I may have mentioned before how much I enjoy Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. I may have also alluded to my opposition to Proposition 8, and my total disgust that it passed. Well, now I am happy to present to you, Jon Stewart chatting with guest Governor Mike Huckabee about Proposition 8.
How great is Jon Stewart? If you wish to take a moment to say a fond thank you to him, you may do so here.
Showing posts with label No on Prop 8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label No on Prop 8. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Justifying the No Vote
Since Tuesday, I've heard quite a few people defend their choice to vote in favor of Proposition 8 both in person and in the media, and a theme seems to be emerging. People that otherwise believe that minority groups should receive equal rights, seem to have a difficult time applying this concept to gays. They reason that people are born to a particular race, but that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. The color of one's skin is a genetic twist of fate that is thrust upon an unfortunate percentage of our population through no wrongdoing on their part, whilst gay people choose to swim against the tide of human conformity to be with their own sex. These same people often argue that homosexuality is unnatural. After all, why would God (or Mother Nature if you prefer) have made pregnancy and the continuation of the human species the outcome of the coupling of male and female if he intended us to mate with our own gender?
I'll confess that when I started college, I was one of those people that just didn't understand why anyone would want to be gay. After all, who would chose to be the subject of jokes and discrimination? I didn't know any gay people and thought of them as well, queer. I remember realizing with horror that I had worn jeans to school on "Gay Bluejeans Day" at UCSD. What if someone had mistaken ME for one of THEM! Growing up in ultraconservative La Jolla obviously didn't expose me to much diversity. My attitude began to change when a panel of gay and lesbian students spent an hour conducting a question and answer session as part of a psychology class in which I was enrolled. As we filed into the lecture hall, a series of questions was written on the blackboard.
I'll confess that when I started college, I was one of those people that just didn't understand why anyone would want to be gay. After all, who would chose to be the subject of jokes and discrimination? I didn't know any gay people and thought of them as well, queer. I remember realizing with horror that I had worn jeans to school on "Gay Bluejeans Day" at UCSD. What if someone had mistaken ME for one of THEM! Growing up in ultraconservative La Jolla obviously didn't expose me to much diversity. My attitude began to change when a panel of gay and lesbian students spent an hour conducting a question and answer session as part of a psychology class in which I was enrolled. As we filed into the lecture hall, a series of questions was written on the blackboard.
Why did you chose to be a heterosexual?
How old were you when you decided to be heterosexual?
Would sleeping with someone of your own sex maybe change your mind about being heterosexual?
Why do you like the opposite sex more than the same sex?
Flipping the question around was enough to at least allow me to consider that homosexuality wasn't a choice.
Studies have shown that if one identical twin is homosexual the other twin is more likely to be homosexual, but when one fraternal twin is gay the likelihood of the other twin being homosexual is the same as when two non-twin siblings are compared. This suggests that genetics rather than environment has some roll in determining sexual orientation. Exposure to prenatal hormones is also thought to influence sexual orientation. There is also some evidence that the youngest sibling in a family of multiple male children may be more likely to be homosexual. The point is, that homosexuality appears to be much less a conscious choice than it is the result of a complicated interaction between the environment and genetic predisposition.
If homosexuality is aberrant or dysfunctional, why does it persist? Why hasn't natural selection eliminated this trait and further why does it occur even in non-human animals? This article explains a couple of theories on how different forms of a gene could confer a reproductive advantage for the gay individual or a close relative, thus causing the gene to persist. What about gay animals? Do they exist outside of South Park (Super! Thanks for asking!)? In fact, according to this article, homosexuality has been documented in "over 450 different vertebrate species", including the male bighorn sheep. This sounds like a case of Brokeback Mutton to me.
So, if homosexuality is not truly a lifestyle choice, shouldn't civil rights legislation be extended to gays for the same reasons that it is extended to women and minority groups? Maybe the religious right would feel more at ease with legislation allowing gay marriage if they could begin to understand that homosexuality is really part of God's big plan for all of us. Along with Adam and Eve, he really did create Adam and Steve. Do you think they'll buy it?
Friday, November 07, 2008
If You're Still Pissed About Prop 8
Thanks to Mikki, who posted a comment in response to my last post, I have a link to another petition, in addition to the one Stephanie Geffeller posted, that you may sign to voice your opinion about Proposition 8 passing. Here is a link to the petition which seeks to strip the Mormon church of its tax exempt status due to excessive participation in "carrying on propaganda" and "attempting to influence legislation". I encourage you to read through this legislation, form your own opinions, and sign the petition (as I did) if you agree with their arguments.
There is one section of this petition that I disagree with vehemently. It reads as follows:
There is one section of this petition that I disagree with vehemently. It reads as follows:
"For the past six months, Mormons misled Californians about the effects of the Supreme Court ruling.
They told us we would lose the right to participate in our children's education. Lies.
They told us the California state public school curriculum would be modified to teach sex education to kindergartners. Lies.
They told us churches would lose the right to free speech. Lies."
Remember when I said "Take a minute to read the arguments from both sides. If you can't or won't take the time to get educated, please don't vote. Stay home and leave it to those of us who are willing to vote with our brains and our conscience, not just follow popular sentiment like a bunch of sheep." I wonder if some of you were taken aback that I would discourage people from going to the voting booth. Well, the outcome of the vote on Proposition 8, and the comments above are exactly why I made that statement.
If you watched TV, read the fliers that came in the mail, listened to the ads on the radio, or saw all the signs in people's front yards and blindly voted in favor of Prop 8 without investigating the full implications of a yes vote, then you are as much at fault as the people who propagated these "lies". So yes, please, go to the above URL, read the information they provide, and make an informed decision. Take the time to follow the links that they provide to back up the statements that they make.
A moment that truly struck me as I worked at a polling place near my house on Tuesday was a young man who walked up to the touch screen voting machine, with no cheat sheet, not voter guide, no nothing in his hand and completed his vote in the space of about 5 minutes. It took me well over an hour in front of my computer, pouring over all sorts of information, to make up my mind about all of the different candidates, ballot measures, and propositions that needed my vote. It is high time that the American public shakes themselves out of their apathetic state and takes the time to really get educated before they vote. I am so tired of people who disconnect their brains and simply vote the way their church, their co-worker, their spouse, or their political party suggests they should vote. This is your country. This is your vote. This is the founding principal of democracy. Please, take the requisite time to decide if the way you are voting really makes sense!
Whew. Done now. Thanks for listening.Sunday, November 02, 2008
Prop 8 Domino Theory
For those of you domino theorist who believe that the defeat of Proposition 8 will lead to people sauntering down the aisle, in connubial bliss with their dogs, here are a couple of other dominoes to consider.
One of the groups backing Proposition 8 is the Mormon church. They have raised in excess of $12 million in support of a ban on gay marriage. What will the Mormon church back next? Although they have officially renounced plural marriage, if we as voters allow the morals and values of a religious group to define the law in our state, couldn't this lead to a push at some later date to re-institute plural marriage? Picture your husband or wife coming home and telling you to make room in your closet for spouse number two. And consider this: your children WILL be reading books in school about a handsome prince who finds and marries TWO princesses.
And if we allow our laws to be dictated by one church, won't others step up to get out the vote in favor of their beliefs? Will we be forced to accept the teachings of Scientology also? Will the next Proposition on the ballot be one that outlaws any noise during labor and delivery because it may induce engrams? And if we follow Yes on 8 "logic" your children will be forced to learn about Dianetics and to take free stress tests in school, and you won't be able to do ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
One of the arguments that proponents of Proposition 8 make is that allowing gay marriage erodes the value of this union. But aren't there other things that undermine marriages? What will voters be asked to ban next? Will we outlaw going out drinking with your buddies after work, not picking your dirty socks up off of the floor, failing to perform your, erm... marital duties with sufficient frequency? Surely running up excessive credit card debt, extramarital affairs, and divorce should be stricken from the Things Allowed Withing the Bounds of Marriage column also.
I only half jest, because our founding fathers had a pretty good idea of what the consequences of non separation of church and state could lead to. Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government." and "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own..."
What Jefferson is suggesting is that to use religion as a moral yard stick to determine the laws of our state or nation, is to erode the freedoms and civil liberties this country holds dear. Please vote No on 8.
One of the groups backing Proposition 8 is the Mormon church. They have raised in excess of $12 million in support of a ban on gay marriage. What will the Mormon church back next? Although they have officially renounced plural marriage, if we as voters allow the morals and values of a religious group to define the law in our state, couldn't this lead to a push at some later date to re-institute plural marriage? Picture your husband or wife coming home and telling you to make room in your closet for spouse number two. And consider this: your children WILL be reading books in school about a handsome prince who finds and marries TWO princesses.
And if we allow our laws to be dictated by one church, won't others step up to get out the vote in favor of their beliefs? Will we be forced to accept the teachings of Scientology also? Will the next Proposition on the ballot be one that outlaws any noise during labor and delivery because it may induce engrams? And if we follow Yes on 8 "logic" your children will be forced to learn about Dianetics and to take free stress tests in school, and you won't be able to do ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
One of the arguments that proponents of Proposition 8 make is that allowing gay marriage erodes the value of this union. But aren't there other things that undermine marriages? What will voters be asked to ban next? Will we outlaw going out drinking with your buddies after work, not picking your dirty socks up off of the floor, failing to perform your, erm... marital duties with sufficient frequency? Surely running up excessive credit card debt, extramarital affairs, and divorce should be stricken from the Things Allowed Withing the Bounds of Marriage column also.
I only half jest, because our founding fathers had a pretty good idea of what the consequences of non separation of church and state could lead to. Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government." and "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own..."
What Jefferson is suggesting is that to use religion as a moral yard stick to determine the laws of our state or nation, is to erode the freedoms and civil liberties this country holds dear. Please vote No on 8.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Another Yes on 8 Flier Has Arrived
Did anyone else in California get that glossy flier paid for by Protect Marriage.com that is covered in falling dominoes? Presumably the message that they are trying to convey is that if Prop 8 is defeated, allowing gays to marry is just one more tumbling domino in a long line that will drive California into a downward spiral of debauchery and corruption. Interestingly, this flier provides footnotes for each of their claims, so having nothing else to do (hello, no job here!!) I figured I'd use my trusty friend the internet to do a little investigating.
Claim number 1: California law requires 96% of schools to teach children as young as kindergarten about marriage. This was footnoted with a reference to California's Education Code Section 51933. Here is what it actually says about marriage:
"School districts may (emphasis mine) provide comprehensive sexual health education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any kindergarten to grade 12..."
"A school district that elects (again, emphasis mine) to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all of the following criteria:"
I won't list all of the criteria, save those that actually pertain to the above claim. It is true that the Education Code provides for teaching about marriage:
"Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."
Nowhere in the code does it state that schools are "required" to teach about marriage. The flier also claims that courts ruled that parents had no right to withdraw their children from classes that taught gay marriage. There is no footnote referencing that court ruling. From personal experience, I know that when my kids were in both elementary school and middle school, I was warned well in advance that "sexual health" classes were being taught, and that I was given the option to not have my child participate. This was an option I did NOT exercise.
Claim number 2: Gay marriage is already being taught in California. It is true that a public school took a first grade class to see their teacher's lesbian wedding at San Francisco City Hall. An article about this appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on October 11, 2008. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom officiated over the ceremony, and got reamed out on the air for it yesterday by local talk show host Ronn Owens. I say, good for you Ronn. This was a stupid move on the part of the school and San Francisco's mayor that only served to substantiate the claims of Prop 8 proponents. Stupidity not withstanding, the fact remains that these children did not, and could not have been taken on this field trip without the written consent of their parents. The right to withhold that consent will not be taken away if Prop 8 is defeated.
Claim number 3. In Massachusetts, court papers were filed by proponents of No on 8 to mandate the instruction of gay marriage in schools. Here is the real story of what went down in Massachusetts. A couple of teachers (one kindergarten and one second grade) read to or provided their students books to read that taught tolerance of gay lifestyles. The parents argued that these actions violated their and their children's right to "free exercise of religion or due process". They asked that they be given prior notice that such materials would be presented so that they could choose to remove their children from this teaching. The courts ruled that sufficient notice HAD been given to the parents, that the burden of proof that their free exercise of religion had not been violated, and that there was no evidence of indoctrination of children because they were not forced to read the materials or punished if they were not read. This court ruling had nothing to do with a mandate on the teaching of gay marriage in schools.
In a perfect world, parents would always be able to teach their children about sexuality in their own time and in their own way. The fact is that whether Prop 8 passes or not, same sex couples are already raising kids together. My children currently go to school with the kids of gay marriages. Judging by the number of Yes on 8 signs in my neighborhood, there is some indoctrination on the subject of gay unions happening at home already. I would rather have my children taught tolerance of gay unions (whether Prop 8 passes or not) by their teachers, than have the children of religious fundamentalists teach them their own views on the playground. Vote no on Prop 8.
Claim number 1: California law requires 96% of schools to teach children as young as kindergarten about marriage. This was footnoted with a reference to California's Education Code Section 51933. Here is what it actually says about marriage:
"School districts may (emphasis mine) provide comprehensive sexual health education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any kindergarten to grade 12..."
"A school district that elects (again, emphasis mine) to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all of the following criteria:"
I won't list all of the criteria, save those that actually pertain to the above claim. It is true that the Education Code provides for teaching about marriage:
"Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."
Nowhere in the code does it state that schools are "required" to teach about marriage. The flier also claims that courts ruled that parents had no right to withdraw their children from classes that taught gay marriage. There is no footnote referencing that court ruling. From personal experience, I know that when my kids were in both elementary school and middle school, I was warned well in advance that "sexual health" classes were being taught, and that I was given the option to not have my child participate. This was an option I did NOT exercise.
Claim number 2: Gay marriage is already being taught in California. It is true that a public school took a first grade class to see their teacher's lesbian wedding at San Francisco City Hall. An article about this appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on October 11, 2008. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom officiated over the ceremony, and got reamed out on the air for it yesterday by local talk show host Ronn Owens. I say, good for you Ronn. This was a stupid move on the part of the school and San Francisco's mayor that only served to substantiate the claims of Prop 8 proponents. Stupidity not withstanding, the fact remains that these children did not, and could not have been taken on this field trip without the written consent of their parents. The right to withhold that consent will not be taken away if Prop 8 is defeated.
Claim number 3. In Massachusetts, court papers were filed by proponents of No on 8 to mandate the instruction of gay marriage in schools. Here is the real story of what went down in Massachusetts. A couple of teachers (one kindergarten and one second grade) read to or provided their students books to read that taught tolerance of gay lifestyles. The parents argued that these actions violated their and their children's right to "free exercise of religion or due process". They asked that they be given prior notice that such materials would be presented so that they could choose to remove their children from this teaching. The courts ruled that sufficient notice HAD been given to the parents, that the burden of proof that their free exercise of religion had not been violated, and that there was no evidence of indoctrination of children because they were not forced to read the materials or punished if they were not read. This court ruling had nothing to do with a mandate on the teaching of gay marriage in schools.
In a perfect world, parents would always be able to teach their children about sexuality in their own time and in their own way. The fact is that whether Prop 8 passes or not, same sex couples are already raising kids together. My children currently go to school with the kids of gay marriages. Judging by the number of Yes on 8 signs in my neighborhood, there is some indoctrination on the subject of gay unions happening at home already. I would rather have my children taught tolerance of gay unions (whether Prop 8 passes or not) by their teachers, than have the children of religious fundamentalists teach them their own views on the playground. Vote no on Prop 8.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Is Political Sign Vandalism the Answer?
There has been a great deal of cross talk in the press and non-mainstream media about supporters of the McCain campaign being badly behaved. I think it's safe to say that, accurate or not, there have been fewer reports about the antics of Democratic supporters. Perhaps this is because we liberals have taken a more covert approach to voicing our opinions. No appearing on camera calling the other guy a terrorist, socialist or similar political epithet. Our style is more along the lines of lawn sign vandalism or out right theft.
Here in the quiet, unassuming little town of San Jose a rash of incidents have been reported by proponents of Proposition 8. It began with the simple theft of lawn signs, but then escalated. The Mercury News reported that one couple whose sign was repeatedly stolen, placed a large Yes on 8 banner on their garage. In response, an SUV with the words "bigots live here" lettered on the back window and an arrow indicating the proper residence was parked for several days in front of their home. Another family not only had their sign stolen, but their car was spray painted as well.
Now a southern California man is fighting back. When his McCain/Palin banner was repeatedly stolen from his front yard he rigged the sign up with an electrical charge, courtesy of a pet fence, then trained a video camera on the sign. He didn't have to wait long before a nine-year-old boy, Obama/Biden sign (presumably to replace the offending banner) clutched in his sweaty paw, got the shock of his life. Not long after, the boy's mother showed up, demanding to know why her son had been electrocuted.
