Oct 3, 2008

So the election season is once again upon us. Every year, there seems to be at least one issue that doesn’t really seem like it makes sense. This year it’s Prop 102. I really don’t get the purpose behind it. Its exact wording it as follows:

Amends the state Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. State law already contains that definition.

I don’t see where this actually makes sense. This is an utter waste of time and resources that this is even being brought up for a vote. This is already set in law; which in itself is stupid. The only reason that this is an issue is because the high and mighty homophobes can’t handle a same sex marriage. It’s really no one’s business what a person chooses to do in their personal life. I don’t care if your straight, gay or somewhere else, it’s not my business how you enjoy your life. And it shouldn’t be the state’s either.

This is basically a form of discrimination. There’s no other reason to put this up for vote except for the fact that some people just don’t like same sex activities. In my opinion, that’s not for the government to decide. What people do in their lives is their business.

In my mind there is no logical argument in favor of this. They say that it protects the traditional idea of marriage but what does that matter. For ages, homosexuals have been discriminated against and suppressed. Now that they are finally beginning to make strides, there are those who can’t accept that and will do whatever they can to squash them back down. I just don’t get it.

What do you think? I would love to hear from supporters of this proposition.

9 Comments

Jared Copeland October 4, 2008 at 6:23 am

Some people believe that traditional marriage is the key to a successful culture, society, and nation. Those same people see traditional marriage being attacked by others, who want to broaden the definition of marriage to include perverse and bizarre unions. Now, on its face, this amendment to Arizona’s constitution would neither outlaw or legalize anything. It would merely call a spade a spade, and not call a perverse and bizarre union “marriage”.

Many people who will vote “yes” on 102 believe that if we promote traditional marriage as much as possible, it will make our state better, because of their beliefs about traditional marriage. Now, there are certainly many matters that our government should not be involved in. However, the supporters of 102 understand that it is the role of government to promote and protect a healthy society, and so they will vote for this amendment.
Justin October 4, 2008 at 8:50 am

Perverse and bizarre unions huh? What makes same sex unions perverse and bizarre? Just because it’s not something that we ourselves might want to be part of, we need to be tolerant of other’s beliefs and lifestyles.
Sarah Copeland October 4, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Your right, but being tolerant doesn’t mean I have to approve or accept it or keep my mouth shut because I don’t agree.
Robert October 5, 2008 at 12:24 pm

“Some people believe that traditional marriage is the key to a successful culture, society, and nation. Those same people see traditional marriage being attacked by others, who want to broaden the definition of marriage to include perverse and bizarre unions.”

Allowing gays to marry is not the same as disallowing straight people to marry. Traditional marriage would not be marginalized one iota by allowing gays to marry. It would only be broadened to allow gays to marry. Just like we broadened marriage to allow for interracial marriages during the civil rights movement.

“Now, on its face, this amendment to Arizona’s constitution would neither outlaw or legalize anything. It would merely call a spade a spade, and not call a perverse and bizarre union “marriage”.”

Do you think the state should dictate who churches allow to marry or should that be up to the church? This constitutional amendment gives government control over who churches allow to marry. This seems wrong to me. I think the church should make that decision.

“Many people who will vote “yes” on 102 believe that if we promote traditional marriage as much as possible, it will make our state better, because of their beliefs about traditional marriage. Now, there are certainly many matters that our government should not be involved in. However, the supporters of 102 understand that it is the role of government to promote and protect a healthy society, and so they will vote for this amendment.”

Are you suggesting that by having gay marriages illegal less people will be gay and there will be more straight marriages? I’m not sure how 102 “promote[s] and protect[s] a healthy society.”
Roger October 11, 2008 at 8:25 pm

It amazes me that in a 21st century free society that some people still believe it is OK to blatantly discriminate against an entire class of people who are consenting adults, have broken no laws and bring no harm to anyone.
By and large, the gay community is a community of men and women who live peacefully, pay taxes, obey the laws of the land and even give our lives defending our country. Yet there are those who say we have no right to marry the man or woman we love and no right to raise our own children. We are allowed to give our lives defending our country as long as we keep quiet and don’t tell anyone who we really are. It’s like we are supposed to be ashamed of who we are. And we have no right to the 1100 other state and federal benefits given automatically to married couples by law.
Some of these laws govern how inheritance, medical and life decision benefits to spouses and children of married couples. If a married man dies, his wife gets everything that was his. If something happens to my spouse of 14 years, his half of our house and other jointly owned property goes to his family, who have not spoken to him in years.
Roger October 11, 2008 at 8:25 pm

A friend of mine “Gary” and his other half “Bret” had been together for 21 years when it was discovered that Bret had a brain tumor. The doctors estimated 2 years to live – which was almost exactly right. Bret had brain surgery was not able to work, so for the next 2 years, Gary worked 2 jobs to pay the mortgage on the house that they owned. Actually, Bret owned the house since he had purchased it just before they first got “hitched”. Gary did everything for Bret during his illness. I remember him coming home after working all night and physically carrying Bret out to the car and drive him around so that Bret could get out of the house and see the world around him. Gary called Bret’s family often to let them know how Bret was doing, but Bret’s family never offered to help – not once. A few days before Bret died, and he was unable to see or talk, his family finally showed up, threw Gary out of the house saying that it was his fault that Bret was gay, and that Bret’s tumor was God’s way of saying their relationship was a sin. Because Gary’s name was not on the deed to the house, the family became the sole owner of the house and any other possession that didnt have Gary’s name on it. If Gary and Bret had been married, this would have rightfully gone to Gary. Instead Gary had almost nothing. After 21 years together, and after working so hard to pay the mortgage and other bills, Bret’s family took it all. After loving Bret and caring for him for 21 years, when Bret died the family didnt even call Gary. Gary wasn’t even allowed to tell him good bye.
Roger October 11, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Also, gay people do have children. We raise our own children or adopt children. The problem is that 2 men or 2 women cannot adopt a child together and be legal parents of that child. Only one can adopt and have legal guardianship under the law. If the non-guardian parent goes into the hospital and is dying, neither the spouse nor the child have any rights to make healthcare decisions, and neither the spouse nor the child have a right to visit the dying parent/spouse during “family only” time just before death. And when he dies, neither his spouse nor his child has any legal inheritance. Even if there is a Will, the “legal” family can contest it. The spouse and child have no legal rights of any kind.
Jared says that our unions are “perverse and bizarre”. It truly is sad to hear someone say something so careless and cruel – and again I can’t believe that anyone still believes this in the 21st century. How does it in any way hurt Jared or Sarah Copeland that 2 people they don’t know and have never met are in love and want to get married? How can it possibly be any of their business? How can they be so cruel to people they have never met? Allowing gay people to marry in no way impacts heterosexual people in any way.
Sarah says “being tolerant doesn’t mean I have to approve or accept it or keep my mouth shut because I don’t agree”. No one is asking her to approve of gay marriage. She only has to agree that it is no more her business who I marry than it is for me to tell her who she can marry. Tolerant means “accepting difference”, not “approving”.
Roger October 11, 2008 at 8:31 pm

The good news is that gay marriage will someday be legal in Arizona – just as it is in MA and CA. History teaches us that in a free society, good people win out over those who hate and judge others, even though sometimes it takes time. Even if this proposition passes, and the AZ constitution is amended, amendments can be and have been repealed. It’s just one more hurdle we have to jump. But we will never give up and we will eventually jump all the hurdles these misunderstanding people throw our way.
Monica November 23, 2008 at 7:02 pm

What I get a kick out of that those who support traditional marriage always seem to skip history. If I recall right marriage was quite literally a contract by which a man OWNED a woman. We where property, B#@*^#*es. Much like cattle and not worth half as much. So if we wanna get retro with it all women need to do as they’re told because property doesn’t have a right. I find it amusing how easily people can bring up tradition but want to leave out the less flavorful parts of this old school Jingle. You know, the part of tradition that men and women have fought against for years. As a rule I find that good things always have a huge backlash. In the beginning there were people who did not want to separate from England. There were people who did not want women to work, vote, or have custody of children. A lot of things have passed that a nice chunk of the population did not initially agree with. This whole gay marriage thing is no different.