Posted by
Playful Walrus on Thursday, July 22, 2010 7:24:09 PM
News sources, including the
Los Angeles Times, are touting yet another poll saying that Californians are in favor of marriage neutering. This is not to be confused with
the other recent poll. Hmmm, I wonder why
this is being done now? Ann M. Simmons
has the LATimes.com blog entry.
The poll was conducted in English and Spanish by the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Public Religion Research Institute, an
organization focused on religion and values. It was based on random
phone interviews with more than 3,300 Californians over a two-week
period in late June, examining the religious-based attitudes toward
same-sex marriage two years after Proposition 8 was approved.
Again, one need not identify as religious, believe in God, read the
Bible, attend church, or anything else of that sort to understand that
the state has an interest in licensing marriage as a bride+groom
institution that it does not have with other kinds of voluntary
personal relationships, nor to believe voters should be the ones to
decide.
Meanwhile, 29% of Californians polled said they believed
Proposition 8 was bad for the state, compared with 22% who believed it
was “a good thing.”
A total of 51% of Californians said they would vote to allow
homosexuals to marry if a vote similar to Proposition 8 were held
tomorrow, compared with 45% who said they would vote to keep same-sex marriage illegal, the survey showed.
Same-sex marriage is not illegal. It isn't state licensed, but
nobody is going to be arrested or fined or ticketed for having a
ceremony, exchanging rings, making promises, having a reception,
opening gifts, going on a vacation, living together, sharing a bed,
changing names, and asking employers, businesses, and others to
consider them married.
I also wonder how many of the people answering the poll were aware of
the realities of California law when it comes to domestic partnerships?
Then the story details how the poll, which is essentially asking people
if they make a distinction between a a same-sex couple that has chosen
to be together and a both-sexes couple that has chosen to be together,
treats the respondents differently on the basis of what skin color/ethnicity they were born with, and the religions they choose to practice. Go figure.
The same reporter had
the paper's print story, which has more information about the rest of the poll.
One in four Californians have become more supportive of gay rights
over the last five years, compared with 8% who said they had become
more opposed, according to a survey released Wednesday.
The problem is, "gay rights" is too vague. I'm probably for more rights
for gay people than most homosexuality advocacy organizations, because
I support people – gay or straight – retaining their rights instead of
surrendering them to a government, while those organizations tend to
support the usurpation of rights by the federal and international
governments.
I don't think there is a right to force other people to refrain from
expressing opinions that offend you. I don't think there is a right to
have everyone around you and strangers you don't even know applaud your
behavior. I don't think there is a right for someone I don't know to my earnings or property. I
don't think there is a right for anyone to a state-issued license.
An overwhelming majority of Californians - 75% - said they favored laws that would protect gays and lesbians from job discrimination, 69% said they supported allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military and 56% favored allowing gay couples to adopt children.
But notice that some of the people who support these things do not support marriage neutering. They support "gay rights" in every way, but still understand that without a bride or without a groom, it isn't marriage in the sense that the state should be involved. As for job discrimination, I'm for the right of a business to offer someone a job or not for any reason, and for the right anyone to ask for that job or reject the offer for any reason. Adoption? Sure – if there are no fit bride+groom couples to adopt a child, then fine.
Finally, outed, termed-out Roy Ashburn isn’t going quietly. Shane Goldmacher
reported in the Los Angeles Times that the Republican state Senator is still seeking publicity and approval from the LGBTQQUAI??? community.
State Sen. Roy Ashburn, who earlier this year acknowledged that he is gay, has strongly disavowed his record of voting against gay rights in the Legislature.
"I am sincerely sorry for the votes I cast and the actions I took that harmed lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," he said in an online opinion piece published this week.
The Bakersfield Republican, who is serving his final year in the Senate, argues in the essay on gaypolitics.com that it is "time for fair-minded Republicans to speak up" for such rights.
Harmed?
In 2005, Ashburn organized and spoke at a rally against legislation allowing same-sex marriage in California and voted against the bill. In 2009, he opposed a measure creating an annual Harvey Milk Day, in honor of the slain gay-rights leader.
Neither of those things hurt people, unless you are talking about feelings about political wishes. In that case, just about
every vote hurts
someone. Nobody should rest their happiness on whether or not legislators will pass something honoring one of their heroes.