Why do I relate these stories here on my rabidly Democratic-leaning little blog? Because they nicely illustrate that the GOP has not cornered the market on stupid responses to disagreeing with another's point of view. Remember that "disagree without being disagreeable" thing? Next time you see a Yes on 8 or McCain/Palin sign in somebody's front yard or on the bumper of their car, take a deep breath and ask yourself if this type of sign or sticker has ever influenced your vote on an issue that really resonates with you. Yeah maybe you've ticked the box for some City Council member whose name you recognize from your neighbor's front lawn, but would one of those signs really change your mind on a big issue like abortion, gay marriage, or your presidential candidate? Instead of stealing their sign, or spray painting their house or car, why not leave the sign alone, and leave a flaming bag of dog poop on their front step instead?
Here in the quiet, unassuming little town of San Jose a rash of incidents have been reported by proponents of Proposition 8. It began with the simple theft of lawn signs, but then escalated. The Mercury News reported that one couple whose sign was repeatedly stolen, placed a large Yes on 8 banner on their garage. In response, an SUV with the words "bigots live here" lettered on the back window and an arrow indicating the proper residence was parked for several days in front of their home. Another family not only had their sign stolen, but their car was spray painted as well.
Now a southern California man is fighting back. When his McCain/Palin banner was repeatedly stolen from his front yard he rigged the sign up with an electrical charge, courtesy of a pet fence, then trained a video camera on the sign. He didn't have to wait long before a nine-year-old boy, Obama/Biden sign (presumably to replace the offending banner) clutched in his sweaty paw, got the shock of his life. Not long after, the boy's mother showed up, demanding to know why her son had been electrocuted.
Why do I relate these stories here on my rabidly Democratic-leaning little blog? Because they nicely illustrate that the GOP has not cornered the market on stupid responses to disagreeing with another's point of view. Remember that "disagree without being disagreeable" thing? Next time you see a Yes on 8 or McCain/Palin sign in somebody's front yard or on the bumper of their car, take a deep breath and ask yourself if this type of sign or sticker has ever influenced your vote on an issue that really resonates with you. Yeah maybe you've ticked the box for some City Council member whose name you recognize from your neighbor's front lawn, but would one of those signs really change your mind on a big issue like abortion, gay marriage, or your presidential candidate? Instead of stealing their sign, or spray painting their house or car, why not leave the sign alone, and leave a flaming bag of dog poop on their front step instead?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Yes on Prop 8 Mice Have Been Here!
The Yes on Prop 8 people came in the night this week! They came quietly, and without ringing the doorbell or knocking, sneaked away, leaving an orange flier filled with bold underlined warnings. The warnings had to be there of course, because apparently the conservative viewpoint can't be sold without a heaping serving of fear. According to this flier, we've all been robbed of our constitutional rights by those low-down dirty scoundrels known as the "liberal activists and judges". So this made me curious. What does California's constitution say about marriage? It says that "no contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect." Nowhere does it specify the gender of the individuals that may be married.
So who are these folks that introduced Proposition 22 to the ballot and that are in favor of Proposition 8? My new friend, the bright orange flier tells me that the "California Family Council participated with the ProtectMarriage.com coalition" to place Proposition 22 on the ballot. The mission of the California Family Council is, according to their website "to protect and foster Judeo-Christian principles in California’s laws, for the benefit of its families". So in effect, what the California Family Council is asking us to do by voting for Proposition 8, is to invalidate gay marriage because it does not conform to Judeo-Christian principals. Now who's trying to rob you of your constitutional rights? Please vote no on Proposition 8.
So who are these folks that introduced Proposition 22 to the ballot and that are in favor of Proposition 8? My new friend, the bright orange flier tells me that the "California Family Council participated with the ProtectMarriage.com coalition" to place Proposition 22 on the ballot. The mission of the California Family Council is, according to their website "to protect and foster Judeo-Christian principles in California’s laws, for the benefit of its families". So in effect, what the California Family Council is asking us to do by voting for Proposition 8, is to invalidate gay marriage because it does not conform to Judeo-Christian principals. Now who's trying to rob you of your constitutional rights? Please vote no on Proposition 8.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Stumble Me
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments