Think Different: California Proposition 8
It's just common sense
A new set of PSAs about California Proposition 8 are about to be released (one of them features Margaret Cho, another Molly Ringwald) and I’ve been able to preview one of them right here on Pink is the new Blog. As you may already know, Prop 8 seeks to outlaw same-sex marriage in the State of California, which I am vehemently opposed to. Here is the PSA:
For me, it’s a simple matter of allowing rights for all versus stripping rights from “certain people”. Before 1920 women were not allowed to vote in this country … now all male and female citizens of the US are allowed the right to vote. Before 1957 African Americans were not allowed to attend public schools with Caucasian children … now barring any minority group from attending any public school is strictly outlawed. Very soon all citizens of the US will be able to marry … and it all begins with opposing any propositions that seek to strip rights away from anyone. For me, it’s a very simple matter — I’m hoping that all Californians vote NO on Proposition 8.
[Source]
thank god, because the actual campaign ads for no on 8 SUCK! you’d think a bunch of gays would be able to create a better ad. these will hopefully save the day.
Lin, that is sad that Obama would not have it as part of his platform if that is what he believes. I think that is just as awful as McCain being against gay marriage, if not more awful because Obama is using the issue for political gain. In my eyes, that makes him just another typical politician. I know each candidate is guilty of that, but if you are a “new” kind of politician, why can’t you simply state what you believe, instead of pandering to those who might not agree?
As I mentioned previously, I am voting YES on prop 8 because I believe that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. That is my belief. It may be different than yours, and I am fine with that and I respect your decision. I do not understand why people assume others are intolerant or close-minded just because they think differently than you. To me, tolerance is LOVE. Just because I think marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, does not mean that I am a bigot or that I hate my gay uncles and friends. People who do not love someone for who they are are the intolerant ones. That being said, I don’t think a heterosexual relationship is the same as a homosexual relationship. That is why I think it should be called something different. This is a pro-marriage issue for me…not an anti-gay issue. Thanks for letting me voice my opinion :) Vote YES on 8
Legalizing the Constitution? What a concept! We need to start honoring our constitution. The Federal Government has no business in States business. Period! The same way the FED raids Medical Marijuana Clinics and STEAL doctor/ patient information!!!!! **WHAT IS THIS MESS??*** Messing/ Tampering with The United States Constitution is T-R-O-U-B-L-E. We NEED TO FIGHT THIS!!!!
Google Ron Paul, very interesting stance as a Republican on Gay Marriage and States’ rights! Anti-War…. you decide! He made me realize that it is NOT up to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO RULE OVER THE STATES!!!
What a lively debate. If only the actual TV produced one were as such.
Penny, a homosexual relationship is exactly the same as a heterosexual one. Afterall, Love is involved. Are you telling me that it’s a different kind of love simply because the 2 involved may or may not have the same equipment?
Penny I think what people don’t realize is that if Prop 8 passes it will be used to attack domestic partner rights in California. There is the possibility that all same-sex couple rights will be eliminated due to this passing. Marriage in a legal since is not a religious concept anyway that is why it is called civil union. To be so caught up on a word that you would deny people’s rights is ridiculous and morally incomprehensible.
Excuse me I meant to say a civil marriage.
What about Obama NOT supporting gay marriage? Is he a bigot too? What do you have to say about him not supporting this? Put down the obama-cool aid for a second and let’s here what you all have to say.
I would have to say, John, that not all people can believe the same things. We can’t have an African American candidate without people trying to link him to terrorists or without questioning his citizenship. One thing at a time … Massachusetts, California and Connecticut have legalized same-sex marriage. New York has decided to honor same-sex marriages that occur legally in other States within the boundaries of their State. If same-sex marriage is ever going to break nationwide it is NOT going to come from the Republican party — never. A one-day President Obama (should he be elected) may not campaign or say he “believes” in same-sex marriage but I believe he will not stand in its way as time goes by. Anyone who ever wants to see same-sex marriage occur should know that that right will never come from the Republican party. No Kool-Aid, just facts.
But Obama does not believe marriage should be defined as between the same sex. Does that make him a bigot or not? Or is he just avoiding the issue? I can see him not saying he supports it to not piss off anyone who believes in traditional marriage; but if he really would let any legislature pass that does allow same-sex marriage, when he says now that he is not for it, does that make him a liar?
I wish I could help others to see that wanting to preserve marriage does not have to be a prejudiced or bigoted view. I don’t know if I can explain it, but I would like to try.
I don’t think anyone should be legally discriminated against because of their sexual preference. But are homosexuals being prevented from marrying as it is legally defined? No. They are choosing partners who do not fit the definition.
I find the claim that sexual urges cannot be controlled very interesting. Perhaps the urge itself cannot be controlled, but does that mean it should not be controlled by behavior? Do you think people should act out on every sexual urge?
Is it really bigoted to think that some sexual urges should not be acted on? I do not think that this is an issue of legislating religion, but it is an issue of legislating morality. The definition of marriage should not be changed just because a certain group of people do not want to be intimate with the opposite-sex. You could make the same claim that other current legal limits on marriage are discriminatory and should be thrown out. Why are some limits okay, and others aren’t?
Perhaps some people would prefer to see all the limits on marriage thrown out–should it not be limited to 2 people? Should there be no age restrictions? Should close relatives be forbidden to marry?
If you oppose changing the above limits are you bigoted?
I do not hate anyone from the gay community and I am voting “yes” on prop 8. It’s obvious to me from various articles and statements I have read that there are those who don’t think it is possible to put these two assertions in the same sentence. But I am writing this to let people know that there are many, many people who are voting “yes” on 8 and are not doing so out of hate. I am not motivated by hate. The reason I go out and encourage people to vote “yes” and have a “yes” sign in my yard is motivated by my love for God and His laws and commandments. As a Christian, I believe with all my soul that God Himself started this institution called marriage at the beginning of time and established it as a union between a man and a woman; that’s it! No addendums, no “but maybe later”s, a union between a man and a woman. I am working to keep God’s institution the way He established it; nothing more and nothing less. http://www.whatisprop8.com