Nook Look

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Humanitarian, not Republican

This is about California's Prop 8. If you are tired of the politics, tired of the energy and effort and millions of dollars that went into backing or fighting this letgislation I think you might not want to go any farther.

I am a registered Republican, I'm not a Democrat. I have far more conservative views than mainstream American. I think that original ideals of Proposition 8 debate have been thrown completely out of preportion. I voted no. I did. I wasn't going to at first, mostly because of the way most of my family and friends were voting, which was yes.But the more I thought about it the more I disagreed with it. Apparently California, a very liberal state did not agree with me. Again Gay Marriage has been found unconstitutional by the people even though the state Superior Court has already overturned one Gay Marriage propostion finding IT unconstitutional. What a waste of money. I think that Prop 8 is discrimination, no questions asked.

So I found this on Little Miss Runner Pants and thought that you may not agree, you may even look at me with different perspective and not in the light you had thought but it is how I feel and very much how I would like to have said it myself.

3 comments:

Diane said...

I also voted no on Prop. 8, and am very surprised it passed. All the polls leading up to the election showed that most Californians believed in gay marriage. I think part of the problem is that the Props. are written poorly on the ballot, and some people may have mistakenly voted "yes" thinking a yes was for gay marriage. I hope the courts overrule the decision...I don't think the US Constitution should be amended, but states should definitely have their say as to who can and can not get married in each individual state. It's a shame more Californians don't agree. :(

James (your cousin) said...

Don't forget, cuz, that just because people vote against it doesn't mean it isn't constitutional. All people in this country (without the religious fringe) deserve equal rights. The issue here is that marriage is an ambiguous term in regards to the legal definition of marriage vs. the religious one. Legally, there should be no defined difference between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. But, because of our countries strong religious infrastructure, we continue to allow the religious definition of marriage to determine the legality of what is, in effect, and totally different contract.

Marriage as a legal contract only defines what rights and obligations two people have under law, while religious marriage defines the spiritual/moral obligations. That separation needs to become clear and the ambiguity removed in our legal definitions in order to resolve the underlying issue.

James

Diane said...

Great point, James! This is definitely an example of a law that is being affected by others' religious views...of course abortion the other, but that's a much more complicated issue altogether.