Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Matt Asay
Is this you? Claim Profile »
8 months ago
in Why I Voted Against Proposition 8 on John's Blog
John, I'm a little disappointed by the post, but understand why you felt compelled to write it. Let me just say that reasonable minds can disagree on this. I find Proposition 8 neither hateful nor discriminatory, and your choice of words far too facile and loaded. I can think of a wide range of state-imposed prohibitions on behavior that impede some people's desired courses of actions, and in so doing it's being neither discriminatory nor hateful. It's simply doing what it views is good for its citizens.
It may be that the people will vote on this and decide that millennia-old strictures are wrong. If so, more power to the people. But just because some think those strictures are appropriate does not make them (or the state behind them) "hateful and discriminatory." I can think of very good other words to describe the feelings and motives supporting Proposition 8, even for those, like I, who have very dear and very close friends who are homosexual.
It may be that the people will vote on this and decide that millennia-old strictures are wrong. If so, more power to the people. But just because some think those strictures are appropriate does not make them (or the state behind them) "hateful and discriminatory." I can think of very good other words to describe the feelings and motives supporting Proposition 8, even for those, like I, who have very dear and very close friends who are homosexual.
2 replies
Al Billings
It is removing a right to marry that the supreme court of California has stated is part of the California state constitution. What part of invalidating the *existing* marriages of people and removing a right is not hateful?
This is a religiously motivated proposition but we live in a secular society. My values give no justification to stop anyone who wants to form a partnership from doing so. My values focus on the reduction of harm and suffering for all people (including my fellow citizens) and the promotion of compassion, truthfulness, and, frankly, life. Allowing people who wish to be married to simply be married and to have their relationship as protected as any other by law is in line with these things.
I have yet to hear a decent, non-religiously motivated, argument for why we should support this proposition.
This is a religiously motivated proposition but we live in a secular society. My values give no justification to stop anyone who wants to form a partnership from doing so. My values focus on the reduction of harm and suffering for all people (including my fellow citizens) and the promotion of compassion, truthfulness, and, frankly, life. Allowing people who wish to be married to simply be married and to have their relationship as protected as any other by law is in line with these things.
I have yet to hear a decent, non-religiously motivated, argument for why we should support this proposition.
careful in my language. What I should say is that I do find the law
discriminatory and, more important, counter-productive to a society
that needs people to commit to each other and care for each other more
than ever. I find some of the *campaigning* to be hateful and
fearmongering - and to be less than the careful discourse we should be
having in America.
I understand and respect that people will have legitimtely differing
opinions in this - and, yep, we will let the electorate speak. That's
why the title of my post is merely what I've done and why.
Anyway, you were right to make me be more specific here (and I can be
more specific still if you want to see the printed material sent to my
house that I object to), so hopefully this will help my post make more
sense.