Why so angry?

By Ilasiea L. Gray

I don’t understand what the fuss is about same sex marriage.  People may be familiar with the infamous Proposition 8 that California just passed.  This proposition overturns the California constitution by banning same sex couples to marry, and only acknowledging marriage as between a man and woman.  I think this proposition is absolutely ridiculous and that all humans should have the same rights.

By the wonderful powers of facebook, a friend of mine posted a very interesting video the other day.  It is MSNBC commentator Keith Olberman, and it is as follows:

I was a little confused at first when I saw this video because he started out using the word “corny.”  Olberman states, “this isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics.  This is about the human heart.  And if that sounds corny, so be it.”  I immediately thought this was going to be comedic.  Other factors, such as the dramatic head turns to the other running cameras also made this comedic.

However this is a serious matter.  One of my favorite points he brings up is when he is defending the ability to redefine marriage.  He talks about how just in 1967, an African American person could not marry a white person in sixteen states.  He uses President Elect Barack Obama as a perfect example.

Sixteen states had laws in the books that made this illegal in 1967.  1967.  The parents of the President Elect of the United States could not have married in nearly 1/3 of the states of the country their son grew up to lead.  And it’s worse than that.  If this country had not redefined marriage, some black people still couldn’t marry other black people.

Both of the marriage issues discussed are huge!  The image above is the perfect example of both a same sex and interracial couple who just want to have a family and unconditional love like everyone else.  Now that I think of it, I actually don’t like saying “everyone else.”  Referring to straight people as “everyone else.”  I think everyone means everyone.  Homosexual people are not just some “different” breed of human beings.  We all have emotions and when cut, we all bleed. No one-homosexual, straight, black, white, male, or female, should have rights over another.  I really hope California reconsiders this propostion and that something is done to overturn it.  It is very unfair and I find it unconstitutional.  I think people have a right to be married to whom ever they want.  I know this is cliche, but America is a free country and people-all people, shoutd be entitled to their, opinions, beliefs, and who choose to marry.



Filed under Media

7 responses to “Why so angry?

  1. Joe Oglesby

    First, the Keith Olberman clip was a great find; he departs from his normal theatrics and is able to deliver a coherent message with valid points. I didn’t find his delivery to be condescending or sarcastic; he delivers everything else in the same fashion. When gay marriage was made legal in California it was done so by the Supreme Court and not the voters. When proposition 8 was passed the previous ruling by the Supreme Court was overturned by the voters. The ban is not on love, but on the recognition of two people of the same gender as a legal couple. Homosexuals are not banned from wearing rings to symbolize their love for each other, nor are they not allowed to say they love each other and are a couple. The overall theme from those that oppose proposition 8 is tolerance. Yet, lately these supporters have been intentionally disrupting religious services, holding violent protests, and spreading messages of hate against those who oppose their viewpoint especially the Mormon Church. That is not tolerance. That is hypocrisy. Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constitution is sexual orientation mentioned. Nor was the process unconstitutional; since it was the state that voted and the people voted to not allow gay marriage in the state.
    -Joe Oglesby

  2. kelly karpenske

    Is there a compelling governmental interest in regulating an expression of love? (which is what it would take for the supreme court to get involved)

    “Gay and lesbian leaders are not asking for marriage with an adjective in front of it, but marriage itself. So in that sense, what marriage is and why it matters is ultimately what this debate is all about. What exactly is this institution to which gay and lesbian activists are seeking access? Why do we have it in the first place? Where did it come from? What is it for? How is it changing?” David Blankenhorn says that if same sex marriage debate is to be “redemptive rather than merely divisive,” it must accept the principle that all persons are equal in dignity.

    One of the more radical proposals – delegalizing marriage – comes from experts involved in domestic- partnership law. In their view, marriage no longer performs the same function as in the past. Under their scenario, people could still have religious marriages, and if they wanted legal protections and benefits, they would write a contract. But government would extend legal protections to anyone who might be caregivers – for children, older parents, or the disabled.

    As an institution marriage is universal, but “there is no universally accepted definition of marriage… because a) marriage evolves and b) many if its features vary across groups and cultures.”

    There are compelling reasons why this law passed. I just think that maybe we should consider all sides before we make any generalizations.

  3. Tony Robinson

    Joe is right that the Constitution does not specifically mention sexual orientation and protect homosexuals from discrimination. But it does say, quite clearly, that no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws. It is that very clause that we rely on when the courts conclude (rightly) that laws against interracial marriage are unconstitutional. The constitution does not specifically mention interracial marriage–but I assume Joe and others would agree that the equal protection clause means that interracial marriage is a constitutional right. And that many other discriminations against blacks, or Latinos, or jews, or whatever are illegal (that is, laws can’t be passed saying jews can’t marry, nor that Latinos can’t have children, although the constitution doesn’t specifically mention that).

    The only time the court allows for discrimination against large groups of people (in violation of the equal protection clause) is when their is a compelling state interest in treating one group of people different from another (for example, children aren’t allowed to drink or drive). But what in the world is the compelling state interest in denying gays the equal protection of marriage?

    The only way to defend such a “state interest” is to assume that somehow gay people are pathological, sick, deviant, dangerous, and unnatural. This is exactly the same reasoning we once applied to interracial marriage, and its time to admit that its based not at all in fact, but in superstition and even ignorance. There is NO intellectual defense of such discrimination. We do not even consider psuedo-intellectual defenses of laws against jews having children, or of laws agaisnt interracial marriage, so why do we consider intellectual defenses of laws against gay rights? It’s only because segments of society continue to believe that gay people (who have existed since the beginning of humanity, and in every society) are somehow different kinds of human beings, deserving of different constitutional protections. But simply put, this argument is as irrational as arguments against interracial marriage, and the constitution should not be interpreted as providing cover for such irrationality. Laws against gay marriage do in fact violate the equal protection guarantees of all Americans, and we will one day hopefully realize it.

  4. snickerbites

    This is a very touchy subject and will remain so for sometime. The government does not recognize that homosexuality is a biological attribute, it is a choice. Therefore, it should be up to the voters to choose if they agree that these specific individuals should be allowed to wed and given the same rights that “normal” couples are given upon marriage.

    I for one disagree. Coming from personal experience, where many of my close friends are gay, this proposition upsets me. Why should it be up to the voters to chose if someone else can have the same rights? Obviously those that voted to ban gay marriage were people who probably had no interaction with gay people.

    However, I have heard rumors that on a specific date there will by a day called “no gays for a day” where all homosexuals are strongly encouraged not to contribute to any social activities (don’t go to work, don’t buy anything, don’t interact at all with the public) for a full day. The gay community hopes that this action will show people that the economy relies on these people and how much they can impact things when they stop contributing.

  5. Shawn_Scanlon

    I saw this on HuffPo a while back. It is certainly upsetting that we can’t just let people live their lives.

    Yup, K.Olbermann really hits the nail on the head: what is it going to do to you if the people down the block get married on Monday?

    I’ll probably go to school on Tuesday. The rest of the week should turn out ok. I’ll probably even graduate in December, despite this social fluctuation. The world won’t come crashing down.

  6. Diego Del Campo

    I agree with Tony. But I just have to respond to two things Joe said: “Homosexuals are not banned from wearing rings to symbolize their love for each other, nor are they not allowed to say they love each other and are a couple.”
    I get where you are trying to get at Joe, but marriage, in reality, is much, much more than that. It is a legally binding union that confers many rights at a state level and at a federal level to couples–so while marriage, to some, may be just a show, to most, it is the recognition of a union before the law.

    “Nor was the process unconstitutional; since it was the state that voted and the people voted to not allow gay marriage in the state.”
    Arguably, Prop 8 is unconstitutional in several ways. First it violates the equal protection clause and/or due process clause of the 14th amendment, which says that state’s cannot deny equal protection of the law and cannot deny life, liberty, or property without due process, in other words, without a compelling state interest. The voters in California may argue that the compelling state interest is the “traditional definition” of marriage–but that, too is unconstitutional, since this “traditional” definition derives from a religious aspect, which is against the 1st amendment separating church and state.
    Just because a majority passes a law doesn’t mean that that law is constitutional.

  7. ilasiea

    =) Thanks for all the feedback

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s