Prop 8: Bigotry Wins in California


Voters have approved prop 8, writing discrimination into the California state constitution.

Their jubilation comes at the expense of people they denied the right to marriage by successfully hiding behind the veil of religious freedom and appealing to people’s worst instincts.

The thing to remember is that their victory will be short lived.  There will be another proposition to overturn prop 8 as surely as there is a will to victory emboldened by Obama’s historic win and call to service.

Younger generations by far favor equality, not bigotry.  If not in 2 years then in 4.  If not in 4 years then in 6.  To those of good heart in California take heart: This is a battle we will win!


9 Responses

  1. It is apparent that the homosexual movement has effectively blurred the differences between ethnicity and sexual choice. The bigotry towards those who have a traditional World view is alive & well. The cry is for “tolerance” except for those who have a conservative voice. Is everyone entitled to an opinion or not? You can not have it both ways.

    The laws intended to prevent minority races from discrimination, which are genetically innate, are now incorrectly being pursued by the “Gay” movement.
    To imply that those who choose to participate in “unnatural sexual relations” would be entitled to the same rights at minorities, who had no input to their ethnicity, is relativistic and opportunistic to the 10th degree. With this reasoning polygamy and multiple party marriage relationships should also be “protected” and allowed to marry.

    Be careful those of you on the the losing side of Prop 8 that you don’t display your “bigotry” in the pursuit of preventing bigotry.

  2. One of the more interesting, or perhaps I should say disturbing aspects of this story was the report that the Utah based Mormon church poured $25 million into an ad campaign in California to get Prop 8 passed.

    This was definitely one of the most saddening pieces of news to come out of the elections on Tuesday. For me, on a more personal note, what this debate always boils down to is my Aunts who have lived together for the past 30 years. They have loved each other through good times and bad, bought property together, attempted to adopt a child together, and recently in the state of Washington finally been allowed to enter into a civil union. Visiting them this past summer I was deeply moved when my Aunt’s wife, after describing some of the struggles and the prejudice they have been forced to deal with over the years, said that in the end she just had to know that if my Aunt should pass away first that she would be allowed to identify the body. It seemed like such a simple and obvious thing… that the person who had loved you your entire adult life be allowed to be that person to claim you in death. And yet in many places, and sadly California seems to now be one of them, I, having only met my aunt half a dozen times over the years would have more rights due to the blood relationship. It’s a sad state of affairs, and my heart goes out all those people in California who have been and will be effected by Prop 8.

  3. OK… Californian’s want to define marriage as M/F.

    That makes them bigots.

    Sorry… that fails.

    It’s Adam and Eve… NOT Adam and Steve.

  4. I agree, the victory will be short lived! Thankfully the younger generations are much more open and tolerant.

  5. I didn’t know that a) Adam and Eve where married (I must have missed the ceremony somewhere between the rib bone and all that begetting) oh and b) States define marriage, not the Bible, otherwise people who where not Christian could not get married. I mean if you don’t believe in A/E your marriage is useless, right?

  6. Dan – you are correct, this battle will be won. Just as women had to fight for equal rights. Just as people of color had to fight for equal rights. Can you imagine how archaic those who argued against these things would sound today? That is what all of you Yes voters DO sound like and will be proven to be… bigots.

    Eric – you may have an opinion. You may live as you choose. You may NOT require that I live according to your OPINION.

    Kate – it saddens me to think that much money, money that could have helped so many, was wasted on a discriminatory campaign. My aunt is also in a very long-term relationship, owning property with her partner, etc. It is inexcusable they don’t enjoy equal rights.

    Kelev – YES denying equal rights to homosexuals makes you and anyone else voting yes a bigot. You are entitled to FREEDOM of religion. So is everyone else. Please never marry someone of your same sex if you believe it’s wrong. Just keep your religion out of law. It doesn’t belong there.

    Jim & Ralfast – didn’t want to leave you out, I’m with you 100%. This is wrong and will be overturned.


  7. […] Prop 8: Bigotry Wins in California […]

  8. Although I don’t personally have a problem with same sex relationships, it is the codification of specific additional rights pertaining to this action that bothers me.

    If it is bigotry that defines those people that do not wish to acknowledge a same sex marriage, where should it end? What about multiple partners? How about a boy and his dog?

    By granting specific and special status to a single group of persons, this act goes the furthest in propigating bigotry. Where is the outcry for a young non-married couple? Shouldn’t some else pay for them as well?

    Perhaps we are moving in the wrong direction. Let’s cut all partnership benefits. That way, there is no discrimination against those people that have chosen not to get get married, and everyone caries their own weight.

  9. Kevin,

    That’s an incredibly poor argument to make. Neither a minor nor an animal can make legally binding decisions. No one is suggesting that, nor is there the slightest indication that would be the result of equality winning out over hate.

    There is nothing “special” about being able to marry. Straight people are allowed to do so as well. As for “specific”, prop8 specifically singles out homosexuals as second class citizens. It would be just to remove that unfair targeting.

    Where is the outcry for a young non-married couple? Shouldn’t some else pay for them as well?

    What are you talking about? Do you think the state will suddenly be forced to pay for weddings?

    I think to what degree benefits ought to be made universal would be a very fruitful discussion to have. On the whole I think leveling such benefits (such as cutting tax incentives for marriage, and expanding hospital visitation rights), would be a good thing.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: