To My Fellow Californians: A Word on Prop 8 and Fairytales

[3113]

Prop. 8 has been keeping me awake at night. I've given money, but I want to do more. This morning, I figured I ought to do what I do best. I write. So here it is. I'm going to post this where I can. I don't know if it's any good, or will do any good--and by all means, please give me your feedback so I can make it better, as I can't think of better critics and editors than those here on the AH. Most important: if anyone wants to post it elsewhere, do so. Change it as you like, make it yours, as a blog, as a letter to a newspaper, as an argument on a forum. Use any of it or all of it. If it can make even one person waver, and punch that "No" vote rather than "Yes," then it will have done it's job:

To my fellow Californians: Many of you have been looking for an excuse to vote "Yes" on Prop. 8. You know in your heart that it is a Jim Crow law. A law to keep some people separate but equal, as many were once kept from eating at lunch counters, or staying certain hotels, or sending their children to certain schools. Some of these many may even have been you, or your parents or grandparents. The truth is, you feel uncomfortable about the fact that gays can marry, and you want a reason to go back to the comfortable status quo. You know, however, that it is wrong to take away any such right from law-abiding citizens. (Actually, even non-law-abiding, as men and women in jail can still marry!)

You need a good excuse to vote "Yes." Proponents of 8 have found that excuse for you: protecting children. They have told you that if you do not vote "Yes" your children will be taught something you don't want them taught. Something "immoral." As an example, they point out one fairytale read to children by one teacher.

I would like you to think about this rational that Prop. 8 proponents keep advertising with scary music and distraught parents. Really think about it in comparison to the law you're ready to pass. One teacher read one three minute fairytale to one group of kids and one set of parents got upset. Because of this fear that one, three-minute fairytale might be read to your kids once in their lifetime, you are willing to take away the right to marry from thousands of adult men and women. From neighbors. Friends. Work colleagues. From parents of other children who will be raised knowing that their loving parents were never allowed to marry because people were scared of...a fairytale.

Or because of Biblical law. Even that, however, is an excuse to do wrong. Consider: in some countries, Christians are regularly put in jail for blasphemy. How they privately practice their faith, pray to their God and worship Him goes against certain religious texts. This gives the majority an excuse to abuse them. We don't do that here. We know that is is wrong to take away a person's rights just because they do not follow certain Biblical laws. We do not, for example, take away a woman's right to wear what she likes and force her to cover herself head to toe because the Bible says she should. We do not force business folk to close up shop on the Sabbath, even though the Bible says they must, or refuse to let people eat bacon or drink alchohol. And no one is jailed for swearing, even though there is a Biblical commandment against taking God's name in vain.

And we no longer force people of a different race or religion to stay in particular hotels, or drink from certain fountains even if there might be Biblical precedent for doing so. There were Bible quotes as well as fairytales used back in the days of the Civil Rights movement to give those in the majority an excuse to abuse minorities. As in those days, it took the justice system to tell the majority that these laws were unfair and wrong. That America should not be doing this. That America should and could do better, and to remind America, in the end, that everyone does have a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That's all anyone is asking for in getting married. To try and pursue their own happiness. Not to infringe on yours.

I'm writing this because I can't stand to watch the state of California, my state, give into an excuse, any excuse to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens. It is cowardly to give into this excuse instead of facing the truth and saying, "This makes me uncomfortable and I have a bias against it." Face the truth, and then face the fact that you know it's wrong to let your bias make this decision. It is wrong for any majority to create Jim Crow laws.

Above all, I ask that you remember this: The lessons and stories told to us by teachers come and go, but the actions of our parents remain with us forever. One day, your children might have friends or neighbors who are gay, or even someone they decide to marry who has a gay parent. Your children will hear the story of how this friend or parent wanted to marry and was not allowed to because of Prop. 8. And your child will ask you then, "What was your vote?"

What will you tell them when they look at you with hope in their eyes, hope that you did the right thing and voted "no"? This is a real tale, not a fairytale. You will have to justify this vote to your children, and if you know it's wrong, and you let a fairytale excuse your actions, they will be ashamed of you, and you will be ashamed of yourself.

Jim Crow laws are wrong. No fairytale can make them right. VOTE NO on Prop 8.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Prop. 8 has been keeping me awake at night. I've given money, but I want to do more. This morning, I figured I ought to do what I do best. I write. So here it is. I'm going to post this where I can. I don't know if it's any good, or will do any good--and by all means, please give me your feedback so I can make it better, as I can't think of better critics and editors than those here on the AH. Most important: if anyone wants to post it elsewhere, do so. Change it as you like, make it yours, as a blog, as a letter to a newspaper, as an argument on a forum. Use any of it or all of it. If it can make even one person waver, and punch that "No" vote rather than "Yes," then it will have done it's job:

To my fellow Californians: Many of you have been looking for an excuse to vote "Yes" on Prop. 8. You know in your heart that it is a Jim Crow law. A law to keep some people separate but equal, as many were once kept from eating at lunch counters, or staying certain hotels, or sending their children to certain schools. Some of these many may even have been you, or your parents or grandparents. The truth is, you feel uncomfortable about the fact that gays can marry, and you want a reason to go back to the comfortable status quo. You know, however, that it is wrong to take away any such right from law abiding citizens. (Actually, even non-law-abiding, as men and women in jail can still marry!)

You need a good excuse to vote "Yes." Proponents of 8 have found that excuse for you: protecting children. They have told you that if you do not vote "Yes" your children will be taught something you don't want them taught. Something "immoral." As an example, they point out one fairytale read to children by one teacher.

I would like you to think about this rational that Prop. 8 proponents keep advertising with scary music and distraught parents. Really think about it in comparison to the law you're ready to pass. One teacher read one three minute fairytale to one group of kids and one set of parents got upset. Because of this fear that one, three-minute fairytale might be read to your kids once in their lifetime, you are willing to take away the right to marry from thousands of adult men and women. From neighbors. Friends. Work colleagues. From parents of other children who will be raised knowing that their loving parents were never allowed to marry because people were scared of...a fairytale.

Or because of Biblical law. Even that, however, is an excuse to do wrong. Consider: in some countries, Christians are regularly put in jail for blasphemy. How they privately practice their faith, pray to their God and worship Him goes against certain religious texts. This gives the majority an excuse to abuse them. We don't do that here. We know that is is wrong to take away a person's rights just because they do not follow certain Biblical laws. We do not, for example, take away a woman's right to wear what she likes and force her to cover herself head to toe because the Bible says she should. We do not force business folk to close up shop on the Sabbath, even though the Bible says they must, or refuse to let people eat bacon or drink alchohol. And no one is jailed for swearing, even though there is a Biblical commandment against taking God's name in vain.

And we no longer force people of a different race or religion to stay in particular hotels, or drink from certain fountains even if there might be Biblical precedent for doing so. There were Bible quotes as well as fairytales used back in the days of the Civil Rights movement to give those in the majority an excuse to abuse minorities. As in those days, it took the justice system to tell the majority that these laws were unfair and wrong. That America should not be doing this. That America should and can do better, and to remind America, in the end, that everyone does have a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That's all anyone is asking for in getting married. To try and peruse their own happiness. Not to infringe on yours.

I'm writing this because I can't stand to watch the state of California, my state, give into an excuse, any excuse to take away the rights of law abiding citizens. It is cowardly to give into this excuse instead of facing the truth and saying, "This makes me uncomfortable and I have a bias against it." Face the truth, and then face the fact that you know it's wrong to let your bias make this decision. It is wrong for any majority to create Jim Crow laws.

Above all, I ask that you remember this: The lessons and stories told to us by teachers come and go, but the actions of our parents remain with us forever. One day, your children might have friends or neighbors who are gay, or even someone they decide to marry who has a gay parent. Your children will hear the story of how this friend or parent wanted to marry and was not allowed to because of Prop. 8. And your child will ask you then, "What was your vote?"

What will you tell them when they look at you with hope in their eyes, hope that you did the right thing and voted "no"? This is a real tale, not a fairytale. You will have to justify this vote to your children, and if you know it's wrong, and you let a fairytale excuse your actions, they will be ashamed of you, and you will be ashamed of yourself.

Jim Crow laws are wrong. No fairytale can make them right. VOTE NO on Prop 8.

Hugs. I thank you, my spouse thanks you and our children, that want their parents to be allowed to be legally married, thank you.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

You might want to add that the California Superintendent of Schools has called the ads supporting Prop 8 a total lie. Nothing in the education code requires anything about marriage of any kind to be taught.

Additionally, the majority of Churches, both Protestant and Jewish are opposed to it.

I am unaware of anyone of any intellectual or moral status who supports it and I'm aiming that directly at the elders of the Mormon Church who have provided the majority of the money for the campaign pushing this disgraceful law, as well as their hysteriocracy cohorts up in the sticks of the Central Valley.

