Why I Voted Yes: A Summary Thusfar

Ahem, is anyone still around? Sorry all for the sudden disappearance. I took some time off from writing these last three weeks for a couple reasons: I didn't think it was wise to continue talking about it so immediately after the election, and it's been a little hectic lately, this past week being spent on an excursion to NYC to handle some bidness. But the protests are still very much alive and questions on a lot of people's minds, so as promised I'm continuing my posts. Momentum is significantly disrupted, so kudos if you're still paying attention.

First, I'd like to review a couple things. I'm not against the people's right to protest and fight for their beliefs. My aim was never to say that everyone should be for or against samesex marriage. But claims about me are being made that are untrue. This is not an attempt to ensure that people like me, but if you want to disagree with me at least know the intentions with which you're disagreeing. Allow me now to clarify what my goals are in writing these posts, and what they are not:

- I don't aim to convince people to be for or against the ban, or to make it seem as if they need to adhere to my beliefs. I maintain that my first post was defending why I voted yes, not why everyone should vote yes.
- I do aim to challenge those who are against it to know while there are valid reasons to be opposed, there are also reasons I find to be invalid. I don't think this can or should be one-sided. I think there are exaggerations on the Yes campaign too, which I don't agree with.

- I don't aim to tell people they shouldn't be fighting for gay rights.
- I do aim to tell people that they shouldn't be accusing people of hateful things for not supporting that fight. This isn't everyone; I do appreciate the ones being very kind and patient with me.

- I don't aim to tell people that they have to believe in any given standard of morality
- I do aim to tell people that one way or the other, you have a standard of morality, a conscience that makes you feel that something is right or wrong.

- I don't aim to impose the Bible on others, to force others into Christianity,
- I do aim to uphold my Constitutional right to have my own beliefs without persecution (though not without debate), and to have my views dictate my vote. My vote was not to put the Bible into schools; prop 8 is not about anything exclusively Christian.

- I don't aim to discourage others from challenging my thinking or disagreeing with my thoughts. I'm grateful to anyone who takes the time to respond to their convictions with integrity and temperance.
- I do aim to encourage other to consider my views and to read them fully and carefully before responding, lest they attach cultural associations and stereotypes that aren't directly expressed in my posts. If you question my statements, please keep them in context, and I'll work to do the same.

- I don't agree with all Prop 8 campaigning methods. I think I should have made it clear earlier that I don't associate with Prop 8 propaganda (because there is and there isn't propaganda on both sides). I don't aim to scare others into being on my side by strategically using children, schools, and exaggerations and in an insincere way. Please don't attach me to their methods, unless you see exaggerations here in these posts.
- I do aim to clarify the line between tolerance and acceptance, and that I don't have stand on the latter to stand on the former. I don't expect you to accept it, but hope you can tolerate it.

_________________________________________________________________
Now, regarding your comments:

If you still believe I was wrong for voting yes - for reasons of breaching an alleged line of tolerance or an alleged line that doesn't involve imposing your morality - please show me why I need to comply to your rules. The government allows me to believe what I believe, so you can't call it unconstitutional, you can't call it illegal. I was given the choice to say yes or no and I chose. I don't think I harassed, heckled, gloated, defaced, or violated. I didn't do anything more than what was offered to me as my right.

"You're imposing your religion."

This has been the response of many. I think it may have been misconstrued when I said my reasons were biblical that I somehow thought the prop itself was religious. If you still think the prop imposes religion, let me ask you this: did the actual ban on samesex marriage teach you anything new about the Bible? Did the ban coerce you into memorizing verses? Have you been forced into knowing anything about my God and Christ and Heaven beyond your will because of Prop 8? Did I force you into Christianity, or do you hold onto the same beliefs you held onto before the election?
What happened is that I made a choice based on what I believe. You made a choice based on what you believe. It happens that in the diversity of beliefs - because not everyone who voted Yes is Christian - that the majority of people personally chose to vote Yes. That's how a democracy works, right?
I don't understand why people assume that everyone who voted Yes not only was Christian, but had the agenda to force people into knowing Christianity. Having reason against samesex marriage is not exclusive to the Bible, and it doesn't force people to know the Bible. I may be imposing a view which is backed by the Bible, but that's not imposing the Bible itself.

"This doesn't affect you"

"what is this to you?" Olbermann asks. If you don't know this by now, then perhaps we can talk in person and get this clearer. Esther you mentioned how parents didn't have to sign the permission slip and thus their children didn't have to go to the lesbian wedding. While I find it doubtful that having the kid be the one that didn't go on the field trip is really sufficient to give parents that control you speak of, samesex marriage has nonetheless affected schools. What I was trying to point out is that people were saying that it wouldn't but it did.

If it's pushing morality to say samesex marriage is wrong, then it's pushing morality to say samesex marriage is right.


"Morals have changed in the past."

There are morals that have also stayed the same. Things change, and things stay the same. There's value in both. Because something has changed or stayed the same in history doesn't necessarily mean other things should follow suit. I'm not sure how using this defeats either of our arguments.

"Discrimination in any form is always wrong."

I suppose I shouldn't have picked those examples of discrimination, because now a lot people are assuming that I consider those examples as "exactly the same" as others. The point, however, I was making is that those are legislated forms of discrimination. Granted, we all agree upon those and don't agree on this one, but I was hoping to invalidate the use of the "discrimination card" as if all times discrimination is involved it's wrong. You agreed that the examples, while not tactfully chosen, are nonetheless examples of discrimination. The point is that there are many forms of discrimination that society deems necessary. Please know that the focus was the challenge the claim that has been made in the No on 8 campaign that "discrimination in any form is always wrong" and not anything else.

__________________________
ROGER BECKER

- I'm not for anti-racial marriage. I'm not sure what you meant by citing the website. It shows how those verses have been misinterpreted, and how the Bible doesn't actually talk about prohibiting interracial marriage. If you mean that verses aren't always what they seem, then you're right, they're not, and people often misinterpret. But unlike those verses (which use metaphor) the ones about homosexuality are clearly about homosexuality. This I'll get more into in later posts.

- As for the second verse you quoted, do you know why Isaac was told not to take a daughter from Canaan? I don't think you should quote it if you don't.
___________________________
HIDEKI FUKUSUMI
-"I was wondering why you say morality shouldn't be imposed on the state?"
I thought I made it clear that morality is imposed one way or the other, just a matter of whose morality gets legislated.

-Yes Christianity was called a cult before. It was also called a fad and was predicted to fade quickly. Can you recall who said that? I don't think people remember.

-In what you're citing, I'm not sure if your point is that we should give rights or we shouldn't take them away? There is a difference, because saying Prop 8 took away civil rights suggests that it is just for supreme court to go above our vote in the first place. I believe our vote is a civil right, don't you?

-As for your last comment, I don't think I claimed everyone in the LGBT community would do anything. Can you cite where I said or even connoted "everyone in the LGBT community" would do anything?
_____________________
GI PARK

-I agree that because something is tradition, it doesn't make it right. But also, because other traditions are wrong, that doesn't mean that all traditions are wrong. So the word tradition shouldn't validate one or the other. In other words, it doesn't guarantee anything. I don't think that's why people call traditional marriage traditional.

-I agree that cooties are a thing of the past; the cootie shot has long been in practice and has proven effective. I don't think that legalizing samesex marriage will turn everyone gay, and I also think it's dumb people are saying that.
____________________________________________________
KEITH OLBERMANN

"What is this to you?" he asks. This is my decision to not support something I don't agree with, plan and simple.

I asked if this prop is about the right to love or the right to express a preexisting love. Roger, you said it was the latter. I thought the same, and wanted to clarify this because the two are often blurred in campaign. Olbermann in my opinion wants to make this seem that prop 8 pushed people to be "alone in the world," which I think is an exaggeration. This prohibits marriage, and that is definitely a big deal, but it doesn't prohibit union. I'm not trying to minimize this issue, but take it for what it is.

As for Olbermann's comments loosely referring to the Bible, I don't think he really has read the context for the verse he cites. That I'll explain later.
__________________________________________

I feel like there's been a lot of misunderstanding in this series of responses. Perhaps we can schedule a one-on-one; I think that might help us understand each other better. Otherwise, stay tuned for the next post. I promise I won't wait as long this time.

Why I'm Voting Yes: The Follow-Up pt 2

Two days from now Californians are faced with the crucial decision, among many, to vote on Prop 8. When I posted that I was voting yes, many responded with questions and claims against my decision. I'm going to address those that pertain to the legal aspect of the discussion, including what place morality has in all of this.

Legal standpoint

"What about the separation of church and state?"

Let me preface this by saying that separation of church and state (whether Constitutional) is a very good thing and it should be in force. Now on to my argument: morality is legislated all the time. Stealing is immoral, and it is illegal. Spousal and child abuse are immoral, and they are illegal. Murder is immoral, and it is illegal. These things are illegal because it is for society's good- for our protection and well-being. I hope no one here would argue that we should legalize stealing because it is a "moral" or "religious' issue. Legislating morality is done all the time and it is a good thing.

"This is about discrimination."

Discrimination is not always a bad thing. Not every choice is equally valid. Some have been saying that Prop 8 is bad or wrong because it denies humans a right to choose who to marry, but that assumes that every choice is equally good. We would never argue this way in other areas. For example, denying someone the opportunity to beat their child or drive drunk is a very good thing. We would not be up in arms about people being denied the chance to beat their children. We would not be upset about a class of people (those who want to drive drunk) not being protected from so-called discrimination.

"Does morality have a place in legislation?"

Supposedly this is not supposed to be a matter of morality. Yet the campaign for those opposed to Proposition 8 - including the official No on 8 website - is that "it's wrong." Legislation can't be made on the grounds that something is simply "wrong" because that's a moral conviction. This is an attempt to infuse morality in legislation. Surely this fact isn't going to stop those people from believing it's wrong, because to them, "it's wrong." So does morality have a place in legislation? Yes, both sides are doing it.

"This is about human rights."

Rather than elaborating on the alleged unconstitutionality of the matter, and campaigning that way, it's pushed as a violation of Human Rights. This is smart, because what does the public feel more emotional attachment to? The law, or their moral beliefs? Whether or not the term is used in law, packaging the issue as "human rights" doesn't cause the public to scrutinize the Constitution and examine the legality of the issue. Instead, it tugs at their sense of right and wrong - their moral beliefs. Why would you feel so emotional and passionate about something if it didn't set off that intrinsic red alert in you that said "this is just wrong!"?

Humans rights? If that's so, why are we stopping at two partners...why not more than two? If it's a fight for the right to love, then nobody should be discriminated against - polygamists and other groups continue to get ignored, as if their right to love is somehow less important or irrelevant. How is it that it's a fight for equality when it's only about what the gay community wants?

That's because you don't want equality necessarily for all, but just for gays and lesbians. Why? Because morally you feel like they should. It's not your desire for the law to speak for itself, it's your desire to fight for your friends, for yourself, and for those emotional attachments, all the while bullying those who don't feel those moral convictions by threatening them with accusations of unlawfulness or intolerance. You don't feel for the polygamist community, or the manboy love community? Probably because none of them are your close friends. This is about only two-person marriage, not for every man's right to marry.

"This is about fundamental rights."

If fundamental rights is the main issue here, why is it that they don't seem to care that four judges went above our right to vote? Prop 22 was passed in 2000, defining marriage as between a man and woman. Last May four supreme court judges in San Francisco overturned that in California, even though California had fairly voted on the matter. I'm sure it's debated back and forth between law students whether or not this is a violation of the Constitution. My point is not to conclude one way or the other on that (far be it from me to know more than the discourse of law students on the Constitution). My point is why are we not talking about it? The judiciary interferes with our right to vote and we just sit here and take it? Why is it absent among "No on 8" campaigners, from their official website, and from your comments on my posts? My guess is that since if it doesn't interfere with your morality, it's not that big a deal.

"Whom does samesex marriage affect?"

Let's now address the rest of your sentence, Massiel, "especially people whose decisions and lifestyles in no way directly affect our own."

If it remains legalized, Gay marriage will normalize as a part of society. Marriage will now be defined as between any two consenting persons.

Okay, then what?
Schools will teach it. Amongst all the defense regarding education, there is surprisingly no response to the event in which a 1st grade class had an official field trip to go see their teacher's lesbian wedding ceremony. Schools are very much going to be affected.

But schools are not required to teach about marriage.
Whether or not it's required to, it will. Why? Because marriage is a part of society. Marriage is connected to school subjects, it's mentioned in conversation, in pictures, it's connected to other topics. What happens when kids ask how babies are made? So in all the inclusion of marriage, schools would have to provide equal representation for all forms of marriage. Fairness under the law would demand it.

Okay, then what?
It gets to schools, and it gets to the home. All children become raised in an environment where marriage is between any two persons. This means that when Jayden thinks of marriage, there is no one picture that initially pops in his head. The whole idea of marriage becomes rethought for everyone in the next generation. How, then, do you explain that these decisions "in no way will directly affect our own?"

Samesex marriages will affect everyone.

This post isn't to say whether or not samesex marriage is moral or not, but to say that every person believes in one side, and pushes that belief on others. And the more you disagree with me, the more you prove my point. If this is to be dealt lawfully, then let our votes decide.

In maintaining the point of my original post, to explain why I'm voting "yes," I'm going to address what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. Thanks for reading.