Stealing this entry (almost!) verbatim from brigidsblest
You can watch this video on www.livejournal.com
"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.
With the passage of Prop 8 in California, Ken Starr and the homophobes who pushed so hard to disenfranchise an entire segment of human society of their basic, elemental civil rights are now pushing to have the 18,000 marriages performed before the passage of Prop 8 forcibly ended by divorce. You read that right. It wasn't enough for them to take away the rights of people to marry, but now they're trying to take the 32,000 people who did get married before the passage of their hateful proposition and separate them in a stunningly bigoted display of ex post facto law.
Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society.
Please sign the petition urging the California Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8, reject Ken Starr's case, and let loving, committed couples marry.
(end of ganked post)
Maybe I'm still all just woobly over Lament, but watching that video with the so many happy couples and families and knowing that people want to take that away just made my eyes fill up with tears. I--barely--stopped myself from bawling. I just don't understand how people, regardless of religion, can look at two people in love and say "WRONG!"
EDIT: Comments seem to indicate I was not overly-woobly. The video is just that touching.
I understand that certain religions hold different values than I do. And one of those values they hold is the sanctity of marriage as a covenant with their God(s). What I don't understand is their inability to separate their views on religion from their views on American politics. I would not ever force a church to hold a marriage that they view as sinful. I don't agree with that church, I think that church is wrong. But I recognize and understand that I don't have any say in how that church sees God and the relationship it shares with God. However, I demand the same respect in return: that church has no right to force its views on me. It also has no right to have a say in politics that affects millions of people that also doesn't share its views. The people who believe in its flavor of religion may certainly choose to Abide by its tenants, but that's for them to decide.
THE REST OF US HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO BELIEVE, RESPECT, OR OBEY WHAT CHURCHES X, Y, OR Z HAVE TO SAY.
That's the beauty of living in a (purportedly) free and democratic state. I don't try to tell religion what to do, it doesn't try to tell me.
Not all of my friends agree with me about religion. That's fine, it gives us one more thing to argue about, and we all know, I sure like arguing. However, one of those friends wrote something almost a year ago that I found both beautiful and admirable:
This is not a nation governed by theocracy. I cannot, and I will not, narrow my vision so as to see only the law of God, and expect everyone to live within those laws.
...I also understand the word "marriage" no longer holds within its context a covenant with God. As I understand it, marriage is now colloquially identical to a civil union. Within this context, I cannot do anything in good conscience but support the new legislation.
This country holds firm and fast the idea of equal rights for all persons; male, female, white, black, gay, straight, it does not matter. The Law of this Land has not eyes, it can not see. The Law of this Land holds central to its tenets the idea that all men are created equal. The Law of this Land holds above all else the right of each and every citizen living beneath its flag to live as they will, with whom they will, for whom they will and for whatever reason they see fit.
As its fundamental ideology continues to be expressed, this land will move further and further towards the halcyon utopia so desperately desired by our founding fathers. How can I responsibly counter that movement?
...America, you are marching more towards equality with every step. It is an admirable journey.
Congratulations.
He believes that same-sex marriage isn't valid in the eyes of his religion. But he recognizes that his religion has no place in legislation. I respect his ability to divorce his personal beliefs from his beliefs about what is best for America.