How to sour someone who supported same-sex marriage
by Debra Saunders at SFGate
In 2000, I voted against Proposition 22, which limited marriage to heterosexual couples. I was on the losing side against 61 percent of California voters.In 2008, I did not vote yes or no on Prop. 8. I am not proud of that non-vote, but as I wrote, I punted, because "I couldn't vote against gay couples, but I also couldn't vote to create a new class of pariahs. The gay community's failure to show tolerance is costing it friends"
Here are three things that moved my thinking on the issue.
1. Gavin Newsom's decision to open up City Hall to same-sex marriages in 2004 showed a disrespect for the process that appalled me. As Sen. Dianne Feinstein put it, were "too much, too fast, too soon." And it was really irritating to see the decision rewarded.(More...)
6 comments:
A a blatant heterosexual, my preference for the opposite sex may be old fashioned these days.
What happened to the 10th Amendment? What happened to States being able to regulate what they licensed and didn't license within that State?
I realize a homosexual judge ruled in opposition to Prop 8 (which I voted for) - but if the voters didn't want homosexual marriage and amended the Constitution of the State to define marriage as male/female. It didn't say that homosexuals couldn't sodomize each other to their heart's content. It simply defined "marriage". And the vote wasn't even close.
Marriage is a civil contract, rubber stamped by the State. It's been between one man and one woman since time began - and the voters merely said that in California, they wanted to keep it that way.
Maybe homosexuals need to move to another state that recognizes their lifestyle as capable of being licensed. But not Arizona, because I plan to move there.
I believe in equal rights for domestic partnerships. Marriage should be between one man and one woman.
I like what both of you said, LL and Opie.
I've come around on civil unions, simply because, well, I think that a state has the right to make that call, and frankly I am concerned with protecting marriage. Marriage is different.
I see a lot of the same dynamic in play here that the left used to lose (long-term) the high ground in the debate on abortion. They pushed too far and they utilized dictatorial court edicts to get their way against the will of the people. Short term you promote a political agenda that way. Long-term you lose the war.
The public turns more and more against abortion all the time, largely as a result of the heavy-handed tactics of its proponents. As public opinion continues to shift, watch the High Nine on the Potomac.
Very few people object to domestic partnerships. I myself don't care if people choose that option. The issues that homosexuals rant about:
(1) Being present when a friend is dying
(2) Insurance benefits for another person (partner, grandma, child) who lives in your household.
(3) Right of survivorship
Can all be handled without tagging the (unnatural) relationship as "marriage".
Corrrectamondo. These issues can all be handled contractually but that's not what they want and thats why the whole thing is a smokescreen.
And the caption for that photo would be: We just want to be accepted as normal.
Post a Comment