We love love, but we do not love hate, intolerance, or discrimination. We do not even like them.
If you do not like gay marriage, don't marry someone of your own sex. OK? But don't deny someone else the right to do so.
The California Supreme Court got it wrong today. Who cares that "the people have spoken" when the people are wrong? It's not as if people in the south would have voted to integrate schools or share their drinking fountains.
Fasten your seat belts. It may take us a while, but California will follow Maine, Vermont, and Iowa (since when does California follow Iowa???) and do the right thing.
You can support the civil rights issue of our generation by sporting one of these bumper stickers on your car for FREE by ordering one here.
Thank you. We will return to our regular programming featuring flowering dogwoods, outdoor stone showers, and Sophie nearly going over a waterfall soon.
13 comments:
I'm wondering if this "limbo" class of 18,000 marriages won't leave the state in a wacky equal protection bind that will ultimately end up in them legalizing????? Just a thought. It's gonna make for some weird law in the meantime....
Don't forget Massachusetts, we are PROUD to be #1 to legalize gay marriage.
After hearing the news today, I knew you were going to blog about it, rightfully so. It's a right every American should have - the right to choose who they wish to marry (legal age only of course). There is much passion that emminates from you about issues like this. Keep it going!
I'm thinking along the same lines as ANFQ right now. This is lame, but it'll get better. I hope we can get rid of our ban in WI soon.
This entire debate makes me so angry. The state shouldn't be issuing "marriages" anyway. The government should do civil unions for all couples regardless of gender. Marriage should be left to the churches and each sect can decide their own stance on who they will or will not marry.
Well said.
And don't forget CT...I find it mind boggling that Connecticut would take a more progressive and inclusive approach to anything than California! What upsets me the most is when people who claim to be "Christian" try to tear couples and families apart - what the hell?!? Somehow I think Jesus would be in favor of LOVE!
Great blog! And Kate I agree with what you said above about Jesus!
I love your list of books! I hope you don't mind if I "borrow" from it. I'm always looking for good books to read.
I am relatively new to blogging and look forward to reading your blog!
Amy
I was disappointed in the decision, as well. And I think Impoverished Preppy makes a great point.
It's just so disappointing. my thoughts were just like yours: what made the court think it needed to uphold the will of the 51% or whatever it was that had supported Prop 8? By that logic, we should still have lots of other horrible, discriminatory laws in effect. And I guess there are plenty of Americans whowould think that is jsut fine. Why can't people just tend to their own problems and not get so frigging concerned with what everyone else is doing when it has no effect on them whatsoever?
And I'm not buying the "leave marriage to the various religions" line so that they can continue to discriminate as they wish. Just because a couple wants to marry through the civil system instead of a church doesn't make their marriage devoid of what makes a marriage a marriage - a commitment to the person that you love above all others, as the embodiment of that love. "Civil union" just doesn't have that magical quality we associate with a marriage - and two consenting adults who want to celebrate that love shouldn't be denied that life experience.
Freedom of religion is one of the cornerstones of our country. The freedom to practice your religion without interference from the state-- whether it includes discriminatory customs or not—is sacred. Sure, we can redefine the word “marriage,” to remove any reference to gender to make it more inclusive. However, doing so strips the word of its traditional and historical roots that hold meaning for a lot of people in a religious context. Which, in my opinion, begs the question, should the word “marriage” even be employed by the state since the definition is imbued with religion?
Everybody should enjoy the same freedoms and privileges, regardless of sexual orientation. It just seems to me, that appropriating the word “marriage” from organized religion and forcing them to secularize the definition because it is a magical word is almost a type of theft. I won’t go so far as to say it abridges religious freedom, but organized religion certainly has the right to use their own lexicon without government interference.
A term like “civil union,” as applied to *all* unions, regardless of sexual orientation, seems very fair to me. After all, it is the set of rights, not the verbiage, that is the constitutional guarantee. Honestly, if people were so upset that they couldn’t live with themselves unless they could use the word “marriage” to legally describe their union, I'd personally be okay with changing the definition. It just seems unnecessary, less appropriate than a “civil union” and the ultimate F-U to religious groups .
And giving the F-U to religious groups is just fine, I just don’t agree with using the government as the instrument to administer it.
Before everybody starts piling on, just remember that I am not hater, and wish to see equal rights for us all. I think the current status is abysmal.
Oh, I guess it's already been said, but we here in Massachusetts are the proud parents of gay marriage!
I don't think a single kid has been scarred for life because of it!
Oh and on a separate note, I used to live in Oakland and that photo of the Children's Hospital nearly brought tears to my eyes. Even with the gay marriage debacle, I still love that state!
Post a Comment