Prop 8 points...
Passing Proposition 8 (banning gay marriage)is just wrong.. Don't believe me? Well here are some valid arguments that my friend Jeremy has kindly expressed on his myspace for me to steal and post here.
Point 1 - People forget that the constitution is NOT a religion. Although a lot of our current laws seem like they relate to the Bible, they are not the Bible. The founding fathers were not Christians, and they had no intention of creating a document that would promote a single religion. The whole point was to try to create a country in which its citizens were free to have their own beliefs.
====================================================================
Point 2 - We are NOT a Christian nation. Having a country that is comprised mostly of Christians is not synonymous with being a Christian nation. We are an equal rights nation which means those who make up the minority have the same rights to their beliefs as those who make up the majority.
====================================================================
Point 3 - Anything that violates the inherit rights of US citizens is unconstitutional, because it goes against the fundamental principles of the constitution. Take, for example, the FIRST AMENDMENT. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Therefore, any law made to appease a certain religion is unconstitutional.
====================================================================
Point 4 - Proposition 8 was not a law to legally change the religious beliefs of any church. If Prop 8 were to fail, there is nothing that says churches will have to change their belief system. Why? Because of the first amendment -- “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
====================================================================
Point 5 - Tradition is NOT an argument. We have had traditions such as slavery (of Indians, Chinese, Native Americans, etc.) and most people feel that was wrong. We have had traditions such as Jim Crow laws (Whites only fountain; black people sit at the back of the bus). Most people look back and say, “yes, that is just plain wrong”. Breaking tradition when it violates human rights is necessary! Though prohibiting gay marriage is identical to slavery, it does resemble the “back of the bus” mentality. Black people were allowed to take the bus, but not as equals. There is a certain suppression and humiliation that comes with that.
====================================================================
Point 6 - Marriage under the law is not “Christians Only”. For example, a man and a women who are atheist, agnostic, or of a non-Christian religion can LEGALLY get married. If marriage is a religious thing, then why don’t we ban marriages outside of a religious context? We don’t because that is blatantly unconstitutional. This means that there is a distinction between what is legally recognized and what is practiced in religion. Therefore, legal marriage is a separate entity that has the namesake of something practiced in religion. Take the reverse logic, for example. Legally defining marriage as between 2 women, hypothetically, would not change the understanding of “marriage” of any religious constitution. It ONLY changes the legal identify of the word.
====================================================================
Point 7 - There is NO consensus of origin of homosexuality. This is a constant argument in which there is no fact or evidence that can warrant a legal position. As one person can say that homosexuality is unnatural and offer evidence, another can say hearing the voice of God is not normal and offer evidence. This is one reason a person’s sexuality is protected under the law. The point being that the government can’t declare gay individuals of being any less human than religious individuals (not to imply that a gay person is not also religious).
====================================================================
Point 8 - There is a difference between “is” and “ought”. Saying that something “is” the case is not an argument that something “ought” to be the case. This is similar to the point about tradition, but is slightly different. Take this argument for example. There are people starving in Africa. So, people in Africa should starve. Obviously, what IS the case is not justification for what SHOULD be the case.
====================================================================
Conclusion - Legally prohibiting California from recognizing same-sex marriage IS discrimination, and DOES violate the rights of individuals pertaining to the first amendment. Any arguments of HYPOTHETICAL consequences of NOT passing a law that DOES discriminate against human beings, simply do not justify doing so. Specifying that only a man and women is eligible to be married is necessarily a religious argument, and therefore should not be entertained by government. This is a human rights violation and I do support the gay community in continuing to fight for their rights, so that there are no legal definitions that unjustly apply to one person and not another. It is just not right.
Point 1 - People forget that the constitution is NOT a religion. Although a lot of our current laws seem like they relate to the Bible, they are not the Bible. The founding fathers were not Christians, and they had no intention of creating a document that would promote a single religion. The whole point was to try to create a country in which its citizens were free to have their own beliefs.
====================================================================
Point 2 - We are NOT a Christian nation. Having a country that is comprised mostly of Christians is not synonymous with being a Christian nation. We are an equal rights nation which means those who make up the minority have the same rights to their beliefs as those who make up the majority.
====================================================================
Point 3 - Anything that violates the inherit rights of US citizens is unconstitutional, because it goes against the fundamental principles of the constitution. Take, for example, the FIRST AMENDMENT. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Therefore, any law made to appease a certain religion is unconstitutional.
====================================================================
Point 4 - Proposition 8 was not a law to legally change the religious beliefs of any church. If Prop 8 were to fail, there is nothing that says churches will have to change their belief system. Why? Because of the first amendment -- “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
====================================================================
Point 5 - Tradition is NOT an argument. We have had traditions such as slavery (of Indians, Chinese, Native Americans, etc.) and most people feel that was wrong. We have had traditions such as Jim Crow laws (Whites only fountain; black people sit at the back of the bus). Most people look back and say, “yes, that is just plain wrong”. Breaking tradition when it violates human rights is necessary! Though prohibiting gay marriage is identical to slavery, it does resemble the “back of the bus” mentality. Black people were allowed to take the bus, but not as equals. There is a certain suppression and humiliation that comes with that.
====================================================================
Point 6 - Marriage under the law is not “Christians Only”. For example, a man and a women who are atheist, agnostic, or of a non-Christian religion can LEGALLY get married. If marriage is a religious thing, then why don’t we ban marriages outside of a religious context? We don’t because that is blatantly unconstitutional. This means that there is a distinction between what is legally recognized and what is practiced in religion. Therefore, legal marriage is a separate entity that has the namesake of something practiced in religion. Take the reverse logic, for example. Legally defining marriage as between 2 women, hypothetically, would not change the understanding of “marriage” of any religious constitution. It ONLY changes the legal identify of the word.
====================================================================
Point 7 - There is NO consensus of origin of homosexuality. This is a constant argument in which there is no fact or evidence that can warrant a legal position. As one person can say that homosexuality is unnatural and offer evidence, another can say hearing the voice of God is not normal and offer evidence. This is one reason a person’s sexuality is protected under the law. The point being that the government can’t declare gay individuals of being any less human than religious individuals (not to imply that a gay person is not also religious).
====================================================================
Point 8 - There is a difference between “is” and “ought”. Saying that something “is” the case is not an argument that something “ought” to be the case. This is similar to the point about tradition, but is slightly different. Take this argument for example. There are people starving in Africa. So, people in Africa should starve. Obviously, what IS the case is not justification for what SHOULD be the case.
====================================================================
Conclusion - Legally prohibiting California from recognizing same-sex marriage IS discrimination, and DOES violate the rights of individuals pertaining to the first amendment. Any arguments of HYPOTHETICAL consequences of NOT passing a law that DOES discriminate against human beings, simply do not justify doing so. Specifying that only a man and women is eligible to be married is necessarily a religious argument, and therefore should not be entertained by government. This is a human rights violation and I do support the gay community in continuing to fight for their rights, so that there are no legal definitions that unjustly apply to one person and not another. It is just not right.