Proposition 8
In 1958, Richard and Mildred Loving were married in Washington, D.C. to avoid Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws. When they returned to Virginia after their marriage, they were arrested in their bedroom for cohabiting as an interracial couple. The judge in the case suspended their sentence if they left Virginia and did not return for at least 25 years. They moved to Washington, D.C., and in 1963, decided to challenge their case, and appealed the judgement of Judge Leon Bazile. Stopped at each turn, the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court....
On that case, in 1967, "activist judges" overturned state statutes banning interracial marriage in the landmark case of Loving V. Virginia. This case ended the enforcement of anti-miscegenation laws that were in effect in 30 states throughout the Union. At the time, well over 60% of voters approved of such laws, and often cited the potential social ramifications if such unions were allowed to proceed. Many groups feared that children would be taught that these unions were acceptable. Others objected on religious grounds, citing biblical passages to reinforce what they saw as a clear cut case. Representative Roddenbery (GA) had this to say when he proposed a US law banning interracial marriage:
"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. ... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy"
The original judge in the Loving V. Virginia case added this, when asked to reconsider his decision:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
In the case, the court stated that:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subersive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
-----
Fast forward to 2008, where California voters have approved, 52.5% to 47.5%, the amendment to our state Constitution that reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
This initiative came as a result of a decision by the CA State Supreme Court that determined that the ban on same-sex marriages violated the Equal Protection Clause in the CA Constitution. Proponents of the measure state that Proposition 8 "...Overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people."
Ladies and Gentlemen, our court systems are designed to do soley that: ignore the 'will' of the people and decide what is fair and right. They are designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the Majority. They are here to ensure equal protection before the law, and to enforce our state and federal Constitution.
How can proponents of Proposition 8 claim that this is not an attack on the gay lifestyle? Are anti-miscegenation laws not an attempt at segregation, and taking the rights of individuals in the minority? This measure was not about protecting marriage, that is something that YOU do every day with the choices you make, this measure was about eliminating the rights, in accordance with our State Constitution, of same-sex couples to marry.
I am greatly distressed by the lies told to pass this Proposition, even from people who object on religious grounds. Which is the greater sin? To lie to achieve your ends, or to allow others to make their own choices? There is little room between deception and lies, Satan is called the Great Deciever for a reason, and there was much deception from Proposition 8's supporters.
Where are gay couples forcing other people to redefine their marriages? Do the actions of others somehow affect the commitment that you have made to your spouse? Is your relationship, and the covenant you made with your husband or wife, any less because other couples cheat, lie, abuse, or otherwise mistreat each other? Those are sins as well, and far more damaging to children and their outlook than what other couples may do in the privacy of their home. Why spend so much money on this, yet there is little support for legislation outlawing adultery, cohabitation before marriage, drug use, spousal abuse, and the host of other problems that directly impact children in a far more harmful way. There is precious little evidence that being raised by a gay couple does anything to the chance of that child being homosexual. How, then, are we protecting our children by teaching intolerance? Is it now that we tolerate homosexuality, but they are only afforded the rights of second-class citizens?
Propostion 8 supporters stated: "While gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Hipocrisy absolutely seeps from this statement, as that is precisely what Proposition 8 does: it redefines marriage for everyone in the GLBT community. Who gave the majority the right to redefine what marriage is for the minority?
Proposition 8 supporters stated: "Your YES vote on Proposition 8 means that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of WHEN or where performed. But Prop. 8 will NOT take away any other rights or benefits of gay couples. (emphasis added)
This statement tacitly acknowledges the reality of the situation, that the Proposition removes RIGHTS from the GLBT community, but they are kind enough to stop there and not take away ANY OTHER rights. How gracious of them to pause on the slippery slope that they have started down, not to mention the fact that they are violating Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "No ... ex post facto Law shall be passed." Is that not clear enough?
I know that there are many people who disagree with me on this subject, but regardless of my feelings regarding this subject, I feel that the law, and the rights of the GLBT community are exceedingly clear, and that alone is enough for me to make my decision. I voted NO on Proposition 8, one of the minority who opposed the addition of discrimination and segregation back into our State Constitution. I fear the repercussions when we begin to divide our society such as we just have. What is the next step from here? Will Muslims and Christians no longer be able to marry? Will we return to racial segregation as well? How are we, as Californians, allowing this to pass? What happened to the belief in equality?
I hope I do not ever hear a Proposition 8 supporter say "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death right to say it." Voltaire understood equality, it is a pity that Californians have lost sight of that ideal.
On that case, in 1967, "activist judges" overturned state statutes banning interracial marriage in the landmark case of Loving V. Virginia. This case ended the enforcement of anti-miscegenation laws that were in effect in 30 states throughout the Union. At the time, well over 60% of voters approved of such laws, and often cited the potential social ramifications if such unions were allowed to proceed. Many groups feared that children would be taught that these unions were acceptable. Others objected on religious grounds, citing biblical passages to reinforce what they saw as a clear cut case. Representative Roddenbery (GA) had this to say when he proposed a US law banning interracial marriage:
"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. ... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy"
The original judge in the Loving V. Virginia case added this, when asked to reconsider his decision:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
In the case, the court stated that:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subersive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
-----
Fast forward to 2008, where California voters have approved, 52.5% to 47.5%, the amendment to our state Constitution that reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
This initiative came as a result of a decision by the CA State Supreme Court that determined that the ban on same-sex marriages violated the Equal Protection Clause in the CA Constitution. Proponents of the measure state that Proposition 8 "...Overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people."
Ladies and Gentlemen, our court systems are designed to do soley that: ignore the 'will' of the people and decide what is fair and right. They are designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the Majority. They are here to ensure equal protection before the law, and to enforce our state and federal Constitution.
How can proponents of Proposition 8 claim that this is not an attack on the gay lifestyle? Are anti-miscegenation laws not an attempt at segregation, and taking the rights of individuals in the minority? This measure was not about protecting marriage, that is something that YOU do every day with the choices you make, this measure was about eliminating the rights, in accordance with our State Constitution, of same-sex couples to marry.
I am greatly distressed by the lies told to pass this Proposition, even from people who object on religious grounds. Which is the greater sin? To lie to achieve your ends, or to allow others to make their own choices? There is little room between deception and lies, Satan is called the Great Deciever for a reason, and there was much deception from Proposition 8's supporters.
Where are gay couples forcing other people to redefine their marriages? Do the actions of others somehow affect the commitment that you have made to your spouse? Is your relationship, and the covenant you made with your husband or wife, any less because other couples cheat, lie, abuse, or otherwise mistreat each other? Those are sins as well, and far more damaging to children and their outlook than what other couples may do in the privacy of their home. Why spend so much money on this, yet there is little support for legislation outlawing adultery, cohabitation before marriage, drug use, spousal abuse, and the host of other problems that directly impact children in a far more harmful way. There is precious little evidence that being raised by a gay couple does anything to the chance of that child being homosexual. How, then, are we protecting our children by teaching intolerance? Is it now that we tolerate homosexuality, but they are only afforded the rights of second-class citizens?
Propostion 8 supporters stated: "While gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Hipocrisy absolutely seeps from this statement, as that is precisely what Proposition 8 does: it redefines marriage for everyone in the GLBT community. Who gave the majority the right to redefine what marriage is for the minority?
Proposition 8 supporters stated: "Your YES vote on Proposition 8 means that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of WHEN or where performed. But Prop. 8 will NOT take away any other rights or benefits of gay couples. (emphasis added)
This statement tacitly acknowledges the reality of the situation, that the Proposition removes RIGHTS from the GLBT community, but they are kind enough to stop there and not take away ANY OTHER rights. How gracious of them to pause on the slippery slope that they have started down, not to mention the fact that they are violating Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "No ... ex post facto Law shall be passed." Is that not clear enough?
I know that there are many people who disagree with me on this subject, but regardless of my feelings regarding this subject, I feel that the law, and the rights of the GLBT community are exceedingly clear, and that alone is enough for me to make my decision. I voted NO on Proposition 8, one of the minority who opposed the addition of discrimination and segregation back into our State Constitution. I fear the repercussions when we begin to divide our society such as we just have. What is the next step from here? Will Muslims and Christians no longer be able to marry? Will we return to racial segregation as well? How are we, as Californians, allowing this to pass? What happened to the belief in equality?
I hope I do not ever hear a Proposition 8 supporter say "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death right to say it." Voltaire understood equality, it is a pity that Californians have lost sight of that ideal.