I couldn’t have said this better myself. Amazingly simple and effective.
As long as people like this can be found in the US, you guys will turn out just fine. If you live in California, please, vote ‘no’ on Proposition 8.
Politics | 
RSS feed for messages on this post.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> .
Please use the blockquote tag to quote. Comments containing quotes in other ways will be deleted.
I'm OSNews' managing editor. Go figure. Read the FAQ. I have an email address.
Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome | Theme designs available here.
Original design by Michael Heilemann, modified by Thom Holwerda. Cogs Can Think. uses icons from the FamFamFam Silk icon set. The header image is a modified version of "Tulips", (c) by Darren Carroll.
For some reason I keep reading that as Preparation H.
Comment by Soulbender — November 3, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
You just wanted to make me Google that, didn’t you.
Comment by Administrator — November 3, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
Not really. I guess my confusion was made worse since Eugenia also mentioned Proposition H, which is apparently something completely different from Proposition 8. Way to make your propositions really hard to distinguish between there, California.
Comment by Soulbender — November 3, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
Marriage is about so much more than two adults choosing a sexual union with each other. It is primarily about the right of children to grow up with both their father and mother in their life. Such a scenario can never take place with a same-sex marriage. Let’s not re-define the most fundamental institution of society.
Comment by Paula — November 3, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
Christians! Don’t be fooled by a Mormon LDS trick! Save Christianity and vote NO on proposition 8! See http://Batyzim.com/ for the real, Christian, story.
Comment by Cain Hamm — November 3, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
I don’t have children, and I am married for 7+ years. There is a good chance I will never have children, for several reasons. Should my marriage get annulled?
Why not?
Comment by Eugenia — November 3, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
the video isn’t loading… any help?
Comment by Parantar — November 4, 2008 @ 6:19 am
Marriage is both a collection of cultural customs, beliefs and values and a collection of laws. In discussing this subject those two sides are often mixed, however. Also, children are a rather natural part of marriage too, despite the fact that many married couples do not have children, so children cannot be forgotten either when discussing marriage.
It is difficult to change the cultural customs, beliefs and values of others. It may also be against the basic human rights to try that. A major part of people still see marriage as a union of one woman and one man, and they have every right to hold to that belief. They don’t offend anyone’s human rights by doing so, at least if they don’t try to force their views on others. Neither side of the fight shouldn’t be trying to force their cultural views on others.
But I suppose we are talking about laws related to marriage here and not cultural customs and beliefs? Well, defenfing the human rights of homosexual people and gay couples could be done also without mixing the traditional marriage customs to the matter - like it is already done in many countries. You can have laws defending the rights of gay couples without trying to force the cultural idea of gay marriage being the same as traditional marriage down everyone’s throats.
What’s wrong with the idea of registered partnership for gay couples, by the way? It can guarantee all the same legal rights to gays as married men and women have? We may never get to the situation where everyone would see gay couples and heterosexual couples being the same anyway. It is not just about gays being a minority, but also about the simple fact that gays cannot get children, only adopt them. You’re free to disagree in this matter, of course, but personally I’m just not sure if I would see it a good thing if gay couples start adopting children a lot?
Often when discussing the rights of children, many specialists assure us that - in an ideal situation - small children should have both a father and a mother (and biologically they always have them, of course). So both a male and a female role model in the family. But suddenly, when discussing the gay rights, the whole matter is forgotten, and even the same people can start claiming that gay couples should have every right to adopt all the children they want too.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming that gays couldn’t understand children at all, not to mention that they would be bad people. I’m sure many gay families could raise children just fine, or sometimes better than some heterosexual couples. But still, shouldn’t we try to offer children the best possible families they can have? Many specialists agree that children should have both a mother and a father in an ideal family - that simple - even if they couldn’t admit it in front of the huge pressure from those supporting the gay rights.
But I suppose that our western society sees sexual rights so important that they go even before children’s rights too?
Comment by Chewbacca — November 4, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
I guess we don’t have enough insecure and emotionally retarded people as a result of growing up in broken homes all over. Let’s go for it.
Comment by Stefan — November 5, 2008 @ 2:17 am
So… you’re advocating that we outlaw divorce?
Why not? The definition of marriage has already been redefined plenty of times. Do you think Solomon would have agreed with your definition?
Comment by What the...? — November 5, 2008 @ 2:22 am
Lawrence Lessig is always entertaining(and correct). ;-)
Comment by mikesum32 — November 5, 2008 @ 6:29 am
There seems to be all too much emotional hysteria and fanatism on both sides of the quarrel. Trying to see things in a balanced way could help to solve the problem better.
I cannot understand why legally protected registered partnership system for gays isn’t seen as a viable option in this quarrel that could solve the whole problem?
If gays had registered partnership instead of marriage, would it hurt their legal rights and status? I don’t think so. It depends on the individual laws, not on terms used, or cultural customs followed. In many countries registered partnerships for gays have exactly the same rights as marriages have.
Is there a threat now that gay couples would be forced to leave their partners if the new Proposition 8 would be accepted? I don’t think so, although one could believe that when listening to some opinions.
We will never get to a situation were majority of people would see gay marriages being exactly the same thing as heterosexual marriages, despite there maybe being an institute called gay marriage. That is also why we can still have big news in media concerning homosexual marriages even in countries where gay marriages are legally accepted. Why couldn’t we then use a different term of those gay unions then, as they seem different from traditional heterosexual marriages in reality and in people’s minds?
Gay unions are simply different from heterosexual unions, especially as gays cannot get biological children. Even in polygamy married people can have biological children, but not in a gay marriage. Marriage is not just an institute reflecting romantic love like it is often seen nowadays in the west. It is a family institution, there are biological children, parents, grandparents and forefathers in natural biological families. Gays couples have biological parents too, of course, but a gay cannot continue his family line in a natural way by getting biological children with his/her homosexual partner.
Also, as the two sexes are a bit different, not only biologically but maybe also socio-psychologically (not to mention culturally) to some extent, it is often seen that different sexes complement each other in a marriage. There are enormous amounts of traditional marriage and family customs reflecting that. It is not easy to see gay marriages being the same in that sense, at least in cultural sense. Again, we cannot help it but see gay marriages being a bit different from heterosexual marriages, not in the amount of romantic love, but in other matters that are as much part of our marriage customs as romantic love is.
A different term, something else than marriage, used to describe gay unions would seem quite natural to me. Gay couples could still have the same basic legal rights as married men and women have.
Comment by Chewbacca — November 5, 2008 @ 10:03 am
Exactly how does gay marriage create broken heterosexual homes? Magic?
Comment by Soulbender — November 5, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
“Exactly how does gay marriage create broken heterosexual homes? Magic?”
IMHO, the main purpose of marriage is to raise healthy children. It’s about children growing up with a mother and a father. It’s not about filling taxes or who gets the 401k and the house, or Jesus or Moses or liberal or conservative or whatever.
If society as a whole is a living organism, the family is its basic cell.
Should homosexual couples receive the full protection of the law and the same civil rights as a heterosexual couple? YES, without calling it “marriage”..
Comment by Stefan — November 5, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Yes, because THAT has worked out so well, as you yourself said. Also, you didnt answer my question; how does gay marriage create broken heterosexual marriages and insecure and emotionally retarded people?
Why does it matter what it is called if it is in the end the same?
Comment by Soulbender — November 5, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
“Why does it matter what it is called if it is in the end the same?”
Exactly. Thank you :)
Apparently I’m not clear enough for you. I’m talking about the erosion of the traditional notion of family and its implications.
Comment by Stefan — November 5, 2008 @ 3:42 pm