http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=cf9cd254-f184-482c-bded-45d9a5af32f1
This article highlights the methods of the anti-gay marriage movement in California. Last May, the California Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The decision was a four-to-three decision and is regarded as a major victory for the gay civil rights movement. California became the one of only two states in the country to allow same-sex marriage, the other being the great state of Massachusetts. However, efforts were quickly mounted to reverse the decision. This November, Proposition 8 on the California ballot is a proposed constitutional amendment that will eliminate the right to marry for same-sex couples.
I have been following the events in California for a while, because I care strongly about the issue and it frustrates me how much bigotry there is in America directed towards homosexuals. I have been pleased to see that this issue has not been cast in the national spotlight during the presidential election. I was afraid that McCain campaign would exploit people’s homophobia in the same way that the Bush campaign did in both 2000 and 2004. But the fact that they have not used this issue for political gain indicates to me either that the tide of public opinion is changing so that open homophobia no longer tolerated in presidential candidates (much like open racism), or that possible McCain himself has different stances on the issue than some of his Republican counterparts (namely Governor Palin). He has opposed a federal ban on same-sex marriage in the past, claiming that it is a state’s issue. He may have moral qualms with exploiting people’s hatred. I am not sure.
For the record, neither candidate supports gay marriage. Obama’s position is that the government should only be able to provide civil unions to gay or straight couples, and marriage is left to the faiths. McCain believes it is an issue for the states to decide. Palin, however, has deviated from her running mate and declared her direct opposition to benefits for same-sex couples. I myself had a hard time believing her statements during the debates about “tolerating” homosexuals. She comes off as a bigot to me.
Regardless, the vote on Proposition 8 in California is one that I will follow closely on Election Day. I do not see how the government can define love. Also, it is ironic that conservatives want the government to stay out of their lives but by all means let them restrict the rights of homosexuals.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Links of Interest
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(43)
-
▼
October
(14)
- Pretty funny negative Obama ad
- Gay Marriage
- Youth in the Election
- A Choice of Historical Proportions
- One picture
- Jon Stewart is on (cross)fire
- Two Takes on Media Objectivity and the Presidentia...
- Palin Ready for the White House?
- Palin's $150,000 wardrobe
- Negative Campaigning
- Final Presidential Debate
- Will the media affect the 2008 election?
- McCain Too Old?
- Campaign Ad
-
▼
October
(14)
Posts
8 comments:
I agree that it is a shame to see homophobia still alive in America. I as well am glad that this hasn't been a highly pressed issue in the election because I think it would be a shame to see one candidate elected because of their moral stances. I think, personally, that gay couples should have the right to marry because they are being denied certain rights and tax breaks because of a characteristic that they were born with (new studies show that homosexuality is hardwired into the brain at birth). It's the same a racism or sexism, both which are widely considered amoral.
I too, find it ironic that conservatives that preach for "small government" are now calling for a federal law prohibiting gay marriage. It seems to me that this is not the first time this traditional conservative value has been thrown aside when it is not convenient for political reasons. These same supporters of "small government" prefer the existence of smaller, citizen run organizations over a large federal government controlling their lives. However, when a community organizer (Barack Obama) runs for president as a democrat, his experience suddenly loses its value and is deemed irrelevant to his bid for the presidency.
I also agree with Jake’s assessment of Palin’s “tolerance” of homosexuals. While none of her public statements denounce gay rights, her support for gays is seemingly non-existent. In my opinion, Obama’s stance that the government should provide civil unions to gay or straight couples seems like a reasonable solution that could satisfy both sides of this divisive issue.
I agree with what everyone has said so far. The fact that gay marriage was not heavily brought up in the election does indicate that it is more widely accepted than before. Nevertheless, I also believe the constant change in discussion to the economic crisis in all three presidential debates has indicated that the issue on gay marriage was completely overshadowed by the bigger concern of this term: how to get out and stay out of a recession. If we were not in such a horrible mess of an economy, would the topic of gay marriage be more prevalent than it is now? My own opinions of gay marriage are varied, yet I also believe Palin’s statement of just tolerating homosexuals was very poor choice in words. She makes them sound like naughty children. They require watching but are, at the moment, not important enough to necessitate some form of discipline.
First off, I would just like to state that my view on marriage is that it is the union between a man and a woman. With that being said, I do not believe, however, that a homosexual couple should be denied the right to a civil union that would allow them those benefits of tax breaks and other perks of the relationship. So, in this regard I believe that I share the same view as David and Obama. As for the issues coverage in the election, I believe that it is nice not to have to lidten to the arguments because it seems that there i s almost no way to sway someone from there views. Instead of logically arguing about the point, debates quickly become nothing more than "How could you think that?" or "You're so insensitive". Ultimately I believe that there are some small steps being made on the point, but there is still a long way to go before homophobia will be viewed as racism.
Gay marriage should be just as an important topic as others but because the economy is seen as a priority, people have lost focus on some of the civil issues of this election. Unfortunately so many Americans are being ignored because of the "lack of importance" of gay rights. In almost no commercials from either candidate have we seen gay rights discussed. Instead the candidates choose to discuss education and taxes.
In addition to the lack of discussion about this topic, candidates are quick to dismiss any reasoning for being against gay rights. A president should be someone with open views for all Americans, but Sarah Palin does not exhibit these characteristics. Americans must wait to see how these rights will be decided over the next four years.
All Americans should be given equal opportunities despite sexual orientation. People should be able to get married wherever they live not just the two states that offer this civil liberty.
We should keep in mind our nation's tradition of separation of church and state. If the government wants to provide civil unions to a gay couple that is fine. However, the government should not interfere with how different faiths define marriage.
Let's say Congress goes as far as to create an amendment protecting the rights of gay marriage. Sounds good right? Suppose someone feels that their constitutional rights have been violated when a religion denies the legitimacy of their marriage? Is that religion now violating our constitution? If a religion does not want to recognize the legitimacy of a gay marriage, that right must be protected. Otherwise the government has the ability to dictate the practice of religion in this country. That might be dangerous. That is why I agree that we should limit gay marriage to civil unions with full rights.
Valid argument Elon, but maybe it is time for religions to reform socially as well. The reform should not be government enforced but I would like to see more openess and acceptance in religion.
One other point, Peter mentioned that studies have shown that homosexuality is hardwired into the brain at birth. What if it was not? What if homosexuality was a choice? Why would it be such a terrible thing if someone chose to be homosexual? The argument of "oh, they cannot help it because they are born that way" implies that homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals, but they cannot help it so we should tolerate them. I do believe that sexuality is not a choice, but if it was it would not affect how I view the issue. Why couldn't people be allowed to choose whatever sexuality they desired?
Since I am writing this comment after election day I am aware that Proposition 8 was passed. This bans same sex marriage in the state of California, making Massachusetts the only state in the nation an advocate of same sex marriage. I do not feel that conservatives are hypocritical by legislating such a proposition. Yes, they do traditionally believe in small government however they have always supported a strong enforcement of certain fundamental and moral values that are rooted in this country's foundation and origin. Same sex marriage threatens to break apart from such values and so Proposition 8 is simply a means of moral enforcement.
Post a Comment