Posted by
Playful Walrus on Monday, July 21, 2008 1:00:54 PM
Tired of me writing about marriage? Well, I can keep it up as long as the marriage neutering advocates can.
The Los Angeles Times tries to convince us that 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 report.
A bare majority of California voters would continue to allow gay marriage, according to a new poll released Friday.
Yet again, this extremely sloppy language is used. Proposition 8 would restore bride-groom marriage licensing to the State of California. “Gay marriage” would not be banned (and neither would 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 would not mean that the Gestapo would burst 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.
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 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 "dsciminated 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."
We need to talk basics with the voters we know. Proposition 8 will 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 to perpetuate itself. Two men or two women can’t do this. Protecting marriage protects society by 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 to provide a “better” home for a child? Shouldn’t we try to discourage out-of-wedlock pregnancies? 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.)
Point out to your family and friends, especially if they ever bothered to get married in a church or hope to, that their opinion matters. If they understand that marriage is something that unites a bride and groom, they should vote that way and not allow anyone they know to demand their vote in proxy, as in “If you love me, you will vote against Prop 8.” 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