Amidst the general euphoria accompanying the election of our new president (yes!) there was oh so much sadness in and around the gay community. Three states decided on Nov. 4 that same-sex marriage should not be acknowledged, and one made it impossible for gay people to adopt. And BTW, did you know that supporters of these amendments were under direct orders from God? In California, Prop 8 was largely subsidized (more than $15 million) by Mormon church members responding to a call from the LDS heirarchy, and more than a million dollars came from that lovely Catholic fraternity, the Knights of Columbus.
Somehow, despite making a clearly progressive choice for Obama, enough of those voters got freaked out in the voting booth to help naysayers win a majority. It could have been the ads threatening that homosexuality would be taught in schools... as if that's where gay kids figure out they're gay.
This reminds me of the parents of a boy in my daughter's high school. A guest educator was going to be presenting a sex ed talk, and there was such a fuss that she did a sample session for parents. Despite her lecture being both tasteful and informative (not to mention entertaining), some parents insisted their children not attend. And to nobody's surprise, the son of the most outspoken and obnoxious of these was overheard in the movie line later that week making obscene comments about a girl. Despite his parents' best efforts, they just couldn't stop his hormones. And just as high school kids will always find out about sex, gay kids are always going to figure out their preferences eventually, and hopefully without too much heartache.
What Prop 8 in California and the two amendments in Florida and Arizona do is to actually cause heartache. They allow a majority to deprive a minority of their constitutional rights. Marriage is a legal institution, not a moral one, and we simply do not have the right to make moral decisions for other people (and believe me, if we did, I'd be tempted to make a few myself, and they wouldn't please the Mormons or the Catholics). Whether or not you choose a same-sex partner in your own life (and the California judge whose May 2008 ruling was overturned was as straight as an arrow), nobody has the right to make that decision for someone else.
As for not being able to adopt children in Arkansas, who benefits from that? Over the past five years, nearly 1,000 Arkansas children reached the age of 18 and left the system without ever having been adopted into a permanent home. So let's see: gay parents or no parents, what do you choose?
The demonstrations to overturn these amendments are continuing, but they never should have been on the ballot. Just as anti-miscegenation laws were thrown out in the last century, making it possible for our president-elect to be born to a mixed-race couple, we need to stop pretending that some people are less equal than others because of their sexuality. Who knows, a same-sex couple could right now be raising the president we'll elect in 2040, and we have no idea if she'll be gay.
Photo: Bob Bobster
I agree with the article. I am a straight woman who raised two wonderful men with their father. I am just glad no one tried to tell me my sexual preference was wrong.
I hear what you are saying that this vote has caused much heartache – but this could be said of any vote that happens in which people are on the losing side of something they feel strongly about. Just because someone feels heartache over an issue does not mean that this issue is therefore correct or valid.
I am confused about your point that no one has the right to make a decision about who a person should choose for their partner (referring to choice of a homosexual partner) for someone else. How is voting to uphold the traditional definition of marriage making a decision for you or anyone else on this issue of who you choose as your partner? I am also confused about how you say that we do not make moral decisions for other people. Our justice system is set up this way! It dictates what America sees as moral and immoral behavior by punishing what is considerd immoral behavior. It appears you are saying there are no moral absolutes, no moral right and wrongs.
I agree that the low adoption numbers are unfortunate and wish more people would consider adoption. But, since I do not support gay marriage, I do not support children being raised in homes by homosexual couples. Your argument is also illogical because you write as though there are only two options that are good: adoption by a gay couple or no parents. There are other options – which are adoption by straight parents, foster care or orphanages. I would agree that adoption into a family with a husband and wife would be best, but there are other options that still care for the health and welfare of a child besides what you have mentioned.
You have said that this vote shows that people view those who are homosexual as less equal than others. You have the same exact right to marry someone of the opposite sex. What you are asking for is not the same rights – which you have – you are asking for additional rights – you are asking for the definition of marriage to changed to fit your definition and give you additional rights. No one is treating anyone as un-equal – you have the same rights as me for heterosexual marriage. It’s unfortunate that because you want additional rights and those rights are not approved by voting Americans, this is seen as somehow “unequal” when logically that is not true.
Check out this article: -economy-and-payday-loans/...