It's Called Thoughtful Thursday For A Reason . . . Jenn's "No on 8" Post

Like Tootsie I've got a lot to say on this issue, so here goes.

A big ballot issue in California this November (you know, besides electing a new President) is Proposition 8. If Prop 8 passes, it will make same-sex marriage (which the courts recently ruled could not be prohibited under our constitution) illegal in California. So (stay with me here because it's a little counterintuitive), yes on 8 is no on gay marriage, no on 8 is yes on gay marriage.

I've made no secret of being a liberal (a label I do not consider pejorative) so the way I'll vote is no surprise. Here's why I think you should also vote No on 8.

I don't see how it is right to tell other people how to live their lives--as long as how they live is not hurting us or their kids. By that I mean things like committing crimes, abusing children--quantifiable harm.

I confess to being befuddled as to why (in most cases) those that don't want government in our fiscal lives want them all over our private lives.

I STRONGLY believe in the separation of church and state. I certainly don't think I should tell you, as a religious person, what your beliefs should be. By the same token, I don't believe a religious person should be able to tell a secular society what it's beliefs and laws should be.

If religion begins to dictate government we will end up living in a de-facto theocracy. What does that look like? A lot like most countries in the Middle East. And that? Scares the hell out of me.

Speaking of the Middle East--why are fundamentalist Muslims committing acts of terrorism against western democracies? Because they don't like our educated women, our music, our short skirts; in short, they don't like OUR FREEDOM to make our own choices about the way we live. They don't like that we don't believe in the same things they do and they want to force us to live by their values. Hmmm, what is that sounding like?

If your religion doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, that's fine by me. You're allowed to believe what you like. When you talk to your kids about these issues you are free tell them what your family and your church believe. I've been sharing my beliefs and views with my kids even when they didn't correspond to what the law of the state was. THAT'S HOW THINGS WORK IN THIS WONDERFUL COUNTRY (present total mess it currently is not withstanding) WE CALL THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Thank God (or whomever or whatever else you'd like to) for that.

My final argument? I'd like you to meet my good friend Jason and his husband, Giancarlo, and their kids. Please, pay him a visit. I think you'll understand why I can't say that he is not worthy of having the same CIVIC rights and responsibilities than I do as a citizen of the state of California.

Comments

[Ms. Changes Pants While Driving]

hear hear! i heart jason. thank you for putting this so perfectly.

[Smalltown Mom]

Right on! Thank you once again for your eloquent words, which reflect my incoherent thoughts.

[Grandy]

A good take on this issue, Jenn. It's a difficult matter we're faced with. The easier (and albeit chicken-like) way to do it would be to not have to vote. I know it sounds cowardly to say, and I'm not saying I feel this way. I just think that it's such an emotional topic, I just hope people indeed VOTE.

And what's up with them confusing thing with the Yes vote means No and No vote means yes? UGH!!

[Nora Bee]

Well said. This is one of those issues that I think is such a total nonissue. What is the big deal? But it is, so la la. I'd vote right there with you if I were in CA.

I think we have a death with dignity type motion on the books in WA this year.

[Reluctant Blogger]

It does sound a confusing vote and that potentially some people might vote differently to how they intended.

I agree entirely with your views re the separation of Church and State and obviously support the right to gay marriage. I cannot see how it is an issue for anyone else but those who plan to get married.

It is up to the individual to have a moral view on gay marriage as on any other issue at all.

Great piece, jenn

[Amy]

I would have to agree with you -- I think the issue is that we need to define marriage ... is this a religious ceremony or is a government recognized relationship. I think if we define these two things separately then there is no questions to be asked ... a government relationship gives you the rights of a couple. As for a religious unity that is up to the religion.

I hope this is somewhat clear, my brain seems to not be connected to my fingers today.

[Suz]

I didn't even need to read the whole thing...I am also voting for No on our propsistion here in FLorida. I actually received my ballot by mail yesterday and was so excited.
I hope it goes well, with the NO on 8. Everything else is a crapshoot.

