the other hand, I do completely agree that it would be nice to see national legislation regarding same sex marriage. The law is so controversial and of such importance that it would make perfect sense to have national regulatory standards. Making the legislation national would also solve the dispute over whether or not the Full Faith and Credit Clause applies to gay marriage. This is another highly controversial question, and it will instantly become a nonissue the second national legislation is passed. Although this issue will be at the center of debate for years to come, it would be nice to see it move to a united national debate rather than 50 mini debates within the separate states.
In response to John Dyer:
I agree with you. This is just another way for people to discriminate against their fears. Sexual orientation is such a minor thing when you look at a person as a whole, just as gender is or the color of your skin. Obviously not everyone is equal, and this will never be the case because we are not a communism. However, our constitution gives everyone the gifts of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness is not restricted by gender, age, race, or sexual orientation, and is marriage not the pursuit of happiness? Although some of the other posts are saying this is a step towards full equality and soon we will be sharing one bathroom, but I’m sure people said the same thing about the civil rights movement. Americans always need someone to hate, but I think that homosexuals have had their turn. Lets hate something like pollution or torture. Wouldn’t that be much more constructive then hate of something you have no insight into? Finally, our nation is one, which divides church and state. Since marriage is a religious ceremony, how can our government have any say? Our country legally has no right to intervene on this issue, but the constitution is not the most important document in our country these days.
In response to Austin Ainslie, while I am certain that the definition you provided was correct, the fact that “it says nothing about two dudes wanting to get hitched” merely means that such precedence has not been addressed by that definition. Each state has the power to set their own definition on most laws. You are correct in saying that there is no law that prevents two men from living in the same house with their, as you put it, “deeper connection.” But, I think that those two men would want some addition recognition other than merely occupying the same home since the purpose of the battle of gay marriage is to have the recognition and benefits to the same effect as any other committed couple. I also do not think that a national vote could be called to decide this issue. I think that issue is delegated to be within the states’ power rather than the federal government’s power. I do not think there is even an established precedence for creating a national vote other than to elect the President, etc as this issue is left to the discretion of the states unless it is to make it all the way to the Supreme Court.
In response to Annika,
Do you realize that you compared a spitting, farting llama to a homosexual human being? …you just compared an animal to a human being. As I recall, Hitler labeled Jews as animals to justify the Holocaust, Hutus labeled Tutsis as animals to justify the Rwandan Genocide, and during the Civil war; Southern slave states labeled African-Americans as animals to justify their cause. I’ve heard your argument before, in some respects, we’ve ALL heard your argument before, and it is NEVER legitimate. First of all, denying homosexuals the right to get married violates equality on a very basic level. We are denying a specific group, a minority, a right that the majority of us have. That is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Also, “Smokers can no longer puff a cigarette within 20 feet of a public building” because it poses a health risk. Homosexuality isn’t going to affect anyone else’s health, especially yours. “We have to wear shirts into McDonalds” to limit the spread of bacteria, help limit disease…Homosexuality isn’t going to give YOU a disease. And In some places, we do have “one big happy bathroom.” Therefore, none of your arguments are convincing, because they have nothing to do with this issue.
In response to Annika:
Annika, I must say that I strongly disagree with you. I am appalled that people want to stop two people in love from getting married. That just is wrong on so many levels. And I disagree that a child raised by a gay or lesbian couple will be messed up. As long as you have people who love and support you as any good parent does, what difference does it make what gender the parents are? Your argument also has as rather big flaw to it; you could apply your argument about missing a mom or dad figure to a single parent family, and cite that those kids are being messed up too, and that the single parent shouldn’t be able to raise their kids. How would all those single parents feel about that? I know a single mom who is doing a marvelous job raising her kids. I don’t see why gay parents would be worse that only having one parent, especially seeing as only one parent can to the job well. By saying that missing a mom or dad figure will mess the kid up, it could be seen that you are saying children should only be raised by a heterosexual couple, and nothing else, including single parents. And I think you made a leap that Evel Knievel would be proud of by jumping from same-sex marriage to marrying a “spitting, farting llama.” Seeing as llamas aren’t human, I don’t think we need to worry about people trying to marry them, or about this nation even considering allowing for that. As for broadening equality, it is for the good of public health that you can’t smoke within twenty feet of a building. If you want to have carcinogens and toxins floating around everyone, then perhaps you should try and get an initiative petition going to repeal that. Seeing as gay people don’t give you cancer, and that marriage and smoking are completely different topics, I think equality should be applied to marriage. Also, walking into McDonalds without a shirt on is also for public health and safety. Restaurants are concerned that if you don’t have a shirt on, you could spread more germs around by exposing the area of the body that carries the most germs. That seems sensible to me. And since there are no unordinary health hazards on gay people, I think marriage should be equal between two people.
