Briefly Undecided on 8
Whenever I drive around my neighborhood, I bristle at the almost ubiquitous “No on 8″ signs, with their slogan “Equality for All.” This line suggests equality of results, not of opportunity and represents a perversion of the America creed.
Equality for all, I fear, means freedom for none. And freedom is the ideal which inspired our nation’s founders as well as those of my own political party. It is the animating idea of almost every great political speech in American history. Indeed, even Barack Obama uses the word, “freedom,” three times in his celebrated 2004 address to the Democratic National Convention. (He did not once use the noun, “equality,” but did use its adjectival form, “equal” when quoting the Declaration of Independence.)
It’s not just that slogan which troubles me. It’s also the attitude of many opponents of 8 who treat supporters of the initiative as narrow-minded troglodytes animated by a hatred of homosexuals (and yes, there are some guilty of such animus). But, many of them simply see marriage as the union of one man and one woman and have legitimate concerns about how state recognition of same-sex marriage will impact their freedom and that of their religious organizations to maintain the traditional definition of that ancient institution.
(To that end, as I expressed in this post, this line in the latest ad against 8, “Because regardless of how you feel about marriage, it’s wrong to treat people differently under the law,” could be quite effective.)
A reader wrote in, telling me that 25 “Yes on 8″ signs had been stolen from his neighborhood in Orange County. Yet, more evidence that gay marriage advocates don’t want to discuss this issue and resent those who criticize them.
Not to mention the e-mails I get reminding me of the imperative of supporting the “No on 8″ campaign because of how mean-spirited and dishonest the “Yes” campaign is. Can’t they just make a positive case for gay marriage?
So, on Friday, troubled by the “Equality for All” slogan and reading much vindictiveness from the “No” folks, I felt I couldn’t possibly join their cause.
Then, at synagogue, I saw a lesbian couple who had recently gotten married. Both sported “No on 8″ stickers. Having spent much time with these two ladies, I know they understand what marriage means. I realized there could be a human cost to a “Yes” vote. Their relationship did more to influence my vote on this initiative than the myriad e-mails cluttering my in-box.
Perhaps that’s why I thought the first ad against 8 would be so effective.
20 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
It isn’t just the liberals who are stealing “Yes on 8″ signs. A friend of mine is a big “No on 8″ organizer and someone dumped a ton of “Yes on 8″ signs on his lawn. Activists on both sides are equally determined to stir the pot.
Perhaps the signs dumped on my friend’s lawn are the same ones that were stolen…
Comment by OutliciousTV — October 20, 2008 @ 6:03 pm - October 20, 2008
Some evangelical leaders are bucking the trend and opposing Proposition 8
Comment by Joe — October 20, 2008 @ 6:07 pm - October 20, 2008
Chief Justice Warren wrote: in the Loving v. Virginia decision
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
I asked a while back about “Equality for All” in one of your earlier posts ‘why prop 8 will lose’ and was met with — that this is the dangerous road to socialism. Well after hearing more about socialism today on the grand MSM, medicaid/medicare — Social Security — are already established social programs.
But then I looked at the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” I guess the No on 8 folk should have floated the boat with “Liberty for ALL”.
Kudos to your Friends who just recently got married.
Comment by rusty — October 20, 2008 @ 7:19 pm - October 20, 2008
There would indeed be a human cost to Prop 8 passing. Many people of faith would be coerced into adhering to someone else’s belief rather than their own. Equal opportunity to make a life affirming and pro-family commitment would be lost to 10% of Californians. Constitutional rights would be eliminated for an arbitrary minority class of people.
Whose freedom might be eliminated next? Are other minorities unworthy of fundamental rights if 50% + 1 California voters disagree with their lifestyles? Think about the effect of your vote on your neighbors, friends, and coworkers…people who want nothing more than the right to live their private lives without the government limiting their personal relationships and faith-affirmed decisions.
Proo 8 does not protect tradition. You can protect traditional marriage by staying faithful to your spouse, by encouraging couples not to take their vows lightly, and by teaching your children the value of making commiments carefully.
Comment by loren fox — October 20, 2008 @ 7:33 pm - October 20, 2008
More Marriage Musings…
Even when legalized civil unions and domestic partnerships are thrown into the mix, the countries that consider same-sex unions and heterosexual marriages to be equal before the law represent a small percentage of the world’s nations.
… Of cours…
Trackback by ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected — October 20, 2008 @ 7:33 pm - October 20, 2008
How so?
In context it would seem to be about equality of opportunity. Of course, to buy this argument one has to accept that a same-sex “marriage” and an opposite-sex “marriage” are basically the same thing. Still, I don’t see where equality of results enters into it.
Comment by Dave — October 20, 2008 @ 7:55 pm - October 20, 2008
Seriously, these gays are a blight on society. Why can’t they just go away and stop asking to be full and equal participants in civil society? They are just polluting society and should shut up and learn to play by the rules of the majority and stop rocking the boat. Love it or leave it!!
Comment by jimmy — October 20, 2008 @ 8:02 pm - October 20, 2008
My friend, can I first just say, God bless you for being a brave voice. I’m in your corner 5 zillion percent
I think I understand why something like Proposition 8 is so problematic. I addressed it here — http://tinyurl.com/6gz4pg
I’m staying on top of this, for no other reason than Reason …
Comment by Eowyn — October 20, 2008 @ 8:23 pm - October 20, 2008
Seriously, these gays are a blight on society. Why can’t they just go away and stop asking to be full and equal participants in civil society? They are just polluting society and should shut up and learn to play by the rules of the majority and stop rocking the boat. Love it or leave it!!
I couldn’t agree more.
One of these days, jimmy, gays like you will realize that society doesn’t believe that people who dress children as sexual slaves, take them to sex fairs where naked and seminaked adults masturbate and have sex in front of them, and then try to insist that being opposed to that is “homophobic” are in any way responsible enough or cognizant of the value of marriage to be granted it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 20, 2008 @ 8:44 pm - October 20, 2008
I voted ‘no’ on 8 and gave a little money to two anti-8 groups. Having said that: I think the official “No on 8″ campaign is terrible, and sadly predict a victory for Yes on 8.
The problem with gay marriage in CA is that it was done as a slap in the face of democracy. Instead of waiting 5-10 years, making good use of CA’s powerful Civil Unions in the meantime, staying consistently in favor of democracy, learning the lessons of the Hawaii vote in 1998, etc., CA gay marriage advocates just had to ram gay marriage down the everyone’s throats, via the courts. And that proves the “Yes on 8″ concept that gays are willing to sue if they don’t think you’re being sensitive enough. And then the “No on 8″ campaign just hectors the electorate and complains about its opponents – instead of realizing that many potentially sympathetic Californians in the political center still need to be *sold* on how gay marriage will benefit the whole society. Awful.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 20, 2008 @ 9:24 pm - October 20, 2008
A quick thought — you’ve lampooned the No on 8 campaign for rhyming “8″ with “hate.” However, IIRC, it was also you who stated that some gay marriage supporters may think “Yes” on 8 means “Yes” for gay marriage (I admit that I’ve gotten tripped up on that once or twice). A message like, “Yes on 8 equals hate” would stick in the minds of pro-gay marriage voters who might otherwise be confused….
However, I do agree with you generally — society has forgotten what marriage is about. Sad face.
Comment by Joel Thompson — October 20, 2008 @ 11:07 pm - October 20, 2008
But, many of them simply see marriage as the union of one man and one woman and have legitimate concerns about how state recognition of same-sex marriage will impact their freedom and that of their religious organizations to maintain the traditional definition of that ancient institution.
You’ve hit on exactly why we keep losing on these amendment issues. We’ve been unable or unwilling to convince people that we think marriage is an excellent institution and one worth emulating, entering into, and preserving – even with all of the problems a marriage can have.
Comment by Rob — October 21, 2008 @ 12:05 am - October 21, 2008
well this isn’t a slap in the face of democracy but it is pretty funny:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/breeders_cup_challenge_to_feature
I queried both Bruce and Dan about
Gay Patriot Representing the millions of patriotic gays and lesbians across the USA by standing up for freedom, fairness, free speech, privacy and true American values.
The ‘millions’ was just a random number. and even though I attempted to crudely calculate the actual number of LGBT folk through the ‘4%’ factor, it is still rough to get the actual number becuase I am not good with numbers. I do find it hard to actually consider folks comparisons of events like Folsom to be actual depiction of the vast LGBT community.
If I had serious concerns about events like Folsom, I would also have to be concerned about the young folk subjected to the unwholesome activities of the MISS AMerica pagents for young folk. . .Jon Benet comes to mind. . . or the ever so present gathering of Bikers in Sturgis ( it is much more tame than in the past, largely because of the youth in attendance).
But, since I never got my official copy of ‘The Gay Agenda’ I will rely on my personal relationships of LGBT folk who have been in long-term committed relationships for continued guidance.
Comment by rusty — October 21, 2008 @ 8:34 am - October 21, 2008
DailyKos 8 Opponents make common cause with Ted B (Mormon-hating RINO).