 

[3113]

Hugs. I thank you, my spouse thanks you and our children, that want their parents to be allowed to be legally married, thank you.

You're welcome...and no thanks are necessary. Really. It's little enough, and I only hope there's more I can find to do. Prop. 8 is evil, and it has to be stopped.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

 

[rgraham666]

Good one 3. *HUGS*

I think you want to use 'pursue' rather than 'peruse' in that one sentence though.

The first sentence of the third paragraph doesn't quite gel for me as well.

 

[Liar]

Good job.

You might want to try making a cliffnotes version off it too. Maybe purge it down to half the length. I fear it may be too lengthy for some folk's attnetion span.

 

[matriarch]

They have a similar proposition going through in Arizona at the moment, but the other way. Their's is Vote yes for marriage - 1 man and 1 woman, so we're urging people to vote NOto prop 102.

It disgusts me that a group of people who don't know me, who don't know my wife, can decide just where and how she and I have to live. We are currently living in UK, as a legal same-sex couple (we can't call it marriage, but we do), and can do so anywhere in Europe. But we can't even contemplate coming back to Arizona to live as a couple, where Min's family are. And that pisses me off big time.

We hurt no-one. We aren't contagious, we work, pay our taxes, all our bills, we both have totally supportive families, and gay and straight friends who, thank goodness, don't give a flying fuck that we're two women. What they do care about is that we are two people in love, who want to be together, just like any couple in love, and want that love and partnership to be recognised in law and society. Thank god, in UK we can. It's about time for the rest of the world to catch up!!

 

[cloudy]

They have a similar proposition going through in Arizona at the moment, but the other way. Their's if Vote yes for marriage - 1 man and 1 woman.

It disgusts me that a group of people who don't know me, who don't know my wife, can decide just where and how she and I have to live. We are currently living in UK, as a legal same-sex couple (we can't call it marriage, but we do), and can do so anywhere in Europe. But we can't even contemplate coming back to Arizona to live as a couple, where Min's family are. And that pisses me off big time.

We hurt no-one. We aren't contagious, we work, pay our taxes, all our bills, we both have totally supportive families, and gay and straight friends who, thank goodness, don't give a flying fuck that we're two women. What they do care about is that we are two people in love, who want to be together, just like any couple in love, and want that love and partnership to be recognised in law and society. Thank god, in UK we can. It's about time for the rest of the world to catch up!!

Amen.

3113: I have family still in Cali, and I've forwarded your words on to them. I'm fairly sure they're on the same side we are, but I want to be sure.

 

[rgraham666]

As someone on here said a few months ago, "It's love. And it's a gift. Why quibble about the wrapping?"

 

[Safe_Bet]

They have a similar proposition going through in Arizona at the moment, but the other way. Their's is Vote yes for marriage - 1 man and 1 woman, so we're urging people to vote NOto prop 102.

It disgusts me that a group of people who don't know me, who don't know my wife, can decide just where and how she and I have to live. We are currently living in UK, as a legal same-sex couple (we can't call it marriage, but we do), and can do so anywhere in Europe. But we can't even contemplate coming back to Arizona to live as a couple, where Min's family are. And that pisses me off big time.

We hurt no-one. We aren't contagious, we work, pay our taxes, all our bills, we both have totally supportive families, and gay and straight friends who, thank goodness, don't give a flying fuck that we're two women. What they do care about is that we are two people in love, who want to be together, just like any couple in love, and want that love and partnership to be recognised in law and society. Thank god, in UK we can. It's about time for the rest of the world to catch up!!

Hugs.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Hugs.

I can't believe that it is this damned hard to find a NO on 8 sign. Gay and Lesbian Task Force doesn't get back to me, there isn't any Democratic party HQ in the area . . . I may just have to go paint my own!


I love the Thou Shalt Vote No on Prop 8. Bet I could piss off a neighbor or two but they won't dare try and take it down with the terror-ier on duty.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Elect me President (Fascist Party) and I promise to create FAIRYLAND for America's Gay, Lesbian, and Neutered citizens.

Fairyland will be created from the exisiting New England States and the American Virgin Islands. A commonwealth, Fairyland will be exempt from US income taxes and import taxes.

 

[jeanne_d_artois]

It would be illegal in the UK to have a proposition 8.

Those proposing it would be charged with breaking several laws enacted by the UK Parliament.

Jeanne/Og

 

[3113]

Good one 3. *HUGS*

I think you want to use 'pursue' rather than 'peruse' in that one sentence though.

