Journal, Diary, & Blogging / Proposition 8

It's an initiative looking to free all sexual orientations from discrimination. Sexual orientation is not so relevant as what type of person they are, their character, their personality, and they way in which they carry themself in the world. It does not define a person. It should not, therefore, limit an individual in any way.

Everyday there are people all around the world that get married, only to be divorced a time later. Whether it be days, months, years. And here there are people fully committed to the ideals and concepts that marriage claims to maintain. And yet we deny them that right only to maintain it for the drunken guests of las vegas and the uncommitted and unprepared. I'm far from claiming that all LGBT couples are super couples that are guaranteed to last forever. But as human beings they should be presented with the same opportunities, whether it be for success or failure.

People argue that the divorce rate has gone up and has continued to do so in recent years. There are numerous reasons that can be correlated with this finding. First, it wasn't until the latter part of the 1900s that couples were able to disolve a marriage simply because at least one member of the relationship was dissatisfied. Secondly, as technology becomes evermore widespread, the fact of the matter is that people are living longer. With people living longer, they are presented with more time to change their perceptions and feelings. People have come to the realization that they dont have to stay married just because they've been with someone for an extended period of time.

Gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transexual, straight... it isn't relevant. As people and generations inevitably evolve, so do their concepts and preferences. If we weren't meant to evolve from our predecessors, then maybe technology shouldn't exist? What makes this particular concept so steadfast? If people and ideals didnt evolve, women would still be property and blacks would still be slaves. The growing population now demands change to a law that fails to apply to the generations of today. Concepts that worked for past generations have continually been examined and re-evaluated to be updated so as to be better applied to current societal expectations. If there are enough people to even bring about this topic as consideration and ground work for an argument, that alone proves it is worth considering. If there is a large enough population that is dissatisfied with the current situation to take the time to propose change and to fight back, then it is more than worth it to at least take the time to acknowledge their opinions. No one should be silenced because they disagree.

People constantly preach against this concept as if it has some dramatic impact on the social well being of all those that do no partake. Oh no, another gay couple just got married, now what should i do? Sarcastic and satirical questions are necessary when a topic arises that has no business being argued in the first place. No government should limit the extent to which people can be legally committed to each other.

This is not an initiative forcing all those who disagree with the concept of same-sex marriage...it is, rather, a matter that solely affects those immediately involved. the union of two women/men does not in any way lessen the value of a healthy straight marriage. for those that say the failure of this proposition to be adding will force teachers to instruct their students that gay marriage is okay. this is simply not the case. not that they shouldnt teach them it, but all this would serve to do is have people recognize that it is not legal. It does not force nay-sayers to agree with it. Another issue is, since when was marriage really taught about in schools? The fact that people ARe married is obviously touched upon, but the actual description that details what exactly marriage is and should mean to an individual is dealt with by one's belief system. A belief system that has entirely nothing to do with the education system.What i fail to understand is where so many pro-prop 8 people are deriving their concepts from. marriage is sacred to those who treat it as such, but by no means are all those who are married involved in a sacred union. marriage alone is not sacred... the union and commitment between

two individuals makes it so. If marriage is so sacred among straights, why aren't there more limitations on who exactly can get married? Why does the market exist in Las Vegas? Why can ANY straight couple unite in marriage regardless of their commitment level or likelihood to remain together... when NO same-sex couples can? That fact alone is discriminatory. If marriage were as sacred as everyone says as well as for the sake of the children, then only couples able to prove their commitment level and lasting power who are ALso capable parents as well as actually physically capable of becoming parents... should be allowed to be married. Saying marriage is sacred is a blatant lie when it is only for the sake of discriminating against those whose life decisions you fail to agree with.

Further, the second someone brings God into the argument, it completely nullifies their view-point. This is a governnment issue, and as such, has absolutely nothing to do with religion or God. The separation of church and state is a fact, not a concept or ideal. Regardless of what a spiritual experience marriage can potentially be for an individual, that issue is not relevant to the more technical issue at hand. People have continually argued that domestic-partnerships and civil unions are

We should focus more on the parent techinques within the households rather than what gender is raising a child. Stabilization of the family should be the focus. Same-sex couples have proved to be more than capable of maintaining a stable household. its' the concept of having two parents in general, the mother vs father role is irrelevant. People have claimed that same-sex marriages will lead to degenerate youth as it has been "proven" that a mother-father balance is necessary for a normally functioning child to exist. These are the same people that relate a single-parent home that produces degenerate youth to a fully functional and capable same-sex couple. People have asserted that since one or the other (father/mother) was not present then this absence has likely and inevitably led to a life of crime and sex and babies before marriage. What people have failed to recognize is the fact that a single-parent household, as valiant an they may make, is incapable of providing an equal amount of one-on-one interaction at a parent-child level. This is because there is literally the absence of ONe person not because it is specifically one gender or the other that is not present.
The judgment of the potential success for such family situations should be left up to those immediately involved. How can we justify not only judging and attempting to direct someone's life, but limiting them as well. If marraige is solely for the children, should we then discriminate against those straight couples who are incapable of producing children. If marriage is only for children, what purpose do these people serve? If people have limited the concept of marriage to not include the ideals of love and commitment regardless of the offspring situation, then two straight people in this situation have no right to be married. Should they then be forced to maintain a civil union or domestic partnership for the sake of the legal benefits most desire?