In response to your email:
I hope this will work for the connection for my post.
Connection: Initiative Petition/Referendum – Proposition 8 started as an initiative petition after the CA Supreme Court struck down the ban against blocking homosexual marriages. It was put on the ballot as a referendum, where the people voted to pass the ban on gay marriage.
In response to Austin:
Personally, I disagree with your view on same sex marriage. The definition of marriage is not limited to a commitment between a man and a woman. A commitment between two people of the same sex is still a marriage.
Also, marriage is far from just a “deeper connection.” With marriage comes certain benefits and support (e.g. the ability to share the same insurance plan, tax breaks, etc.) that the couple would not get if they just went and bought a house to live together. This is one of the main reasons, besides equality, why these people are protesting Proposition 8 and fighting for their cause.
You make a great point, though, in saying that this issue should be turned into some sort of national legislation. Sure, letting the states be somewhat independent is a cornerstone of our democracy, but at this point, it is time for the national government to take control.
This issue, just like many others, will never be completely resolved. Their will always be two completely opposite sides, and there is no obvious way of pleasing both. If this issue goes to the nation to decide, a majority will win, leaving only one side happy.
In response to Annika:
Wow. This is what always happens when people against gay marriage try to condemn it: they compare gay marriage to bestiality. Nobody said that you could marry your “spitting, farting llama,” but if you really want to, you can petition the government- gotta love the first amendment. The thing that Proposition 8 is trying to destroy is the right that all American adults, who are consenting, have the right to be married to one other person. Gay marriage, and basic gay rights, activists are not trying to get you and your llama to an altar, and they’re not trying to get 15-year-olds married to 50-year-olds, and they’re not trying to marry seven women to one guy. They’re trying to get two consenting adults who love each other, regardless of their gender, married. And this, gay marriage, is not hurting the public. No one is going to get lung cancer from gay marriages. Second, “no shirt, no shoes, no service” is not a law. It is not mandated by the government; it is merely a restaurant’s, and, therefore, private property’s, policy. If the government wants employees of a restaurant to be clothed in a way most consider normal, then they are requiring that to protect the health of the public. I don’t know why we don’t have one “big, happy bathroom,” but if you think that separate male and female restrooms are infringing on human rights, then you should petition the government for this grievance. Again, you would be well within your first amendment rights. I agree that equality is often abridged, even in this day and age. That’s why Proposition 8 is evil: it discriminates against gays because of their sexual orientation.
And by the way, you just insulted a lot of kids with gay parents. Between eight and ten million, actually. You called them “messed up.” You act like they won’t be able to function, that they will be inept somehow because the parents that they love are the same gender. It doesn’t matter how much love there is in a household with gay parents, their children couldn’t possibly be normal and happy. How about the kids whose families are part of cults, and their dad is married to ten different women? How about kids whose parents got divorced? Will they be messed up? Take it one step further, how about kids who were born out of wedlock? Will they be screwed up for life? Oh, wait, that’s me, born out of wedlock. I feel so incredibly messed up, because weren’t married when they had me. It doesn’t matter how much they love me. It doesn’t matter how much my godfathers love me. I am so messed up because there are gays with kids. THANKS FOR MAKING ME SEE THE ERROR IN MY WAYS, ANNIKA.
Proposition 8 IS about the sanctity of marriage “sanctity of marriage” not about being bigoted. Marriage is progressively loosing its meaning take the 50’s for example, you could say that they were “close minded” or whatever you want but divorces were a rare people fought to keep their marriage they did not find an excuse to divorce. Now I think that divorces happen as fast as people can get married. But what changed? “acceptance” and “tolerance” don’t get me wrong both are good but to what extent are we to accept things, should we accept things that we view as wrong? No there is a line just as there is a line in everything we are seeing the line get pushed further and further this is the point when people want it to stop, stop not because they hate gay people but because it goes against what they feel marriage is.
You could equate this to the civil rights movement to people hating blacks, you could claim this as an attack on gays, but the truth is that it is the defense of marriage (at least to most), the union of a man and a woman. This is not gay discrimination we do not want you to get married because we hate them but because that is not marriage.
