Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.
Okay, cool I don't mean to get too personal here but there is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California. Oh, and I am sure Ellen will be a little excited to keep her bazillion bucks that she pays in taxes too. Wow, come to think of it, there are quite a few of us fortunate gay folks that will be having some extra cash this year. What recession? We're gay! I am sure there will be a little box on the tax forms now single, married, divorced, gay, check here if you are gay, yeah, that's not so bad. Of course all of the waiters and hairdressers and UPS workers and gym teachers and such, they won't have to pay their taxes either.
Gay people are born everyday. You will never legislate that away.
Oh and too bad California, I know you were looking forward to the revenue from all of those extra marriages. I guess you will have to find some other way to get out of the budget trouble you are in.
When did it become okay to legislate morality? I try to envision someone reading that legislation "eliminates the right" and then clicking yes. What goes through their mind? Was it the frightening commercial where the little girl comes home and says, "Hi mom, we learned about gays in class today" and then the mother gets that awful worried look and the scary music plays? Do they not know anyone who is gay? If they do, can they look them in the face and say "I believe you do not deserve the same rights as me"? Do they think that their children will never encounter a gay person? Do they think they will never have to explain the 20% of us who are gay and living and working side by side with all the citizens of California?
I got news for them, someday your child is going to come home and ask you what a gay person is. Gay people are born everyday. You will never legislate that away.
I know when I grew up gay was a bad word. Homo, lezzie, faggot, dyke. Ignorance and fear ruled the day. There were so many "thems" back then. The blacks, the poor ... you know, "them". Then there was the immigrants. "Them.” Now the them is me.
I tell myself to take a breath, okay take another one, one of the thems made it to the top. Obama has been elected president. This crazy fearful insanity will end soon. This great state and this great country of ours will finally come to the understanding that there is no "them". We are one. We are united. What you do to someone else you do to yourself. That "judge not, lest ye yourself be judged" are truthful words and not Christian rhetoric.
Today the gay citizenry of this state will pick themselves up and dust themselves off and do what we have been doing for years. We will get back into it. We love this state, we love this country and we are not going to leave it. Even though we could be married in Mass. or Conn, Canada, Holland, Spain and a handful of other countries, this is our home. This is where we work and play and raise our families. We will not rest until we have the full rights of any other citizen. It is that simple, no fearful vote will ever stop us, that is not the American way.
Come to think of it, I should get a federal tax break too...
|Traditional marriage is in society's best interest|
|By Paul Mero|
Salt Lake Tribune
|Article Launched:11/02/2008 12:00:00 AM MDT|
|There are several key questions at the heart of gay
What is the compelling state interest in marriage? Why does the state even recognize a private matter such as marriage? Answer: The state ("we, the people") naturally seeks to perpetuate its existence and its own welfare.
America must encourage the best arrangements for people to reproduce and rear generations that most benefit society.
In pursuing these ends, the state has chosen to recognize male-to-female marriages.
What is the rational basis for this decision? Answer: What humans have known intuitively is backed by mountains of empirical evidence that "traditional" marriage does the best job of child-bearing and child-rearing.
Even so, the "best job" is a relative concept among imperfect humans. Why not encourage other marital relationships, such as gay marriage?
Indeed, in a Hawaii Supreme Court, gays argued that, empirically, they are at least as good as the worst heterosexuals in raising children. So why not let them marry and adopt children?
Answer: "As good as the worst" is a pretty low standard to codify. All children deserve the best standard - the complementarity of a male father and a female mother.
But isn't gay marriage a civil rights issue? Answer: possibly. If you believe that innate "sexual orientation" should be a protected characteristic along with race, color, religion and national origin, then yes.
If you don't believe people are born gay, then you might hesitate to draw the equation - you might be reluctant to equate a sex act with other human choices such as religion.
Certainly gays can love one another just like anybody else. Why not afford gays equal protection to love each other? Answer: If love is the sole basis of legal marriage, the state interest in marriage disappears.
Will gay marriage destroy civilization? Answer: Actually, it seems the converse is more accurate. Apparently, a crumbling familial infrastructure gives momentum to gay marriage. The states with the highest rates of divorce, late marriages, cohabitation, single living, low remarriage, delaying children, childlessness and out-of-wedlock births are exactly those states that have embraced gay marriage to date.
Perhaps the best case for gay marriage comes from conservative gays who argue that there is a state interest in domesticating promiscuous gay males. Doesn't society want to encourage responsible gay relationships? Answers: 1) Marriage doesn't domesticate men, women do, and (*Sue's comment: LOLOLOL) 2) Laws don't make people good, people do.
Our laws reflect our collective prevailing morality, plain and simple. Our laws reaffirm what we endorse.
Finally, how do gay marriages hurt heterosexual marriages? Answer: They don't, personally. But, in terms of law and policy, they would redefine marriage, evaporating the current state interest.
The best rational basis to oppose gay marriage is our unwillingness to codify familial dysfunction. Gay marriage leaves men, women and especially children handicapped in the sort of personal development a truly progressive civilization requires.
* PAUL MERO is president of the Sutherland Institute, a conservative think tank.
Hmmm, a conservative think tank editorial in the Salt Lake Tribune? Oh, the humanity. I wonder how Mr. Mero feels about polygamy and children being forced to marry at age 12?
Perhaps you should ask him at: