Evolving California: Vote NO on Prop 8

Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. If passed, the proposition would change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. A new section would be added stating “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Evolving California: Vote NO on Prop 8

7 thoughts on “Evolving California: Vote NO on Prop 8

  1. Anne says:

    We can change the constituion that is why we live in America we have the right to vote and change things. A majority of Californian’s already voted to define marriage between a man and a woman and 4 judges took it upon themselves to overturn the VOTE of the people. This is not the America we know. Your little video explains nothing but confuses those who are not educated and uninformed. Same sex unions and benefits already exist in California these rights will not be taken away. There is no need to define this union as a “marriage”. But if we must change the constitution then that is what the majority of the people will do.

  2. halmasonberg says:

    Thanks Anne. I agree the video does nothing to educate about the constitution or the hows and whys/do’s and don’ts of gay marriage. It is mostly just amusing and really to let people know that voting “no” is a “yes” for gay marriage. I, on a personal note, think it’s about time we started to recognize that gay men and women can also hold the institution of marriage dear, meaningful and consider it part of their dream, American and otherwise. At the same time, every bit of headway counts and like so many things, it takes time for people to let go of their fears and start to embrace equality about things and people they were taught were not equal. Obama as a black candidate is both proof of how far we’ve come and, at the same time, a reminder of how far we have yet to go. Progress is slow. But at least there’s progress. There will come a time when gays marrying will be such a non-issue that people will have a hard time understanding how it could have been otherwise. However, that day is not today. But I want to make sure that the people who believe in gay marriage, as I do, know that it’s an issue to vote on this year and how to vote. And, yes, I believe changing the constitution to discriminate–and it is discrimination by definition–is dangerous and not in keeping with the ideal of America I was raised with.

  3. Paul says:

    By taking a quick glance across the animal kingdom, it may be surprising to some to note that several species live in monogamous relationships. This phenomenon is observed in both the greater and lesser species. Surely there must be some benefit to living such a monogamous lifestyle or it would not exist. Such monogamous relationships, or marriages if you will, seem to naturally exist as if some underlying advantage could result. Evolutionary biology provides an answer to the quandary. The goal of every species is survival. The key to survival is passing on your “genes.” In order to accomplish this, a species must maximize its reproduction and maximize their offspring’s survival. Turns out, for some species the best way to accomplish this is by the father sticking around and helping the mother. Each gender of the species provides essentials of survival and thus a marriage is formed. Thus marriage can yield an evolutionary advantage. So, biologically speaking, much prior to governments issuing licenses, marriages existed to bear children and assure that genes proliferated. This type of marriage could only exist between a man and a woman. As languages evolved, English was born. The word marriage was used to define such relationships between one man and one woman. Surely, other relationships exist, many of which are full of love, but these would not be called marriage. Marriage has always described the coming together of a man and a woman to unite in love and initiate the bearing of children. Marriage is the gateway of the family. Biologically speaking, there is only one way to create offspring – this requires both a MALE and a FEMALE gamete. The implications of marriage go far beyond love. Defining marriage isn’t a task to be left to social experts, political activists or judges – The definition has been provided by nature itself and dates back to the beginning of life.

  4. halmasonberg says:

    Well said, Paul. And maybe one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. First and foremost, you’ve decided for us all what the definition of marriage is, not nature. Since, as you pointed out, language came along after the monogamous coupling of certain individuals in certain species. However, you here have decided that the word “marriage” was given to that monogamous relationship between a man and a woman in order to procreate. That is not the definition I was raised with. By your terminology and view of marriage as stated above, couples who cannot or choose not to bear children or parent children should also be disqualified from getting “married.” As should couples that do not maintain monogamous relationships. Cheat on your spouse? Biologically, evolutionarily not marriage. Revoked. What you also don’t seem to mention is that homosexuality also exists in many species as well, not as an aberration, but as a normal, non-judgmental and likely necessary part of everyday life. Dolphins, Giraffes, Sheep, Whales, Manatees, Chimpanzees, other Primates, Lions… The list goes on. It includes mankind. Over 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality. And many of those species that “couple” also engage in homosexual coupling. The pairing of male and female dolphins (as well as whales) are often fleeting, while the pairing of male and male dolphins (and, again, whales) often lasts years. The same is true for Giraffes in which NINE OUT OF TEN PAIRINGS OCCUR BETWEEN MALES. Your point, Paul, is understood, but it is incorrect. Oddly enough, even if you had been factually correct, you still don’t seem to understand that your interpretation of marriage is different from many other people’s interpretation (and I’m guessing you weren’t there when the term was created). And our Constitution has never discriminated in its terminology against same sex marriages. That is what is being discussed. That is what we’re voting on.

  5. Proposition 8 is more than same sex marriage its about protecting our sons and daughters from growing up in a world that teaches that being gay or lesbian is just as normal as being straight. I don’t want my sons and daughters being taught as young as five years old in school that it is okay to marry someone of their same sex. It is about the principle of religion. And protecting what God has set up as the correct way to replenish the earth. It is marriage between a Man and a Woman. God set Adam and Eve on earth to have their posterity fill the whole earth. It goes contrary to the laws set up by God himself. I have nothing against gay or lesbian individuals. I believe they can live their life how they please. I am against the teachings that go against the teachings of God. And we must fight to protect God’s holy ordinance of Marriage between one man and one woman.

    Please go to http://www.protectmarriage.com to read more about the benefits of proposition 8.

  6. halmasonberg says:

    Thanks Spencer. I can’t argue your feelings about religion or God. I can say that your God and mine and not one and the same. I do not believe in a God that has laws against homosexuals. I also believe that homosexuality is natural and therefore, if you believe in God, would be part of his creation. I therefore believe that when it is time for kids to be taught about sex (and that is up to the parents to decide), that they should be taught about homosexuality as a natural part of sexuality among human beings (and other species). It exists. It is not outside of nature. And many children will grow up to be homosexual adults. The more we try and teach them that their natural feelings, desires and attractions are, in fact, unnatural and against God, the more damage we do to very normal, healthy kids. That is my belief.

  7. pnwactor says:

    Well said Hal. Paul, just Goggle “history of marriage” and you’ll find a plethora of definitions of the word marriage as it is/was understood in different cultures and times. Marriage in the secular world is mostly a social contract between individuals which defines the social status of both parties. It confers specific legal rights and privileges upon the couple and upon each individual that are recognized by the society in which they live. Procreation has seldom been used to define a marriage within the legal system of any culture. One need not be married to procreate, nor does having sexual relations with another person generally mean that the couple wishes to procreate. If that were not so, there’d be much less sexual activity going on. If marriage was only about procreation, then people who do not procreate either by choice, physical condition, age or for whatever reason just should not be allowed to marry. Now if we look at marriage as a religious choice rather than a civil matter, that changes things. Religions all have their own specific beliefs and “rules” (however strong or lenient they may be) about being affiliated with that religion. Should the Catholic or any other church refuse to perform gay marriages, hey, more power to them. AS LONG AS A CIVIL CEREMONY IS AVAILABLE. I can’t be Catholic (or Protestant or Mormon or Jew or Muslim or whatever) unless I subscribe to the Church doctrines. Fine. I am always free to look for another religion that suits me better. But I can’t look for another set of laws. But you don’t have to espouse a belief in any religion to get married in the United States, nor is one required to state their intention to procreate. If the government looks at marriage as a civil right, why should gender play a role in it? Hal said previously, “There will come a time when gays marrying will be such a non-issue that people will have a hard time understanding how it could have been otherwise.” It’s only been a relatively short time since civil marriages were prohibited between persons of different races. If allowed, the end of society as we know it was predicted. Yeah, well that didn’t happen. Now we have a presidential candidate of mixed race parentage. I’m old enough (but not that old!) to remember a time when that would have seemed impossible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s