The irony of Prop 8...
Marriage is dying. Marriage has been dying for a very long time. Ironically, the very thing being advertised as saving "traditional marriage" would seem to stand the best chance of destroying it. Prop 8 might be the forest fire that cleans out the decay, creates opportunity for new growth, and helps promote good health in the environment.
According to the propaganda, the people who support Prop 8 are trying to save "traditional marriage". The problem is that "traditional marriage" is dying because of the heterosexuals, not the homosexuals. Since the homosexuals were never able to get married in the first place, they never got divorces or pre-nups. Divorces are messy, they've become far too common and easy, and every last divorce is a blow to "traditional marriage". Every time a marriage splits up, all marriages mean less and less, and all marriages are harmed. Every pre-nup is also a blow to marriage because each pre-nup is a statement that marriages not sufficiently well-defined legally. Many heterosexuals (over 50% of ones who got married, if statistics are to be believed) have been slowly but surely demeaning and destroying "traditional marriage" for a very long time.
Frankly, full legalization of homosexual marriage scares me a lot. (If that makes me homophobic, so be it, but I'm equally "heterophobic" too.) Legalization of homosexual marriage means that there will be that many more people who are too invested in the idea of marriage to let it die. That's that many fewer people who will think to replace marriage with a set of legal and financial contracts and tax status declarations instead. In order to fix the system, "marriage" needs to go away.
Because of divorces, because of single parents, because marriage has already died so much, I believe (for example) that daughters need to be able to "marry" their widowed mother. Scenario: daughter gets married and has a child. Initially, it's a two-income household. They hire a housekeeper and put the child in daycare. The couple runs into personal problems and gets divorced. Ex-husband loses job and/or goes deadbeat, so he can't send money. Now, daughter doesn't have enough to keep paying daycare and housekeeper, and she barely has enough to pay the bills, so she can't take care of such things herself. Daughter moves back in with her widowed mom, partly to keep each other company, and partly to pool resources. Daughter goes to work, while her mom keeps the house and raises the child. Given the arrangement, why shouldn't that widowed mom be given the health care benefits and tax deductions equal to that of a non-working spouse? If the daughter never has time or money to get a huge package of legal documents before dying in a tragic accident, why shouldn't the mom get the financial protection, rights to the daughter's estate, and guardianship of the child that a spouse would get? Concerning the impact to social stability, isn't the widowed mom serving the same financial, legal, and guardian role as a spouse? I strongly believe that the daughter should be able to designate her mom (or sister or cousin or roommate, etc.) as the financial/legal/guardian equivalent of a "spouse" (minus implications about love, sex, and religion). Marriage is merely a relatively cheap, quick, and easy (and potentially dangerously deceptive) declaration of trust (or something) that would otherwise require a rather large package of expensive legal documents. Why can't a piece of paper, a relatively cheap processing fee, and a few hours in front of a judge be enough to also declare the mom as the guardian of the child, the successor to the daughter's estate, a financial relationship, and a co-decision-maker of household under the eyes of the legal system?
While I cannot vote yes on Prop 8 because I'm just too opposed to what it says and what it means on a conceptual level, part of me somewhat hopes that it'll pass. Allowing homosexual marriage means that there's that much more support for marriage in general, and without the big, glaring inequality there, people may be less likely to question all marriage in general. That might be enough to save traditional marriage, at least for a very long time.
I think traditional marriage needs to go away, and I think the backlash from passing Prop 8 might be the best way to do it. If Prop 8 passes, the injustice would convince people to find better and more creative ways of undermining "traditional marriage" than just letting everybody in on it. The Prop 8 supporters can define marriage all they want, but if we only take what is legally and financially necessary and call it something else, everybody can still have equal rights. Then, we can remove all rights that "marriage" may currently have in the the legal system, and replace it with something more useful. So, best of luck to the "Yes on Prop 8" side.
According to the propaganda, the people who support Prop 8 are trying to save "traditional marriage". The problem is that "traditional marriage" is dying because of the heterosexuals, not the homosexuals. Since the homosexuals were never able to get married in the first place, they never got divorces or pre-nups. Divorces are messy, they've become far too common and easy, and every last divorce is a blow to "traditional marriage". Every time a marriage splits up, all marriages mean less and less, and all marriages are harmed. Every pre-nup is also a blow to marriage because each pre-nup is a statement that marriages not sufficiently well-defined legally. Many heterosexuals (over 50% of ones who got married, if statistics are to be believed) have been slowly but surely demeaning and destroying "traditional marriage" for a very long time.
Frankly, full legalization of homosexual marriage scares me a lot. (If that makes me homophobic, so be it, but I'm equally "heterophobic" too.) Legalization of homosexual marriage means that there will be that many more people who are too invested in the idea of marriage to let it die. That's that many fewer people who will think to replace marriage with a set of legal and financial contracts and tax status declarations instead. In order to fix the system, "marriage" needs to go away.
Because of divorces, because of single parents, because marriage has already died so much, I believe (for example) that daughters need to be able to "marry" their widowed mother. Scenario: daughter gets married and has a child. Initially, it's a two-income household. They hire a housekeeper and put the child in daycare. The couple runs into personal problems and gets divorced. Ex-husband loses job and/or goes deadbeat, so he can't send money. Now, daughter doesn't have enough to keep paying daycare and housekeeper, and she barely has enough to pay the bills, so she can't take care of such things herself. Daughter moves back in with her widowed mom, partly to keep each other company, and partly to pool resources. Daughter goes to work, while her mom keeps the house and raises the child. Given the arrangement, why shouldn't that widowed mom be given the health care benefits and tax deductions equal to that of a non-working spouse? If the daughter never has time or money to get a huge package of legal documents before dying in a tragic accident, why shouldn't the mom get the financial protection, rights to the daughter's estate, and guardianship of the child that a spouse would get? Concerning the impact to social stability, isn't the widowed mom serving the same financial, legal, and guardian role as a spouse? I strongly believe that the daughter should be able to designate her mom (or sister or cousin or roommate, etc.) as the financial/legal/guardian equivalent of a "spouse" (minus implications about love, sex, and religion). Marriage is merely a relatively cheap, quick, and easy (and potentially dangerously deceptive) declaration of trust (or something) that would otherwise require a rather large package of expensive legal documents. Why can't a piece of paper, a relatively cheap processing fee, and a few hours in front of a judge be enough to also declare the mom as the guardian of the child, the successor to the daughter's estate, a financial relationship, and a co-decision-maker of household under the eyes of the legal system?
While I cannot vote yes on Prop 8 because I'm just too opposed to what it says and what it means on a conceptual level, part of me somewhat hopes that it'll pass. Allowing homosexual marriage means that there's that much more support for marriage in general, and without the big, glaring inequality there, people may be less likely to question all marriage in general. That might be enough to save traditional marriage, at least for a very long time.
I think traditional marriage needs to go away, and I think the backlash from passing Prop 8 might be the best way to do it. If Prop 8 passes, the injustice would convince people to find better and more creative ways of undermining "traditional marriage" than just letting everybody in on it. The Prop 8 supporters can define marriage all they want, but if we only take what is legally and financially necessary and call it something else, everybody can still have equal rights. Then, we can remove all rights that "marriage" may currently have in the the legal system, and replace it with something more useful. So, best of luck to the "Yes on Prop 8" side.