Comment by V the K — October 21, 2008 @ 11:40 am - October 21, 2008
Let’s try that again with the missing character in the html. DailyKos 8 Opponents Make Common Cause with Ted B (Mormon-hating RINO).
Comment by V the K — October 21, 2008 @ 11:43 am - October 21, 2008
So let’s see……after suffering a massive drop in the polls due to advertisements indicating that liberal gays who want marriage are antireligious bigots who intend to attack and harass churches and people who disagree with them…..liberal gays start spouting antireligious bigotry and attack and harass churches and people who disagree with them.
Really. ARE these people as inane and stupid as they act? Better yet, it needs to be publicized across the planet that one of Comrade Obama’s own operatives is calling for personal dirt, attacks, and harassment of Mormons. Let’s see how THAT plays in New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 21, 2008 @ 12:20 pm - October 21, 2008
But it isnt just about concerns about the rights of religious expression and free speech, or traditional definitions. many of them also raise legitimate concerns about the reprecussions of such a fundamental change on the institution of marriage itself and on society. The default position of most gays is that it will be good for society. But I still have seen little evidence that most gays have actually tried to consider that question objectively, let alone done so.
But foundational changes like these can cause changes in societal attitudes, not just toward gays, but towards institutions themselves.
The fundamental question people need to ask themselves is what is the purpose of marriage to society? What purpose justifies state involvement in the relations between consenting adults? What reasons justify taxpayer subsidy? Why does it justify it?
And then people must ask themselves if gay relationships and straight relationships actually do perform that purpose equally.
It is the answers to those questions, and nothing that the left has represented, that form the real case for or against gay marriage.
Comment by American Elephant — October 21, 2008 @ 10:36 pm - October 21, 2008
Because clearly that is what ALL those damnable homos do! Blighters!!
Since when does the bad behaviour of a very few automatically indicate that EVERYONE does it?
Should the kids be there? NO!
However, is this even an issue in the general population of LGBT couples? Um, NO!!
Where do you get off making these wild, half-crazed, man-hopping-about-in-a-bathrobe-and-slippers-whistling-Colonel-Bogey sorts of predictions? I think you get loonier every time I happen to swing by here.
Comment by PSUdain — October 23, 2008 @ 3:52 am - October 23, 2008
The problem isn’t that they all do it PSU, its that almost no one in the entire gay community denounces it.
Comment by American Elephant — October 23, 2008 @ 7:45 am - October 23, 2008
And very few people in the straight community take the time to denounce the straight people who have taken kids to such events. That happens, too.
Also, I have never personally issued a statement denouncing people who eat other people. That doesn’t mean I support it, for God’s sake! There are some things that one doesn’t need to go running about shrilly denouncing at the top of ones lungs. Firstly they don’t happen that often. Secondly, ALMOST EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THEY’RE WRONG SO IT ISN’T NECESSARY!
You don’t publicly denounce EVERY murder that occurs (something much more frequent, as far as I can tell, than people taking kids to these highly sexual events that occur only a few times per year). Obviously that doesn’t mean that you support those murders that either pass under your radar or pass out of your mind before you next put pen to paper or fingers to keys. It’s just OBVIOUS that it’s wrong to practically everyone. How many people, in general, are there who just continually rail against murder?
If he could point to something more than A SINGLE PICTURE ON THE SAME ARTICLE AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, that might just begin to build the case that this is pandemic. But it doesn’t appear that it is anywhere near so. It appears to be relatively isolated and infrequent. That is CLEARLY not a defense of the act! Is it bad? OF COURSE. Should it happen? HELL NO! Is that obvious to nearly everyone, LGBT or no? YES! Then why do we spend countless hours beating it to death?
If we had to sit down and condemn every behaviour with which we do not agree before going on to debate other things, we’d be here forever and a day just doing that. And we’d never get to the topic at hand.
For these reasons this particular argument (if it can even be called that) is a huge red herring in this context. If that incident is what we were specifically talking about it would be way more relevant. But I think you’d find that there would be little debate–mostly just a round acclamation about how it’s bad.
And I would note that for nobody denouncing it, there are many people here on both sides, myself among them, who repeatedly have denounced these actions only to further and further cries that “nobody denounces this stuff”. (See above, post 18: “Should the kids be there? NO!” See also all the time I spend in this post denouncing it.)
I would argue that one reason this is so much talked about here is that it fits nicely into the narrative of the “stupid amoral gay-left weenies”.
Comment by PSUdain — October 24, 2008 @ 4:02 am - October 24, 2008