Affirming Marriage Is Not Hateful

In July of 2008, the Pink Lady (known to some as the Los Angeles Times, tried to convince readers that Proposition 8 was doomed at the ballot box. Of course, it went on to be approved in November that year, adding the California Marriage Amendment to the state constitution.

The Los Angeles Times tried to convince us that since what they see as the "in-crowd" supports marriage neutering and that those of us who honor the bride+groom construct should give up. Staff writers Jessica Garrison and Dan Morain reported. [NOTE: They now have a paywall, so free clicks are limited.]

A bare majority of California voters would continue to allow gay marriage, according to a new poll released Friday.

Yet again, that was extremely sloppy language used. Proposition 8 RESTORED bride-groom marriage licensing to the State of California. "Gay marriage" was not banned (and neither were round squares). Anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, could "marry" someone of the same sex in ceremonies, form legal partnerships, commit to each other, live with each other, etc. Passing Proposition 8 did not send the Gestapo (or, as one dispicable ad depicted, Mormon missionairies) into Metropolitan churches and homes and banquet halls to break up "gay marriages".

The Field Poll of 672 likely voters found that 51% oppose Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and woman. Forty-two percent of voters support the November ballot measure.

That's and awfully small sample, and it didn't hold true in the vote at the polls. It was one of many examples of poll dancing by the biased media.

Poll director Mark DiCamillo said the results indicate a substantial change among voters since 2000, when Proposition 22, a similar ballot measure, was approved with 61% of the vote.

It's amazing how constant bombardment of misrepresentation, appeals to emotion, and propaganda in the media and academia has an effect.

Proposition 22 and other laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation were found to be unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in May, and gay couples began holding weddings last month.

More sloppy language. Marriage laws did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Nobody asked me my sexual orientation when I got my marriage license. By the reasoning of this sentence, my wife and I should be able to form a legal domestic partnership, but we can't because of the bigots who wrote the law "discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation" and only allow same sex couples or seasons citizens to form domestic partnerships.

"We think this bodes quite well for us," said Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage campaign. She noted that a Field Poll released in May showed that 54% of Californians opposed Proposition 8, and said the new results "show the opposition has lost a few percentage points and indicates they are losing momentum."

The California Marriage Amendment has not hurt anyone. Allowing judges to neuter marriage licensing over the voted will of the people does hurt in many ways. Marriage is how society forms a microcosm of itself, usually to perpetuate itself. Two men or two women can't ever do this as a pairing.  Protecting marriage protects society by uniting both sexes and holding up the married mother and father as the ideal parenting construct. Licensing two people of the same sex as "marriage" is a clear pronouncement that marriage, from a societal interest, can't be about children. If marriage can't be about children, why get married or stay married to provide a "better" home for a child? Shouldn't we try to discourage out-of-wedlock pregnancies and divorce between parents of minor children for reasons other than abandonment or abuse? And if marriage can't be about children, why stop siblings from marrying? (Remember - you can't invoke anything about children in a reason to bar sibling marriage.)

 

I am a voter and my opinion matters. I understand the importance of recognizing and distinguishing marriage. I will not allow someone else to demand my vote in proxy, as in "If you love me, you will vote to neuter marriaqge." That kind of demand is selfish and the "favor" would never be returned. Societies that neuter marriage licensing don't care about marriage and raising children within a marriage. The correlation is there.  Are we that kind of society?

I noted when San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders became one of the first elected politicians to hand his vote over to child. It was noted an article by Pink Lady staff writer Jessica Garrison. [NOTE: They now have a paywall, so free clicks are limited.]

In no way would it be a betrayal of his gay daughter to affirm that marriage unites the sexes. His daughter doesn't want to join together with a man. She doesn't have to. Nobody has to get married. But she shouldn't be able to force the rest of us to redefine marriage to eliminate the very core of its meaning.  He didn't seem concerned that his daughter was asking him to betray marriage, thereby betraying himself.

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders had promised to [defend] marriage. Then, last fall, hours before he was supposed to veto a City Council motion supporting gay marriage, he called a news conference at which he broke into tears.

Emotions make for bad laws. This whole thing is an appeal to emotions. Same-sex couples will feel better if they can legally claim marriage for their relationship. But that is not our obligation. In California, these couples can get all of the legalities of marriage, so it really is all about emotion.

One of his daughters is gay, he said, and he just couldn't tell her she did not have the right to get married.

She has always had the same "right" as anyone else.

The article keept referring to "opponents of same-sex marriage" and "opponents of gay marriage".  They are not opponents of anything except forcing the rest of us to neuter marriage licenses to dishonor brides or grooms. They affirm marriage.

The article goes into the history of attempts to put the matter on California ballots.

"My opinions on this issue have evolved significantly," Sanders said. "I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community that they were less important . . . less deserving of the rights and responsibilities . . . simply because of their sexual orientation."

Now you know where Obama got that line.

I’m for licensing bride-groom marriage only, and I certainly do not think that gay people are less important or less deserving. This is a false dichotomy.

His voice continuing to shake, he said his daughter Lisa and several of his senior staff members were gay or lesbian.

So what?  That doesn't change what marriage is, what it isn't, and what is society's interest. Society simply doesn't have the same interest when men get together without women or vice-versa.

Affirming marriage as a brige+groom union is not hateful; it is loving, as it honors both men and women, mothers and fathers, masculnity and femininity, the reproductive kind of union, and a child's right to a mother and a father.

What is hateful is disenfranchising millions of voters for the sake of the whims of a few. Hateful is denying the difference between sex-inclusive pairing and segregative pairing, heterosexual coitus and homosexual sodomy. Hateful is denying the importance of both men and women. Hateful is going after business owners and churches for exercising their freedom of association and freedom of religion, trying to force them to affirm something they don't wish to affirm and does not continue, nor contribute to, society. It is hateful to devalue marriage.