I figured since everyone else was going to voice themselves, I might as well too and here it is.
The purpose of Constitutions and laws in the United States was as a protection against a dictator king figure arising in the United States and taking power for him or herself. The only time at which the Constitution or federal law delineated the removal of rights it was the removal of rights that belonged to the federal government. There is no instance at this nation's inception that either of these founding systems was meant to restrict the rights of American citizens. Quite the opposite in fact. The Bill of Rights for example.
In the case of Proposition 8, Californian citizens voted on whether or not to allow same-sex couples to marry. They chose not. Regardless of the fact that this flies in the face of the founders of this nation in regards to the intents of the systems used to remove such rights from said people, it is what it is today and that which it is is oppression. Like racism before it, like gender bias in the workplace post World War II, like preconceived notions regarding the activities of youth in the inner city, to remove a right from a selected group of people is oppression.
The action of one group in removing the rights of another group is nothing short of a means to control the behaviors of that group of people. Of course, they are fooling themselves if they believe that such actions as taken in Prop 8 will stamp out alternate sexualities (in their eyes homosexuality particularly). The results of their oppression are physical, the lack of a paper granting equality. They are emotional, the lack of societal approval. And most insidious of all, they are mental, manifested in the disgustingly high levels of depression and suicide within the non-heterosexual community. Take a look at these symptoms. And then take a look at your history books. Look at the mental well being of slaves, some who'd rather kill their own infant child than to see them enslaved, some who'd risk death for a chance at freedom, some who'd kill themselves, some who would rebel. Look at the mental well being of American Indians, past and present. Look at the psychological effects wrought on women as they are pushed back into the home after World War II like water back into a faucet.
Time and time again historically and presently, we see the symptoms of oppression and the nature of the group being oppressed does nothing to change the fact that they are in fact being oppressed. A slave is a slave is a slave is a slave, be it to a plantation owner, a husband, poverty, or heterosexual America. The oppression is real and California's display of open and vehement bigotry is astounding even by this nation's standards for truly appalling and disgusting atrocities committed against its minorities.
Certainly, at some point in the future this orientationism will fall by the wayside, perhaps for another bigotry, but I can only wonder how many people will be screwed up along the way. How many people will not live to see the day when the American Dream serves them as well?
. . .
We also have to understand that this issue is not a reason to argue whether or not marriage should exist in government at all. But, on this issue, I'd like to put the whole religion/government argument to rest. It is in some opinion that marriage is a religious institution and because they don't like religious institutions (as I don't) they believe that marriage should not exist in government because it is a violation of the separation of church and state.
The fact of the matter is that marriage existed well before Christianity, which is the religious affiliation with which most people have a problem with. Marriage existed in Ancient Rome and Greece, hundreds of years before the Christian Church's inception. Likewise, marriage existed in places other than the later Christian Europe. It existed in East Asia, a place with no connection to Christianity. It existed in the Americas, a place with no connection to any of the modern big religions. It crosses all religious barriers because it predates all of them. Why? Because people like to feel loved and they like the security of knowing that they will continue to be loved.
So, to say that marriage should be done away with is a capitulation of a natural human desire to the powers that be in the religious communities of the world. Sounds a lot like the idea of getting rid of same-sex marriage rights in the first place. Hmm... How ironic.
The purpose of Constitutions and laws in the United States was as a protection against a dictator king figure arising in the United States and taking power for him or herself. The only time at which the Constitution or federal law delineated the removal of rights it was the removal of rights that belonged to the federal government. There is no instance at this nation's inception that either of these founding systems was meant to restrict the rights of American citizens. Quite the opposite in fact. The Bill of Rights for example.
In the case of Proposition 8, Californian citizens voted on whether or not to allow same-sex couples to marry. They chose not. Regardless of the fact that this flies in the face of the founders of this nation in regards to the intents of the systems used to remove such rights from said people, it is what it is today and that which it is is oppression. Like racism before it, like gender bias in the workplace post World War II, like preconceived notions regarding the activities of youth in the inner city, to remove a right from a selected group of people is oppression.
The action of one group in removing the rights of another group is nothing short of a means to control the behaviors of that group of people. Of course, they are fooling themselves if they believe that such actions as taken in Prop 8 will stamp out alternate sexualities (in their eyes homosexuality particularly). The results of their oppression are physical, the lack of a paper granting equality. They are emotional, the lack of societal approval. And most insidious of all, they are mental, manifested in the disgustingly high levels of depression and suicide within the non-heterosexual community. Take a look at these symptoms. And then take a look at your history books. Look at the mental well being of slaves, some who'd rather kill their own infant child than to see them enslaved, some who'd risk death for a chance at freedom, some who'd kill themselves, some who would rebel. Look at the mental well being of American Indians, past and present. Look at the psychological effects wrought on women as they are pushed back into the home after World War II like water back into a faucet.
Time and time again historically and presently, we see the symptoms of oppression and the nature of the group being oppressed does nothing to change the fact that they are in fact being oppressed. A slave is a slave is a slave is a slave, be it to a plantation owner, a husband, poverty, or heterosexual America. The oppression is real and California's display of open and vehement bigotry is astounding even by this nation's standards for truly appalling and disgusting atrocities committed against its minorities.
Certainly, at some point in the future this orientationism will fall by the wayside, perhaps for another bigotry, but I can only wonder how many people will be screwed up along the way. How many people will not live to see the day when the American Dream serves them as well?
. . .
We also have to understand that this issue is not a reason to argue whether or not marriage should exist in government at all. But, on this issue, I'd like to put the whole religion/government argument to rest. It is in some opinion that marriage is a religious institution and because they don't like religious institutions (as I don't) they believe that marriage should not exist in government because it is a violation of the separation of church and state.
The fact of the matter is that marriage existed well before Christianity, which is the religious affiliation with which most people have a problem with. Marriage existed in Ancient Rome and Greece, hundreds of years before the Christian Church's inception. Likewise, marriage existed in places other than the later Christian Europe. It existed in East Asia, a place with no connection to Christianity. It existed in the Americas, a place with no connection to any of the modern big religions. It crosses all religious barriers because it predates all of them. Why? Because people like to feel loved and they like the security of knowing that they will continue to be loved.
So, to say that marriage should be done away with is a capitulation of a natural human desire to the powers that be in the religious communities of the world. Sounds a lot like the idea of getting rid of same-sex marriage rights in the first place. Hmm... How ironic.
