A man and his message to the Mormon Church at Thursday's Prop 8 protest | Photo by Malingering
No, not Peter Griffin, although I have to give it up to him for spouting the phrase that has run through my head more and more in recent months, “If gays want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, I say we should let them.” Actually, I was referring to me, this guy right here. This married, white, heterosexual father of one (so far) who, like 4.9 million other Californians, went to bed Tuesday feeling hopeful and woke up feeling sick. There have been a few protests since our residents decided to official label a large portion of the population as second class citizens, and the fight should continue, preferably at warp speed, Mr. Sulu. The main argument that the 5.4 million supporters of Prop 8 that I have read and heard first hand has been, “Well, why do they need to be married?”
That begs the other question of why do heterosexuals get married? Think back, those of you with rings on the left hand. Think back to the engagement, the ceremony, the first Thanksgiving, the first everything as husband and wife. Special moments, huh? Everyone should experience those times, right? Oh, wait, not everyone. Here’s the deal. Being married is not just a piece of paper that binds you and provides tax relief. It’s the ultimate tandem sky dive. You just hope the parachute eventually opens and everyone has a nice laugh. When you’re dating, or even in a very committed relationship, there is always an option to turn around and go back. When you’re married you have past that half way point that makes it more difficult to go back than it does to push on. Marriage forces us to grow up and face our problems with the guidance and support of another in order to make it work. When two people sign their individuals lives away in order to create one, and it is recognized by the state and society, it defines them for the rest of their lives. Is it really asking too much to give this opportunity to all citizens?
I know we have a very high divorce rate in this country, but I’ll bet you that would drop dramatically after years of same sex marriage included in that statistic. I’m not saying same sex couples wouldn’t get divorced, but maybe they should first have that option. I keep thinking of the future, being out in the garage working on the car in a cliché, PSA type moment, and my son approaches me to come out. It would kill me, but not the way it would have a generation ago. It would kill me because he would be living in a world that would not allow him to experience the joy that came to me with marrying his mother, struggling in LA as husband and wife, raising him, and growing old together as one, lovingly and legally. It hit me hard after viewing a piece a friend of mine put together recently. We grew up together here in Southern California, were friends and neighbors, were educated in the state’s universities, and have transitioned into adulthood. However, I’m married and he’s not allowed.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Many of you who protested in front of the Mormon Temple in Los Angeles this last week may not have realized this.
Mormons can only be married in the temple. The protest effectively shut down any marriage ceremonies scheduled for that day.
Click on the link above to read all about it.
I find this not only ironic, but oddly poetic.
How come no one seems to be asking the larger question: why does the state sanctify marriages anyways? What right, what jurisdiction, and to what end does the state have a say in the voluntary personal relationships of others? This problem would be solved instantly if the state just got out of the business of regulating voluntary personal relationships. Why does anyone's commitment to another require the approval of the state? Am I the only one who finds this patently absurd?
What's particularly funny, in regards to the picture you posted above, is that polygamy is also illegal. In the 1850's people found the Mormon's way of life offensive and immoral, and because for some reason people's voluntary personal relationships are regulated by government, the "tyranny of the masses" took away their rights a long time ago.
Let's get the government out of personal relationships, yes?
sign this and spread the word
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/downwithprop8/index.html
discrimination is gross
the gay community might want to avoid further comparing gay rights struggles to the civil rights movement.
Believe it or not, many blacks find that highly insulting.
If my candidate had just won the most historic presidential election in our nation's history, I'd be celebrating instead of being sore losers
Blacks Americans have endured centuries of inequality before reaching this moment. You might do well to remember that by expressing a bit more appreciation for how far you come rather than what you didn't get.
lahipster: Once again you come up with the most outlandish, outrageous statements.
You should have a comedy program.
FYI. I would think black americans would appreciate the similarities between what's happening now and what they endured...and in some cases still endure.
Proposition 8 is still Jim Crow, whether you want to admit it or not.
Arnold Schwartenegger says: "It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end, I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."
Damn dipster. Guess you better complain to the governor too.
The temple is *not* the only place that Mormons can be married, strictly speaking. Many Mormons are married in the individual churches (wards) and stake buildings, however if the couple wants to be "sealed" or married for eternity after this life, that needs to be done in the temple.
Yes, it's nice poetic justice that the protests shut down the temple and individual Mormon couples couldn't be married, but to celebrate that fact is to be ignorant or at least ignore the reality that not every Mormon voted Yes on 8, nor did they have to. Steve Young (a pretty damn prominent member of the LDS chuch) and his family had No on 8 signs out on his lawn (even though he officially didn't endorse either side) and his wife was extremely vocal in encouraging people to vote No on 8, even though she's an active church member.
Let's remember to distinguish the LDS church from its members. For 8 years we've had to remind our foreign friends that not all of us voted for Bush or agreed with US policies. This is no different.
Oh and lahipster, if you're going to comment on every time this subject comes up, at least have the creativity to not cut and past your postings. Some of us are getting freakin' bored.
damian_z: >Yes, it's nice poetic justice that the protests shut down the temple and individual Mormon couples couldn't be married, but to celebrate that fact is to be ignorant or at least ignore the reality that not every Mormon voted Yes on 8, nor did they have to.
I know that there will be some Mormons who will be affected by the protests that do not deserve to be entangled in this issue. But I think that religious organizations that delve into politics for religious reasons need to know all of the ramifications of doing so.
I'm relatively certain many who promoted "Yes on 8" thought they could claim victory and then rest comfortably on their laurels. This is clearly not the case. At the very least religious institutions that attempt to force belief into the legal code need to learn that "victories" can end up being bitter-sweet.
With any luck continued protests will convince this rather small vocal group to drop out of politics altogether.
It's very odd "targeting" an individual or group for exercising their First Amendment right and supporting a cause (in this case, Prop 8) they believe in.
If Prop 8 lost, would you expect Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals, Muslims, Conservative Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, conservatives, liberals and the other 52% of the California population who voted Yes on 8 to "target" individuals or groups that funded No on 8?
Saturday's demonstration around City Hall is part of living in a free society - targeting the manager of a restaurant for a measly $100 donation is just plain ugly.
"targeting the manager of a restaurant for a measly $100 donation is just plain ugly."
So a consumer OWES a business their money, even if that money may end up being used against them?
By BingosDingo:I'm relatively certain many who promoted "Yes on 8" thought they could claim victory and then rest comfortably on their laurels. This is clearly not the case. At the very least religious institutions that attempt to force belief into the legal code need to learn that "victories" can end up being bitter-sweet.
BITTER-SWEET? No, not hardly. The gay activist leaders are screaming at the unruly protesters, trying to get them to calm down. Why?
They are saying, "Let's not wake up the sleeping GIANT, THE CHURCH 87% STRONG.
What you guys are doing is the best thing that could happen. You don't have a clue. We meet in millions every Saturday or Sunday and have bible studies throughout the week. The church is the most organiszed institution on the planet.
When Evangelicals see Mormons, Jews, and Catholics donating millions and standing up, and visa versa, we have a collective call to action. You forget that the senate voted 85 to 14 for DOMA and congress voted 342 to 67.
You lost in your battle ground states of California and Florida. 30 states now,including California have their own DOMA, which is backed by the Federal DOMA.
I HAVE ONE QUESTION: WHAT RIGHT IN CALIFORNIA DO YOU AS A GAY SUPPORTER, THINK IS GAINED IF YES ON 8 HAD NOT PASSED. Neither same-sex civil unions nor same-sex marriage are recognized by the Federal Government.