I was going to write about my visit yesterday to Abingdon, VA; the little town that shaped my idea of what "home" really is. But that will have to come later...while checking my daily reading, I came across this little gem regarding the decision to let the push for gay marriage in 2010 slide.
I am beyond mortified and saddened. Then I remembered reading the post below (from the "Best of Craigslist Rants and Raves.) This poster said it better than I ever could, so I'll just let him express my outrage.
California's Gay Marriage Ban: Disgraceful
Originally Posted: Tue, 26 May 20:37 PDT
First let me say I am NOT a mormon. Not everyone in Utah is mormon, in fact the percentage of Mormon to non Mormon is gradually declining as more folks move in from places like California, Nevada, Arizona and the Snowbelt states. So, while the Mormon church does still have some degree of clout here, to boycott Utah thinking you are boycotting the Mormon church, is kind of like the reverse of the Christians telling their congregations that if they go to San Francisco on vacation they are supporting the gay lifestyle. (Everyone with a brain knows that not everybody in San Francisco is gay, in fact it's only about 20% if that.)
I am a California native born/raised/bred, from four generations of Californians born/raised/bred in California, retired to the warm, sunny climate of Southern Utah. I was against the first "defense of marriage" thing years ago when that idiot Republican Peter Knight was on his diatribe because I thought it was divisive and redundant.
I was no longer in the state when this last initiative came onto the ballot. But I would not have supported the measure (meaning I would have voted NO on 8), not because I am pro-gay per se', but out of logic...because I think "marriage" is a religious institution and I don't believe it is the government's role to be involved in either defining, or protecting the definition of any religious institution, under the separation of church and state clause. (In fact, if you want my personal opinion, while I'm not anti-gay at all, I think that the word "marriage" should imply what it has implied for thousands of years, the union between one man and one woman. But, since it is a religious institution, the power to define what constitutes "marriage" should be left strictly up to the religious community for them to debate and discuss. And if I disagree with one religion's views on "marriage", I'm always free to choose another religion. But to have the government tell me who I can and can't "marry" is CRIMINAL. Plain and simple. We have established Government to protect our basic human rights, not to be allowed to strip us of them, and we should demand a redress of grievances immediately! If everyone in the state voted to send all gays to the gas chamber would that make it legal? God forbid!!)
What it boils down to is this: Since "marriage" is a religious institution, then according to Article III of the Bill of Rights, the Government has no business in the "marriage" business...for anyone. The Civil Union should replace "marriage" as the Government recognized legally binding agreement between two people, regardless of gender, and it should be performed by Justices of the Peace (or other appointed Government Officials). We have already established that Government must treat all individuals equally under the law regardless of gender. Therefore, Government should grant the same binding Civil Union to any 2 people who want to apply for the Civil Union, regardless of gender. Once this Civil Union has been performed (a formality), the 2 people can of course go to any church, synagogue, mosque, etc. of their choice and get a "marriage"in whatever religious observance or tradition they see fit. It can't possibly diminish the significance or symbolism of it because in order to get "married" now, a couple needs to obtain a Govt issued license. Essentially, the Civil Union process would just replace the license application process. A side benefit of this would be an added revenue stream to municipalities for the Civil Union process. It's not a tax, it's a fee for services. It would likely require more personnel in many city offices (which the fees would cover), but there would be jobs created. It's not rocket-science.
But here is the crux of the irony in this whole California ballot thing (and just one more reason why I was so glad to leave California because it's just gotten beyond ridiculous....) But it shows how backward things are. California can't even pay its own bills anymore...but it's worried about trying to "defend" the definition of "marriage". How rich is that?
I have to wonder how many of those people who went to the polls to vote for this poorly-written measure to "defend marriage" are not even "married" themselves, but rather just shacked up together? (Before you tell me it's a 'common law marriage', you can stick it. It's not the same as that legally-binding marriage certificate...you know, that little piece of paper that the lawyers use to take away half your assets when you want to walk out on your spouse. That's why, when you're shacked up it's a lot easier to bail, even if you've been shacked up for 20 years and have kids and property together.) How many of those who voted for the measure even have a religous belief about anything? How many of them could even stay in a long-term relationship, much less a "marriage" without cheating on a partner/spouse (e.g.: committing adultery)? How many of those worried about "preserving the sanctity of marriage" have already been married and divorced once, twice or even three times...or even perhaps more...and re-married? Or here's one that I really would like to ask the religious community, how many of those religious right wing nutjobs calling themselves Christians who went on a diatribe about this measure, have been divorced and re-married, when Jesus specifically condemned this, (except in certain circumstances)? Answer me that. There is so much muck in their own back yards to clean up, they should stick with that instead of worrying about what others are doing.
How does it make you feel to know that your school systems are among the worst in the country, so bad that the majority of kids aren't getting the same quality education as their same-age peers in most other states...but at least now your homos can't get married. Thank God for that, though! Right? Show them who's boss!
The schools are in shambles, the roads need paving, there is no money to pay the police, firefighters and teachers and hundreds of other state jobs, and tens of thousands of kids have no medical care. But you have just made it that much harder for the queers who live next door to you to visit each other in the hospital if they ever get sick. What a worthwhile accomplishment! Give them the punishment they deserve! They're just queers, who cares?
Your kids are graduating high school and they can't read or write, and yet you just spent millions passing one of the most hate-based, discriminatory laws since the pre-civil rights era. How does it make you feel now that you've gotten your way, all of you self-righteous Christians and Mormons and Jews and Muslims and Atheists and who knows whoever or whatever else is reading this (I hope the whole world)...who solicited funds to get this measure passed? Here's a novel question...WHY did you people donate time and money to pass this measure when you could have just as easily given the money and time and energy for a worthwhile cause like doing something about the collapsing school system? Or lobbying your state assembly to change an immigration policy that is collapsing the state budget? Or one of the LITANY of more truly important issues facing your state? Are those things not important to you?
Apparently, fighting the cause of homophobia is more important than any of those issues. Do you think homosexuality is some kind of contagious disease? Is it the next global pandemic? Is it going to rub off on you or your kids? Does it spread through the air? Is it in the water? Are homo germs going to blow east and "infect" the rest of us in the free world if you don't take it upon yourselves to stop them? Please tell me, because I would really like to know how you think. Because frankly I don't understand how anyone's choice of a mate (which is entirely someone else's personal matter) can possibly have an effect on you so much that you would go to such lengths as to try and deny others the right to a peaceful and loving co-existence.
What doesn't seem to add up here is that homosexuality suddenly doesn't seem so taboo when all you straight guys shut the door to your den (behind your wives back) and go onto your favorite dial-a-porn site and watch the lesbians licking each other for the camera while you pleasure yourself with a bottle of lube. But, hey, we won't talk about that. It's OK for beautiful girls with big boobs and luscious lips to do each other for your porn addiction, but just don't ever let two "faggots" get married and/or move into your neighborhood. That's not the kind of homosexuality we want. But it's fine if you want to try and talk your wife or girlfriend into doing it with another woman (or two) while you watch, that's somehow "normal"...but the thought of two "faggots" who love each other getting married and moving in next to you is "just unnatural". (BTW, In case you hadn't noticed, you are what's called a pathetic loser.)
I'm totally puzzled here, California. Not because I expect you to make decisions based on religion, but simply because California has always been the leader in civil rights, equality and justice for all, and most importantly a "live and let live" ethic. California is not perfect, but at least you had a couple of things going for you in the human rights category. However, I am disappointed. You have let the country and the world down. You need to go back to the drawing-board and re-think this one because you made the wrong decision...at the polls, and in the courts.
Location: I'm in Utah
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests