on Prop 8
Proposition 8 was recently passed in California. This rescinded the right of gay people to get married there.
I feel strongly about this; you have no idea. I have no personal stake in it; I am not gay and have no close friends that are. But I think that the State has no right to mandate who can marry who; it's as if the voters think that by disallowing gay folks to marry, they will crush the spark of love they hold in their hearts.
As if that spark of love is an affront to them!
I just watched Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on the passage of this bill. I am right there with him in what he said. It seems to me that he was about to cry -- in a world of so little happiness as ours, what right has anyone to extinguish another's hope? What right has anyone to snuff the spark of love in another? For that seems to be what the vothers hope: by disallowing the union, they will crush the love.
As if that spark of love, a man for another man, or a woman for another woman, were in some way a slur on what a hetero person has. As if that small fact would somehow ridicule or belittle a 'more traditional' union. As if these voters think that the flame of their self-righteousness can extinguish the love that some people hold.
It makes no sense to me how anyone can feel that they have a right to legislate this. It makes even less sense to think that the majority of people in a mostly-liberal state think that as well. How many of these people think they had a personal stake in this, that their lives would somehow be made better by taking away a right from someone else?
Look. Does the Declaration of Independence, a document upon which this country is based not guarantee us the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Who among us would amend that to say "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness so long as you're not gay"?
And as Olbermann said: Are we not humans first? And religious zealots second?
So. Enough about me. What do you think?
edit: Changed 'Constitution' in paragraph 7 to Declaration of Independence, which is more accurate
I feel strongly about this; you have no idea. I have no personal stake in it; I am not gay and have no close friends that are. But I think that the State has no right to mandate who can marry who; it's as if the voters think that by disallowing gay folks to marry, they will crush the spark of love they hold in their hearts.
As if that spark of love is an affront to them!
I just watched Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on the passage of this bill. I am right there with him in what he said. It seems to me that he was about to cry -- in a world of so little happiness as ours, what right has anyone to extinguish another's hope? What right has anyone to snuff the spark of love in another? For that seems to be what the vothers hope: by disallowing the union, they will crush the love.
As if that spark of love, a man for another man, or a woman for another woman, were in some way a slur on what a hetero person has. As if that small fact would somehow ridicule or belittle a 'more traditional' union. As if these voters think that the flame of their self-righteousness can extinguish the love that some people hold.
It makes no sense to me how anyone can feel that they have a right to legislate this. It makes even less sense to think that the majority of people in a mostly-liberal state think that as well. How many of these people think they had a personal stake in this, that their lives would somehow be made better by taking away a right from someone else?
Look. Does the Declaration of Independence, a document upon which this country is based not guarantee us the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Who among us would amend that to say "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness so long as you're not gay"?
And as Olbermann said: Are we not humans first? And religious zealots second?
So. Enough about me. What do you think?
edit: Changed 'Constitution' in paragraph 7 to Declaration of Independence, which is more accurate