The first sentence of the third paragraph doesn't quite gel for me as well.

Darn spell checker. It was early and I clicked on the wrong word. Thanks for catching that. And I'll work on the third paragraph.

 

[3113]

Amen.

3113: I have family still in Cali, and I've forwarded your words on to them. I'm fairly sure they're on the same side we are, but I want to be sure.

Hope you changed that word to "pursue"

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Okay, I've finally located a source of No on 8 signs.

 

[Vermilion]

What fairytale?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

What fairytale?

I think it involves a queen eating a fruit cake, but I'm not sure..?

*takes cover from mudslinging*

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I think it involves a queen eating a fruit cake, but I'm not sure..?

*takes cover from mudslinging*

More likely a princess sleeping badly.

 

[Guest]

More likely a princess sleeping badly.

"The Princess and the Pee?"



[Ducks and covers}

 

[voluptuary_manque]

"The Princess and the Pee?"



[Ducks and covers}

We do have a fetish thread for that sort of thing, you know!

 

[Safe_Bet]

This is one of the best articles I have read about why Prop 8 makes no sense. Please note that it was written by a heterosexual woman who is married to a heterosexual man. Please note that it would be an excellent addendum and/or follow up letter to go with 3113's.


Why Californians Should Vote NO On Proposition 8

Written by Alyse Wax
Published October 15, 2008

With elections bearing down at us, most people are worrying about which party will get this country out of the financial debacle. But in California, I am far more concerned about a different vote: Proposition 8. In June of this year, California legalized gay marriage. Prop 8 seeks to revoke this vote, and make it law that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

I am a heterosexual woman, who has been married to a man for almost three years, and I emphatically support the rights of gays and lesbians to legally be married. Why shouldn’t they? Homosexuals in a committed relationship just want the same rights that heterosexual couples have. They want to be able to make decisions over their spouse’s health care. They was insurance and tax benefits. They want custody rights over children in the relationship. They want to be recognized as equals. Why should gays be treated like second-class citizens? The only difference between a gay couple and a straight couple is the genitalia combination.

I have not heard any good reasons against same-sex marriage. The few arguments I have seen have been weak, at best. The following arguments have been made on Focus on the Family's CitizenLink.org:

• The site claims that In Massachusetts, "parents are losing the right to oversee/direct the sexual education of their children.” Students are receiving sex education all across the country. But in every classroom, you must get parental permission to take part in discussions on sex education. This would not change if same-sex marriage was legal. To be honest, since sex ed is focused on biological reproduction, I can’t imagine homosexuality being anything more than a footnote.

• “Small-business owners cannot operate without agreeing to compromise their deeply held biblical beliefs.” CitizenLink.org claims that in New Mexico (a state that does not have same-sex marriage), a small photography studio was fined $6,600 by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony due to religious beliefs. First off, gay marriage wasn’t even legal here, so I do not know how the legalization would change any outcome. Second, that is one example. One example across a country with millions of citizens? I’m sure that there are plenty of other businesses who have refused service on a same-sex marriage for the same religious beliefs, and nothing has ever come out of it.

• A church that holds a biblically orthodox view of marriage and sexuality could lose its tax-exempt status as a result of the recognition of special rights for one sexual behavior. This claim is backed up by the example of a New Jersey church organization called the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, who lost tax-exempt status because they refused to allow a lesbian couple to marry in their wedding hall. Well, this is just not true. The church lost tax-exempt property status for the portion of their property that contains the wedding hall in question. It equaled about $175 a year that the organization will have to pay in taxes. While I don’t agree with it, private religious organizations should be allowed to discriminate against whoever they want. However, if they are getting government incentives, they are no longer private.

• Then there is the generic “it goes against god’s word” argument. I am not biblically schooled, and I am not trying to change anyone’s personal beliefs. But how would outlawing same-sex marriage really affect you? Would gay couples no longer exist? Of course not. They can still wear wedding rings, call each other spouse, and live as a married couple would. They just couldn’t visit each other in the hospital if one was gravely ill.

Same-sex rights is quickly becoming this generation’s civil rights movement. I know that racism, sadly, still exists in this country, but I like to think it has come a long way. Replace the gay couples with African-American couples. Do you think that African-Americans should not be allowed to marry? Do you think it should be illegal for an interracial couple to marry?

If you are in California, I urge you to vote NO on Prop 8. I know the language can be a bit confusing. Voting NO on Prop 8 means NO to outlawing same-sex marriage. Even if you personally do not agree with a same-sex lifestyle, are you comfortable making these people outlaws?

