Overturning Prop 8: A Plea for Love and Tolerance


California’s Proposition 8 should never have even been a ballot upon which people could vote.  Ideally the majority of Americans would realize that discrimination should be eradicated wherever it rears its ugly head, but come on;  this is the same country where Rush Limbaugh is the figurehead of a political party.  The same country that didn’t allow blacks or women the right to vote less than 90 years ago.  Do you think women would’ve won the right to vote if it had been put to a majority vote?  Give me a break.  They didn’t win that right until the courts stepped in.

And that’s what will have to happen for gays to have the right to marry.

But this is about more than just being able to call each other legal spouses.  This about fairness and equality.  Call it what you want: partnership, civil union, marriage.  The end game is that someone’s love of his life can be with him on his deathbed without the hospitals stepping in and saying that only “family” is allowed.  So that a woman’s female partner can be included on her insurance policy.  That a child can still be with her parent after her gay father dies.

I really don’t understand how people can reconcile the bigotry that they’re supporting with their own beliefs that they’re being ethical and righteous.  It’s a sad state of affairs and showcases the need for a much smaller influence of religion in secular decision making.  Some religions may state that homosexuality is a sin.  But some also say that eating pork is, too, and you don’t see us outlawing bacon.  Others say that it’s customary to cut hands off thieves.  You don’t see us doing that, either.

If you live in California, please support the overturning of Proposition 8 on Thursday, March 5th.  If you can’t be there (like myself), do your part and spread the word of tolerance and love.  Life is too short to be denying people the right to be happy.  Let’s put aside 2000 year old doctrine and follow the real teachings of do unto others.   I’m holding out hope.



  1. It’s really easy to reconcile bigotry when your supreme being tells you it’s a-okay. Keep rockin’ bud.

  2. That’s the thing, though. The supreme being says a lot of things. It must be nice to be so wise as to be able to pick and choose which of His rules to follow.

  3. Two questions.

    Question One: Why did you put Christianity in the tag?
    Question Two: What makes homosexuality right?

  4. Reformedsteve –

    Answer One:

    Because Christians have been one of the most vocal opponents of gay marriage. I probably should’ve specified Evangelicals and Mormons instead of the blanket Christian tag, but it’s no surprise that homosexuality is not approved by most denominations. I do realize that there are some progressive churches that even allow gay and lesbian pastors, but those aren’t the majority. Also, one of the biggest reasons against gay marriage is that homosexuality is immoral from a religious background.

    Answer Two:

    I don’t believe that homosexuality has a value of right or wrong at all. It’s just different from the norm, if you want to call it that. It’s no more right or wrong than anyone is when they fall in love. Straight people aren’t “right” when they fall in love with someone of the opposite sex, so the converse shouldn’t apply either. The reason people consider it so wrong, at least in this current fight, stems from religions deeming it a sin. Since I don’t subscribe to any religion and also don’t believe public policy should base laws on one religion’s definition of sin, I find no reason to pass judgment upon someone’s sexual orientation.

  5. What about the atheist that believes in evolution? Wouldn’t homosexuality prove to be working against the natural evolution of the species? Certainly, homosexuals understand that their union with one another will not further their genetic material. (I am fundamentalist Christian arguing from the world-view of an atheist).

    The nature of law and justice is based in right and wrong. That is what I meant by right.

    Marriage historically is a religious institution and for this reason I would like to see the government to have no authority over marriage, including laws regarding heterosexuals.

  6. I’m sure that homosexuals understand that two people of the same sex cannot reproduce together. I’m sure that an atheist who agrees with evolution could be against gay marriage for reasons of their own that I can’t speak to. And I don’t see how understanding evolution would mean that one would feel inclined to outlaw gay marriage. Having or not having marriage will not affect homosexuals being who they are so I don’t see how it could affect evolution. Sexual reproduction would be the only way to evolve and we all know that you don’t need to be married to have sex.

    Again, with respect to right and wrong, I don’t believe that one’s sexual orientation falls under either category. It should not be illegal to love someone of the same sex just as it’s not mandatory to love someone of the opposite sex, or to love at all, for that matter.

    For your exact reasoning, marriage is both a civil and a religious institution. Being married by the state affects your legal rights, but has is not ordained by any faith whatsoever. Just like being married in a Catholic church doesn’t carry over to being married in a Muslim temple. I think that there should always be that separation. The term “marriage” can be used by both groups without invalidating one another.

    (This is an interesting conversation. Thanks for commenting on my blog.)

  7. If only reformedsteve’s caricature of evolution were true… It’s not, and even seemingly detrimental characteristics can be either neutral or even beneficial in the long run. It’s also important to note that even very detrimental characters can still stick around, and even come to dominance, within evolutions bounds.

    So in essence, the “evolution is against gays” argument should be put to rest.

  8. I think a lot of times people that share my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ think that by making homosexual marriage illegal it will be doing away with the sin of homosexuality. But as you have noted such thinking is misguided. After all, paraphrasing what you have said not being married stops no one from having intercourse. I personally voted against homosexual marriage in the state of VA, but I did it more to define what marriage is. I did not think I was going to stop my gay neighbors from having intercourse. I did think that I was maintaining the historical meaning of marriage. If I was able to add one man, one woman, for one lifetime. I would have, but sadly many want room for divorce. Just another sign of the sinfulness of mankind.

    Back to an atheistic world view, I was suggesting that if an atheist was consistent he/she would deem homosexuality to retard evolution since it does not allow for the furthering of the specie.

  9. Chad if we were all homosexuals we would be the last of our kind. There would not be any characteristics to stick around.

  10. I understand that people with certain religious beliefs consider homosexuality to be a sin. I disagree with that view and find it to be extremely dated and dangerous.

    You said earlier that you “would like to see the government to have no authority over marriage,” yet you said that you voted to further define marriage in a governmental context. I don’t understand how the state’s definition of marriage affects your religions definition whatsoever, in which case, your voting against gay marriage really did nothing but reinforce your own personal religious beliefs (which weren’t being challenged). That’s the reason that I’m so strongly opposed to the argument that marriage needs to be defined according to a certain group’s religious beliefs. Leave that to the church and those who follow that faith. But it has no place in any state constitution – or federal amendment.

    What does it take to be a consistent atheist? One could be an atheist and also not believe in evolution. Atheists, like believers, have extremely varying beliefs and shouldn’t be lumped all together as having to follow exact rules to be considered such.

    You misunderstand evolution. It is not a belief system. It is an explanation of how biological organisms change over periods of time. Because of this, it has no value of right or wrong. It is not a religion. It is a field of scientific study. Humans could evolve regardless of whether or not a majority of humanity deems those selected traits to be “sin.” And in relation to what Chad said, human characteristics aren’t weeded out based on the current culture’s viewpoints on what’s considered right or wrong. If that were the case we would have much fewer people with lower IQs and we wouldn’t have wisdom teeth.

  11. And yes, if we were all homosexuals we could not reproduce. That doesn’t mean that it’s morally wrong to be homosexual in a heterosexual society. You can’t use evolution in your argument when you don’t even 1) believe it or 2) understand it. Evolution isn’t a moral system.

  12. You’re silly.

    Grace and Peace,

  13. Reformedsteve,

    Actually, homosexuality doesn’t preclude them from reproducing, so that’s fail number one. Fail number two is assuming I’m retarded and don’t know what I’m talking about. Fail number three is not educating yourself on what evolution actually is.

  14. A classic ending to this timeless debate. I hoped for more.

  15. Me too Mason me too. But on the bright side of things Chad gave me a seriously bad case of the giggles. Thanks bro it’s been real.

  16. Don’t worry, I got a chuckle out of this as well. Fundies always make me laugh, but then I feel a striking sense of sadness for the future of humanity.

    Oh yeah, and you’re still wrong to have brought up evolution to back up your argument.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: