Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Proposition H8

I have resisted as long as I could. I wasn't going to write a blog about this California-centric proposition since after all, most of my readers aren't even in the U.S. :) The subject matter though makes it universal so I caved.

Proposition 8, if it passes, will recognize "marriage" as a union between 1 man and 1 woman. If read literally it does not specifically say "everything else is illegal," though that is the way the opposing party is promoting it. If you are gay and have a significant other which you married in some proceeding, you won't be able to file your tax forms as married and other financial things like that.

Understandably, but not logically, religious and hate groups (more often then not one in the same) are up in arms. "What of the sanctity of marriage?!?" they cry.

They really need to look around. The "sanctity" of marriage has long since been defiled. Gay marriage will do NOTHING to change the ridicule it has already suffered at the hands of Hollywood.

This proposition will do nothing to defend or solidify any stance on either side of the argument. I don't suggest everyone just give up in exasperation either. My solution is to create a solution.

Keep in mind that the following explanation is from an average person, NOT from someone who has studied the ancient history of its origin which is part of the point.

Marriage is a very, very old tradition. Naturally with old traditions some things just don't seem to fit with the needs, desires or sometimes even laws of the current people. This is where conflict will inevitably arise.

Do we change our laws or our beliefs? That is a tough choice for anyone to make. I suggest we do neither. No I don't mean we ignore the problem. I say we try something different. Something completely new.

I suggest we create a new family union. Don't call it a marriage between husbands and wives offending the religious. Don't call it a legal contract offending everyone else. A new, union of promise. An emotional contract between a couple dedicating their lives and finances to each other. No plans to procreate mandatory.

A more open union of two adults who choose to promise love and dedication to each other.

Yes a whole new set of laws would have to be created but that would make the legal beagle's happy. The separation from church would make the choirboy fans happy. The recognition and more importantly financial support from the government would make the unionists happy.

"We are here to witness the creation of a union of Love."

If the couple (straight or gay) chooses to have children and would like to benefit from the money refunded by the government then they can enter a new contract, perhaps more similar to marriage?

Single income households are unheard of. A similar agreement from a more business-like standpoint would also be beneficial. "I agree to split the responsibilities of this household with my roommate and divide the tax refund by percentage of income invested."

People need options. To put it in a more facetious perspective, imagine this like a customized menu where humans can settle their agreements and inevitable disagreements beforehand.

For now, Proposition 8 has set a dangerous precedent whether it passes or not. If it passes, expect numerous lawsuits from lawyers who represent the "general public" that has had its basic human rights abolished by its passing. If it doesn't pass then expect more millions to be spent on the opposing Propositions advertising and creation next time around.

All of which us taxpayers will end up footing the bill for.

Personally, I don't really feel the need for a piece of paper to quantify my relationship dedication or technical skill level. Unfortunately the rest of the world currently does so I have both and the entire process of obtaining it all was very expensive.

15 comments:

Iris said...

Wow! No comments on this one huh? I guess no one wants to touch it. I do, but I want to really think about what I say before I write it down :)

HektikLyfe said...

Meh, maybe it just sucked? That'll show me to blog about politics!

Farhan said...

Yeah, this is a very delicate issue. And I really don't know what to say about it because I myself heavily oppose gay marriage. Actually, I am against the whole concept of being "gay". It goes against everything I believe in and what I learned in school. You know what I learned in school? I learned in school that "gay" means being happy. Not wanting to have sex with a person of your own gender.

HektikLyfe said...

>Farhan: Yeah that's probably why people are staying away from it. I appreciate the fact that you opted to comment. I know its a very touchy subject.

My "solution" which isn't really a solution per se, would address this lack of an agreement by diverting from the road block.

What they are asking for is acknowledgment from everyone who may have been educated just like you. I don't think that's fair to ask of an entire society. You are breaking no law by thinking their way of life is wrong yet they want to change this. They want all religions to change the way they have taught things for hundreds or thousands of years.

When gay marriage becomes more approved, and it will, they will start forcing their way into churches proclaiming it illegal to exclude them.

I have never been known to come to the defense of any organized religion really but neither have I advocated their restructure or destruction based on my way of life.

Farhan said...

But there is a reason why religions have taught what they taught for so long. And you can't CHANGE or ADD TO any religion. Kills it's authenticity. But then homosexuality is a completely different story for you if you're an atheist. And I think you can't be religious and "gay" at the same time because I don't think there are any religions that actually approve homosexuality.

HektikLyfe said...

>Farhan: You would think that changing or adding to religions would destroy them, but history has shown when religions don't change or adapt to suit they people they cater to, they die out. There is a reason why there are so many similarities between all the different religions. There is a reason why they all share names and ideas yet differ in their messages.

Interpretation and deviation are common when a story gets handed down from person to person. Some religions approve of sacrifice and some don't. Some approved them at one time and no longer do. Why did this change? The religious leaders claim God himself told them but logic says society itself drove them to make those changes.

King James is well known for making a LOT of changes to the Christian faith. Scary when you can attribute notable changes to a religion by a persons name who you know for a fact existed in history.

I have digressed far beyond the subject at hand, my apologies. (I love this topic.)

As for being Gay and religious at the same time, I agree with you. But it all really comes down to how you define "religious."

I know of a few Gay individuals who have an unwavering belief and love of their God but aren't "religious" per se because they are cast out of their chose religion. They are filled with self hate because they feel their sexual orientation is beyond their control.

There are religions that approve of homosexuals, but not homosexuality. They condemn the act, not the people which is why you see them punishing people who are openly gay and not casting them out.

Kind of the same way they used to Burn witches instead of ignoring them.

"Lets fix 'em!" The preachers chant!

Carlos said...

Just commenting to let you know I was here and to give you info from my environment.
My church said vote yes on 8.
My 9 year old son, who attends this church and Christian school said "that would not be fair".
I am glad that his generation is learning tolerance.
I personally, although bothered by the sometimes flaming homo public displays of affection... I lived in San Francisco area... but I digress... I don't think the LAW should have any say on who can or can't get married. Now if they want to use the state/federal benefits, well then I guess they are entitled to create their own description as to what qualifies for that don't they?
Get on a boat, go into the breakwater, and have the captain marry you. DONE.

HektikLyfe said...

>Carlos: Do they let you raise your hand in your church? Like, not raise your hand in praise but in question? I would want to know why they felt it necessary to get involved in politics and why they felt government should get involved with church?

They could definitely get married off the coast but they wouldn't qualify for the financial benefits which is the key they won't admit to.

Why don't they just "come out" and say the truth. It is respectable and I wouldn't blame them. Its not about "rights" because they already have them all. Its money.

Sarah Jane said...

I don't agree that it's for money. I didn't get married for money. I got married because I found the person I wanted to be life partners with and the normal thing to do after that is get married! I would think there is a proportionally equal amount of straight marriages that happen for money as gay marriages that would happen for money, just as there will be straight divorces, there will be gay divorces. Straight infidelity, gay infidelity and so on....
I am for marriage, gay or straight, as long as the couple intends to "stay the course" and make the most of their love and marriage for life. That is, have some integrity, people! Love and marriage for all those who have some! :D

HektikLyfe said...

>Sarah Jane: For you and I and our spouses that makes perfect sense. We are normal in every sense of the word but if gay couples have any desire to be anything, I don't imagine it is to be "normal." For them it is to accepted and recognized as they are.

Now, as Carlos mentioned, they can get married. There are options for them but thats not enough. They want to be able to do it every way everyone else does it. Which they may and should be entitled to but I think they should just be honest instead of creating this sad imagery of a Romeo and Juliet environment.

My "alternative solution" would make current marriage more respected. Only the ones who are really dedicated, ones who have already proven themselves in prior engagements can apply and be approved for "marriage" status. The financial and legal aspects and benefits would be given to them LONG before. Marriage would be only a title. It would make for an interesting experiment to see what few couples go through with marriage then.

jessica said...

it is a touchy subject and I find that a lot of people are too afraid to even open up about it, so I give you props for that. personally, I don't support prop 8. I think that it's ridiculous and I believe in the whole "love is love" idea. if two women, or two men, want to get married then they should have the right to do so. they're not harming me any, I'm not offended by it, and I don't believe that it's a sin. we're all human here and I think that people need to learn to be more accepting and open-minded towards each other.
I have to admit that I am guilty of flipping off a "say yes to prop 8" protester a few days ago.

dpin4 said...

Hi. When it comes to propositions I like to place myself on both sides of the equation. I too had the very same idea of calling it a "union,' instead of "marriage," since I've been so conditioned by society that marriage is between a man and a woman. I took some time to think things out. Society has instilled that in order to be successful in life we must go to college, buy that house with the picket fence, the car, MARRIAGE, kids, oh yeah can't forget the dog. Growing up regardless of gender, religion, orientation, race, we have all had these thoughts of one day achieving. So, now we are not going to allow homosexual couples from getting married. So that little boy who dreamt of his wedding one day with his prince charming, won't be allowed, even though society has instilled that in him. I just don't know who we think we are denying fellow human beings their right to be married. As for churches, they have the right to decline anyone they do not feel fit to be married. At first churches were reluctant to marry interracial couples, but now it's the norm. I am a straight female, who just believes everyone deserves compassion, love, and respect. From my understanding Jesus walked the Earth not once passing judgement. He showed loved, respect, and compassion.... let's spread it! peace & love!

anastasia said...

The idea of "unions" that you spoke of already exists--in some states civil unions allow couples to have some of the same rights as marriage, except it's not called marriage. And thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act (a FEDERAL law), same-sex unions can never have the 1000+ rights that married couples do.

The problem with civil unions in the U.S. is that it's a state issue--the federal government is not required to recognize a civil union (as stated in the DOMA which I mentioned earlier), and neither is any state that does not itself have civil union laws. So if you enter into a civil union in Vermont or California, good luck obtaining any civil union rights if you move to, say, Texas, whose constitution explicitly bans any type of same-sex union.

As long as there is a distinction between a marriage and a union, and as long as it's a state issue as opposed to a federal one, there will always be room for discrimination against same-sex couples. The fact that this discrimination is explicitly written into federal law is, to me, outrageous.

Here's another interesting fact: California used to have it's own DOMA, which the California Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional and was then overturned ealier this year. Prop 8 contains essentially the same wording as the original California DOMA! The difference is that Prop 8 would actually be an amendment to the state constitution, making it even more difficult to overturn if it were to come into effect.

I personally am hoping that Prop 8 does not pass. I wish I still lived in California so I could vote against it, but I'm hoping enough intelligent people show up at the polls to keep it from being passed.

(Sorry for the hugely long, boring comment full of legal crap that I'm sure no one will end up reading.)

HektikLyfe said...

>Jessica: It doesn't "harm" you per se but you do and will pay for it. Whether it passes or not, there will be lawsuits and taxpayers will pay for it all. Money wasted.

>dpin4: I see how your view of peace & love shows compassion but I have to take it back to a financial perspective. This will cost us (taxpayers.) My alternative would affect EVERYONE.

Jesus told US not to pass judgment and I don't think we are. This proposition is not saying they are bad people. It is in effect telling them it is a different relationship then the one a couple that can procreate can have. A LOT of the benefits and rights a married couple has is to ease or benefit procreation. They allow you to save money so you can afford to have, educate and raise a child of your own. It is an old, perhaps archaic tradition that needs to be updated. Which is what I suggested.

>Anastasia: What rights are they after? Is it just the principle? I haven't heard ANY mention of rights they are interested in as a voter. The commercials simply state that what they consider to be a basic human right is being taken from them.

Discrimination and categorization are two different things. What exactly are they losing out on? I only know of money and recognition. If this were the case than another arrangement could suffice.

I still haven't decided what and/or if I am voting but I would take slight offense to your loaded statement there. Basically if anyone disagree's with your opinion they are ignorant?

No reason to apologize, I welcome long and boring comments. They compliment my long and boring blog posts. ;)

Angela said...

First of all, I want to say that I am voting no on prop 8.

I think the problem started when we as a nation gave a religious institution a place in secular government. It's one thing to be married by a pastor or a priest within the bounds of your own particular faith, but quite another to be "married" by a judge as a representative of government. It makes 100% perfect sense that certain (all?) religions do not allow gay marriages because it is very clearly a violation of their scriptures and teachings. But when this practice made it's way into the lives of secular people, agnostics and atheists, that's where all the problems begin. Why should people who do not believe in god or do not practice a religion have access to a religious rite? It makes no sense, but it's the law under our federal government. So if atheists can get married, then why can't gays?

I have been with my boyfriend for 7 years and I have chosen not to get married for this reason. I am atheist, he is agnostic, so what business do we have getting married? (If he had it his way though, we would get married anyway; I told him that if all 50 states or if the feds "approve" gay marriage, then I will marry him. I think it's a good compromise.)

I agree with you, that a different name should be given to "marriage" between non-religious people. But most straight people would probably take to the streets if their marriage was suddenly made illegal.

I also agree that prop 8 has zero bearing on the sanctity of marriage. It's all the divorces that are ruining it for everyone. It's a shame people can't understand that.