Connection: In class we discussed how initiatives and referendums were ways that the people were able to directly influence politics in America. Proposition 8 is a good example of that, it was able to get on the ballot by getting enough signatures from the people then it was able to get passed by a subsequent vote by the people.
In response to Jonathan Dyer and Brennan Waller:
Now, Jon, come on. The people elected Barack Obama. Just because I disagree with him is it appropriate for me to campaign around the country about how much I hate him? That’s for everyone to decide themselves, but the people of California have spoken. Oh wait… CALIFORNIA! One of the most liberal states in the whole United States! And they didn’t pass it? I don’t know how many states will then (except of course Connecticut did, and some others probably will later). But what was wrong with homosexuals getting what they want in California is the terms they used in their campaigning. What I’m trying to get at here is this: I think most Americans do not discriminate against homosexuals. Homosexuals can do what they want in their own private lives – equality is in the Constitution and most Americans wouldn’t argue against that point. But the definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman (yes it really is, look it up in any dictionary). If the people of other states would just put initiatives on the ballot that would legalize civil unions for homosexuals, then you’re talking 30+ states with legalized civil unions. The problem that most of the public (and even freakin’ California) has with gay marriage, is the term marriage associated with homosexuals. Reserve the term marriage for straight couples; call it whatever you want (civil union?) for homosexuals, and you’ll be golden.
In response to Annika’s comment:
First of all, I would have to say that this whole issue it a movement based on love. If these homosexual couples didn’t love each other, then I am pretty sure they wouldn’t be fighting this hard to get gay marriages into a law. That’s what this whole thing is about. Now, since I am not exactly sure where I my stance with the matter of gay marriages, its not my place to tell you that your opinion is wrong. However, I will say that I don’t really believe that the idea behind marrying same sex is the same as the idea as marrying your pet llama. Being in love and marrying a human is what is naturally supposed to happen, while marrying a pet is just barbaric and crazy. In response to the question of “if we want to be all fair then how come smokers can no longer puff a cigarette within 20 feet of a public building?” I would have to say that this kind of ‘inequality’ (for lack of a better word) is for the good of the public. If we allowed people to smoke indoors then this would cause second hand smoke and would hurt the people surrounding them. But the kind of equality that would occur from allowing same sex marriages does not hurt anybody and does not cause harm.
In response to Austin:
I have to completely disagree with you. You have a right to your opinion, and I’m not going to sit here at chastise you for that opinion. This whole thing is about equality. Shouldn’t gay people have the same rights as straight people? They aren’t hurting anyone. Gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone either. Was anyone physically hurt when gay people started getting married? No. And I’m sorry, but the whole thing about buying a house makes absolutely no sense. That is nowhere near the same thing as getting married to the person you love. How would you feel if the government started dictating who you could and couldn’t marry? And how would you feel if you had been granted a right, but then just have it taken away from you? These things are basic human rights, and given out only if meet these certain requirements. No one is making anyone have a gay marriage. And a church can refuse to give a gay marriage, because that is their right. We should either call them all marriages, or call them all unions. You can’t decide that these people can have marriages, but these ones have to have unions. I feel that we had started to make great progress towards equality, but the passage of Prop 8 has sent us backward about 100 steps.
In response to Alena Schoonmaker and Hillary Susz:
I will agree that the “spitting llama” comment was a bit odd but that is where it ends.
First off I did not get the impression that Annika is trying to be Hitler what she is saying, it seemed to me, is where does it end, when will the definition of marriage stop being stretched and that not everything or everyone should be the same and making them so is not good. That you chose to take that comment as “dehumanizing” gays is just you vilanizing an argument.
I also agree with Annika that children of gay people, will not necessarily be “messed up” but they will be missing a huge part of growing up, just as anyone who is missing a parent would. Children need both a father and a mother figure to learn from parents in a way that only a mom and a dad could.
I would like to reiterate that for most people this Proposition is not a form of hatred or fear but rather a defense of what some see as morally ethical these people may not be “harmed” by it but how could they justify allowing an act that they view a wrong to take place? They couldn’t so they shouldn’t, just because some people view the union of two physically incompatible beings as acceptable does not mean that those who do not are bigoted.
Wouldn’t it just be easy to say that “oh their just bigots and hate mongers” than saying “they are standing for what they view is wrong, but they’re still wrong” that is dehumanization as well, think about it.