29 October 2008

Proposition H8

Posted by Dirk under: musings; politics .

In addition to voting for Barack Obama on November 4th we also get to vote on Proposition 8.  I call it Prop H8 in the title there so it reads as Proposition Hate, which I think is appropriate.

Earlier this year it became legal for same sex couples to get married in California.  Lots of people cheered and said Yay for the people of California.  The problem is, that’s not who they should say Yay for.  They should say Yay for the judges that decided that Prop 22 was  unconstitutional. By doing that, they made it legal for gay couples to get married.

This pissed off lots of assholes here in California and Utah and probably lots of other places.  But it’s the ones in Cali and Utah that I am concerned with.

Personally, I think the government should not be involved in ‘marriage’ at all.  I think there should be a legal union that anybody could form, two dudes, two chicks, a dude and a chick.  (I’ll say two for now just to not freak everybody out). And basically that legal union would have all the legal stuff attached to it that currently is attached to ‘marriage’.  That way any two people could go and become partners. Then, if they are of a religious bent, they could go to whatever religion they roll with and do whatever ceremony they wanna do.  And if two dudes or two chicks get married and find out that their religion of choice won’t perform that ‘marriage ceremony’, they can find another religion or just live in sin.

That way you don’t have the government dictating to religions what they have to do and the religious folks don’t gotta be dicating to the government and the rest of us what we gotta do with regards to ‘marriage’.  Marriage will be a purely religious institution and governed by each religion as it sees fit.  The rest of us can sign on the dotted line and share our insurance or tax returns and all that with whatever partner we want.

That’s the way it should be.  But, the rest of you haven’t gotten with the program yet.  You’re living in the Dark Ages and shit. Or trying to.  Pretty soon you’ll be doing voodoo to protect your VP candidate from witches.  Oh wait…

Since you foot draggers can’t just jump to the future with me, we gotta walk step by step to that future and the first step is being rational human beings and allowing other rational adult human being to get married if they want to.  Even if they got the same sort of plumbing supplies in their pants.

Do you really think that letting gay people get married is going to somehow threaten ‘the sanctity of marriage’?  Are gay people getting married somehow responsible for all the people getting divorced and all the people cheating on their spouses?  You don’t really believe that, do you?

And really, how can John McCain talk about ‘the sanctity of marriage’ with a straight face, considering his own matrimonial history?

I got a mailer today urging me to vote Yes on Prop 8.  The main reason given on this mailer is because if we don’t pass this law then kids in the second grade will be taught that ‘boys can marry boys’.

First off, I don’t think it’s true that this will be mandated as part of the teaching curriculum in the 2nd grade and secondly, so what?  I don’t see that teaching tolerance and respect is such a bad thing.   It’s not like your precious 6 year old kid is gonna hear about this and suddenly start wanting to suck dick.  If he’s gonna play for that team, he’s already wired that way and being told it’s ok is probably gonna be better for his mental health than being told it’s a horrible bad thing.  So, vote no for the kids, ya bastards.

Another thing that really bugs me about this Proposition H8 thing is the involvement of the Mormon Church with it.

Mormons have been active participants in the campaign both as volunteers and financial contributors, giving an estimated 43 percent — some $8.4 million — to the Proposition 8 campaign.

I should say right now, in the interest of total transparency here,  I don’t care much for the Mormon Church.  Actually, I don’t care much for any church.  Actually, I don’t really like any large organization of human beings.  Y’all suck when you clump up.  Pretty much every Mormon I’ve known beyond saying “No thanks, not interested” have been nice people who I have no problem with.  Same can be said for any other group.  My buddy Ron, for example.  He’s a Raider Fan.  I hate Raider Fans.  Bunch of assholes when they are all together and doing their Raider Nation bullshit, but I like Ron a lot.  Besides, being a Raider Fan is punishment enough lately.

On an individual basis I don’t hate all of humanity, just the vast majority of it.  But like I said, when people get in groups, it’s like how atoms behave differently when they get shoved together.

And actually, I think the whole Mormon religion is pretty wacky.  I mean, if Joseph Smith Jr. came around today preaching that stuff he did back in the old days, he’d end up in Waco burning with the rest of his compound.  I guess you’re only a cult till you get enough people to join.

But if they wanna believe that silly shit, that’s their right. Good for them.  My main problem with the Mormons is the way they actively keep trying to expand and the reason why.  This Prop H8 thing is an example of why they want to keep getting bigger and bigger.

They bigger they are the more power they have.  And the more money, but we can put that under power too.

