Texas Liberal

All People Matter

California Gay Marriage Ban A Reminder You Can Never Fully Trust The Culture

The vote in California to ban gay marriage is a timely reminder that even on a day when things seem to have gone well, you can’t trust the culture of our nation. This is true even in a center of liberalism such as California. 

California is a solidly Democratic state. Yet the people of California have banned gay marriage. With 95% of all votes recorded, Senator Obama had won 61% of the California vote. At the same time, 52% of the California public voted to prohibit gay marriage.

I don’t have many expectations of the 37% in California that voted for Mr. McCain, though I’ll bet that at least 10% of them voted to allow gay marriage, but what is wrong with the Obama supporters who favored the ban?

Bigotry and prejudice–That’s what is wrong with them. It seems that at least 15% of the electorate in California are people who voted for Mr. Obama and then voted to deny gay people the right to have the relationships they want in this brief and brutal life.

A proposal to give farm animals more space in their pens passed with 61%. That’s fine. I might have voted for it myself. But why can’t we care for people we have to live with in life as much as we do for animals we are going to eat?

Even on this happy day, keep a distance from what is around you. Don’t lulled into feeling that all is better. Remember that even people on your side of the aisle can stick a knife in your back. Embrace your friends and be happy for all that has been gained, but don’t forget the full picture.

November 5, 2008 - Posted by | Campaign 2008, Politics | , , , , , ,


  1. Separate but equal, right? It’s worked in the past.

    It’s disgusting that CA 8, AZ 102, and FL 2 all passed. It makes me ashamed of those around me that we would be so willing to accept the segregation of the LBGT community. A hundred years ago, we would have scoffed at African-American’s rights of today…

    Are people always so blind to history? Why do we even bother with the concept of a separation of Church and State?

    Comment by danaofthebells | November 5, 2008

  2. Dana—Nothing I can add that would improve what you’ve said. Thanks for the comment.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | November 5, 2008

  3. It passed for the simple reason that marriage cannot by definition occur between 2 people of the same-sex. Just as it cannot occur between species.

    Period, end of story.

    Call it a civil union or whatever else, just don’t call it something it is not, marriage. I think the people of California voted against the redefinition of the word.

    Comment by Laz | November 5, 2008

  4. I’m conflicted myself.
    I actually think gay ‘marriage’ is de facto civil union ( the state not being a religious organization should not be promulgating its functions in a fashion which resembles them ) or partnership – along with all other ‘marriages’. Unfortunately, end runs around equal rights by wordsmiths have left no room for exception : marriage must include gays so that they can perform all the functions of responsible parents – which they often are. Protection of children by ensuring full legal rights for whatever civil arrangements their parents choose is necessary.

    Comment by opit | November 5, 2008

  5. They are not a different species. Again, a hundred years ago, this very conversation would have been about African-Americans. They have a different color skin, so they’re a different species, right? Can you hear yourself? Do you forget history?

    You can’t call it something else and have it be equal. It’s simply not possible. The other avenue, which is the one I prefer, is to abolish marriage all together. Marriage should be something we find in a church and not in the state. Make the religious ceremony a marriage but the legal, binding document all reflect the same term: “Civil Union.” With the language being separate, the rights and privileges will always be separate.

    Comment by danaofthebells | November 6, 2008

  6. Dana,
    I didn’t say they were a different species. I’m just making the point that “marriage” as understood by all cultures since the dawn of civilization is a covenant between one man and onw woman (except of course, in polygamist societies, but even then the polygamist man will not “marry” other men). Not one man and one man, or say (FOR EXAMPLE) one dog and one man, one echidna and one goat etc.

    That has been the definition of marriage, history bears that out. If folks want to redefine it, well the relativist spirit of our age says “why not?”

    The vote in California shows that people (in that state at least) are not willing to go that far, yet.

    But do not fret, “marriage” will be redefined within the next 10 years in this country (as it has in parts of Europe).

    If we can and have, as a society, redefined infanticide and called it “choice”, we can and will redefine just about anything else in the name of so-called progress.

    Comment by Laz | November 6, 2008

  7. Lest I be accused of being a single-issue puke, let us not forget that we have also redefined greed and insist of calling it the free market at work.

    Comment by Laz | November 6, 2008

  8. Laz
    That’s more truth than poetry. I actually did read Orwell and Huxley – and noted the reverse descriptions of agencies, etc., such as the Department of War becoming ‘National Defence’ ( in the Middle East, yet ) – so got a boot out of this http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21052.htm

    Comment by opit | November 6, 2008

  9. How can you tout this as material for a liberal blog? The people of California spoke their minds and voted freely for something that was aligned with their beliefs, which is something of which any true liberal should be supportive. And yet, you feel it’s necessary to say there is something “wrong” with them? In addition, just because someone voted for Obama, that does not mean that he/she should support gay marriage. You’re comparing apples to oranges. By the way, I am black, and an extremely large number of blacks registered and voted for Obama, but blacks are not as likely to vote in favor of gay marriage.

    Comment by LaShawn | November 7, 2008

  10. LaShawn–Maybe we should vote on the rights of black people to get married. How would you like that?

    Comment by Neil Aquino | November 7, 2008

  11. The problem is not about religious “ethical” violations. The problem is that it treats two people different under the law. We are saying that one group has the right to marry. The other does not.

    For those of you who think that civil unions possess the same rights as those who are married… I suggest you look it up. It is not the same thing. The rights are not identical, and, therefor, there is discrimination. Either every person can marry the human being of their choice, or not.

    Remove the issue itself. The question is: is it legally ethical to grant one group of people one right and deny it to another, albeit a minority?

    All I can hear from those who oppose is ‘separate but equal’ or ‘wrong in the face of God.’ I’m disinterested in turning this into a religious debate; I’ve had too many of those with my immediate family. Atrocities and segregation has happened in nearly every culture via the religion of the majority.

    Comment by danaofthebells | November 7, 2008

  12. i suggest a ban on marrige as well as letting just any idiot have a baby. this is about getting to rightwing religous nuts out to vote, I am glad the stupid smirk has been wiped off the face of the rediculous republican party for at least the next two years 🙂 i dont believe in god but thank god Obama won!

    Comment by bill brady | November 9, 2008

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

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: