Proposition 8
I know that many have been following the California election, most notably of all Proposition 8, concerning gay marriage. I know you will all have your own beliefs concerning this, but please, hear me out.
In the United States of America, Church and State are two separate things. Therefore, religious groups cannot constitutionally use the 'religious' argument against gay marriage; it is irrelevant. The religious groups cannot dictate what all of the people within the state are able to do. Not everyone follows the same faith, and there is not a State faith, nor will there ever be one. In addition, voting yes on Prop 8 would remove religious freedom. Those churches who do allow gay marriage would no longer be able to marry homosexuals legally, nor would the marriage be recognized by the state, due to a lack of a marriage license.
Secondly, it is discrimination in no uncertain terms. The 14th Federal Constitutional Amendment, which was used to remove racial segregation, gives equal protection under the law to everyone within a state's jurisdiction. Why should America, having stopped and nearly forgotten racial segregation, continue on with sexual orientation segregation? It is discrimination, and no rational argument can deny that.
Thirdly, gay marriage will not be taught in schools. As far as I know, the teaching of marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, is not a California education standard. Yes, children would hear about it in school, but where else do children regularly meet and exchange ideas with minimal adult supervision? That is to say, where else do the adults do not listen to what the children are saying, just watch them to ensure no harm comes to them, allowing children to easily and quickly spread ideas? In addition, parents can pull their children out of public school and either place them in a private school or home school them for any reason they so choose. Also, parents can take their child out of any school activity that violates their religious or moral beliefs.
On the Yes on Prop 8 website, www.protectmarriage.com, they state "Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else." (link Why Vote Yes?) One could just as easily substitute the word 'Everybody' 'Religion' or 'Heterosexuals' for the word 'Gay.' Just because one person believes that another person shouldn't kill doesn't stop the U.S. from having a military. Just because an atheist believes we shouldn't have churches doesn't stop other people who believe we should have churches from having them.
Another word about gay marriage being taught in schools.
No marriage whatsoever is taught in schools. The Yes on 8 website cited Education Code 51890, so I looked it up on google. The first result I got was from www.leginfo.ca.gov, obviously a California government website. Here's the full link if you want to check it for yourself.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=51001-52000&file=51890-51891
Here is the section of Education Code 51890, copied directly from the page.
(a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to ensure that:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects:
(A) The use of health care services and products.
(B) Mental and emotional health and development.
(C) Drug use and misuse, including the misuse of tobacco and alcohol.
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
(E) Oral health, vision, and hearing.
(F) Nutrition, which may include related topics such as obesity and diabetes.
(G) Exercise, rest, and posture.
(H) Diseases and disorders, including sickle cell anemia and related genetic diseases and disorders.
(I) Environmental health and safety.
(J) Community health.
What I find interesting is the phrase 'legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage.' Nowhere does it say marriage is taught in school, it says responsibilities, or the fact that one must do ones duty or, in the words of Princeton's online dictionary, ' form of trustworthiness; the trait of being answerable to someone for something or being responsible for one's conduct,' so therefore the duties or marriage; financial aspects, or the fact that money is involved, in the form of taxes, joint mortgages, loans, etc., childrens' college...the list goes on with such examples, and, lastly; legal aspects. The legal aspects simply mean how the state recognizes one is married and that you are responsible for the other, basically, one must have a marriage license to marry, and one must pay taxes, etc., with one's spouse. Nowhere does it state that marriage, or the definition thereof, is taught in schools. In fact, it is just a side note to family and personal health in Education Code 51890. Only the ignorant could have pulled that definition out. In fact, on the Yes on 8 site itself it states 'If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children ... gay marriage...' Even they say it, if only subtly and in a veiled manner. Gay marriage, and marriage itself, is not taught in schools. Also, what's wrong with teaching young children about it? Is it alright if older children and teenagers are taught about it?
On the No on Prop 8 site, www.noonprop8.com, the home page says it all. Prop 8 is unfair and wrong.
I urge you all to go research this all yourself, and form your own opinions. Simply remember to take everything with a grain of salt: mudslinging is and will be used effectively, much to my chagrin. I just don't understand why people would stoop to such dishonorable lows.
I am anxious for tomorrow; I can't wait to see how this election year will turn out. I urge you all to vote, or if unable to, tell everyone you know who can vote to go do so! Every voice counts in what will govern your life, be you Californian, American, or simply a citizen of the world.
