Vote. (The Neil Patrick Harris moment was the one that really caught my attention. “I’m voting because I fell in love, and I want it to count.” Seriously, Californians, vote NO on Prop 8.)
Edited to add: Here’s a letter from someone in California that this affects personally. I found it very moving.
It’s wrong to make gay couples pay the price for someone else’s misplaced fear. On November 4, it’ll be only you in the voting booth. Nobody will see how you vote – that’s your business. But before you mark your ballot on Prop 8, please take a moment to ask yourself, in all honesty, what does it hurt you if gays and lesbians get married? Will it make you love your spouse any less? Does it make you love your children any less? Would it hurt your family if, after 16 years, Bill and Robert finally get to tie the knot? I think your answer will be no. Your marriage will be no weaker if Prop 8 doesn’t pass. Your family will be no less under the law or under God.
Speaking as a straight married person, the only negative I can think of regarding gay marriages is that it would just mean more social engagements for my calendar. (Seriously! So many weddings these days!) And maybe that cute barista at Toby’s would stop flirting with the Snook if he had his own husband. (Not that the Snook minds. He has no scruples when it comes to good coffee.)
aim
October 30, 2008 — 11:08 am
Allow me to play devil’s advocate (since I live in the state in question) – but you baited me with your email and I’m biting. Here comes the firestorm!
Is your issue with Prop. 8 about equality? I’ve seen this on the “No on 8” signs and I think it’s misleading. It seems to me that the argument is over a WORD. The word “marriage,” simply put…that’s what we’re arguing about.
Because in terms of “rights,” California law already grants all the same legal rights and benefits of “marriage between a man and a woman” to gay or lesbian domestic partnerships.
How does not having the definition of the word “marriage” include him in this state make Neil Patrick Harrison’s relationship count any less? If you and Rodd hadn’t “gotten married” in Vegas, would it “count” any less?
I’m just sayin’!
I disagree just as much with the Yes on 8 campaign’s use of the school system as an argument. This proposition is fundamentally about language in the state Constitution, NOT about schools teaching kids about homosexuality, but also NOT about taking rights away from gay and lesbian couples.
Beyond that, I don’t know where we go, because nobody owns the word marriage and the “traditional” definitions don’t always apply (see: polygamy.)
But I think it’s fair to put the issue to vote again in this case, because a few people overturned what the majority had already voted on. Just in terms of GOVERNMENT, I think it’s a good practice.
We’ll see what happens!
Kris
October 30, 2008 — 1:00 pm
(Heh. I baited you in the same way Grandpa Harter baited me. And you bit! Also, you’ve stated that you’re playing Devil’s Advocate here a bit, so please don’t interpret my comments as being against you personally. It’s just how I’d respond to the particular argument you’ve presented.)
Haven’t you ever heard of “separate but equal”? The Supreme Court decided that one a long time ago. And I don’t see how preventing gays from using the word “marriage” (which I and lots of other people use in a legal and non-religious context) and expecting them to be happy with some “It’s the same! (But not really)” pseudo-partnership word is any different.
And I’m not sure how you can argue with “not taking rights away” when gay couples in California have already gotten married. This Proposition would make their marriages invalid. It really would be taking something away from them. I think Mr Sulu and Ellen and Neil Patrick Harris (AND KEL) deserve the right to be married as much as me and Britney and John McCain and anybody else does.
Saying it’s just a question of semantics is a way to feel less guilty about what it really means. You’re arguing that there’s no difference between the front of the bus and the back of the bus, it’s just words! So why shouldn’t those black people be happy with it?
Kris
October 30, 2008 — 1:23 pm
Also, I should add that I have a slight problem with this: “…because a few people overturned what the majority had already voted on.” I know it’s a popular conservative argument against those “activist judges” who keep striking down their laws. But democracy doesn’t always mean going with the popular opinion. Democracy is supposed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. If a majority of Germans had voted for the Holocaust, would that make it right? If a majority of Zimbabweans voted that all white farmers should be killed and their lands taken, does that make it right?