[MamaMo]

While I agree with you on Prop 8, I would encourage you to consider that there's more to our relationship with the Middle East than Bush's mantra "They hate our FREEDOM." (Though there is a small percentage that do.) Looking objectively at our history there, you might find that what really sticks in their craw is our HYPOCRISY (a democracy that supports all sorts of things that run counter to our own constitution and beliefs because it serves our self-interest economically/materially).

[Cheri @ Blog This Mom!]

Of course church and state should be separate, as you point out. But since they so often are not separate, and since so many so-called Christians conduct politics in the name of God, allow me to opine on the Christian aspect of this issue for a moment. Should people be treated equally? That's what Jesus would do. I think Jesus would vote no on 8. From a political and legal perspective, separate but equal is unconstitutional. Period. So allowing one set of consenting adults to marry, but not another is not only un-Christian it is un-constitutional. There's Cheri's post about PROP 8, right here in Jenn's comments.

[debbie]

You have such a way with words, Jenn.
I only wish I could vote in California...and yes, me too...No on Prop 8.
Some of my students have actually asked me about this...will be discussing this and many more things in class thanks to the US elections.
I was wondering how the wording of the bill is? In Colorado a few elections ago they had something on there that was written in a way that if you voted "yes" you were actually against the bill....which should have passed!! Many people were very mad!!
We'll be watching over here very carefully on how all turns out!!!

[kcinnova]

Strangely worded way to vote on Prop 8, but very well worded post! I was honored to meet Jason via his blog.

[Janet]

Well said, Jenn! I find it ironic that people who say they don't want "more" government would vote against gay marriage.

[Fannie]

The devil is in the details - go on line and look at your sample ballot before the election so you can review the oh-so-clever wording of the various "propositions", "questions", etc.

[gary]

I think part of it is being polite too: don't try to force your religious views on somebody else

[Mrs. G.]

I like a big ass line between my church and state.

[notjustbarbra]

Anyone who votes yes on 8 is full of hatred, prejudice, and discrimination. Yes, I feel it's as simple as that.

[Tootsie Farklepants]

BRAVO!

[Lori]

I couldn't agree with you more. This is the one issue where I know exactly where I stand and I know exactly what the right thing is. And the one issue that I just can't understand people being against (besides the religious aspect). I really, really hope it doesn't pass.

[allmycke]

From my horizon, the wording of that proposition is intentional in order to get as many as possible to vote the "wrong" way which will be the "right" way for the people who wants to push it through.
As always you express yourself eloquently and I so wish I could give more than moral support to you and anyone else who wants to oppose this "cockamamie" proposition!

[Green Girl]

That wording is funky, I have to agree.

Sad that people feel such a need to control others.

[Susan]

I really don't get how allowing two people that love each other to marry could possibly affect anyone else.

[Karen]

Great viewpoint. And as always I agree with you. In Florida it's #2 and it is also worded poorly.

[Suzy]

Separation of church and state is from the first amendment, aint no one gonna change that.

No on 8 will pass here, like it did twice before. But the 4 million (out of 38 million) Californians are gonna keep fighting this until they die.

[Jason]

Jenn!!! You are the best. Thank you for your very intelligent and logical argument against 8.

Like Your Pal Pinki says, "8 is Hate."

There is so much more I want to say on my own blog about this issue, I want to be more specific about the whole topic, but so many of my readers and family are Mormon and I don't want to cause turmoil. It is a weird feeling to be loved by my family but wonder just how far below the surface their input from the Mormon church lurks. And it is a horrible position for them to be in as well.

And one more thing....thanks for the biggest shout-out and blog love I've ever gotten from anyone! I feel so honored. And thankful.

[Minneota Matron]

Wonderful post. Can Minnesota vote? Because at least the Matron is on your team.

[Wenderina]

Can I move to CA just to vote with you? Of all the things for government to be fixing right now...jeez.

[manager mom]

The love that my friends Danny and Ron (recently married under California law) have... I do not understand how anyone could oppose that.

[phd in yogurtry]

thanks for voicing your opinion, Jenn! I couldn't agree more. What in the heck is so wrong about two people (who happen to be the same sex) committing to love each other and wanting equality under the law?

Vote No On Prop 8 ! ! !