Cheers, everyone. Now go out and vote!
posted by EmeraldMist @ Monday, November 03, 2008
5 Comments:
Jewel! How's it going, eh? (Ishkabible, here.)
You are absolutely right and I am very disappointed, albeit, in retrospect, not entirely suprised by Prop 8 passing. To think I was actually proud of my state not 5 months ago... I've heard all of the bullshit arguments in favor of Prop 8 and then some. One person actually cited STDs as a reason to not allow gay marriage. First, since when did STDs only happen to homosexuals? Second... does this person really think not allowing gays and lesbians to marry is going to stop them from having sex? How naive...
Other than that, however, I am very excited about Obama winning and am very pleased with the failure of Prop 4 to pass.
I'm going down to San Diego for the second half of the Thanksgiving weekend to hang out with Andy/Liz/Lorenzo. 'Twould be awesome if you were to somehow swing on by, if you're available. If not, I hope to see you at the SoCal COSMOS reunion in early January (details to be determined... I'll keep ya posted.)
Peace!
Oh, and I'm suddenly obligated to show you a piece on Religion I did about a month or so ago. Here it is, for what it's worth.
-----------------------------------
Viewer discretion is advised.
I’ll just say right now that my diatribe will be on a touchy subject that people may or may not be offended by: religion. This obviously wouldn’t fit very well among my light-hearted diatribes. So, if you are offended by people speaking ill of religion, then the next few pages probably won’t be for you and you might not want to read them. I’m not saying that religious people shouldn’t read this note, but it is certainly not for the faint of heart. I’m not implying that such individuals cannot take shots against their religion, but I’ve come across some overly sensitive people to this subject in my day and don’t want this to turn into a major procession. I just don’t want people complaining to me that I’m being insensitive or whatever… such comments will be forcefully ignored. I do, however, welcome, nay, encourage counter-arguments, provided they are mature and free from any form of condemnation, preaching, and/or ad hominem attacks. That being said, I’ll move forward…
There are certain things that many people have decided, usually driven by society, to be in the “no touch zone” of discussion. Gradually, this list has been diminishing. The air of respect inherent with the concept of the “noble opposition” in politics, especially in the last few decades, has greatly diminished. Sex and sexual orientation have also garnered more societal acceptance as discussion points in the recent years, although such topics still carry definite vestiges of the taboo by which it had been stamped over the past few thousand years. The main cause of this taboo especially, among countless others, is something that many people still consider to be, by and large, in this somewhat proverbial “no touch zone”. This cause, of course, is none other than religion. For whatever reason, a good portion of society holds religion to a very high esteem, putting it on a pedestal, out of reach for critical discussion. I am very vehemently of the mindset that religion is certainly not something to be inherently, unquestioningly respected as most believe it to be, but rather something that is to be subject to the same attitude and scrutiny that political matters are.
Now more than ever, based on the behavior of a certain conservative vice-presidential candidate, I can fairly safely say that a primary reason that this country is in such deep yogurt is religion. This is not only due to the Islamic extremists who where behind the attacks of 9/11, but, possibly even more so, due to the Christian fundamentalists and extremists within our own borders. By and large, these fundamentalists have mindsets that are overwhelmingly defining the views of the extreme conservative end of America’s political spectrum. This is rather unfair to the traditional conservatives, who believe in small government, whose party has been hijacked by the “religious right.” Anyhow, being liberal myself, you can see where I might begin to have problems with this. However, it isn’t the simple fact that they are inherently conservative that bothers me, but that they become such largely due to what they deem to be “holy” and what is, by and large, endless walls of misinformation fed to them and their inclination to completely ignore any contradictory evidence to what they find even remotely threatening to their belief system. They seek to deny a woman’s right to choose solely on a two-thousand year old book. They seek to deny the rights of homosexuals because this same book tells them it’s an “abomination” citing the oft-toted Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”) Of course, I’m fairly sure (or at least hope that) that fundamentalists don’t seek to put homosexuals to death, but they still use it as grounds to deny homosexuals their rights.