Did you have to watch “1776” in school? I always remember it when these issues come up. There’s one representative who is a hold out on signing the Declaration of Independence because he’s only been just elected and he knows that the majority in his State are against it. And throughout the story, he’s trying to decide what being an elected representative really means. Is he just there to robotically vote for whatever the majority in his state wants? Or did they elect him to use his best judgement and go with what he feels is right? In the end, he goes with the latter, and the implication is that this is the way the system is supposed to work.
I guess I’m saying I don’t really like the Californian system of putting everything to a majority vote. The majority rarely votes in the best interest of anybody but themselves.
rdh
October 31, 2008 — 12:24 am
“The majority rarely votes in the best interest of anybody but themselves.”??? WTF
Maybe when the “majority votes in Obama those that didn’t vote for him (they being the minority) can get it changed. Your statement seems to imply that the minority know what’s better for everyone not just themselves. Makes no sense.
I and most people I know vote for how its going to effect them and what they personally believe not how it effects the guy down the street, his vote carry’s the same amount of weight as mine and our situations are probably different and if he feels different he can vote as he chooses. If what he or I was voting for wasn’t popular it wont have the necessary votes to win, that’s how the system is supposed to work.
Ever have a teacher ask for a show of hands in grade school to vote on something? Majority wins. So simple a first grader gets it.
An elected representative is supposed to be an extension of the people who elected him to his position. He’s not “robotically” casting his vote, (that would be Obama voting “present” instead of taking an actual position on the issue) he doing it for the people he is supposed to represent and who voted for him. In essence he’s doing the job that the majority gave him, if the majority of votes was good enough to get him elected why is it now not good enough for him to vote for what the majority expects him to do?
aim
October 31, 2008 — 3:26 am
You’re gay.
aim
October 31, 2008 — 3:31 am
I’m sorry, that was a joke, I’m probably the only one who laughed. But I was about to type a big serious reply and I just didn’t have the energy.
And also a little shout-out to Kel if she’s reading…that’s a popular statement we grew up with in the good ol’ back country of Indiana, and I always remember Kel saying, “What, because GAY equals STUPID?!”
I’m not offended by anything you said, good stuff. I like to argue…err, debate. This is a hot issue and like all the hot issues, I think there’s some mis-representation on both sides. Unfortunately your argument is too lengthy to put in the ads, so they just bust out the simple “equality” thing because the assumption is voters are too stupid to think of anything further than that. I like to break it down a little further.
Dude, you should hear how nasty it’s getting in my city over a prop about utility bills and a commuter train! People are crazy.
Kris
October 31, 2008 — 7:49 am
I don’t get the “WTF”? You just said: “I and most people I know vote for how its going to effect them and what they personally believe not how it effects the guy down the street.” That’s EXACTLY what I said! Most people rarely vote in the best interest of anybody but themselves. WE AGREED. Duh! All I’m saying is that there are a lot of good laws that wouldn’t have been passed if they’d been put to a majority vote. Do you think the majority of people would vote to keep the speed limit 55mph? Would the majority of people vote to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if it meant it cost them an extra $5 a week? Would you want the right to hunt put to a majority vote over the whole US? Of course not. These are cases where we expect our elected officials to be able to think of the larger picture, to see the bigger ramifications beyond MY house and MY PAYCHECK and MY BELIEFS. They’re supposed to represent and protect everybody, not just the ones in the largest demographic group.
“Ever have a teacher ask for a show of hands in grade school to vote on something? Majority wins. So simple a first grader gets it.”
Except it’s not always the best way to run a democracy, and the founders of America knew it. Guess what? It doesn’t take 51% of votes to change the US Constitution. It takes more. Why? Because it’s too easy to convince the majority of people to do something. What if the majority of your first-graders decided that Billy was a jerk and they should all throw rocks at him? Well, they voted so that makes it all right? OF COURSE NOT. We elect officials to keep us from making immoral majority decisions like that.
Bex
October 31, 2008 — 10:21 am
word. you are my token-straight-friend-hero Kris.
hehe 😉
Rachel
October 31, 2008 — 5:19 pm
I think you might be my hero too.