Hey hey!
So I was researching Prob 8 today and decided for the purpose of our blog that I needed to delve a little deeper to the underlying issue that were actually fighting for which is equality. I came across a blog that made mention of a court case from 1996 in which a convicted murderer (the father of the child) sought custody of his eight year old daughter and won on the grounds that the mother was deemed unfit due to her sexual orientation.
I think it is of little importance to refute the article, but more important to refute the ruling itself; and even the intent of the judge is in question. Was he really looking out for the best interest of the child or his own interests? By removing a perfectly happy and healthy child from a loving household, and placing said child into the hands of a murderer; where on earth could his priorities lie? In fact the judge didn’t even make mention of Ward’s conviction in the ruling. This is not a feasible confound to overlook in such a serious matter as a child’s well-being. The most disturbing part of the matter is that her father wasn’t even seeking custody because he wanted to be with his child, but rather on the grounds that he did not want her living with lesbians, only to further support the idea that this custody was not in the best interest of the child Ward makes no mention of her at all but instead addresses his stance by stating, "I'm not gay, and I'm opposed to being gay."
It goes on to say that after winning the custody battle that at age 14 Cassie’s father raped her, and even with previous accusations of molestation from his first child the judge still ruled in his favor.
This just goes to show that the oppression of same sex relations is out of control. One of leading positions against gay marriage is the future of our youth, but is this really the issue if we are willing to strip a loving family of a child and place him/her in physically harmful circumstances. God-forbid the child grows up with a more open perspective of the world around them because they were raised in a tolerant environment; yes that really would be the downfall of society in a nutshell wouldn’t it?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
For Your Further Consideration
Now that our project is coming to a close, we wanted to suggest some news and further reading for your continued analysis of the Proposition 8 and the greater Gay Rights debate.
A) Effort to repeal Prop 8 fails to collect enough signatures
B) by Rex Wockner
C) It seems as though Proposition 8 dissenters have hit another snag. A grassroots effort to force a November 2010 ballot-box vote on repealing Proposition 8 failed to collect enough voter signatures by the 12 April deadline to get the measure on the ballot. The lead 2010 organization, Love Honor Cherish, did not say how many signatures it did manage to collect. Just under 700,000 valid signatures would have been needed.
D) Despite the recent defeat, one thing is clear. The opposition to Proposition 8 will not be silenced anytime soon. Recent polls by the Public Policy Institute of California and by the Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California have shown that, for the first time, a majority of Californians now support same-sex marriage -- suggesting that top gay rights groups Equality California and Courage Campaign may have made a misstep in refusing to support the 2010 effort. The conclusion of the trial apparently has been further delayed while gay groups that ran the ballot campaign against Prop 8, who are not parties to the federal lawsuit, fight an order to turn over some of their e-mails from the campaign period.
E) Even though this push wasn't enough, support for gay marriage continues to bolster. For additional reading you can check the PinkPaper website.
A) Myths and Facts about Gay Marriage
B) Yesongaymarriage.com
C) In any debate, getting the facts straight can often be the most difficult of tasks. Yes on Gay Marriage has put together nine facts of homosexuality and marriage that aim to debunk commonly believed myths on the subject.
D) Much of the debate is targeted directly at the notions of the sanctity of marriage and how the church has prosecuted gays throughout history (often hypocritically). A number of people also are unable to decipher between what the general population believes is right, and what is protected under the language of our laws. The article also seeks to falsify the notion that children are unsafe in same-sex marriage households.
E) This website is an excellence sources on the news and struggles of making gay marriage legal across America. News, events, projects, and help are offered through this website to those who are interested. If you're ready to do your part, they would love to hear from you!
A) Hitting close to home - The Ferro-Grumley literary award.
B) Ferro-Grumley Award Committee
C) While I myself am not gay, my uncle was. He and his partner both died of AIDS in 1988. Both were authors and did not live to see the day when gay marriage would hopefully be legal. In their honor, a number of their colleagues established the Ferro-Grumley literary award in 1988, and lives on today as the highest literary achievement in LGBT fiction.
D). Now, the Ferro-Grumley award gives recognition annual to one male and one female author who contribute new works and perspectives on homosexual literature. The award is growing in recognition and aims bolster support of creative and open thinking for the GLBT community.