Now, the thing that really sickens me about this is that a good portion of the government is actually accepting this garbage! The vast majority of states have continuously denied homosexuals the right to marry, vehemently of the belief that marriage is defined as being between “one man and one woman”. Nowhere has this been specified, and nowhere should it be. Of course, there are always the benefits that would come with government not interfering in marriage in the first place… But this is going to be primarily about religion, not government. Christian fundamentalists also have such a warped concept of marriage, it’s actually rather sickening. To say that marriage is a bond, not necessarily of love, but “under Jesus” is astoundingly closed-minded. To actively condemn those who choose not to have children when married is similarly astounding. Even worse is their active condemnation of those who have children outside of marriage. Sure, for many young, financially ungrounded couples, this can pose a natural problem for raising their children, but to actively condemn a couple that chooses not to get married yet decides to have children is stepping into matters of which they have no business stepping into. I don’t care what you think your particular deity says on the matter. It’s none of your business what others choose to do with their significant other.
This discussion on children takes us quite nicely to my next thing Christian fundamentalists tend to get uppity about: a woman’s right to choose. A woman should have the right, as guaranteed in Roe v. Wade, to have a safe, legal abortion if the need so arises. You are not “pro-life.” You are anti-choice or pro-fetus at best. If you had bothered to read anything about matters you have so condemned, you would realize two things about this that you have thus far ignored:
1. Roe v. Wade does not guarantee abortions upon somebody’s very whim. Abortions cannot occur when the offspring is viable outside the womb in the third trimester unless it poses a serious threat to the health of the mother. Even in the second trimester, there is a rather intricate set of laws concerning when a woman can and cannot permissibly have an abortion.
2. Life does not begin at conception. When a sperm first meets an egg, over the first week or so, a blastula, not a baby, is the most complex thing present. A blastula, in lay terms, can be defined as a ball of cells. Life can only be accurately said to begin when the baby (not embryo, not fetus) is viable outside the womb, after about 5 months at a minimum. If we were to use the conception model, then it can be taken to ridiculous extremes. Would you consider a woman who has had more than one period to be a serial killer? Of course not. Besides, fetuses and embryos often don’t ever make it past that stage. Especially in the cases of incest or rape, a woman should have a right to choose what she wants done to her body, regardless of what you perceive to be righteousness.
Ahhh… Holy Wars… another example of how religion has resulted in calamity. Time after time, some conflict breaks out over religious differences that inevitably escalates into a full-scale war. The Crusades (yes, they’re the cliché example of religious violence, but they very aptly fit my point nonetheless) are the main big ones… nasty wars solely due to religious differences and intolerance. Many more people have been murdered “in the name of God” throughout history than one can even imagine... actually, it’s the number one cause for murder in history. One might argue that Stalin killed a bunch of people and that due to the fact that he was an atheist, he was obviously doing it in the name of atheism. Wrong. Stalin’s actions were certainly atrocious, but that’s just due to the regime he set up. His atrocities were not in the name of atheism… stepping back you can see the ridiculousness of this assertion.
More worrisome yet is the stranglehold religion has on scientific studies. Although this condition has much improved since the scientific doldrums that were the Middle Ages, religion still carries a firm grip on the progress of scientific research. It often seeks merely to stop such research, be it Galileo's astronomical work or stem cell research, in its tracks that it doesn’t deem to be “holy.” When it comes down to it, this is just anything even remotely threatening to contradict something in the Bible. I’m going to say this once, and I’ll make it forceful. The Bible is not meant to be taken literally. Pure and simple. It is merely a collection of literature of the time period. There is no prophecy, no truth, nothing but fictional, albeit oftentimes interesting, literature, much like Greek mythology.
It’s the Bible literalists who really drive me insane is what it really comes down to. I mean, when it comes down to it, I can really appreciate Catholicism more in that it doesn’t tend to take a literalist approach toward the Bible. It emphasized a salvation through good works, which, although unoriginal, is still a cool concept. Then of course, a couple of 16th century dudes came along and decided that this salvation could only be achieved sola fide, sola scriptura, sola gracia. Essentially, and I have been told this by many “fundies” as they have been mockingly named, a fundamentalist merely believes that one has to believe in this Jesus character as the only criterion to go to heaven. It really puzzles me to see people completely miss the inherent absolute wrongness in such an assertion. The concept that you can do any misdeed you want and, even if you are a serial rapist, by believing in Jesus, you are automatically saved is nauseating. I’m certainly not saying all Protestants believe such things, but it’s the fundamentalists who really irk me. It’s not literal.
Moving on… the concept of “sin” was essentially designed to keep people in check so they don’t go off and do stuff that harms others. However, this concept of sin, in the eyes of the people a few thousand years ago, was extended to people’s own choices that just didn’t affect them. Now… the really irksome thing here is the vehement condemnation of those who don’t share their beliefs. Apparently, because I don’t believe Jesus is my savior, I’m going to Hell. I’m aware that this is what you believe, but I don’t need to be reminded by fundamentalists ad nauseam. I’m probably guilty of less “sins” than the average fundamentalist… which is rather pathetic. Honestly, if your "God" is going to punish perfectly good people just because they didn't worship him, I have no interest in heaven.
The so-called religious “laws” are not aptly named at all. Laws, by their very design, are supposed to be fairly malleable and change progressively with the times. Such “laws” that have existed since as early as 2,500 years ago are not progressive. A good chunk of them have no application to today’s world whatsoever. Hence is why they don’t belong in our legislature. What you do on your own (so long as it isn’t murder or child abuse) is none of my business and I respect it. A similar respect should be accorded to those who don’t share your beliefs. Illegality only applies to secular laws as determined by legislatures… not arbitrary rules set forth by Bronze-age era leaders bent on people-control.
Circling back to my original theme of societal “no-touch zones,” I strongly exhort everybody to discuss such things and be open about your views toward religion. Just don’t shove it down people’s throats. No, I’m not being a hypocrite… The Rambler’s designed for free speech and I’m not forcing you to read this, now am I?
I suppose the bottom line here is an imploration for fundamentalists or strict adherents to the Bible in general to sit back and actually read the text itself before declaring utter devotion to it… there’s some really scary stuff in there. A loose interpretation based on good works is certainly favorable, which, in a manner, would be treating it like Roman “mythology”. Spirituality is legitimate. Our founding fathers, most of whom were Deists, had secularism as a great goal. It offends me deeply to see this nation, once the hotbed for free thought and rationalism, give way to demagoguery and fundamentalism.
Once again, if this offended anybody, I apologize. It was not meant to be an attack, but rather an expression of my own annoyances. I hope you appreciated and realized what I was actually attempting to do.
Also remember that according to the Bible, one may sell one's children into slavery, stone a woman to death for adultery, and strongly emphasizes women are below men.
Keep in mind that our Founding Fathers were, as mentioned, deists, which at the time was akin to atheism. They had to keep quiet about it or risk the entire country refusing to follow such 'godless' ideas.
I have also encountered in other people that the Bible was written to explain to a not-very advancede people how their world worked. It is alike to telling a three year old that a car works because you put the key in and turn it, which starts the engine and makes it go. As they child grew older and learned more, you would progress to explaining the link between the clutch and the engine, power steering, and the engine itself. Perhaps if the child learned so much about cars they would eventually make one themselves. Extend this analogy further, and you see that science really is in the best interests of religion - they will learn more and be better eqipped to understand their world, be it theologically or literally.
In addition, on the issue of accepting Jesus as you personal savior... What sort of God would condemn a child to Hell simply for being born on the wrong continent?
All in all, I'm just a big fan of separation of Church and State. There were some guys a couple hundred years ago that had some good ideas, like democracy, equality, limits on governmental powers... Maybe you've heard of them? We call them FOUNDING FATHERS nowadays.
Leviticus could very well be one of the most awful (sometimes unintentionally humorous, when not simply sickening) texts on the planet.
I actually look at is as a form of "People Control", because this can be applied to the New Testament as well. What better way is there to control a bunch of Bronze Age era people than lining them up under one sky dude?
The Founding Fathers... sounds familiar, but...
(Haha reminds me of that Palin quote when she replied to a question asking if she was offended by 'under God' being in the pledge.)
Her reply: "No, not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me."
First, as you said, the founding fathers were highly against the mixing of church and state.
Second, The Pledge was written in 1892.
Third, the phrase 'under God' was added in 1951.
Something's wrong, here...
...and why are these "words" for the "Word Verification" so humorous... wtf is a flatilco?
There's random word verification codes to guard against spam - there are less than tasteful spammers out there, and shameless ads basically caused by griefers.
My word verification this time is 'discorop,' as in regional classes offered for high school and above in disco.
Post a Comment
<< Home