I Invalidate your Vote. What?

November 12, 2008 at 5:04 pm 2 comments

Proposition 8 passed in California.

43202678

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.

Elton John: Heterosexual Couples Have Marriage, Same-Sex Couples Have Civil Partnerships

USA Today published an article yesterday in which Sir Elton John spoke about his position on Proposition 8. John clarified his position on Prop 8 while attending the annual benefit for the Elton John AIDS Foundation. He was accompanied by his longtime partner David Furnish, whom he joined in a civil union in 2005. John was quoted as saying, “We’re not married. Let’s get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage.”

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.”

Sacramento Bee Editorial: No on 8 Supporters Cross the Line that Separates Civil Protest from Harassment

An editorial in the Sacramento Bee today takes a close look at the outrageous actions undertaken by many No on 8 supporters following the passage of Prop 8.

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.

Sacramento Musical Theatre Director Resigns Due to Harassment by No on 8 Supporters

Today the Sacramento Bee announced that Scott Eckern, artistic director for the California Musical Theatre, resigned under pressure Wednesday as a growing number of artists threatened to boycott the organization because of his $1,000 donation to the Yes on 8 campaign. This kind of blacklisting shows that the No on 8 campaign, which claimed to be all about tolerance, is in fact a cauldron of intolerance and bigotry.

Advertisements

Entry filed under: General. Tags: , , , , .

Massive Pet Peeve Vote Saxby!

2 Comments Add your own

  • 1. John D. Augustine - WI USA  |  November 16, 2008 at 5:53 pm

    First things first. The central point of this post seems to be that the majority rules, with no exceptions. I disagree with that premise. If it were true, then it would have been wrong during the twentieth century to invalidate the votes of people who approved laws banning interracial marriage.

    Those laws violated the spirit, (that all men are created equal)if not the letters of the US constitution. As such, those laws were eventually overturned against the will of people who still believed that if the majority in a state opposed interracial marriage, then it should be illegal. Clearly it shouldn’t, which is why our system of government has checks and balances to insure against the tyranny of majority rule.

    I have complete faith in that system, so I will waste little more time arguing in favor of invalidating proposition 8. I don’t even feel the need to change the minds of those who believe that homosexuality is wrong. Statistics clearly show that the younger a person is, the more likely they are to accept a gay lifestyle as a valid pursuit of happiness. ’nuff said.

    My main reason for commenting here is personal. I would ask anyone who still believes that opposing gay marriage is a majority position to consider a time when it was still socially acceptable to protest against open housing laws. I was sheltered from the violence of that era by the innocence of childhood and the demographics of an old-growth suburb, but I can look back, thanks to news photographers, and see the fear and hatred in peoples faces back then.

    I can only wonder what they must have been thinking. Maybe they believed they were righteous in the fight against black people lowering their property values. But what was so wrong with society that otherwise good Christians thought it was socially acceptable to express such hatred of “other” people for simply being born as who they were and for wanting the same things anyone else would want?

    My point is this: it took far less than a lifetime for the social acceptability of those attitudes to change, and I believe I will live to see a day when the majority of children growing up now will look at pictures of people proudly demonstrating against gay marriage, and wonder about them the same way that I wonder about people who opposed open housing.

    So it doesn’t matter to me where anyone stands now on Prop. 8. All it will determine is where some stranger some day might see them as having stood. But I will ask:

    How will you choose now to see yourself now then?

  • 2. rightwingchicky  |  November 19, 2008 at 5:23 am

    i think the problem i see here, is that you see this as a civil rights issue, i do not. there are some excellent sources that explain just how this is of no comparison to the civil rights movement.

    here is a snippet from this site: The first point is that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Without exception, every adult in Maryland already has a right to marry. But everyone also has restrictions on whom they may marry–again, without exception. No one is permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. These restrictions apply equally to everyone–there is no discrimination involved.

    as well as these links:
    Same Sex Marriage Vs Civil Rights
    Same-sex marriage not a civil right

    I do not think there is any constitutional violation going on here. Thirty-something states have passed similar laws, yet we are focusing on Prop 8 like it is the only place. The majority of the country still believes that marriage is one man/one woman.

    And yes, it is becoming more “socially acceptable” but that does not change the primary fact, that it same sex marriage has no historical support or credence as a civil rights issue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Blog Stats

  • 63,701 hits

%d bloggers like this: