The first thing a California voter might do in order to gain clarity on the issues is replace in her head the blandness of proposition numbers or letters with the true flavor of what these potential laws aim to do. For example, in our city an initiative to issue bonds for school repair and safety is Proposition S, or in my mind, "Slam dunk."
And I could also rhyme Proposition 8 with HATE.
I feel strongly about this proposition against gay marriage, if for no other reason because I can't understand why Anyone would feel strongly about Someone Else's marriage to another consenting adult, particularly when that Anyone does not even know the Someone Else getting married.
To me, this initiative represents way TOO MUCH initiative, as well as time and money spent attempting--actually going out of one's way--to block people's rights to express love and commitment. More people loving and committing can only make the world better, right?
I am utterly perplexed by any single person's desire to claim ownership of the institution of marriage. I subscribe to this institution, knowing that each individual's and couple's approach to marriage may be something different, and looks and feels different, too.
An individual voting YES on Proposition 8 is in effect exercising a perceived right to decide for another individual the extent to which he or she can exercise free will to love and commit to a partner. A kind of free will that doesn't trample on anyone else's liberties.
The conundrum created by propositions is that they can pass by a voting populace even if they are inherently UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In the gap between a proposition becoming law and that law being declared unconstitutional by the courts, good people potentially lose their rights. One would hope that the public wouldn't allow this to happen.
The notion that the right of homosexuals to marry somehow diminishes the institution of marriage or one's own matrimony is just pure malarkey.
I mean, I'm not going to invite just anyone over to have some with me, but I don't really care who enjoys chocolate as long as they don't eat mine without asking. I am not afraid that sharing a passion for chocolate with people who aren't exactly like me somehow reflects who I am.
Actually, it should. Because chocolate can be for everyone without hurting anyone.
I don't own the chocolate industry; I don't control chocolate. I don't desire to as long as I can get me some. I've got chocolate's back, but I don't think chocolate needs protection.
And I would not propose to give up chocolate for--nor hoard it nor ban it from--anyone.
Even supporters of Proposition 8.
My wish for all of us is: if we're going to put our money behind something--our energy and INITIATIVE, for Pete's sake--let it be something that helps, something that increases love and caring rather than diminishes it.
People I love want to officially commit to love the way I can. And people really want to stop them?
3 comments:
I'm with you...I think it's absolutely absurd that we're voting on this. Bleh!
It gets harder and harder for me to get up on a Sunday morning and attend a church that fervently supports this amendment. The fearmongering that goes on in support of this amendment is truly baffling. I hope and pray voters are thoughtful enough to research the issue independent of all the propaganda.
No on 8.
I had a priest once tell me that if I knew I didn't want kids then I shouldn't have bothered getting married. Right then and there he defined MY MARRIAGE! Very dangerous thinking... Could people define marriage as "between a man and woman who have children"?
Post a Comment