E) The website lists several supporters where you can find additional information such as HX Magazine and The Publishing Triangle. Michael Grumley and Robert Ferro's books can still be found on Amazon.
Monday, April 19, 2010
A Little More from Everyone Else Out There...
In adding to our collection of useful, informative sources relating to gay marriage and Proposition 8, I have found 3 more separate articles. While these articles present some different topics within the controversy of gay marriage, I have paired them together in this post because I think all three of them do a good job of presenting both sides of the issue. In presenting both sides I feel it appears obvious within the article that this fight to prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying is absurd.
a) The Huffington Post- Prop 8 Decision: Gay Marriage Ban Upheld By California Supreme Court
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/prop-8-decision-upheld-by_n_207697.html
b) Lisa Leff
c) In just a few months after Proposition 8 passed in California, the Huffington Post reported on the specifics of the ruling. In particular, it highlighted that although the proposition passed and will no longer allow gay marriages to take place in California, all marriages that have already been performed in the state prior to the ruling will still be valid. The court said in response to the decision that it would just be to destructive to take the already performed marriages away from over 18,000 couples.
d) This news article presents a lot of interesting information about the people that I don’t think many think about, and that is the group of gay couples that were married in California and everywhere before laws started to overturn and the fight to stopped gay marriages became even more intense. I am very glad to hear from this that those couples in California who quickly took advantage while the law was in place to get married will still have a valid marriage. In response to the decision, “the court said it would be too disruptive to apply Proposition 8 retroactively and dissolve all gay marriages.” While this may not be the total outcome that these couples may have wanted, I think this may show the littlest amount of respect by the court.
e) If this article interest readers as much as it did me, the author provides several bloggers who have given their responses on the article and on the issue. Throughout the article and the entire newspaper are also several other links for readers to look through that have more interest in the area.
a) Same Sex Marriage; A Research Summary
http://www.education.equalityarizona.org/Portals/0/SameSex%20Marriage.pdf
b) Denver Lewellen, Ph.D.
c) This summary describes some research that was done in February of 2009 in which the author looked at similarities and difference of heterosexual and homosexual marriages. He also takes a special look at some of the changes that have occurred in some areas where same sex marriages have transitioned into the norm. He points out that it was somewhat difficult as many gay and lesbian couples have kept their relationships quiet until recently.
d) This is a study that I believe all gay and lesbian couples would be very pleased to read. It is in the one specific section titled Same-Sex Marriage that should provide a lot of hope to everyone. The author provides one specific ramification of the changes. “For instance, public opinion in regions where same-sex marriage has been legalized has continued to increasingly support same-sex marriage. With the obvious exception of many Californians, opponents of same-sex marriage in these regions frequently support it as they have had a chance to see what it is and what it isn’t.” This is some sort of proof that maybe someday everyone will accept gay and lesbian marriage as a way of life.
e) While this research study does not provide the reader any other specific readings it should look at, it does obviously provide a list of references cited at the end of the study. This may be a very helpful tool to finding more information the study references. Anything adding to the information in this study should be very interesting and extremely informative.
a) TIME- Should Gay Marriage Be Legalized?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,472846,00.html
b) readers
c) In a very brief article posted by TIME, readers were given the chance to respond to the question, “Should gay marriage be legalized,” and there was a very ride array of responses. Written in 2003, this article came at a time when several states in the U.S. were debating gay rights issues. Although there were responses from both sides of the issue, many good points came up in reference to making gay marriage legal. Responses came from Canada where gay marriage is currently legal, several talked about how things seem no different and no one has been harmed by the added marriages. Other responses add that because America is a secular state, marriages should not be denied because it is wrong in the eyes of God.
d) This article and information could be very beneficial to any reader of this blog. I think it is important that we see a popular news source like TIME brings up this controversial issue and allows its readers to give their opinion on the subject. We are able to see from these various responses that people have very strong beliefs one way or the other, but I was able to find some a several responses that many of you would agree with. They include “Marriage should be about loving, supportive, nurturing relationships, and such relationships are not dependent on gender,” and “Since gay marriage has become legal [in Canada] the sky hasn't fallen and the world hasn't ended,” and What does marriage have to do with the Bible, or the Scripture, or Jesus Christ?” All of these people responses back our main points of this blog.
e) Though the points that many readers point out are very similar to views of supporters of gay marriage today, this article was written back and 2003 and it would be interesting to see the update of responses. This article doesn’t give any information to further research the subject but because it is written by the readers of TIME it is up to the readers to stand up and find out more.
a) The Huffington Post- Prop 8 Decision: Gay Marriage Ban Upheld By California Supreme Court
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/prop-8-decision-upheld-by_n_207697.html
b) Lisa Leff
c) In just a few months after Proposition 8 passed in California, the Huffington Post reported on the specifics of the ruling. In particular, it highlighted that although the proposition passed and will no longer allow gay marriages to take place in California, all marriages that have already been performed in the state prior to the ruling will still be valid. The court said in response to the decision that it would just be to destructive to take the already performed marriages away from over 18,000 couples.
d) This news article presents a lot of interesting information about the people that I don’t think many think about, and that is the group of gay couples that were married in California and everywhere before laws started to overturn and the fight to stopped gay marriages became even more intense. I am very glad to hear from this that those couples in California who quickly took advantage while the law was in place to get married will still have a valid marriage. In response to the decision, “the court said it would be too disruptive to apply Proposition 8 retroactively and dissolve all gay marriages.” While this may not be the total outcome that these couples may have wanted, I think this may show the littlest amount of respect by the court.
e) If this article interest readers as much as it did me, the author provides several bloggers who have given their responses on the article and on the issue. Throughout the article and the entire newspaper are also several other links for readers to look through that have more interest in the area.
a) Same Sex Marriage; A Research Summary
http://www.education.equalityarizona.org/Portals/0/SameSex%20Marriage.pdf
b) Denver Lewellen, Ph.D.
c) This summary describes some research that was done in February of 2009 in which the author looked at similarities and difference of heterosexual and homosexual marriages. He also takes a special look at some of the changes that have occurred in some areas where same sex marriages have transitioned into the norm. He points out that it was somewhat difficult as many gay and lesbian couples have kept their relationships quiet until recently.
d) This is a study that I believe all gay and lesbian couples would be very pleased to read. It is in the one specific section titled Same-Sex Marriage that should provide a lot of hope to everyone. The author provides one specific ramification of the changes. “For instance, public opinion in regions where same-sex marriage has been legalized has continued to increasingly support same-sex marriage. With the obvious exception of many Californians, opponents of same-sex marriage in these regions frequently support it as they have had a chance to see what it is and what it isn’t.” This is some sort of proof that maybe someday everyone will accept gay and lesbian marriage as a way of life.
e) While this research study does not provide the reader any other specific readings it should look at, it does obviously provide a list of references cited at the end of the study. This may be a very helpful tool to finding more information the study references. Anything adding to the information in this study should be very interesting and extremely informative.
a) TIME- Should Gay Marriage Be Legalized?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,472846,00.html
b) readers
c) In a very brief article posted by TIME, readers were given the chance to respond to the question, “Should gay marriage be legalized,” and there was a very ride array of responses. Written in 2003, this article came at a time when several states in the U.S. were debating gay rights issues. Although there were responses from both sides of the issue, many good points came up in reference to making gay marriage legal. Responses came from Canada where gay marriage is currently legal, several talked about how things seem no different and no one has been harmed by the added marriages. Other responses add that because America is a secular state, marriages should not be denied because it is wrong in the eyes of God.
d) This article and information could be very beneficial to any reader of this blog. I think it is important that we see a popular news source like TIME brings up this controversial issue and allows its readers to give their opinion on the subject. We are able to see from these various responses that people have very strong beliefs one way or the other, but I was able to find some a several responses that many of you would agree with. They include “Marriage should be about loving, supportive, nurturing relationships, and such relationships are not dependent on gender,” and “Since gay marriage has become legal [in Canada] the sky hasn't fallen and the world hasn't ended,” and What does marriage have to do with the Bible, or the Scripture, or Jesus Christ?” All of these people responses back our main points of this blog.
e) Though the points that many readers point out are very similar to views of supporters of gay marriage today, this article was written back and 2003 and it would be interesting to see the update of responses. This article doesn’t give any information to further research the subject but because it is written by the readers of TIME it is up to the readers to stand up and find out more.
Passionate Authors
The authors of all three books you are about to read about have invested a lot of time into this matter. Our group feels that it is important to read up on continuing research on the issue we are trying to reach out to people on. We hope that you can read a little bit about what we have wrote about them here and then click on the links to look more in depth yourselves. These three books we found are from Google Books so you should be able to read sections of them online. What is important to note with these books is that they all relate to the fact that banning same-sex marriage is denying rights and benefits to an entire group of people in our country. All three authors, Jonathon Golberg Hiller (1), Jonathon Rauch (2), and Kathleen Hull (3), are very passionate about their positions on the matter and are brilliant thinkers and researchers.
(1) A. The Limits to the Union: Same-Sex Marriage and the Politics of Civil Rights
B. Jonathon Goldberg-Hiller
C. This book chapter talks about the uprising of same-sex marriage being a challenge to civil rights. In this book they specifically talk about the situation in Hawaii, which we can relate to our group’s blog topic that happened in California in 2008. In 1990, Hawaii did not allow for the legalization of same-sex marriages. This is when two lesbian couples and one gay couple decided to challenge the law and apply for marriage licenses. Their applications were denied. This action created a lot of anger and controversy; therefore the 6 individuals took the matter to court for being deprived of equal rights. The state court kept their prior ruling of marriage only being between a man and a woman until later in 1993 when the decision was appealed in the Supreme Court. After great deliberation, the court made the decision to extend marriage licenses to same-sex couples because 1990 ruling was said to be enforcing gender discrimination.
D. We can learn a lot from Jonathon Goldberg-Hiller’s research and we can look how it relates to our blog topic. It is important to understand that this matter affects people everywhere in our country and it has done so for sometime now. One specific event that spurred from the Hawaii case was the invention of the “civil union” in the state of Vermont in 2000. Goldber-Hiller goes on to explain how both of these cases were involved in civil rights and how especially commentators of the Vermont “civil union” agreed that it was, “an act of pure stigmatization”(Goldberg-Hiller 6). His research is useful to us as readers because we can see how much this was a heavily disputed issue in the courts. It was not something that the majority of people on either side of gay marriage took lightly.
E. Goldber-Hiller has contributed a lot to the research of the history of same-sex marriage in our society. It is important to understand how our courts thought of the issues ten years ago and compare to how people look at the argument today. Are they still the same reasons? A lot of them are. Gays and Lesbians want to receive equal rights and receive marriage benefits and want to have their relationship culturally and legally recognized.
(2) A. Gay Marriage: Why its Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America
B. Jonathan Rauch
C. Rauch’s introduction in his book talks about the social impacts of not allowing legalized gay marriage. There is a lot of tradition and discussion that surrounds the idea of marriage. For example, when one has his or hers first kiss, date or the first time having sex there is a thought of marriage in the future of that person’s life. What if all of that was taken away from someone? There is so much cultural impact surrounding lovers and marriage, because if a gay or lesbian gay couple cannot get married, what do people think of them as? These couples are stuck in a middle fuzzy stage because they never can legally bind themselves to one another.
D. I feel as though this is a very useful argument against Prop 8 because at least everyone can relate to some form of love in one way or another. Everyone can think about their first kiss or date and think about what that meant to them. What if you knew you met your soul mate and then you knew that you could never marry them? Rauch alludes to how the law makes homosexual couples feel when being discriminated against when he says, “The law only sees individuals, never couples; the larger society is not sure what to make of these so-called partners. Their world remains incomplete, unfinished” (3). This argument makes sense to include in our blog because it’s about feeling accepted into culture. This is an emotional situation we are dealing with and really impacts people’s lives in a negative way.
E. This would be an interesting area of study especially for a psychologist or for the subject of sociology to see how relationships are affected by this fuzzy stage that homosexual couples face. It is would be hard for heterosexuals to think of a life without marriage and it would be an interesting study to see watch a straight couple try to live for a time without it. I imagine it would be difficult to have a relationship that society does not necessarily support and the laws not give a legalization opportunity to. I think this would be a really interesting study to do to see how heterosexual couples react to not being able to be married and then see how they feel about same-sex marriage.
(3) A. Same-sex Marriage: The Cultural Politics of Love and Law
B. Kathleen E. Hull
C. This segment of this book by Kathleen E. Hull is necessary to our argument of gay rights and same-sex marriages. In Hull’s analysis he examines the importance of marriage to Lesbian and Gay couples and their need to secure and unify their romantic relationships. One can see how this is related specifically to our topic because Hull talks about how same-sex couples think and relate to marriage similar if not completely the same as heterosexual couples. Therefore why shouldn’t we allow for homosexuals to get married and receive the same marriage benefits, it is not like they are trying to destroy the meaning of marriage.
D. This article is useful with our blog because it talks about some of the main arguments for those pro same-sex marriages. These arguments stem from the fact that legalizing your romantic relationship has its economic benefits. Hull says this in her book when she says, “Almost all of the gays and lesbians interviewed in this study expressed an interest in accessing practical rights and benefits of marriage, things like tax benefits, access to health insurance, and having one’s partner designated as next of kin in emergency situations” (Hull 3).
E. Another Argument that Hull makes in her book is about the growing amount of visibility of the gay culture on television and in Film. I think this would be an interesting discussion to further research and how much this could help the legalization of marriage if more people were comfortable with the gay and lesbian culture. If you think about it some very well respected and entertaining people on TV and pop culture are gay such as popular talk show hosts, Ellen Degeneres and Rosie O’Donnell. I have not heard anything but good things about Ellen Degeneres and you can tell the people that come on her show really respect her. I think Ellen would be treated the same by the thousands of viewers of her show no matter what her sexual orientation is. Not to mention, Ellen and Portia’s wedding would no longer be legal because they were married in LA in August of 2008.
If you want to read up on just how beautiful their Lesbian wedding was, read on here…
Sunday, April 18, 2010
A Hostess Unity: Love at first bite
Howdy Folks!
Okay so in case anyone was wondering here are the current laws/ rules/ benefits what have you, in place as far as a same sex couples are entitled.
A step forward?
·Adoption: 19 states allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt children in a complex and expensive two-step process, in which one parent first adopts and then the second can petition for joint rights.
· Ceremonial Marriages: Same Sex Marriages may be officiated by church officials, or anyone else, but ceremonial marriages in and of themselves involve no civil laws and carry no legal benefits or responsibilities.
· Domestic Partnership Registration: is a means by which some cities allow opposite- and same-sex couples to go on public record as a non-married couple. The major benefit is used to establish legal responsibility for debts after a relationship ends.
· Domestic Partnership Affidavit: Many private employers and municipalities offer domestic partner benefits to their workers, based on signing a legal affidavit that defines an economic relationship.
Seems to be pretty reasonable at first glance wouldn’t you think? Okay so let’s take a second look and maybe point out a few holes and trends shall we?
Adoption: So how many states are there in the “United” States of American 50? Right, thought so, we have 50 states with split rulings on adoption and thus far only 19 allow adoption from same sex couples after a rigorous process. Our Union has its priorities a little skewed I must say. We have thousands and thousands of orphaned children yearning for a warm loving home to call their own, but we’d rather deny caregivers based on their sexual orientation than see that they have the comfort and guidance to grow up and be productive members of society. Yeah, I’d have to agree with the other 31 states and let those kids grow up on the streets or bounce from foster home to foster home because it would be erroneous to have two parents care for them.
Ceremonial Marriages: As far as these ceremonial marriages go, I think I had more rights in the backyard wedding I had as a kid to the neighbor boy, when we exchanged hostess snacks for each other’s hand in marriage. It was pretty romantic. Just as it was special to Spencer and I these ceremonial marriages are special to the couples, and no one else. Thanks to Prop 8 they aren’t recognized by anyone but those involved, they carry no legal benefits or civil responsibilities. But the idea is nice.
Domestic Partnership Registration: The keyword in this one that seems to carry a bit of weight is SOME. SOME cities allow… well gays guess you are going to have to up-root and seek out SOME cities to register… good luck!
Domestic Partnership Affidavit: Here we have one of those fun words at work again MANY employers offer… Well hope SOME of those cities have one of those MANY employers offering work.
It’s not enough
Federal rights NOT Covered by Civil Unions
· Immigration Rights: Cannot have a non-U.S. spouse become a full citizen.
· Social Security: Cannot collect benefits upon death of a spouse.
· Federal Taxes: Cannot file jointly as a married couple
This is where the issues are sticky, because this is what Prop 8 truly discriminates against, and what so many pro-8’s don’t even consider. Sure people will have a stance one way or another on the marriage aspect of same sex couples according to what their moral or religious beliefs dictate. But do they truly understand what they are trying to withhold? These are basic entitlements in a marriage that gay couples are not privileged to.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Dear Jon: On the Etymology of Marriage
On April 13th a not-so-anonymous Jon (Book of Revelation reference, anyone?) posed a number of formidable questions about the definitions of marriage, and opined that marriage is, “for all of the history of the word has been a contract between a man and woman.” This entry will be devoted to the refutation of his argument in the interest of civil discourse.
Jon’s argument focuses on two main arguments: (1) the definition of marriage is historically and linguistically defined between and man and women (2) if same-sex couples would like to be “married” they simply need a “new word”. When Jon initially posed his question, my etymological knowledge of the word marriage was fairly weak. Not one to be easily discouraged, I decided to do some research and see what I came up with. Now, as I already knew my stance on the issue of gay marriage, I was hoping to find that marriage meant nothing more than “union” in its linguistic derivation. As my search moved out of its nascent stages I began to question whether researching the semantics surrounding a word had any real place in the Prop 8 debate. You might be expecting me to parry Jon’s arguments by taking such a route, but Jon accurately aimed his critique: that is exactly what Prop 8 is about – semantics.
Legal definitions are debated down to their etymological core in the interest of accuracy and situational resilience. That being said, my research yielded varying results. This variance, I propose, is due to the different purposes of definition types (1) Legal definitions, (2) etymological definitions, (3) Contemporary or “common use” definitions, and (4) Academic definitions. All of these definition types host a wide gambit of explanations on the meaning of marriage, but no category ubiquitously claimed this union was between a man and a women. Interestingly, academic and contemporary definitions tended to favor the “man-women” definition, while legal and etymological definitions favored a broader defined union. Unfortunately for Jon’s argument, he placed an etymological idea inside a legal construct (the same rational posed behind the Prop 8 bill).
Etymologically speaking, it's a stretch for marriage to mean anything more than joining or union, and this union is not necessarily a union of two. The term “gam” is a root that means marriage. This root can be found in words such as monogamy, polygamy, autogamy, bigamy, exogamy…. Get the idea? Based on this information it’s difficult to postulate that marriage remains a word linguistically grounded in male-female connotations. What you could argue is that society has commonly referred to marriage as male-female. This assertion, however, will only go as far to suggest that this is the dominant representation of the word, and on that note we are all in agreement. Applying this formula in practice, to use reductio ad absurdum, would be akin to deeming the University of Minnesota, by linguistic definition, a white school because it has historically been dominated by that race. Since same-sex couples seem just fine with using the word marriage, might I suggest straight couples find a neologism to describe their union if they are unwilling to share the word marriage with everyone.
Jon’s argument focuses on two main arguments: (1) the definition of marriage is historically and linguistically defined between and man and women (2) if same-sex couples would like to be “married” they simply need a “new word”. When Jon initially posed his question, my etymological knowledge of the word marriage was fairly weak. Not one to be easily discouraged, I decided to do some research and see what I came up with. Now, as I already knew my stance on the issue of gay marriage, I was hoping to find that marriage meant nothing more than “union” in its linguistic derivation. As my search moved out of its nascent stages I began to question whether researching the semantics surrounding a word had any real place in the Prop 8 debate. You might be expecting me to parry Jon’s arguments by taking such a route, but Jon accurately aimed his critique: that is exactly what Prop 8 is about – semantics.
Legal definitions are debated down to their etymological core in the interest of accuracy and situational resilience. That being said, my research yielded varying results. This variance, I propose, is due to the different purposes of definition types (1) Legal definitions, (2) etymological definitions, (3) Contemporary or “common use” definitions, and (4) Academic definitions. All of these definition types host a wide gambit of explanations on the meaning of marriage, but no category ubiquitously claimed this union was between a man and a women. Interestingly, academic and contemporary definitions tended to favor the “man-women” definition, while legal and etymological definitions favored a broader defined union. Unfortunately for Jon’s argument, he placed an etymological idea inside a legal construct (the same rational posed behind the Prop 8 bill).
Etymologically speaking, it's a stretch for marriage to mean anything more than joining or union, and this union is not necessarily a union of two. The term “gam” is a root that means marriage. This root can be found in words such as monogamy, polygamy, autogamy, bigamy, exogamy…. Get the idea? Based on this information it’s difficult to postulate that marriage remains a word linguistically grounded in male-female connotations. What you could argue is that society has commonly referred to marriage as male-female. This assertion, however, will only go as far to suggest that this is the dominant representation of the word, and on that note we are all in agreement. Applying this formula in practice, to use reductio ad absurdum, would be akin to deeming the University of Minnesota, by linguistic definition, a white school because it has historically been dominated by that race. Since same-sex couples seem just fine with using the word marriage, might I suggest straight couples find a neologism to describe their union if they are unwilling to share the word marriage with everyone.
More to Refute From the Opposition
Hi all-
On a continued attempt to compile evidence of the weak arguments made by or oppositions, I have come upon another blog that attempts to convince its readers to vote for Proposition 8. I have found two arguments that blog titled Random Encounters of We tries to make that really just do not make sense to me. The first is found in the bloggers main blog post and the other is made after someone has commented against his original post.
The first argument RandomEncounters makes is that “Marriage is ordained by God and intended for ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.” The one word that sticks out to me in this quote is ‘God.’ Now as far as I understand God is a part of certain religions, and because of the laws of this country, has nothing to do with our governments decisions. Separation of church and state was established so government and religious institutions would be kept separate and independent of one another. Then why is our government allowing the passing of Proposition 8 when it is only because God says gay marriage is not right?
The second point that this blogger argues is that the traditional family is made up of a husband and wife and that this is the best situation for any child. The first thing that comes to my mind when I think of family is a supportive group of people who have an endless amount of love for one another. Whether this is a husband and a wife, and husband and husband, or a wife and a wife, no one group is a better family than the other. If RandomEncounters and other supporters of Proposition 8 are suggesting that gay and lesbian couples should not have the chance to marry because that would not make for the traditional family, then I think we must look at other situations. If a husband and wife with two children get a divorce, and for instance the mother gets full custody, that no longer becomes a traditional family. Should single parents not be allowed to raise their children because they are not a traditional family? With the argument that RandomEncounters makes, this would be the case.
In the end, we must consider what we are actually dealing with, and this is the rights of certain people. I think when we take a look at the Random Encounters of We blog and the arguments that it tries to make, as well as the arguments that other Prop 8 supporters out there make, the weaknesses of them are so evident. Gay and lesbian couples only want to have the same rights as heterosexual couples and I have to ask everyone out there, does it really hurt you or your family for these groups to have the right to a legal marriage?
On a continued attempt to compile evidence of the weak arguments made by or oppositions, I have come upon another blog that attempts to convince its readers to vote for Proposition 8. I have found two arguments that blog titled Random Encounters of We tries to make that really just do not make sense to me. The first is found in the bloggers main blog post and the other is made after someone has commented against his original post.
The first argument RandomEncounters makes is that “Marriage is ordained by God and intended for ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.” The one word that sticks out to me in this quote is ‘God.’ Now as far as I understand God is a part of certain religions, and because of the laws of this country, has nothing to do with our governments decisions. Separation of church and state was established so government and religious institutions would be kept separate and independent of one another. Then why is our government allowing the passing of Proposition 8 when it is only because God says gay marriage is not right?
The second point that this blogger argues is that the traditional family is made up of a husband and wife and that this is the best situation for any child. The first thing that comes to my mind when I think of family is a supportive group of people who have an endless amount of love for one another. Whether this is a husband and a wife, and husband and husband, or a wife and a wife, no one group is a better family than the other. If RandomEncounters and other supporters of Proposition 8 are suggesting that gay and lesbian couples should not have the chance to marry because that would not make for the traditional family, then I think we must look at other situations. If a husband and wife with two children get a divorce, and for instance the mother gets full custody, that no longer becomes a traditional family. Should single parents not be allowed to raise their children because they are not a traditional family? With the argument that RandomEncounters makes, this would be the case.
In the end, we must consider what we are actually dealing with, and this is the rights of certain people. I think when we take a look at the Random Encounters of We blog and the arguments that it tries to make, as well as the arguments that other Prop 8 supporters out there make, the weaknesses of them are so evident. Gay and lesbian couples only want to have the same rights as heterosexual couples and I have to ask everyone out there, does it really hurt you or your family for these groups to have the right to a legal marriage?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
