Mea Culpa. I voted Yes on 8

I voted no on Propositions 8 and 2. Contrary to most voting Californians, I thought it made more sense to allow human beings to keep rights previously granted than to grant additional rights to chickens and other farm animals. Silly me; what was I thinking.

What can I say? I try to think of everyone.

I know you may believe in the domino theory of social change, but the thing about dominoes is that they have to be stacked close enough to each other to sustain the chain reaction. There's a pretty big gap between two adult humans marrying each other and humans marrying animals, and that goes for any culture and any religion. The middle steps between are also not going to fall in our lifetime. A few states are voting to raise their age of consent, not lower it. Bestiality is either explicitly illegal or prosecuted under animal cruelty statutes in every state of the union. Those dominoes are missing, and there's nobody much trying to put them in the way to get knocked down.

On the second part of your argument, you inevitably cite legal tolerance towards various religious organizations' intolerance. You clearly show a lack of understanding of how anti-discrimination laws work. The religious organizations in the United States that have discriminated against LGBT folks have done so since they either got here or were formed here. The right to sue has always been absent because it is the right of private organizations to include or exclude whomever they choose. This right has been upheld time and time again, as in the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. The only possible exceptions to the rule occur when dealing with publicly-funded organizations, such as the Salvation Army under the Faith-Based Initiative program enacted by George W. Bush. Otherwise, private organizations, especially religions (thanks to our explicit separation of church and state) can discriminate all they want and merely risk the loss of members and donations.

In the end, as sex-advice columnist and equal-rights activist Dan Savage has pointed out, the defeat of Proposition 8 would have affirmed the right of civil marriage in the state of California. Any clergyperson in California could still refuse to perform said marriages and not face prosecution or lawsuit, but any state employee granting marriage licenses would be required by law to allow them. There was a time when these same employees would have been required by law to refuse marriage licenses to people of different races. That domino fell a long time ago, and for good reason. This one will fall too, and if not in 2008, then not long after.

I voted yes because I am a parent.

The last thing I need is another alternative to marriage for my kids. It's hard enough these days with all the lifestyle alternatives we have in the media such as MTV2.

It's not hating or bigotry or anything like that. I just want to have daughter in-laws someday and grandchildren later, and the alternative to Prop 8 could conceivably make steering my children towards that ideal more difficult.

To Gigantic URL person:

I can appreciate that you have hopes and dreams for your children, but that's honestly all they are: hopes and dreams. As a parent, you have tremendous influence on how your children will grow into adults, but yours is far from the only influence that will be exerted on them. "Alternative" lifestyles are out there in the real world, not just MTV2, and as your children grow, they will be confronted with people who have made choices that you may not want them to make and people who are different from how you would choose them to be. Here's the thing: they will make some of these choices anyway, and they may become those people. I respect your right to do everything you can to steer your children the path you want them to go, but the fact of the matter is, you're closing off paths for people you don't know and have no right to influence. And that's where I take issue.

>>I respect your right to do everything you can to steer your children the path you want them to go, but the fact of the matter is, you're closing off paths for people you don't know and have no right to influence.

The opponents to Prop 8 are adults. They're old enough to choose their own paths. I'm not closing anything off to them by supporting Prop 8. Civil unions are an entirely practical path for those adults so inclined to choose it. With that choice they have legal rights that are for the most part equal to married couples. That's what they have always argued for.

However our children are not old enough to weigh the long term implications of their choices. That's why our decisions as parents are so important to them until they become adults and that is why I supported Prop 8. I know this is totally lost on the opponants.

Unfortunately our lessons to our children on marriage are cut off at the knees when Judges come in and speak for the State to say that there is no difference between a marriage between a mom and a dad, and that between same-sex couples.

Finally, I find it pretty disturbing that the opponents, almost to a person have dismissed why parents voted the way we and have leapt so far as to calling us 'bigots', 'H8trs', 'intolerant', 8=HATE, etc.. We are not.

The words they chose to attack us with say’s a lot about those who opposed Prop 8. They are not interested in our interests. The name callers are incredibly intolerant of those of us who support Prop 8. They are not willing to understand what drives us to support Prop 8. They are always the first to walk away from us if we find ourselves with troubled children and then they would blame us for not doing a good enough job parenting.

