Marriage has never been a Fundamental right for ANYONE, homosexual or heterosexual
I came across this post. I don’t think I could have said it any better. Please enjoy!
One of the most prevalent arguments I have seen in recent weeks against Proposition 8 is that the amendment is wrong because it would treat people separately but equal. Those who are against Proposition 8 argue that being able to “marry who you love” is a fundamental right, and the “separate but equal” treatment violates that right.
This argument against Proposition 8 not only mischaracterizes the issue, but does so in a way that is calculated to put supporters of traditional marriage on the defensive. The right to marry has never been an unfettered right. Even today, we maintain important restrictions on the right of individuals to marry. (For example, not permitting marriage between close relatives or prohibiting someone from being married to two people at the same time).
There is nothing in the text of either the California or United States Constitution that explicitly provides that same sex marriage is a “fundamental right.” Nor is there anything in our nation’s history or traditions that establish same sex marriage as a “fundamental right.” Only three states, Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut, even allow same sex marriage and all three states only recently “discovered” this right after their Supreme Courts ruled in closely divided decisions (4-3 votes in all three states) that such a right existed.
While, as a society, we may want to add individual rights, those rights are not necessarily “fundamental rights” and, in a democracy, weighty decisions such as creating new rights should be decided by a vote of the people—not judges.
The “separate but equal” argument is also misleading because Proposition 8 does not treat people separately. If Proposition 8 passes, no one will be prevented from marrying. Individuals in California will be free to marry so long as they marry someone of the opposite gender and so long as the marriage does not violate other long-standing regulations governing marriage in California.
Those who persist in arguing for the “fundamental right” to “marry who you love” face an additional hurdle. If everyone has the right to marry who you love, why wouldn’t three women who love each other be allowed to marry? What about polygamous marriage? Shouldn’t consenting adults in these types of relationships have the right to marry?
If same sex marriage is permissible because an individual has the right to marry whomever he or she loves, the only intellectually honest reason for prohibiting these types of extreme alternative marriages is that they are not socially acceptable. But once you accept that society has a right to limit some marriage relationships , you recognize society’s right to also define marriage in a way that benefits society as a whole. That is exactly what Proposition 8 does. That is why I’m voting for it.
SOURCE: http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/separate-but-equal/
For more info, you might also be interested in this video from the What is Prop 8? website:
What civil rights really mean
I found a great blog post that explains very plainly why same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. This post also uses facts to back it up. Kudos to you Cudweeds!
Here is an excerpt to get you interested:
……..This movement would like us to believe their agenda is a Civil Rights issue. Many buy into this because they are uneducated about what Civil Rights really mean.
According to the Supreme Court, three things must happen to qualify a class for Civil Rights protection.
1) History of discrimination evidenced by a lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate education or cultural opportunity. Evidence shows us this is clearly not the case. What do the facts say?
a. Homosexuals have an average annual income of $55,430, over $20,000 more than the general populous.
b. More than 3 times as many homosexuals as average Americans are college graduates.c. 3 times as many homosexuals as average Americans hold professional or managerial positions
2) Protected classes should exhibit obvious, immutable or distinguishing characteristics, like race, color, gender, that define them as a discrete group. This is obviously not the case with homosexuals.
3) Protected classes should clearly demonstrate political powerlessness. All we have to do is watch the news or view the current debates in the halls of Congress to find this criteria is not met either.
It is clear that none of this criterion is met! So what then do we find to be the truth if we peer beyond this smoke screen? The issue is really one of the attempt to legitimize and normalizing their BEHAVIOR through public law! ……..
Here’s the link:
http://cudweeds.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/lesbian-gay-day-of-silence-are-you-kidding-me/
Some very good videos in support of Prop.8
These videos do an excellent job of explaining Prop.8:
I’m not Catholic but I found this video very inspiring:
Here are a couple of videos I thought were funny, but they do a great job of illistrating their point:
I just like this video:
Is Marriage Really A Civil Right?
This is what I don’t understand, how is marriage a civil right?
To get married you need a license. To get any kind of license you have to meet certain requirements. The two main requirements for have always been: You have to be the appropriate age for the state in which you plan to get married, and you need a husband(man) and a wife(woman). Those who are in a committed same gender relationship, do not meet those requirements. That is why they are not allowed to get married. It is not because they are being discriminated against or their civil rights are being violated. They simply do not meet the requirements. If they did, there would not have been such a mad rush to change the actual marriage license and all the paperwork pertaining to it, when the California supreme court over turned Prop. 22.
Would you argue that a blind person’s civil rights are being violated because they born that way and can not obtain a drivers license? Absolutely not. There are certain requirements for obtaining a drivers license, and I think we all know that being able to see is by far the most important one. But if you apply the same logic to this issue, that gay rights activist apply to marriage, then a blind person MUST be allowed to receive a driver license, because it isn’t his fault that he was born that way. It doesn’t matter how it will affect anyone else, his civil rights are being violated.
These definition was obtained from dictionary.com:
civil rights
pl.n. The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.
Please look at this objectively at this issue. Proposition 8 does not discriminate or take away the rights of anyone. Under California Family code 297.5 is states Very clearly that registered domestic partners have all the same rights and privileges as spouses. Check it out for yourself:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
If we start making accomidations to special interest groups under the guise of civil rights, where do we draw the line?
There is a difference
This whole Prop. 8 thing is really bugging me. I’m tired of people thinking that I am prejudice just because I think marriage should only be between a man and a woman. I think if people would take all the emotions out of it, and look at things logically. They would have to agree that gay marriage just doesn’t make any sense. Here is my attempt at an emotionless, non judgmental argument. There apples and oranges. They are both fruits. They both come from trees. For my argument’s sake, they are nutritionally equal. Sometimes they are bitter. Sometimes they are sweet. They have some common uses. You can make juice with them, you can cook with them, and you can eat them raw. If your shopping for fruit, your decision is based on preference. Now let’s suppose oranges feel they are being treated unequally because throughout history apples have been more prevalent (ex. an apple a day keeps the doctor away; if you want to impress your teacher bring them an apple). Now oranges want to be called apples too. Any logical person would have to agree that oranges couldn’t start calling themselves apples. They are oranges and not apples. It would be confusing. If a recipe called for an apple and you used an orange instead, because it was called an apple, it just wouldn’t be the same. So here’s how I translate my little analogy the apples are marriage and the oranges are domestic partnership. They are both committed relationships. In the eyes of state law they are both equal. Some marriages and domestic partnerships are good (the people involved love and care for each other). Some marriages and domestic partnerships are bad (they are abusive or unfaithful). They do have some things in common, two people love each other, and want to share their lives. The biggest most important issue is that domestic partners can not have children, that are biologically half of each partner. Men and women are designed in such a way that you need one of each to create a family. Sometimes things don’t go as smoothly or work together accordingly. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a plan and that we shouldn’t strive for the ideal.
Using My Voice 