[mandy]

Yep. Yep. Yep.

Up here in Vancouver, lots of gay couples have been getting married for years. And, our federal and provincial governments recognize common-law relationships (with all the civic rights that implies) for same sex couples.

But up here, we do not have the same so-con struggles (social conservative) the US seems to be undergoing.

[The Mom Bomb]

Yup. What you said. Two people wanting to commit to each other and even build a family together sure sounds like "family values" to me.

[Asthmagirl]

It's also worth noting that the gay couple next door marrying does not diminish the marriage my husband and I have. I think we can withstand any number of same sex couples pledging to love and cherish each other.

[Susan]

I posted on this issue too. I heard a Yes spokesman saying marriage will be destroyed if it is only about a relationship and not about children! First of all all the same sex couples I know DO have children. Second - what about those hetero couples who choose not to or can't have children? Should they divorce because they only have a relationship - not a REAL marriage.

Just let everyone love and live their lives.

[Reluctant Blogger]

I sometimes feel a little disappointed with blogging. It is so very supportive but it is amazing that you can post a piece like this and not have anyone disagree with you. Presumably there are people out there who do but no-one has. Pity really.

I feel the same about some of my own posts sometimes - if people disagree i wish they would say.

Or maybe it is the case that we only attract readers who broadly agree with us on most things. Or perhaps people follow the "if you don't have something agreeable to say, keep quiet" principle. I think that is fine when it is a personal issue, relating to something we have done or whatever, but when it is a general point like this, well disagreeing/debate is fine and dandy.

[KathyR]

Yeah. More love = good. Squashing other people for loving = not good.

I don't like the way initiatives work here in CA and I vote "no" on all of them unless there's a reallyreallyreallyreally compelling reason to vote "yes." I mean, what do we elect those assemblypeople and state senators for, anyway?

[Shelley]

We have sort of a similiar issue on our ballot here in AZ. Except that marriage between two people of the same sex is already illegal here. The issue on the ballot is to make a constitutional amendment, declaring that a marriage is defined as between one woman and one man only.

The whole reason for this little initiative in just in case someday a judge decides that our law against gay marriage is unconstitutional (like they did in California), then we'd have a constitutional amendment to say it's not an unconstitutional law.

So basically we're voting to make something illegal that already is. Oh, and also...it was on the ballot two years ago, and we VOTED IT DOWN. So now the vote no to the amendment campaign is pretty much...vote no, AGAIN. But the pro-argument is all about...vote yes for familes. Because apparently a gay couple, with or without children, isn't a family? Sigh.

My conservative husband has changed his view somewhat on this issue, because we now know a lesbian couple with two children (middle daughter's softball coach and her partner) who are great and wonderful and raising their two children, a boy and a girl. So I said, "So you'll be voting no, right?" And he's all wishy-washy, like "Well, I think they should be able to have these certain rights, like D should be able to be on J's health insurance, since D is a stay-at-home mom, etc. But they shouldn't call it marriage. I'd be ok with 'civil union' or 'domestic partnership'."

So it's all about semantics for him, I guess. I don't understand this either. What's wrong with calling it marriage, if that's what it is? Does calling it marriage somehow diminish YOUR marriage? Of course not. Argh. Living with him can be difficult.

Sorry I wrote a whole post in your comments. :)

[Just Jamie]

Love ya' even more!

[Stacey]

Hear hear! (Or is that here here?) No matter - thank you, thank you, thank you, from someone who will directly benefit, or be hurt by the outcome of this proposition. My partner and I got married on Valentines Day, 2004, when the Mayor of SF allowed us to. Then a few months later the courts overruled the actions, and invalidated thousands of marriages, ours included. It was only this year that CA Supreme Court overruled that decision, and began allow gay & lesbian people to get married again. But having had our marriage invalidated once before, we didn't want to go through that again. So after 18 years together we're holding out and not getting married until after this election. Unless the election determines that we can't.

Thank you for everyone's support.
Stacey

[oyerg]

Hi, you have a nice site. Really good job! Respect :)

[Shop Pandora Beads Bracelets]

I follow you VIA GFC and I love your blog!