I received an email from a reader who said he couldn't wait to see what I'd write about the defeat of Proposition 8. I fear he's going to be disappointed, though, because I have only one thing to say about it.
First off, just in case you don't know, California had gay marriage approved by judicial ruling earlier this year (rather, I think it was this year). Proposition 8 was an initiative that would add one line to the California constitution, saying something to the effect that only marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized by California. A YES vote on 8 would ban gay marriage, a NO vote would reaffirm the aforementioned court ruling. Prop 8 won 52.5%-47.5%.
Proposition 4 was an initiative that, with few exceptions, would have required parental notification (not permission) before a minor could receive an abortion. Prop 4 failed 52%-48%.
So back to Prop 8. Here's the one thing I have to say about it:
How can a state that's conservative enough to vote down gay marriage not approve parental notification before a minor's abortion?
19 comments:
cause california is filled with people who care more about "not being disgusted" compared to their own childrens safety
Because people are more concerned with protecting the rights of those who are irresponsible than giving basic rights to those who are simply in love.
Wow. How indeed?
I had missed anything about Prop 4.
Prop 4 is potentially dangerous. People who get pregnant and then don't want to tell their parents often have a fairly good reason for not wanting to tell their parents. As in, they may be verbally or physically abused or simply kicked out. Prop 4 butts into family matters. And it seems to me that from a Republican point of view, the government shouldn't do that.
To label teenagers as too immature to handle something without their parents' involvement is also just plain wrong, even if it's something as big of a deal as pregnancy.
Just when I was at Rio, I heard some pretty crazy stories about angry, aggressive, psychotic, scary parents, and that's at Rio, a relatively affluent high school.
On the other hand, Prop 8 passed because of older people who just can't accept homosexuality. Check out the statistics based on age:
http://img356.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture1no9.png
(blue is yes, green is no)
Their old fashioned values are just that.
Prop 8 is discriminatory, plain and simple. It's just as discriminatory as Jim Crow laws. I don't see how you could argue against that. Marriage may have had its origins in religion, but it's now a legal entity, and an exclusive, restricted one, at that. It's a horribly disgusting step backwards for the state. Domestic partnerships do NOT guarantee the exact same rights as marriage at all, nor are schools required to teach about gay and lesbian couples. And what is the problem with doing that?? How is it inappropriate? When I learned about marriage, I didn't learn about sex or anything like that. Love is natural. In the 50s, people said the same thing about interracial marriages. Hopefully by the 2050s gay marriage will be equally accepted, as it should be.
Um... Because it's California?
(I think I got the answer right!!)
Because the idea that gay is icky is a deeply held one. Sadly.
Could it be that the gay population is relatively small? Small base of votes to count on for a 'Yes' and large amount of folks who either adamantly are against it and vote 'No' along with many apathetic who also vote 'No'.
This versus the fact that half the population of California is female. While they will not vote as a block on the abortion issue as much as the gay population on the marriage issue, still a larger block of potential 'Yes' votes. Also, men are more likely to cross the boundary on the abortion issue since they might see themselves having to support said child if the parents nix the abortion.
To me at least, a perfectly understandable outcome.
Isn't anyone going to ask why, in a day and age when it seems marriage is optional for most activities including childbearing, that it is such a huge issue to the gay population? Does creating a legal definition of gay marriage force people into acceptance? Or is it simply to give the social veneer of acceptance and the very real financial compensation that some people feel they are owed?
Isn't anyone going to ask why, in a day and age when it seems marriage is optional for most activities including childbearing, that it is such a huge issue to the black population? Does creating a legal definition of mixed race marriage force people into acceptance? Or is it simply to give the social veneer of acceptance and the very real financial compensation that some people feel they are owed?
I heard a report of some interesting statistics that (if the numbers are correct) indicated that 70% of CA's black voters supported proposition 8.
It doesn't appear from these numbers that the black community views this as a civil rights issue.
Ellen, imagine if your significant other got seriously hurt. If you weren't married it'd be much more difficult to visit them in the hospital. Furthermore, if they died and had a lot of stuff to give to you, you now may have to pay property tax on it. You could also lose custody over your own children because you're not their parents, legally.
There are a lot of other rights that can be gained from marriage as well.
Cameron, you know that California family code states that civil unions have all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage. In other words, in the eyes of the law they are equal.
So all those things you mentioned--they already exist *in law*.
They are equal. But seperate. And we know how well THAT works!
Why is the word marriage used in law at all? Call the legal/social contract a union and let "marriage" be defined by whomever marries you.
I'm with Eric on this one.
Actually, that's wrong! First of all there isn't a such thing as a "civil union" in California, they're called "domestic partnerships" and they do NOT have the same rights at all! You would think so, maybe even hope so, but if you go read the law it's clear. The main thing that sucks about them is that they're a state thing, and a state thing only. So any other state you go to doesn't have to recognize your partnership at all, even though marriage is a thing all states recognize. Gift and inheritance taxes, for instance, are federal, and so gay people who aren't married must pay them, while other married couples don't. If your partner dies, you don't get Social Security. There's nothing about child support. They can't change their names unless there's a court order. And with all this confusion about what they can and can't do, domestic partnerships just aren't understood, which leads to problems when dealing with what a couple can and can't do.
Check it out if you don't believe me:
http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.3348081/k.B080/Facts.htm
You're mistaken. Perhaps instead of looking at some biased web site you should look up Family Code in California law:
www.leginfo.ca.gov
Family Code:
297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
I think because Prop 8 has turned into a highly religious fueled debate. Any time religion enters political debate the emotions start to swirl.
I don't believe Prop 4 had any religious connotations or backing, it was more a family issue and did not stir the same kind of emotions.
My opinion is that if one American has a set of rights, then every American should have the same set of rights. Nothing to do with religion.
Post a Comment