Proposition 8 protests

Here are the exit polls CNN is showing:

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1

Based on the above weblink, here are some demographics of those that voted “yes” to ban gay marriage in California:

82% of registered Republicans
70% of Black voters
53% of Latino voters
47% of ideological “Moderate” voters

61% of voters aged 18-29 voted “no” to the ban.

But that’s the point Dave, “marriage” is whatever we want to define it as. Who cares if it’s XY+XX, XX+XX or XY+XY, why should it be limited in it’s scope for the benefit of just a few in our society?

If people really think that marriage is only about procreation, then why bother getting married at all?! Certainly you don’t need the state or a church’s approval to have children, so why should you be told who you can legally be allowed to have as your spouse? It’s an unfair double-standard if you use “procreation” as your argument, because then by that very definition alone you’re implying that mankind ends with gays & lesbians being born since they won’t “further” the species and therefore they represent a calamity to society. That’s not only untrue, it’s cruel and shortsighted.

And I just want to point out an observation I’ve made over the years: why is it that no one seems to have a problem with “civil unions” which is the legal equivalent of a “traditional marriage” but then decide to flip-out when it’s referred to as a marriage? We can define “marriage” however we want as a society, but the main issue here is either you’re supportive of same-sex couples having the same rights as opposite-sex couples or you’re not. Everything else is just semantics.

Fifty years ago, this debate was about Jim Crow states permitting mixed-race marriages. Those that are supporting this nonsensical, bigoted measure are essentially aligning themselves with the bigots of yesteryear, under the same premise: “It’s the Will of the People/America is just not ready for this” (not to mention the absolutely shit-headed, idiotic argument about male/female procreation, as if marrying someone of the opposite sex legally requires you to breed with that person).

If we waited around until America was “ready” for each progressive measure we’ve taken in our 232 year history, we’d still have slavery; women would have little to no legal status, nor the right to vote; children would be “whipt” in school for insolence; we’d have banished the Chinese and wiped out the Indians; and we’d be burning witches in the town square each saturday night. Part of evolving as a people and as a society is recognizing our wrongs and correcting them.

The problem is this: “marriage” is an institution designed and defined by theocratic entities, which should be entirely separate from government. States, existing as purely secular institutions by design of the Constitution, should not be in the business of granting “marriages,” period. We could bypass all this nonsense by enacting absolute differentiations between a state-sanctioned “civil union” (which is essential a legally binding financial and social contract between two parties), and a vow of “marriage,” as issued by a religious institution. The zealots could keep their already failing institution intact (in their own minds), while parties who truly wish to enter the bonds of eternal love together in a legally binding fashion can do so without soiling holy matrimony. Seems pretty simple, right? Problem is, state by state, there are hundreds of laws on the books using the term “marriage,” that would have to individually be rewritten to account for the revised definitions. It’s a real conundrum, eh? That’s the price you pay when you allow the constraints of mythology to seep into the realm of government.

[...] is absolutely BRILLANT! It’s a star-studded video in response to the uproar created after Proposition 8 that features Jack Black as none other than Jesus Christ. Good [...]