>>Unfortunately our lessons to our children on marriage are cut off at the knees when Judges come in and speak for the State to say that there is no difference between a marriage between a mom and a dad, and that between same-sex couples.

What the judges are coming in to say for the State (presumably California in this case, since we're capitalizing) is that there is no LEGAL difference between the marriage between a man and a woman and the marriage between two people of the same sex. The MORAL or PRACTICAL interpretation is left up to the individual, as it always has. After all, one can personally oppose the marriage of two individuals for many reasons. Those two individuals being of the same sex is just one of those reasons, but it's the one that has attracted the most attention of late, so that's why we're discussing this.

Second, am I the first Prop 8 opponent that has not hurled epithets in your direction for your views? I sincerely doubt it. You're not making it easy for me to refrain with your "us and them" verbiage here, nor are your generalizations about Prop 8 opponents endearing me to you, your cause, or your reasoning.

Finally, please stop hiding behind your children. I make this as a personal plea to you. Yes, they are not old enough to weigh the long-term implications of their choices. That's why they can't enter into legally binding contracts, such as those involved in a marriage. They already can not get married to someone of their same gender or the opposite sex without your expressed written consent, so why pretend that you are directly protecting them by supporting a same-sex marriage ban? You are merely trying to protect them from an idea that they will find out about anyway and, thanks to the heavy influence parents have, will probably come to the same conclusion you did. And if they don't come to that same conclusion, there is not a law in existence that would change that outcome.

Please do not be persuaded that Proposition 8 is hateful or takes away anyone’s civil rights. Society has a right to deem certain behavior morally offensive and limit that behavior – for whatever reason, religious or otherwise. In fact, all our laws are formed around this principle. Marriage is no exception. It will always be subject to legal limits. For example, we do not allow a man to marry a brother or sister. Are the incestuous an oppressed minority? Why then must society accommodate a man’s desire to marry another man? Our legal limits on marriage apply equally to all – me and you. They are not discriminatory.

On the other hand, African Americans had to endure laws that singled them out by race and limited their freedoms solely on that basis. Laws existed which were directed only at people of a specific race. Their quest for civil rights was real. Gays are already being treated equally. No laws specifically prohibit them from marriage. The constitutional amendment does not say, “Gays cannot marry.” They can marry – within the limitations shared by all people, one being that a man can only marry a woman.

So what do gays really want? All the civil rights of marriage are already guaranteed by domestic partnership laws. Among themselves, they could call their partnerships “marriage” and celebrate it the same way. Dress up. Have cake. I have no problem with that. But it’s not enough. They want the rest of society to call it marriage, too. They want their relationships to be seen as normal by everyone, perhaps hoping to cure some self-esteem issues. (They are defying nature, after all.) But will they be satisfied if judges force me to call it “marriage”? Will that change my views? The people spoke twice and said it clearly: it’s not normal.

Personally, the thing that concerns me most about gay marriage is that it would be taught to my children and grandchildren as a normal lifestyle choice by society, including their school teachers. Are some children born with a confused sense of sexual identity? I don’t know and I don’t think anyone does. Maybe some are. Maybe that confusion exists in degrees. But it is biased recklessness to suggest that such teaching would not endanger some children. Some who otherwise could go on to lead normal, happy, procreative lives would be curious about what they learn, to the point of experimentation, and be led down a path of no return.

A king can marry another king? They wish our judges were kings. It is wrong to allow gays to interfere in the development of sexual identity in our children. It is wrong to deny posterity to parents and grandparents just to advance a cultural acceptance of a lifestyle choice. And don’t discount the importance of a desire for posterity. It’s a fundamental need critically important to the continuation of our species. So that’s what all this fuss is about: social approval on the one hand, the integrity of the family on the other. I understand that families are not important to some people. They are to me.

>>Finally, please stop hiding behind your children. I make this as a personal plea to you. Yes, they are not old enough to weigh the long-term implications of their choices. That's why they can't enter into legally binding contracts, such as those involved in a marriage...........

Some people cannot possibly understand it. Possibly because they are wired differently than us but it IS because of the children and because of my interest in my family. I don't think of myself as much as I think of our children behind us.