Rejecting bigotry

Voters in California and several other states will be asked on Tuesday to add enforced bigotry to their state constitutions. If you have an ounce of justice and liberty in your soul you will reject these radical attempts to install the distorted views of Biblical misinterpretation into a document intended to protect liberty for all.

Readers here have likely confronted this issue and formed an opinion about “gay marriage” and I have no interest in addressing that opinion. But if you look at the issue fairly any vote to prohibit two men or two women from entering into a legally recognized marriage is either bigotry or an attempt to fuse religion and law contravening bedrock American values.

The argument is made that allowing same gender marriage “undermines the institution of marriage.” Nonsense. With over 16,000 such marriages already in California alone it is clear that heterosexual marriage has not suffered one bit. In fact, gay marriage adds to the strength of the practice of marriage by encouraging people to form stable unions rather than “shack up and break up” at will.

I do not care if your Bible says that marriage is only between a man and a woman. That is of interest only to you, not me and certainly is not a matter that should be of interest to government. The First Amendment to the Constitution was added precisely to prevent your Bible from trumping my rights. For those who think otherwise, please add some books on American history to your reading list because you just don’t understand liberty.

Some claim that marriage has traditionally been reserved for a one man one woman union. First of all that is not at all true, but even if it were, there are many traditions that were upended by the American revolution and the slow but steady expansion of liberty ever since.

Some are just uneasy about the idea of homosexual alliances or practices at all. Fine, don’t engage in them. You have no right to enforce your lifestyle on me so quit the attempts and get on with making yourself a better person.

Some resent the fact that it took lawsuits and court decisions to force states to respect the rights of all their citizens to marry the person of their choice. Imagine if you were not allowed to marry who you love but rather could only choose off a state-approved list. How un-American, right? It is the role of courts in our system of government to be the final voice in the protection of liberty. It has been so since the founding of our nation, so why is this the issue upon which they are prevented from doing so?

Face it, anti-gay marriage ballot issues are the ultimate in hypocrisy, either by politicos who want the leverage for election campaigns or those who want to install a religious theocracy on American soil.

Do the right thing if your ballot raises the issue. Vote for liberty and freedom for all and reject theocracy and bigotry. Vote against any attempt to make gays second class citizens. Vote no on 8 in California and against any measure like it in your state.


  1. jwritesel

    Seems I remember a while back California passed a proposition against illegal immigrants that had something to do with cutting off medical and maybe education benefits in that state. I am not sure as the memory is not what it used to be. Right after it got passed the people who were against it took it to court and the entire proposition got gutted making it a worthless effort. I hope the same can happen here. I never like when hard fought for rights are taken away.

  2. gazelle1929

    So if it passes but by less than 2/3ds majority the fundamentalists will be in the unenviable position of arguing that the amendment isn’t fundamental.

    You gotta love the irony of that!

  3. f33dback

    This is religion trying to run your life and your choices even if you are not gay.

    How can anyone in their right mind think passing some vague interpretation of bible verse into a law that affects all of us even, if we are outside of the said religion, is a good way to go.

    What next? Enforced dress code for the Rapture?

    This is why church and state must be separated or we come under the heel of ignorance, and believe it or not a country run by religion would be even worse than one run by Bush.


  4. Phil Hoskins

    It is possible to amend the California Constitution by initiative and in so doing overturn a prior court decision.

    There is a question about this initiative, however, in that the state Constitution also says that any initiative that changes a “fundamental” provision must be by 2/3 vote.

    Phil Hoskins