20081105

Yes on 8! Yes on 8!

I let curiosity get the better of me this morning. I should have let it go, but I got up and tip-toed to the computer to see if proposition 8 had passed in California.

Yea!

It was a narrow victory, but it was a victory. Here's a link to the results:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.html

I can't believe that so many people listened as a belligerent group of homosexuals trying to legally justify their behavior. I can't even imagine what stunt they'll try to pull next in the name of a so-called "equality."

I loved this post:
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/11/looks-like-victory-for-proposition-8.html

Good for you, California! Stay strong!

11 comments:

Vicki said...

hallelujah!

angie said...

So exciting!

random acts of violets said...

at the same time we broke down barriers by electing the first african-american president, voters in four states, including california, took away the rights of millions of americans. this doesn't seem like something we should be celebrating. we call this the land of equal rights and opportunity. should we be appending "unless you're gay"? not too long ago, it was "unless you're not white".

and if you want to talk about belligerent, you should have been watching the people standing on street corners with "yes on 8" signs, pushing, shoving, throwing things, shouting profanity and insults at anyone who dared to disagree.

if i want to marry a woman, and live my very ordinary life, just like you, working, building a family, paying my taxes and walking the dog, how does that harm you or anyone else? i'm not asking you to teach your kids any different, or trying to get churches that don't want to to perform marriages for gay people. i just want the same rights when i start a life with a woman as i would get if i started a life with a man. this is even more critical to me because i have serious, stage IIIB melanoma. i want to be able to be certain that my partner can visit me if i'm hospitalized, can make choices for me if i'm incapacitated, can inherit our shared property and assets if i don't survive. i just don't see how any of these things harm you or any of the people who have been shouting for the destruction of civil rights for gay people. maybe you can enlighten me.

Jeremiah R. Jones said...

Jenny, is it? Violets, at any rate,

Thanks for visiting my obscure little blog. I am curious what lowly link sent you over to see my post about "Yes on 8."

In regards to your comment:

I am sorry that you have had so many racial barriers, perceived or otherwise, up until recently. If we Americans were just now breaking through, I doubt that now President-elect Obama would have won. Where do you get off anyway, comparing being gay to being black?

As far as the rights that you speak of, since when has the issue of same-sex marriage been about rights? As you ask for enlightenment, let me lay it out for you--this has been, and continues to be not about rights, but about the legal definition of marriage. Marriage, a divinely established institution, has been and should continue to be between a man and a woman. That so many people voted that way, despite the raucous dissent from the gay-rights camp, shows that a large percentage of my fellow Californians agree with me on this point.

Are you really going to try to get the "belligerent" label to stick on the activists for traditional marriage? I can only call it as I see it, Violets. As my mother stood by the freeway with other members of her congregation holding "Yes on 8" signs, some people would honk and wave or give the thumbs up. Those were not the "No on 8" proponents. Those were the ones that "flipped the bird" or shouted expletives. My mom went around to different precincts to check on volunteers for "Yes on 8." Who was yelling and screaming? Who was being offensive and violent toward my mother to the point of frightening her? Do you need a hint? It was the same people who went around stealing countless "Yes on 8" signs off of lawns. Meanwhile, the "No on 8" signs remained on their initial locations untouched.

Still need convincing? Where are the crowds of smug conservatives standing outside of gay bars and marching around the Castro area of San Francisco? Oh--there are none! Meanwhile, same-sex marriage activists congregate outside of the places of worship of the Mormon faith, badgering, bullying, and being belligerent. Do they have the right? Well, Violets, you ask yourself what would happen if hundreds of conservatives gathered outside some venue frequented by homosexuals and shouted offensive slurs and tried to be as menacing as possible. Next ask yourself this, why should conservatives stand for this sort of treatment if gays do not?

The "I'm just trying to live my life" argument isn't going to work with me either, sister. I live in Massachusetts, and have seen the same gay-rights organizations that have fought to make same-sex lifestyle education mandatory here argue attest that they have no such intentions there. The degree of duplicity would be comical if the battle being fought was not so grave. Don't tell me you're not asking me "to teach [my] kids any different or trying to get churches that don't want to to perform marriages for gay people." You're trying to justify your dubious lifestyle by changing the rules to fit you.

I am sorry for whatever sorrows you face in life—your dog, your cancer, your anxiety for the future. Can even the most extenuating of circumstances, however, change one thing into another?

No.

As far as prop 8 goes, it's not some travesty of human rights. It's called "democracy." My forefathers bled and died for it, and if you don't like it, try going somewhere else. I can think of few things less patriotic than bellyaching that the popular vote didn't go your way.

Get out the vote or get over it.

Dan said...

As Jeremiah said, its not about 'rights'. If it was, I could easily argue that gay marriage is goes against my rights to worship how I want and to teach my children how I see fit. Random acts of perpetuating falsehoods.

random acts of violets said...

I happened upon your blog while I was searching for images to put on a website. It's funny how things get connected in inexplicable ways.

