It used to be that gays were in the closet. Now it seems that people who voted yes on California Proposition 8 are the ones in the closet. If you admit that you voted yes on 8 to define marriage as heterosexual only, then you are labeled a bigot and a hater. So you can’t tell your friends you voted yes on 8 because they won’t talk to you anymore. And there’s no having a civil conversation with gay marriage supporters to address legitimate reasons why someone might vote yes on 8.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5136 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Conrack fails a a Christian. “As I have loved you love one another” Hating gays, or anyone is not Christian!
He’s a troll, either that or a closet case.
Sounds like a state issue to me. Personally if California wants to ban gay marriage, then the only people who should have a say in the matter are those residing in the state of California.
That being said, I frankly do not care one way or the other when it comes to Gay marraige. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their own business. What I would like to see is government getting out of the business of certifying marriage to begin with. Marriage tends to be a religious ceremony to begin with, and should have been left to the church.
The prop-8 supporters seem to be delusional with the notion that if Prop-8 didn’t pass that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages, or perform no marriages what so ever.
Which makes little sense since this is a state constitutional amendment, which would force a change. If this did not pass, then everything would be status-quo; how would that “force” churches to have gay marriages? Technically nothing would be different if it didn’t pass.
Besides do you really need to amend the state constitution to change what some judges had ruled? Bit overkill isn’t it?
Also didn’t we have similar propositions in years past (about 10+ years ago) in CA that tried to do the exact same thing but failed?
Marc Perkel said:
“Ignoring the fact the marriage comes from evolution – reproducing couples. Ignoring reproduction on marriage is like ignoring that eating has anything to do with nutrition.”
So now I’m confused. Is it technically possible to have a baby outside of a marriage?
#34 pedro
*snort* You said con-genital *snicker*
Oops, I meant 36. It must congenital. đ
[Comment deleted – Violation of Posting Guidelines. – ed.]
[Comment deleted – Violation of Posting Guidelines. – ed.]
#22:
“Ah, you homophobes. So easily confused. You are congenitally unable to distinguish between a physical law of nature and a made-up societal construct that has been in flux ever since it was âdefinedâ.”
As long as we’re being precise, the physical law of nature known as “north” not only drifts geographically over time but has flipped numerous times throughout the Earth’s history. So, in a way, your comparison of “north” to marriage as something that has been “in flux” is rather ironic.
[Comment deleted – Violation of Posting Guidelines. – ed.]
While I may hold US (and all politicians) in very low esteem. I must admit this is just the kind of thing that society should decide by voting. Marriage is a term defined and defended by society and should be so. It’s definitely not a question of right or wrong, good or bad, thinking otherwise is UNdemocratic.
#41 Conrack, so should non-Christians (at least by your definition) be deported? If they are allowed to stay so they have less civil rights?
Conrack, to be more precise. Should people who sin (e.g. adultery) have less civil rights or lose their citizenship?
“The prop-8 supporters seem to be delusional with the notion that if Prop-8 didnât pass that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages, or perform no marriages what so ever.”
I don’t think this is the case at all. This was about recognizing same-sex marriage, which a lot of people aren’t ready to do. People can accept providing health coverage, etc. to domestic partners but they aren’t quite willing to go that far. And it didn’t help having SF mayor Gary Newsom doing an end-run around California voters, telling them (in a manner of speaking) “Nya nya nya, suck it up! You can’t do anything about it!”…
Gary did things the wrong way, and he set the movement back by doing so. He is right in that it’s inevitable. I think same-sex partners will be allowed to marry. But this has been a fiasco from the beginning when he started handing out licenses a few years ago.
#42 I’d hate to come off as snarky but I must.
Two things seem foreign to you:
1) Marriage is not only a word. It’s a contract in which each party must meet certain conditions.
2) The tyranny of the majority is a deadly force.
The USA is a representative republic. This mean this thing of the people is governed by elected representatives, not directly by the people. In addition to the elected representatives, we have parties responsible for the just execution of legislation and others instituted for the sake of justice, according to founding principles and precedent.
In other words, you would take the same mob which hated universal sufferage and miscagenation over a legislature and judiciary which is held accountable to something and by something.
“Are Prop 8 supporters the ones who are now in the closet?”
Not that I know of. I have different friends that voted different ways on it.
#17… so what?!? Your point only speaks to saving one’s soul. It has nothing to do with marriage.
This is a civil rights thing and those who voted for 8 ARE on the same level as those who voted against the rights of blacks. Someday, maybe you will have a right taken away and you will see how it feels.
I am a heterosexual Christian who believes that everyone has basic civil rights and no one has the right to take them away. Majority does not mean right.
Conrack,
God stated that the Two Great Commands are to Love God and to Love Your Neighbour As Yourself.
On these two hang the Law and The Prophets.
If you do not follow the first command, you cannot follow the second. Likewise, if you cannot follow the second, you cannot follow the first.
To follow the commands you must allow the same rights to your neighbours as you would yourself.
If you wish to fight against sin, then fight against homosexual sex. But again observe the second command and fight against adultery of heterosexuals as well. For if you do not fight for your heterosexual neighbours you are not following the Command.
Cursor_
I have lost friends over their view on Prop 8.
I don’t want to be friends with people that voted yes on Prop 8. My time is my own, and I would rather spend it with people that do not have bigotry and hate.
Especially if your support of it is “because it is wrong”.
Every argument sounds exactly like one from the 50’s against mixed race marriage:
– bible quotes
– “it’s wrong”
– people aren’t ready
– sanctity of marriage
– scientific, biological
#3, Marc,
Ignoring the fact the marriage comes from evolution – reproducing couples.
Wrong. Marriage comes from a tendency for humans to prefer one mate over their life. Through history there have been many instances of some men having hundreds of wives at one time. Even today, certain cultures still allow multiple wives.
Then there are the infertile heterosexual couples that marry. They can’t bare children either. Why not extend Prop 8 to them?
If someone believes marriage (government marriage) sucks then why would someone want to vote for something that sucks to be expanded to gays?
Separate question. Prop 8 is to deny equal civil rights to a specific minority. Marriage sucking applies across the board. Besides, marriage can’t be all that bad. Every divorced couple had to try it at least once.
There are a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with hate an bigotry. But the gay community seems to be oblivious to the legitimate concerns the the reality based difference that there is a gender component to marriage and that gender does make a reality based difference.
Sorry, but basing your reason on gender is bigotry. The exact same argument was used to enslave blacks, discriminate against native Indians, deny women the vote, and allowing anyone but whites to sit at the front of the bus.
There is also an argument that a âone size fits allâ marriage is a really bad idea because there are structural differences and that these relationships are not the same.
So what are those structural differences? Both partners work outside the home? The stay at home partner can also fix the plumbing? That neither partner uses the âMrs.â (for gays) or âMr.â (for lesbians) prefix which will confuse the hell out of the postman?
Whatever reason I hear in favor of Prop. 8, it is based on bigotry. So many narrow minded people in favor of denying others the same rights they have. Marriage is a contract between two people who love each other to bond together for life. Besides, if marriage was good enough for my parents, it is good enough for the rest of the world.
Being an evil atheist I do not believe in sin. I do not believe that we should live a good life so as to not anger an imaginary eye in the sky. I do believe that we all should love one another and afford each other the basic rights of leaving each other alone and doing what is ethically right. i.e. Do whatever you want as long as I don’t have to pay for it.
Marriage is a contract between two people for protection of common property and benefits. It is not for the creation of children. I myself am in a childless marriage and I have no need or want for a baby. Neither does my wife. If marriage were defined for the production of offspring then is that forced by law?
The other importance of marriage to have a legal process that can be arbitrated by the state to handle a dissolution of a relationship. Do you think that gay couples do not have common property? Do you think that gay couples do not have children? Is it not reasonable for all American citizens to be afforded the protections of the state?
The state has no business using religious definitions for marriage. Therefore as far as the state is concerned all marriage should be considered a civil union. Marriage is religious, Civil unions are legal.
Sadly this mess will probably be resolved by the Supreme Court and sadly for all the anti gay marriage supporters it will not go the way that you want. The issue that will most likely be raised will be parity between the states. A couple legally married in Connecticut will have to recognized as married in California. You cannot revoke rights by crossing state lines. Thus this decision will make gay marriage a long lasting non issue for Conservatives to be trotted out for election years.
#51 Jimmy James
Cool name by the way. Don’t let the insecure idiots get you down. Realize most of this comes from fears about themselves. Inability to accept differences in others means they haven’t accepted themselves yet.
For every Conrack there usually is a Brian to balance them out.
[Comment deleted – Violation of Posting Guidelines. – ed.]
The REASON the Yes on 8 voters need to be vilified is that we were given the proper right to marry by the courts.
THESE ASSHOLES TOOK AWAY RIGHTS OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE.
THEY ALL deserve to be vilified and eggs thrown at their houses for eternity.
Shameful, mean spirited, and just fucking WRONG.
There is no excuse, no reason other than to be PISSY AND MEAN to those who have done NOTHING to you.
Guess what, that’s WHY the courts ruled the way they did — they are telling you fucks that you are WRONG.
Ah, but you’d rather quote ancient texts that were transliterated to whatever people wanted them to say for several thousand years and used to cause heartache to millions, if not billions of people.
FUCK YOU ALL.
Sort of comes down to this.
A person is entitled to marry one person [at a time] of the opposite sex.
Partake of it if you wish.
Sorry if you want to marry two or more concurrently, or one of each or…
I think bisexuals would have a good argument against the “arbitrary” limitation of one person. And polygamists also would have somewhat simialr concerns with the arbitrary limitation.
So, we are all limited to one of the opposite sex, take it or leave it.
The tradition of opposite sex is similar to the tradition of one, hell if we do away with tradition perhaps we could legislate communal marriages 3 men 3 women or whatever.
Conrack and Honestly:
This section is for comments and discussion, not bible quotes. If you want to try to convert people, go to a religious site. Don’t post bible quotes here.
This discussion should make us all very sad.
It’s similar to the discussions had by those who would deny women and blacks their rights. Psuedo scientists even developed “rational” or “objective” theories about why each of those groups were inferior or not deserving. Fortunately, we’ve (for the most part) moved beyond that.
The gays are just then next minority group that some feel the need to rationalize their feelings about. We will get past it. It’s just a matter of how many lives are made harder or ruined in the process.
The biology question is crap. I notice no one has taken up the banner to argue that people who are infertile should be denied marriage licenses. That those who are too old to reproduce be denied the right. No, only gays. No one thinks of themselves as the villain in their own story, and no one thinks of themselves as a ‘bigot’. Instead they rationalize their fear or hatred or whatever part of themselves seeks to reach into someone else’s life and control their behavior and reduce their happiness, in order to satisfy some part of themselves or their religion. You frankly should be ashamed of such an impulse. As for people making you feel guilty about it, or not talking to you. Too bad. You wanted the government to control the freedom of expression of the commitment of a group of people by passing prop 8 and your friends are exercising their right to express their opinion when you tell them how you voted.
The religious position is also weak. We don’t condone slavery anymore although the bible does. No one is walking into places of business on Saturday and stoning the sinner’s who violate the sabbath as the bible says we should. So using it as an excuse to bar somone else’s behavior is very weak.
I want to be disgusted, but instead I’m saddened that this was even posed as a serious question, as if the government denying a right is the same as your friends exercising their right to be upset with you.
#57 clio
By what reasoning do you come to the conclusion that it is limited to a man and a woman? Are two men not capable of having a healthy, loving, and long lasting relationship with each other? And by the nature of being human they share common property and shouldn’t their rights to that common property be protected by the state in case of death or dissolution of the relationship?
I do not understand in this day and age the reasoning that marriage is limited to a man and a woman. And please do not make an argument from absurdity by including “if we have to give them the right then why can’t Farmer John marry his horse?” No one who is reasonable thinks that.
Covenant said: “The biology question is crap.”
The faith based arguments are silly. The “scientific” arguments are absurd. Thanks for pointing that out.
However, I did attend an all moose wedding not so long ago…
They call gays gay because they’re gay. Gay is gay period. Gay is bad and straight is good mm’kay!! I think all you fags need to stuff your junk back in the closet. I don’t want to hear about it!!