The article quoted here can be found at CitizenLink.org. For more info on Prop 8, please visit VoteNoOnProp8.com.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

But... but... sex is so disgusting! It's gross! It's not something to enjoy, but something to endure, for the holy purpose of producing offspring! Ofcourse homosexuality is wrong, because they have sex even though they can't have children - as if they actually ENJOYED having sex! Disgusting, I tell you!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

This is one of the best articles I have read about why Prop 8 makes no sense. Please note that it was written by a heterosexual woman who is married to a heterosexual man. Please note that it would be an excellent addendum and/or follow up letter to go with 3113's.


Why Californians Should Vote NO On Proposition 8

Written by Alyse Wax
Published October 15, 2008

• Then there is the generic “it goes against god’s word” argument. I am not biblically schooled, and I am not trying to change anyone’s personal beliefs. But how would outlawing same-sex marriage really affect you? Would gay couples no longer exist? Of course not. They can still wear wedding rings, call each other spouse, and live as a married couple would. They just couldn’t visit each other in the hospital if one was gravely ill.

.

Okay, then. Let's focus in on this particular bit of heresy. I do know my Bible pretty well and this "against God's Word" is a lie. There is one, repeat one place in the Bible where same sex relations are forbidden. That's in the old Mosaic Law portion known as the Torah. It's in Leviticus and you can look it up if you like. However, before anyone rushes off to do so, make sure that you read the entire thing and then go to Chap 15 in the Book of Acts in the New Testament. There, quite clearly, the Desciples Peter and James and the Apostle Paul, after much prayer, meditation and discussion reach the conclusion that it doesn't apply to non-Jewish Christians. Except for eating food sacrificed on alters of false gods, adultry and eating bloody meat the entirety of the old Mosaic law is swept away entirely. And that's not some modern theory, it's two men who knew Jesus personally and the greatest missionary Christianity ever produced. Anyone who wants to argue with their authority is going to look pretty foolish, IMO. So if anyone tries the "against God's Word" on you, just tell ol' Satan to fuck off because that's who's doing the talking.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

They have a similar proposition going through in Arizona at the moment, but the other way. Their's is Vote yes for marriage - 1 man and 1 woman, so we're urging people to vote NOto prop 102.

It disgusts me that a group of people who don't know me, who don't know my wife, can decide just where and how she and I have to live. We are currently living in UK, as a legal same-sex couple (we can't call it marriage, but we do), and can do so anywhere in Europe. But we can't even contemplate coming back to Arizona to live as a couple, where Min's family are. And that pisses me off big time.

We hurt no-one. We aren't contagious, we work, pay our taxes, all our bills, we both have totally supportive families, and gay and straight friends who, thank goodness, don't give a flying fuck that we're two women. What they do care about is that we are two people in love, who want to be together, just like any couple in love, and want that love and partnership to be recognised in law and society. Thank god, in UK we can. It's about time for the rest of the world to catch up!!

Well, as an Arizonan, let me just assure you that some of us at least are determined to repeat the jolting defeat that the homophobes suffered two years ago.

Yes, when I voted early, I voted a clear and unmistakable no on Prop. 102, and I know of plenty of others who did or will. If the homophobes win, it will be not only a defeat for those of us in the GLBT community (remember, I'm bisexual, so this could hypothetically though not plausibly impact my own life), but also a defeat for the independence of Arizona as a state from the influence of out-of-state interests determined to use our state's easy use of ballot propositions to impose its will on vulnerable Arizonans and convince them to overturn their own decision of 2 years past.

If 102 is defeated, then it will be a rebuff to Dobson and his fellow fanatics who have tried to meddle with Arizona's Constitution and sovereignty, as well as another, well-deserved bitch-slap for those gutless politicians who timidly sent to the people a proposed amendment so clearly rejected 2 years ago. Those fools will be reminded that the people of Arizona have spoken, and it will give hope for those who look forward to a day when the statutory law is perhaps changed by a more courageous legislature.

After all, it is the Wild West: free, independent, self-reliant, and individualistic. We don't knuckle under easily to folks from out of state trying to tell us how to live our lives. This is a classic case of arrogant people from out of state trying to control our destiny.

So, if 102 is defeated, and I hope that it is, it will be a twin victory for gay rights and states' rights. As a Barry Goldwater Republican disgusted with the New Right and his own party, I would be prouder than ever.

So, as an aside to Dr. James Dobson and Co., it is true with a state as it is with a woman, "No means no."