Prop 8 Nonsense....

Decidely, I am a bit late on weighing the whole "Prop 8" phenomenon that was doing the rounds a while back. Voting "Yes" on Proposition 8 effectively means you define "marraige" as a union of one man and one woman. That, that is what the Bible preaches and is the cornerstone of all religions. Which of course means you don't value LGBT rights. Forget LGBT rights; you don't value HUMAN rights and the concept of "equality for all." Proponents of Prop 8 say that attacking the gay and lesbian community is just a tiny portion of what they hope to accomplish by "restoring the sanctity of marraige." That there are huge problems in society if marraige as an institution breaks done. I read somewhere that 8 out of 10 babies born to African American mothers are born out of wedlock and most of them do not get married.

Opponents of Prop 8 argue that marriage is an institution of love between any two people. Love is love. It isnt restricted by color or sex. If inter-racial marraiges are allowed (and rightly so), then discriminating against gays and lesbians is unconstitutional and immoral. Further more, you are infringing on the basic human rights of a person. People deserve to be treated the same regardless of what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. That if the religious wing is so concerned about the sanctity of marraige, they should start enforcing marraige among heterosexual people, rather than taking away the right to marry among homosexuals. Further more, there has to be a seperation of religion and state. Just because you are a Christian and believe something is "immoral" doesnt mean everyone in the country needs to believe so. I didnt vote on whether you can get married and have children, then why should you vote on those very issues that have nothing to do with your daily life?!

Among those protesting in California about the unfairness of Prop 8, i particularly liked the sign held up by a guy. It read "I didnt vote against your marraige." I am decidedly against Prop 8 - and that has nothing to do with my sexual orietation. The core issue for me is you are denying basic rights to a group of people simply based on their sexuality. First, California bestowed upon the homosexual community the legal right to marry. Then it takes it away? How would you like it if the Government knocked on your door and said your marraige is annuled? That your marriage is unnatural, immoral, and that you can be "cured by the grace of god"? How would you like it if you had two kids and one of them was gay. Would you wish him/her to have a life of a secondary citizen? Remember, majorities arent always correct. Laws prohibiting women from voting, interracial marraiges too were passed by a majority. In fact, majorities are often wrong. Thats why you have a government to uphold the rights of minorities, even if they are unpopular. The Government's job is not to act according to populous sentiment; but to take that sentiment into account AFTER ensuring the secular rights of ALL its citizens are not impinged upon. I may believe in God, doesnt mean i have to convert the whole freaking country according to my beliefs?! You find gays and lesbians an abberation, then learn to practice love and tolerence. Isn't that the cornerstone of Christianity? Or at least keep your friggin' mouth shut and mind your own business.

Actually this is the thing that makes me the maddest in this whole issue - Religion is a choice. I dont need to belong to any religion. Doesnt make me a bad person or an unpatriotic citizen. There is just no excuse for religious zealots to insert themselves in politics under the guise of "morality." Morality has little to nothing to do with organized religion.

Which reminds me of another enfante terrible whos gotten a bad rap (perhaps, deservedly so) - Marquis de Sade. Perverse as his writings may be, here me out. Sade was a devout atheist. He maintained that morality was nothing without religion. That religion created morality as a way to police its populace. Ditto for the laws of a land. Laws borrow their idea of whats wrong and whats right from religion. Why else would sodomy be a crime for so long? Who is it hurting if it is between consenting adults? As for the "Nature didnt intend this. There can be no procreation through sodomy" argument: Why does there need to be procreation, as Sade would have said, hence he almost exclusively dealt with sodomy as his preferred form of sexual expression. As for the sex-for-procreation argument, i'd like to add that by that definition, 99% of heterosexual marraiges should be annulled. Yes, India is a populous nation, but dont tell me you arent a)using some form of protection to prevent pregnancy or b)never indulge in those juicy side-trimmings known as oral and anal sex. Back to Sade though. He argued that if he isnt religious, then the laws of the land (derived from that very religion that he denouced) were also irelavant. If you dont like the roots, you wouldnt worship the fruit either, rite? So by that logic, he isnt committing any crime.

So this proposition passed in favor of those who say marriage is a union between a man and a woman. But just by a thread-bare majority of 4% - Bear in mind, 3% is the margin of error on such polls. So, it may be a defeat, but its a moral victory - "We've" come so far in such a short time.

More later.