And now they got quite a bit of power and are flexing it here in California by pushing for Prop H8.  A religion is attempting to amend the California Constitution.

Do you think that if they are successful they’ll stop with that?

I better wrap this up.  Gay people are gay just like they are whatever skin color they are or whatever gender they are.  They got as much control over that as they do over what family they are born into or what geographical location they are born in.  I dunno if it’s genetics or some sort of chemical thing or what, but I am sure it’s not a choice.

Treating them differently, hating them and wishing harm upon them, for something they have no control over, is behaving like you’re from the Dark Ages.  Get over it.  I’m not saying you gotta start watching gay porn or nothing, but stop the h8.  Let em get married and adopt kids.  They are just people.

Step into the future with me.  No on Proposition H8.

5 Comments so far...

Arcanum Says:

29 October 2008 at 11:19 pm.

The voting process in California is fucked, anyway. If a proposition passes that is sufficiently unpopular with some SIG or PAC or whatever, they will just go to court and get it overturned. Maybe the lazy fuckers should have actually voted, instead of burning crosses, or holding exorcisms, or praying to space alien gods, or whatever the hell it is they do instead of heading to the polls and taking part in the semi-democratic process. “The Flying Spaghetti Monster spoke to me and said there is no need to vote. We can just take their asses to court and get our way!”

Of course, in the case of Prop 22, it was the dope smoking, peace love ‘n tie-dye, “alternative lifestyle” folks who failed to get out the vote. How the hell did that pass at all, let alone with such a large margin, in the State of California?

The whole hula-hoop argument (“You know, for the kids!”) is ridiculous. I don’t recall ever being instructed on the institution of marriage at any point in my public education. Why do these fear mongers think that would suddenly change just because there is no language in the state constitution specifically denouncing same-sex union? “Won’t somebody please think of the children? They’ll catch the gay if we don’t amend our constitution and eliminate other peoples’ rights!”

Magus Says:

30 October 2008 at 7:12 am.

Here’s the ballot label, updated July 2008:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

I think it’s interesting that they updated the fiscal impact from the previous ballot label submitted November 2007:
LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state.[25]

So voting “Yes” to Prop 8 will cost the state tens of millions. Yay Jerry Brown.

Arcanum Says:

30 October 2008 at 8:43 am.

I’ve gotten the impression that Prop 8 is fairly popular here in the North State. My drive in to work each morning takes me past numerous houses with both “Yes on 8!” and “McCain/Palin” signs in their yards. Values voters, indeed.

Magus Says:

31 October 2008 at 9:28 pm.

The polls are trending badly for those opposed. In September the polls showed those opposed to the measure were leading by a comfortable 17 points. The latest polls show 49% opposed, 44% in favor of the ban on gay marriage.

According to an MSN article, $69 million has been spent on both sides of the argument, including $21 million from contributions coming from outside the state of California.


From the article:

“The majority of opinion leaders in the state, including almost every major newspaper, the League of Women Voters, the state NAACP, and moderate politicians such as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein oppose the measure, which critics say unfairly denies one group a basic right.”

Gaunter Says:

11 January 2009 at 2:30 am.

The original opinion/ruling of the California Supreme Court, Overturning Prop. 22 was authored by Chief Justice Ron George, probably the most active and respected (within legal circles), Chief Justice of the court in at least the last 40 years. His ruling was particularly interesting because it was founded on a large body of cases finding that the California Constitution’s requirements for Equal Protection, were greater than the U.S. Constitution. The ruling was very specific in finding that same sex couples had a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to marry under the California Constitution.

The fact that this new Proposition was passed by 52% of the voters, and was therefore “added as a new clause to the California Constitution”, does not remove the existing Constitutional and underlieing body of law requiring the Court to assure that Equal Protection rights are protected. It would seem to me that the Court could find that since this “new” clause violates the existing and much broader based Constitutional Protections already in place, it should be found to be Unconstitutional in of itself. This finding I believe is made all the more likely, due to the Proponents of Prop 8 now arguing that the passage of the proposition effectively ANNULLED all of the legal same sex marriages that were entered into.

Taking away someone’s established Constitutional Right, (which the first ruling found), requires the strictest scrutiny, meaning that 1) The State must have a need to remove such rights, and 2) that no lesser alternative is available. Further, marriage is also a contract. Making such a contract “illegal”, after it has been legally entered into, is again most likley violitive of both the Takings and Contracts protections within both our U.S. and California Constitutions.

I suspect, (and dearly hope), that the Supreme Court will again do the right thing, (even if unpopular), and overturn Prop. 8. Its the only “right” thing to do.

Leave a Reply