Oregon writer, Rain Trueax, and Oregon painter, Diane Widler Wenzel co-author Rainy Day Thought. Diane generally posts on Wednesdays and Rain on Saturdays. There may be extra days or changes as situations warrant. Comments are always welcome and appreciated as it turns an article into a discussion.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Closing Arguments on Prop 8

I am hoping for the best on this issue as the courts decide if California's voting to ban gay marriage is against the Constitution. It is beyond my comprehension how so many states have voted to block people from marrying who are of age and in love. I have written about it many times in the blog. I just hope that maybe soon it will be changed and we can look back on it as ridiculous that it was ever any other way.

What is interesting is that a conservative can see that this is truly a conservative issue. Ted Olson has really surprised me but in a good way.

For people who are not gay, it might seem like why should we care? We should care because it's the right thing to do. We should care because when we demean one group, keep them down, suppress their rights, we are all diminished by it. I used to think the government should not call anything marriage and call such licenses all civil unions. Now I feel that's not enough. We have to recognize what truth is and truth is that gay marriage should be as valid as any other kind.


Ingineer66 said...

I do not agree with Prop 8, but I do get tired of every proposition that we vote for in California getting overturned by the courts. This has been an interesting one to watch, because the Mormon church has got a ton of flak over supporting the measure, but nobody is talking about how most blacks and Hispanics also voted for it. I guess you can only be a bigot if you are a religious white person.

Rain said...

Well that's the problem with ballot measures. They have to be legal to take effect but don't always end up legal when they go on the ballot. It's happened up here with various ones on the environment also. Sometimes people vote to change the Constitution and it runs afoul of the US Constitution.

What I wish is people would not call those who disagree with them names but stick to the issues. The name-calling just stops the conversation. What I think is the issue here is civil rights and a lot of people vote for things based on fear, ignorance, and clever ads. Oregon voted to ban gay marriage too and put it into our Constitution but now we might see how the Supreme Court sees it.

And I think everybody should know by now that anybody can be a bigot, skin color sure isn't the determiner; but it's just a game stopper when the word is used, in my opinion. Better is to say they are just wrong and unless you personally know someone. or have seen a designated group act a certain way to prove their bias, leave off the name calling. It really doesn't help. Better is to inform each other of the issues and why each feels as they do; then leave room to hear the other side.

mandt said...

Well, a patriotic American would have to agree with engineer66 that this is the land where equal opportunity bigotry is allowable by the Constitution. But there are limits, where basic civil rights are violated. I for one don't hold much store by Mormons who believe in magic glasses, made-up gospels, and angels named Moroni. Still, free speech is free speech. Gays deserve the right to get as divorced as often as fundamentalists. And, engineer, you are so right about the initiative process----it makes California ungovernable.

Rain said...

Basically I like the initiative process as Oregon has the system also but admit it has its drawbacks. Mob rule isn't always right. What I would like to see is nobody can pay someone to collect signatures and then you at least end up with genuine public issues where it's not bought by one group. They also have to pass Constitutional muster and when they don't, it's too bad they aren't thrown out first (sometimes they have been in Oregon) as they do cost money to run them and then find it's all for nothing. A lot of our environmental protections in Oregon though have come through the ballot and begun by citizens. Too often our legislature hasn't had our own best interests in mind but more those of developers. In the case of gay marriage though or any civil rights issue, voting on it isn't a good way when there is a Constitution which should protect the individual against the ignorance of the majority. Hopefully that's how gay marriage will end up and someday people will wonder why it was ever even debated.

OldOldLady Of The Hills said...

I couldn;t agree more! I hope that this judge sees that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Also...I am sick and tired of how these Propostions are worded so that "YES" means "NO" and "NO" means "YES"....THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED!!!!!! It has been happening--at least here in California, for as long as I can remember and that is the 49 years I have lived and voted here!