5 reasons why all Americans (even those of us who are straight and not in California) should support the No on Prop. 8 campaign

This blog is participating in the . . .

1. California is such a massive state, and not only in population. It is also the financial and social leader of the nation. If California votes to enshrine ant-gay hate in their constitution, it will set a horrible precedent for the rest of the US. Gay marriage may still be 20 years away in Oklahoma, but if Prop 8 passes, then LGBT equality may forever be delayed.

2. If Prop 8 fails, many LGBT folks may choose to vote with their feet and move to California. This loss of creative capital may just be the thing that pushes states like Oklahoma to rethink their policies.

3. If Prop 8 fails, California will be a testing ground for gay marriage. In time Americans can see that gay marriage is not a threat to straight marriage. (I just visited Canada, and I can tell you that nothing much has changed for straight society since gay marriage became legal… Canadian civilization is still alive and well.)

4. For those of us who are young, the fight for LGBT rights is the main civil rights struggle of our generation. Do you want to be able to tell your grandchildren someday, “I was nervous to do it, but I stood up for LGBT rights and the world changed,” or do you want have to answer the question, “why didn’t you stand up for what was right? Were you just like the majority of white people in the South who once stood silent during the days of Jim Crow?”

5. None of us are free, if some of us are not free. The sanctity of marriage and love itself is at stake here. If LGBT folks are denied their basic civil and human rights, then the institution of marriage for straight Americans is tainted.

We are all in the same boat together. To quote one of my heroes, Eugene V. Debs – “Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”

I am proud to say that I have donated to the No on Prop 8 campaign. I hope that many more of us straight people from Oklahoma and surrounding states do the same. This is our fight too. As long as some remain oppressed, we are all oppressed.

(thanks to Rena for alerting me to the Write to Marry campaign)

4 Replies to “5 reasons why all Americans (even those of us who are straight and not in California) should support the No on Prop. 8 campaign”

  1. While there are strong similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement, believing that gay unions are equal to heterosexual unions and that opposition to gay marriage is equal to the discrimination of race is a misconception.

    If the state legalizes gay marriage, then suddenly marriage changes from a protected belief of a small minority, to the false impression that the state (which is an extension of the people) believes that it is morally acceptable to practice homosexuality.

    As individuals, law abiding homosexuals should be entitled to every inalienable right held by any heterosexual; but as couples, gay relationships no longer hold an equal stance to the synergy of a heterosexual relationship. The answer lies in procreation—the primary responsibility of a family.

    The gay agenda wants to redefine marriage as simply commitment, honesty, affection, and warmth between two loving individuals. If so then it simply becomes an equal protection issue and the gay couple argues they are being discriminated against for a relationship they claim holds equal commitment and value to the heterosexual relationship. This argument breaks down because it ignores posterity and procreation. Children are what differentiate the marriage contract from all other consensual adult arrangements. The state has always had a keen interest in the bearing and rearing of children. Indeed that is why the state got in the business of registering and recognizing marriage in the first place.

    The point, both legally and historically, the gay family can ONLY exist as a product of government policy and modern science, and a dependence on the natural family. It is very clear that there is no natural procreative ability between gay partners. The procreative ability between heterosexual couples is, by contrast, perfectly natural, and dates back to the start of recorded history. The natural family would continue whether the government or science became involved or not. Thus, we see that a homosexual relationship is not naturally equal to a heterosexual relationship.

    The Declaration of Independence proclaims that we are endowed with unalienable rights, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. John Locke, called this “natural law”. Natural law is not a creation or product of the state, but was to be protected by the state as these are the natural rights of all men inseparably connected to being human. Gays may argue that they are in the pursuit of liberty and happiness, yet there is no logical means by which they are naturally in the pursuit of life. Indeed we may argue that the gay movement, by its very nature, is a movement in pursuit of death, its own extinction, for without the intervention of the state and modern science, homosexuality results in the termination of posterity. Thus, from the perspective of both science and state we can see that the union of man and women, with their resulting children compared to the gay union are polar opposites both in origin and fruit.

    What about couples who are infertile? Many married heterosexuals choose not to have children, and others cannot because of medical problems or physical handicaps. But gays fought furiously to convince the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their books as a “disorder”, or medical problem. The majority of the United States will now agree that homosexuality is not a medical problem or disorder. Even in perfect medical condition, a gay couple cannot procreate without the help of a third party. Therefore homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are inherently, and naturally, unequal. Gays should NOT shunned because of their beliefs and tendencies. Nor does this fact infringe on their God given rights. The argument is that the two relationships are very different from one another and for that reason they should be defined differently.

    More here

  2. Gay marriage should be outlawed in all 50 states. Mass. started all this crap when they allowed gays and lesbians to get married. The state supreme court justices that allow this should be voted out be the people and real judges be voted in. I want to know what these judges are thinking when they think they can decide that what the people vote to ban that these judges can just decide on thier own to overturn and screw what the voters say. This country has gone to hell and the day God sends his son to reclaim it will be a glorious day and all these gays and judges that decide for the God fearing people what is right and wrong will definateley have to answer to the good Lord on judgement day. As for now I say send these gay loving judges and the gays to thier own country where they can do what they want to do and leave the rest of us God fearing people to do what is legally and morally right and that is to ban the gays from getting married and teaching our children in public schools that it is ok for them to marry some idiot of the same gender. Hell will freeze over before I allow my children to learn that crap. Good God have mercy on your souls.

  3. There should be equal rights for gay couples, but I think the answer is for the government to get out of the “marriage” business altogether.

    Civil unions should be available to any adult consensual life partnership, which would bring the rights and responsibilities involved with family relationships, financial co-mingling, etc.

    Churches can provide marriage ceremonies to those that consider them necessary or worthwhile and imbue them with whatever spiritual mojo they desire. But these would impart no special rights to those who partake of them. It would just be a religious rite like baptism or confirmation. To the religious participants, I would expect that this part would hold more inner meaning than the piece of paper from the state, but it would have no legal meaning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *