Log in

No account? Create an account

prev | next

prop 8

i'm still pretty backwards on my sleep schedule and i've been wasting too much time playing [gemcraft chapter zero] for the past couple of hours, so i thought i'd switch gears and attempt to write a quick thought about the whole same sex marriage thing.

i know that people in general are upset about the whole california-upholding-prop-8 business, and i feel that while it may seem discouraging, i tend to be fairly optimistic about the big picture, which has to do with momentum.

as in, same sex marriage and the recognition of same sex partners as being an acceptable lifestyle feels to me like an inevitable long-term success despite the upholding of prop 8, particularly since existing same-sex marriages haven't been repealed. given the sort of precedent and model set by the likes of canada and a lot of western europe, it's only a matter of time before the attitude about the whole business becomes not unlike the attitude about race, something i define as "people may have issue with it, but those that have issue with it are falling into the minority, understand that their attitudes are frowned upon, and keep those attitudes more away from the public eye."

it may take another ten to twenty years, but it will happen. it's starting to make sense to too many people for it to not happen.

that's it.

tag cloud:


( read spoken (6) — speak )
(Deleted comment)
May. 27th, 2009 06:29 pm (UTC)
As sick as it sounds, I'm glad they upheld Prop 8. I'm disappointed that it passed to begin with, but if people let a state supreme court overturn any laws without a proper vote, that's not a democracy. Prop 102 in AZ was the same thing and it passed too, probably because the people in charge were really targeting the Catholic Latino population.

What they need to do is get a Prop on the ballot ASAP to repeal Prop 8 and possibly a second to legalize gay marriage.

Of course, my personal opinion that "aren't church and state supposed to be separate anyway?" and should have no business defining what a "religious union" should be.
May. 27th, 2009 07:00 pm (UTC)
right. i grok all of that. It's important that we have a system in place where the "voice of the people" can be heard. it's disappointing that the vote turned out the way that it did, but that's part of the process and it should be.

and yeah, the line between "separation of church and state" has seemed to blur in the past several years which i feel is mainly a reaction to the whole 9/11 thing. As people feel like things are more out of their control, they turn to religion, and the figurehead we had for this country during that time helped to promote and enhance that which is showing through now in some of the more impressionable youth. It will swing back eventually where politics and religion aren't so linked together. Hopefully sooner than later.
May. 27th, 2009 08:04 pm (UTC)
Well, yes. But this just demonstrates why the system needs changing-- the way it is now, this issue could go back and forth for years with different propositions. The way voter initiatives works in this state really needs some changes.

And I hope 10-20 years is a gross overestimation... There are too many people here who are too angry to let such discrimination stand for that long.
May. 27th, 2009 08:28 pm (UTC)
20 years may be a stretch. 10 years i could see as being a reality. it will take a new generation to usher in the change. the world still deals with racism decades after the first time someone stood up and said it was wrong and was heard. this won't be so different, but given our history of progression i have a healthy sense of optimism.
May. 28th, 2009 12:47 pm (UTC)
I just don't see why people are against it; why shouldn't everyone be just as entitled to be happy (or not!) as the rest of us? I'm just grateful for any couple without five kids, these days.
( read spoken (6) — speak )


welcome to the lifeofmendel

you can also find me here:

meSubscribe to me on YouTube


March 2017