<< I am sorry that you have had so many racial barriers, perceived or otherwise, up until recently. If we Americans were just now breaking through, I doubt that now President-elect Obama would have won. Where do you get off anyway, comparing being gay to being black? >>

Being gay and being black, or white, or hispanic, or whatever -- these are states into which we are born and which other people use to deny rights and access to services. I was born gay. God made me this way. I didn't choose it, I didn't want it, I didn't ask for it. Being gay can be a very difficult road that alienates us from our families and friends, gets us fired from jobs, and carries a much higher than average rate of suicide. Now, I've taken a lot of flack recently from people when I talk about being born gay. So I want to back that up with some sources. Consider the following:

-- Dick Swaab, MD, PhD, Director of the Netherlands Institute for Brain Research, et al., published a 1995 research study, "Brain Research, Gender, and Sexual Orientation." The study concluded:
"[I]n a sample of brains of homosexual men we did find that an area of the hypothalamus called the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) contains twice as many cells as the SCN of a heterosexual group...
It appears very unlikely that homosexual behavior as such would increase the neuronal number in any brain structure. Yet the development of SCN cell numbers suggest that the explanation for the large SCN in homosexual men most likely may be found in early brain development.
At birth, the SCN contains only 13-20% of the adult number of cells, but in the postnatal period development is rapid. Cell counts reach a peak around 13-16 months after birth. The SCN cell numbers found in adult homosexual men were in the same order of magnitude as found around 13-16 months after birth. The normal pattern is that the cell numbers decline to the adult value of about 35% of the peak values.
In homosexual men, therefore, this postnatal cell death in the SCN seems to have been curtailed."

Unless you want to argue that homosexual behaviour before the age of 2 years caused the brain differences, which doesn't seem possible or logical to me, this study suggests that there are very real physical differences between gay and straight people that are evident quite early in life. 13 month old children aren't capable of choosing to be gay.

-- Twin studies that looked at homosexuality found that when one twin was gay, the other was also gay about 52-55% of the time, compared to 22% of the time in fraternal twins, and 11% in non-twin siblings. This suggests that genetics is a significant factor in determining sexual orientation. From the reading and research I've done, I'm fairly certain that there is not a single root cause of homosexuality. Rather, a combination of genetics that make it possible and environmental factors (like hormone levels in the womb) that trigger those genes to become active. A group called Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance published this excellent explanation:
"Religious conservatives often point to studies of identical twins who were separated at birth and raised independently. If one is gay, then the other twin is found to be gay only about 55% of the time. They reason that: since identical twins have the same genetic structure, then if homosexual orientation were determined by genes, 100% of the other twins would be gay... [This is] based upon a faulty or inadequate knowledge of the detailed workings of genetics. Genes have a property called penetrance, which is a measure of their effectiveness, or power...

The penetrance of the gene which causes Type 1 (early onset) diabetes is only 30%. So, if one identical twin has the allele that causes diabetes, then the other twin will have the same allele. Both will have a 30% chance of developing the disorder. Both twins will have the same genetic structure. But it may or may not be triggered by something in the environment, and cause diabetes. If one identical twin develops schizophrenia, the other twin has about a 48% chance of also developing the disorder. If one twin develops bipolar affective disorder, (formerly called manic depression) the other twin's chances are about 60% of having it as well...

We do not wish to imply that homosexuality is a disease. We are merely suggesting that the root cause of many diseases - and traits like left-handedness - are genetic. Most human sexuality researchers who are not religious conservatives regard homosexual orientation as a trait like left-handedness."

I could go on, but I want to get to the other parts of your reply.

The issue of same-sex marriage is ALWAYS about rights. I can't speak for everyone, but the vast majority of people I've talked to, read, heard, seen just want to be able to legally register their partnerships and have the same rights as heterosexual couples who are legally married. Marriage as churches define it is not the issue. What is at issue is only, solely, the *legal* institution of marriage. We aren't out to make faiths that don't agree with gay marriage suddenly have to perform ceremonies for same sex couples. If it were up to me, the government would register all couples, gay or straight, as domestic partnerships. Those couples who wanted to have a church marriage could then choose to do so, as I suspect most would. This would avoid the fundamental problem of language when this issue is discussed. Marriage as it is encoded in our legal system is a different entity than marriage as part of religious doctrine. It is the former we are trying to change, and not the latter.

Proposition 8 passed by a very narrow margin. 52% of californians did agree with you. But almost as many did not. For every gay person who voted against prop 8, 9 straight people voted against it as well.

From your description of your mom's experience being out on the street with "yes on 8" signs, it sounds like both sides are pretty much even on the belligerence scale. My partner has very similar stories to tell of standing on the street corner holding "no on 8" signs and getting the same thing from people who disagreed. At the end of the day, this is an issue that raises huge levels of emotion for a lot of people, and the epidemic of signs being taken down and destroyed -- on both sides -- is one sign of that. I don't condone or agree with people who were abusive to activists holding signs for either side. I don't agree with those who behaved badly towards "yes on 8" proponents. I'm sorry that your mom and the people she was with had to deal with that kind of inappropriate response.

I also don't agree with the targeting of LDS temples by protesters -- it was not the right place to target their dissent. Those people would have been better off standing on street corner or freeways trying to convince voters to change their minds. It may surprise you to know that I come from a Mormon family; while I was not raised in the LDS church, a large number of my family members were, and are still. We may not agree on everything, but at the end of the day we all have the right to make up our own minds and believe as we wish.

We *don't* have the right to forcefully impose those beliefs on other people. Which is why I speak so strongly about the difference between legal marriage and religious marriage. Changing the law doesn't force anyone to sanctify or condone same sex marriage if they don't want to do so. It simply opens up the legal registry of married couples to same sex couples, and afford them the same rights as heterosexual couples -- taxes, inheritance, kids, etc.

We each have the right to choose our own beliefs, our own faith. The only thing I'm trying to change is the law. Some people in Massachusetts may be trying to change what is taught in schools; I personally don't agree with it. We should teach, just as Jesus did, love for our neighbors regardless of whether we agree with them. I plan to teach my children that every person has value even when you have differences. Parents can choose how to educate and guide their children when it comes to issues of faith and belief. If you don't agree with same-sex marriage, you should have the right to teach your children the same.

I don't bring up cancer or the small ordinary details of my life to somehow justify being gay. I am simply trying to show you that I am not really much different from anyone else. All I want is an ordinary life with my partner that has the same security that we would have if I had married a man.

At the end of the day I get the feeling that where people really have a problem with homosexuality is when it comes to sex. To me, and to a whole lot of other people, it's about love. I didn't choose who I fell in love with. It was something that was so much beyond my control as to have a divine element. The love that I have for my partner is bigger and more wonderful than I imagined was possible. And I just don't understand why people have such a problem with that love.

Obviously I know I'm not going to change your mind. I'm not going to take this conversation much further. I hope that you do me the courtesy of at least reading and considering what I have to say.


Violet

random acts of violets said...

Dan,

By that logic, if I were racist I could argue that equal rights for people of all races went against my right to believe that black people should all be sent back to Africa. There's no reason allowing people to legally register same sex partnerships should affect your life unless you want it to. Simply ignore it and go on with your life, and let us go on with ours.

Violet

Dan said...

Actually, homosexuality is a behavior and black is a race. Using YOUR logic, murderers are a protected class because they have the urge to Kill people. Maybe they were born that way, and who are you to violate their right to kill?

Oh, but homosexuality doesn't kill anyone. Is that why suicide rate in homosexuals is higher, EVEN in societies where it is openly accepted? Is that why there is a proliferation of the STD's in high risk populations, such as those engaging in Anal intercourse? 'It doesn't hurt anyone' is the biggest lie sold by the gay lobby. You will never realize this until you read study after study in medical journals that confirm this. The science does not lie. You are wrong. And as a judge in Connecticut said, "its not bigotry, its biology".

Welcome to reality, I suggest you deal with it.

random acts of violets said...

one more question for you, dan, and then i'm done with this thread. it's obvious none of us, myself included, are going to change our point of view.

if homosexuality is a behaviour, an "urge", doesn't that make heterosexuality a behaviour as well? and if that's the case, why should heterosexual people have any rights or considerations in the law because of their chosen sexual orientation that homosexual people don't?

Dan said...

Here is your answer, and you aren't going to like it. Stable heterosexual families actually benefit society as a whole. Yes, heterosexuals have urges too. I don't condone Adultery or Fornication either, as they don't benefit society either. So it does go both ways.
What you don't understand is that marriage is for the benefit of children, and that is the reason it is regulated. Children DESERVE a mommy AND a daddy. To suggest anything else as preferable to this is CHILD ABUSE, plain and simple.

random acts of violets said...

so single parents are abusing their kids? grandparents, aunts, and godparents that raise children are abusing kids because they don't fit your definition of what a family is?

marriage is definitely for the benefit of children, whether they are straight parents or gay parents. if you want to create stable families, it seems that allowing gay couples to marry would do just that. marriage is a commitment and when it is encoded in the legal system it makes partnerships that much stronger because there are big incentives to make it work even in hard times. rather than decrying the behaviour of gay people and their lack of stability, give us the tools that straight people have to create that stability: let us get married.

gay couples in this country have become adoptive and foster parents to thousands of kids who would otherwise be in overcrowded group homes where rates of abuse are sky high. DSHS regularly loses track of kids only to find them dead years later. wouldn't those kids be better off in a home with two loving parents regardless of gender or orientation?

from the American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html):"Results of social science research have failed to confirm any of these concerns about children of lesbian and gay parents (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999). Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents (Patterson, 2004a). Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents (Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999)."

i thought of one other question i'm curious about. we've talked here at length about homosexuality as a choice, thus not being valid or eligible for rights. isn't religion a choice? and yet this country was founded on freedom of religion and there are many protections in the law that protect our right to choose how, who, when, and where to worship. why should sexual orientation, if it is a choice (which i don't believe it is), be held to a higher standard?