As I sit here, I am torn between the contradictions of the November 4th Elections.It is hard for some one like me who is Jewish and who supports Gay Marriage, to look at the many hypocrisies in the November 4th Elections.
During the civil rights movement, most of the whites who stood up for Black equality were either Jewish or Gay. But here in California a majority of African Americans about 63% voted against Gay Equality. Here in California in a not so long past A mixed race couple Black and White could not have married, but the laws were changed which allowed blacks to marry whites. The same arguements of the "Yes on Prop 8" groups are the same arguements used against blacks. Ironically by African Americans voting to ban same sex marriage they joined and supported the same groups that said that they were not equal.
Even more disturbing is the Mormon , Church of Latter Day Saints, who were murdered by Christians for their untraditional Polygamist marriage practices and then now joined their former persecutors to persecute Gays and Lesbians.
The double irony is a co-worker of mine who is African American and a Mormon (irony tripled since official Mormon Church policy used to forbid African Americans/Blacks from joining the Mormon Church. To my face she led me to believe that she supported marriage equality, but then I saw here at a "Yes on 8" rally. So I guess she was just a liar, thanks Marcie.
I was born and raised in California. I have always been proud of being a Californian. I am now shamed by the hate and discrimination of a majority of Californians to write hate into our state Constitution.
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
Same Sex Marriage
Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians often cry that they want Biblical Marriage. Exactly what is Biblical Marriage:
1. In the Bible daughters were sold to their husbands for alliances
2. In the Biblical times marriage occured at around the ages 13 through 16
3. Biblically a woman has no rights to leave her husband, even if he is abusive.
4. A husband could divorce his wife for any reason.
5. Men could have as many wives as they wanted.
6. Marriages were arrainged and were a business transaction between the fathers.
7. A husband could stone his wife if her hymen wasn't intact, offten a hymen is broke while she is a virgin
Do we really want to return to Biblical Marriages
The institution of marriage has been in a state of change for thousands of years. In the United States., it has been redefined Numerous times:
Only after the civil war that African-Americans were allowed to marry in all areas of the U.S.
Prior to and during the 1960's, at least sixteen states prohibited mixed race couples from marrying. Inter-racial marriage became legal throughout the U.S. after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in that year.
But, until recently, same-sex couples could not marry anywhere in the world.
This final restriction was lifted during 2001-APR, when The Netherlands expanded its definition of marriage to include both opposite-sex and same sex couples. Belgium followed suit during 2003-JAN. Next came Ontario, a province in Canada in 2003-JUN. By 2004-NOV, same-sex marriage had become available in most Canadian provinces. When federal law C-38 was signed into law on 2005-JUL-20, SSM theoretically became available across all of Canada. However Prince Edward Island ignored the civil rights of same-sex couples, and refused to issue marriage licenses to them for almost a month. They capitulated when threatened by a lawsuit. Spain passed a law allowing same-sex couples to marry on 2005-JUN-29. South Africa's law came into effect on 2006-NOV-30.
Many political jurisdictions have special legislation that allows gay and lesbian couples to register their committed relationship as a civil union or domestic partnership and gain some benefits. These areas include most of the Scandinavian nations, the UK, Switzerland, and many states in the United States. The enabling legislation varies greatly among the jurisdictions. Many couples receive only some of the advantages that opposite-gender couples automatically acquire when they marry. In the case of the U.S., couples typically receive a few hundred state benefits but not the over one thousand federal benefits.
Many people believe that same-sex marriage -- or its equivalent under another name -- will become available to all loving, committed adult couples throughout North America and western Europe sometime in the next few decades -- whether they be same-sex or opposite-sex spouses.
Others -- typically religious and social conservatives -- feel that same-sex marriage is a major threat to the institution of marriage itself. They often describe themselves as "supporters of traditional marriage" which actually means that they want to prevent same-sex couples and their children to be forever denied the approximately 1,400 benefits and rights of marriage.
What is most interesting is that over 51% of heterosexual marriage fail in divorce and about 25% of Evangelical Christians have been divorced
1. In the Bible daughters were sold to their husbands for alliances
2. In the Biblical times marriage occured at around the ages 13 through 16
3. Biblically a woman has no rights to leave her husband, even if he is abusive.
4. A husband could divorce his wife for any reason.
5. Men could have as many wives as they wanted.
6. Marriages were arrainged and were a business transaction between the fathers.
7. A husband could stone his wife if her hymen wasn't intact, offten a hymen is broke while she is a virgin
Do we really want to return to Biblical Marriages
The institution of marriage has been in a state of change for thousands of years. In the United States., it has been redefined Numerous times:
Only after the civil war that African-Americans were allowed to marry in all areas of the U.S.
Prior to and during the 1960's, at least sixteen states prohibited mixed race couples from marrying. Inter-racial marriage became legal throughout the U.S. after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in that year.
But, until recently, same-sex couples could not marry anywhere in the world.
This final restriction was lifted during 2001-APR, when The Netherlands expanded its definition of marriage to include both opposite-sex and same sex couples. Belgium followed suit during 2003-JAN. Next came Ontario, a province in Canada in 2003-JUN. By 2004-NOV, same-sex marriage had become available in most Canadian provinces. When federal law C-38 was signed into law on 2005-JUL-20, SSM theoretically became available across all of Canada. However Prince Edward Island ignored the civil rights of same-sex couples, and refused to issue marriage licenses to them for almost a month. They capitulated when threatened by a lawsuit. Spain passed a law allowing same-sex couples to marry on 2005-JUN-29. South Africa's law came into effect on 2006-NOV-30.
Many political jurisdictions have special legislation that allows gay and lesbian couples to register their committed relationship as a civil union or domestic partnership and gain some benefits. These areas include most of the Scandinavian nations, the UK, Switzerland, and many states in the United States. The enabling legislation varies greatly among the jurisdictions. Many couples receive only some of the advantages that opposite-gender couples automatically acquire when they marry. In the case of the U.S., couples typically receive a few hundred state benefits but not the over one thousand federal benefits.
Many people believe that same-sex marriage -- or its equivalent under another name -- will become available to all loving, committed adult couples throughout North America and western Europe sometime in the next few decades -- whether they be same-sex or opposite-sex spouses.
Others -- typically religious and social conservatives -- feel that same-sex marriage is a major threat to the institution of marriage itself. They often describe themselves as "supporters of traditional marriage" which actually means that they want to prevent same-sex couples and their children to be forever denied the approximately 1,400 benefits and rights of marriage.
What is most interesting is that over 51% of heterosexual marriage fail in divorce and about 25% of Evangelical Christians have been divorced
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Constitutional Amendment to Ban Same-Sex Marriage
The recent California Constitutional Right to Marry case calls into question the currently proposed “Limit to Marry” Voter Initiative Constitutional Initiative. If Secretary of State Debra Bowen places it on the ballot, she would be wise to have the Legislative Analysts’ opinion consider the following cited cases and also discuss the issue with Attorney General Jerry Brown to inquire whether or not the proposed initiative can even be legally placed on the ballot. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Assembly member Mark Leno, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, and Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors, and one of the main attorneys on the winning side of the marriage case, David Codell would be wise to immediately contact Bowen and Brown to raise the issue of the legality of the proposed initiative so that the voters of California are properly informed that there may be a potential problem in enacting the initiative if it passes this November (assuming it qualifies for the ballot). As noted in McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 333: “The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the Constitution in 1911 (art. IV, s 1) applies only to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of ‘laws and amendments to the Constitution’ and does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision.” The proposed initiative appears to now attempt to revise the California Constitution to remove the fundamental right to marry and equal protection that gays and lesbians are now afforded under the California Constitution.With that in mind, the Secretary of State must be aware of the following case: Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313: Article XVIII of the California Constitution allows for amendment of the Constitution by the Legislature, or initiative and revision of the Constitution by the Legislature, or a constitutional convention. There is no other method for revising or amending the Constitution. (Livermore v. Waite (1894) 102 Cal. 113, 117, 36 P. 424 (Livermore).)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
