You don't have to hate gay people in the sense you speak of, but one of the definitions of hate certainly fits those who voted for Prop 8. The word can be used to describe prejudice or bigotry against a class of people. I would certainly say that voting for "seperate, but equal" for a class of people can be described as prejudice and/or bigotry. Also, way to go with pointing the finger and playing the political blame game again. I thought you turned over a new leaf with this election?
In addition, I know you like to blame liberals, but would you consider Republicans liberal? Are all Democrats liberals? There are plenty of instances of Democrats who voted Yes on 8 and many Republicans who voted no.
Are you trying to argue that it wasn't liberals who pushed for legal gay marriage?
I'm calling it like I see it. It came from liberal values, not conservative ones. It's about being able to acknowledge the good and not so good each side does, not just name calling. Gavin Newsome is a liberal. Or did he become a republican? Ease up, I'm not using the term in a negative way - I tend to skew liberal on social issues, so I certainly don't mind it when someone says that something I say may be liberal - why do you get all testy when I use the word?
I've got a little news for those who think small thoughts like this: get over it. If you want to get married and are gay, you can accomplish far more by creating a new term that allows you to have the same rights as straight married couples without assaulting what is, essentially and historically, a religious concept.
If it's all about religion, why are some religions more important than others? There are churches that will allow gays to marry. Why does the Mormon or Catholic or any other church get to define what marriage is more than, say, the Unitarian Church? Also, what about those of us who aren't gay but support the rights of gays to be able to marry?
It's not that SOME religions are more important than others. It's that EVERY religion considers homosexuality to be a sin. The religions tend to agree on this one. Hence, there is little religious debate about the matter. Let's not change the subject by deflecting it into how we define marriage when we are talking about gay marriage.
As a person with many gay friends (the guys call me their husband and the girls make fun of me for having a penis), I can tell you that even some of them are split on the issue.
So what? The issue is choice. Just as has been said to straight people, if you don't want gay marriage, then shut the @#!* up and don't get one.
While I may agree with you on this one, you just hit on the main point of my post. SOME straight people seem to care, and it's usually because of their faith based values. Which is why a different term might work better - and be an easier issue to pass the vote.
Sure, they all want the same rights as straight couples, but every one of them understands two things that the radical homosexuals don't seem to:
1) When you lose a vote on your issue, freaking out is harmful, not helpful
2) The term 'marriage' is rooted in religious ideology and is, therefore, not likely the right path to take towards equal rights.
Wow, how insightful
People understand it's rooted in religious ideology, but it's no excuse because:
1. There are many things rooted in religious ideology that we don't find acceptable today. Slavery is a part of the Bible, but we expressly forbid that today. Mormons used to teach (don't know if they still do) that blacks are cursed with the mark of Cain with dark skin. Today, they would (rightfully) be called racist. Many religions subjugate women, but that's not something that is viewed as acceptable today. I could continue, but I think you get the point.
True, but only kinda-sorta. For example, in the jewish faith, slavery was an agreement. You were bound by rules and laws. You had to provide for the slave, treat them well and with dignity, and they could only be a slave for 7 years, unless they opted to voluntarily remain in servitude. MODERN slavery is decidedly ANTI-judeo-christian faith. I get the point, but hardly think that this compares. For example, if one believes in judeo-christian scripture, GOD says homosexuality is a sin, hence the issue. Again, this is not my belief, but a fact you should be aware of.
Prop 8 passed by a wide margin.
So what the majority believes = what is right? I refer you to the antebellum South. nft.
If you will allow me a moment of snark, Obama was elected President. If you believe in Democracy, or better yet a representative republic, you MUST believe that the majority is correct. Better to convince the majority to come over to your side than compare them to racists and slave owners, don't you think?
Malcolm X preached violence as a means for change and it failed. Then he changed his mind and made some of the most fascinating explorations into race relations in the history of mankind. And was killed for it. By black people who disagreed with his new, more peaceful approach. And history shows that it was Dr. Martin Luther King who was more responsible for civil rights advances.
Please stop showing your ignorance of the African American civil rights movement. Malcolm X did NOT fail as an agent for change. In fact, his teachings were instrumental in the founding of the Black Panthers, a group that did a tremendous amount of good for black communities (including, but not limited to sickle cell clinics, free breakfast programs that were the precursor to the Federal Free and Reduced meal program, free grocery programs, forcing the city of Oakland to install a traffic light so young black children would stop getting run over on the way to/from a particular school, etc). What's more, he was not killed because he changed his mind. And history does not show that Martin Luther King would have been as successful on his own. That's nothing but pure speculation on your part.
Yeah, the black panthers were great. About 25% of the time. The rest of the time, they weren't so nice. They did plenty of harm. And the fact is that Malcolm X was killed after he began to renounce violence because even he saw the damage groups like the Black Panthers were doing to the civil rights movement. By black people. Who were involved with the very group that Malcolm X helped grow and later found repugnant to some degree.
The fact remains that state's [sic] still have a constitutional right to make their own decisions.
The fact remains that the people still have the right to challenge Prop 8. Are you arguing with the constitutionally established system of checks and balances?
Not at all. But the tenor of the challenge has been negative and filled with hatred towards others. As I stated earlier, behaving badly won't help change the law. There are still plenty of far better ways to achieve change.
Also, I <3 the way your entire post addresses the LGBT community, but fails to consider there's (obviously) a wide swath of the California population that is 1) heterosexual and 2) doesn't agree with Prop 8. I'll remember this post as I continue joining others interested in fighting for the civil rights of ALL people by protesting outside the Mormon temple on Overland and Santa Monica, in West Hollywood, and anywhere else.
Anyway, I don't know why I bothered since you're obviously just trying to stir the pot.
So you are going to protest a few mormon churches that did nothing wrong. That ought to win them over. It will surely show them how wrong they are to believe in god and that their faith is hateful.
And yes, I am stirring the pot. It is difficult to learn things if all we do is talk to people we always agree with. This being a hot topic, I am curious to discuss it.
I do not hate gay people.
I do not oppose gay marriage.
I am merely making an observation.