by Betty-Louise
EDIT NOTE: At the request of Betty-Louise, I have flipped "Yes" and "No" at the end of the article, in red. It was a small mistake but it completely altered the author's original intent. The first comment now won't make sense so keep this in mind -- Laurie
I lie.
I am a liar.
I read for months and weeks on a lot of my bloggy friends about why “Yes on 8” was the worst thing any person could vote. They told me about equality and gave me loosely related parables about how this had something to do with slavery and the vote for women. They told me in several different ways…that voting to overturn gay marriage in the State of California was EVIL. And that if you loved or knew or ever even walked by a gay person in your life you HAD TO VOTE NO.
A NO vote was evolved.
A NO vote was enlightened.
A NO vote was RIGHT.
And ya know what? I never said a thing. Partially due to my anti-Palin post debacle (a death threat? Seriously?) but partially because I am a big ol’chicken. And I avoid conflict like Palin avoided geography class in high school (oh crap there I go again)….
But here is the thing. This is what I really think. Are you listening Bartender?
I love me the gays. One of my best friends and a maid of honor in my wedding is gay. I have experienced all her relationship woes and struggles. This is not a religion issue for me. I believe Jesus loves gays and straights alike. I have no ethical or moral problems with people who are BORN gay. I know it is not a CHOICE (my God who would CHOOSE a way of life fraught with such conflict and difficulties?). I think gay couples can and do make fine parents.
California continues to allow domestic-partner registration, a right similar to civil unions found in other states. This grants "same-sex couples all state-level rights and obligations of marriage — in areas such as inheritance, income tax, insurance and hospital visitation" (thank you Wikipedia)
Um, so basically they ALREADY have all the rights of “marriage”. Including adoption rights. But what don’t they have? Well their partners do not inherit ANY debt upon the death of the other. They are also not required to enter into lengthy divorce proceedings should the relationship end. Sounds like a great deal to me, so why then all the complaining?
They can’t call their long term relationship a ‘MARRIAGE’. This is all about the use of A WORD.
So…it is a vocabulary issue. And for me the definition of the word MARRIAGE is: Man+Women=children. It is an institution created to induce procreation and the protection and survival of the children. A gay union is not that. It doesn’t fit the definition. It is that simple. Do I think a gay union is just as important and REAL as marriage? Yes I do. But is it marriage? NO. NO IT IS NOT. It is something else. Something different.
So I voted YES. I have insinuated and may have even SAID I voted NO….cuz I am liar. A big fat liar.
Thanks bartender. Now can you get me Mojito? Just put it on Foolery’s tab will ya?
Posts
8 comments:
Uh ... how to break this to you gently ... if you voted NO, then you voted FOR GAY MARRIAGE. It appears that you thought deeply and carefully about the issue, but didn't read the ballot very well.
See, the thing is, I have heard this argument before, about marriage being for procreation. So I guess my 37-year man+woman marriage is invalid because we failed to procreate. Oh well.
And P.S. One solution that has some merit is to have the state issue domestic partnership licenses to everyone, gay or straight, and let the churches have dominion over marrying people as they see fit.
Great idea - Anything (and everything) that removes government from being involved in the lives of the citizenship
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Cute 8:57am, but what's your point?
No one is taking away anything from anybody.
The only thing that is happening is that the vast majority of people are refusing to allow a small minority of people to change the definition of a word.
As often happens when one side gets it in their mind that life has become a competition, they often think they are loosing. Since they can't 'win' playing by the rules everyone else plays by they decide to change the rules. In this case, change the definition of a word....cause everyone one should be a winner.
Hate to say (not really), this part of life isn't a competition.
....but that doesn't mean there aren't losers.
Next thing ya know it'll be illegal to say "illegal alien" in an AZ court room cause it may offend people.
Somebody, sometime, somewhere, ought to point out that God says what He says about all forms of homosexuality. So ... when we've somehow circumvented all the reasons they "come for" people, God's still comin' after some.
And against God, there IS nobody to speak.
Wow.
I bet it felt good to get that off your chest. I hope you can sleep better at night now.
Oh, wait. No, I don't hope that. I'm a liar, too. But at least I'm not a coward. If you had the courage of conviction, you'd have been able to say this to people who disagreed with you. You may be well believe that you "love [you] some gays" but your actions say differently. Here's a hint: if you feel so awful about how you voted that you needed to confess it here, perhaps you're aware that you made a bad decision.
Post a Comment