I Invalidate your Vote. What?
Proposition 8 passed in California.
Proposition 8 adds a provision to the California Constitution that says: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
As my friends said regarding election night, “At least we got one thing.”
It came as no shock or surprise that immediately upon having the vote called in favor of the Amendment opposing gay marriage that there were multiple lawsuits being filed to “invalidate” the vote.
I wrote about the Prop 8, Yes on 8, measure a while back and what floors me about the issue in the first place is that this is the SECOND time that California citizens have made their decision about this. The first time it passed with a 61% majority. Well it passed again!
I have a real issue with the fact that the voice of the people is being suppressed here. How do you get to “invalidate” my vote because you don’t like it? If we are going to play that game there are some other things that have been voted on that I would like to have invalidated too. Once you start taking away the right of the citizens to have a say in how things work then we lose our rights as a democracy. That is a very bad thing.
I hear the phrase, the majority cannot decide what is right for the minority. Does anyone think there is something funny there? So the minority gets to decide what is right for the majority? I don’t know of any place where that kind of logic works. The rationale used there confuses me.
The Mormon church is also under attack for their financial support of the Proposition. Really? The money was mostly given by individual members of their churches. Which is the individual citizens business. Not a church and state issue. And even if it was from the church group as a whole the percentage of money given is a fraction of the denominational funds. This was not a church and state issue. If it was then no church would have taken a stance on the issue. Churches cannot promote specific candidates or parties but they can take a stance on issues. If that is a problem what about the churches that spoke out against Prop 8. Surely the percentage of cash given from those smaller organizations would surpass the percentage from the Mormon church. You can’t have this type of argument one way.
I heard a great guest on FOX this past weekend. (still trying to find the clip) But in it they alluded to this fact, and as much as I wish it were not true it is: If the people fighting so hard to pass same-sex marriage left it alone and fought hard for equal civil rights for the next ten years or so, by then the population of voters will be replaced by people who would support their agenda. It would pass easily.
That makes some sense. Why fight the man? Bide your time and you will ultimately get your way. If you seek to invalidate my vote now I am only going to be angered and feel that my vote has no meaning.
And why riot and picket? Is that serving your purpose? By rioting you are not coming across well and lose any credibility you might have. It comes off like sore losers.
Here are some articles that Protect Marriage sent out this evening. Some good reading.
John went on to emphasize that civil unions grant same-sex couples the same rights afforded to married heterosexual couples. He stated, “I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership…the word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”
The editorial summarizes the opposition’s actions, citing that, “Angry opponents of Proposition 8 are targeting businesses and individuals who contributed money to the “yes” campaign. Vandals have hit churches that supported the initiative. Sparked by the speed and reach of the Internet, supporters of gay and lesbian rights are organizing protests from California to Salt Lake City, the home of the Mormon Church.”
And while the editorial takes a sympathetic approach to the opposition’s protests, saying their “charged reaction is understandable,” it does not justify that by “venting their anger and in exercising their right to challenge Proposition 8, some opponents risk crossing the line that separates civil protest from harassment. And by crossing that line, they undermine the message that some gay and lesbian leaders are trying to impart: that everyone’s rights should be respected.”
The editorial went on to acknowledge that the No on 8 campaign has not adequately addressed the acts of violence and harassment undertaken by their supporters, saying that “a lone statement” on their Web site asking supporters to not isolate those who oppose their views is simply not enough.