I feel a little rickety this morning after staying up late and getting up early. Last night I was of course following the presidential polling but there was no real surprise at the result. I voted early and cast my ballot neither for Barack Obama nor John McCain. Like most of you I wish our new president well, especially as in January he will be my new boss. However I am more interested in the state ballot measures and especially those in favor of traditional marriage. Notice that all the measures passed which demonstrates a broad based support for traditional marriage. The Florida amendment 2 had to get 60% of the vote and it still passed. Here are the results from CNN of the pro-family ballot measures:
Arizona Proposition 102
Ban on Gay Marriage
This measure would amend the state constitution so that only a union between one man and one woman would be valid or recognized as a marriage in the state. A similar measure was on the ballot in 2006 but failed.
| Yes | 1,157,979 | 56% |
| No | 900,185 | 44% |
100% Reporting. PASSED.
Arkansas Initiative 1
Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children
This measure would prohibit unmarried “sexual partner[s]” from adopting children or from serving as foster parents. The measure specifies that the prohibition applies to both opposite-sex as well as same-sex couples.
| Yes | 579,695 | 57% |
| No | 437,720 | 43% |
100% Reporting. PASSED.
California Proposition 8
Ban on Gay Marriage
This measure would amend the state constitution to specify that only marriages between one man and one woman would be recognized as valid in the state. If passed, the measure would trump a May 2008 ruling by the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage.
| Yes |
7,001,084
|
52% |
| No | 6,401,483 | 48% |
100% Reporting. PASSED.
Florida Amendment 2
Ban on Gay Marriage
This measure would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In order to amend the Florida constitution, 60 percent of voters must vote in favor of the amendment.
| Yes | 4,755,789 | 62% |
| No | 2,913,740 | 38% |
100% Reporting. PASSED.
Update
I have been asked where Barack Obama stands on marriage. He has said on a radio program in his 2004 race for Senate:
I’m a Christian and so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman. (“Hopefuls Differ as They Reject Gay Marriage“, The New York Times October 31, 2008)
Hi,
Your site is one of my favorites seen around blog explosion. Keep up the good work.
I enjoy reading your blog. It is great to find someone who can find the fun things in life!
I wish you all the best in all years. I look forward to developing a friendship and networking with you. Let me know if there is something I can do to assist you with your business free.
With Regards,
Karoly Domonyi
You people are truly evil spawns of Satan.
Everyone has their own opinion on this issue. I personally support gay marriage. I believe what gays are going through today can be compared to blacks and the civil rights movement of the 60’s. I also believe if the word marriage was not in play this would not be such and issue – everyone just wants equal rights!
Thank you for your comment. It seems that the majority are not in favor of same-sex marriage. Also it appears that people have different reasons for supporting these amendments. They range from concern over adoption services having to close; colleges having to open up married dormitories; being forced to give in vitro fertilization treatment; forcing mental health counselors to help improve lesbians relationships; having to photograph same-sex union weddings; and so on. These are not just hypothetical situations, they actually happened as reported by National Public Radio in their article “When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash”. I think you are right, if the focus was on obtaining civil unions and leaving marriage alone there would be much less of a problem. I do not think the No on 8 campaign was run very well and I think the behavior of certain elements after they lost will come back to haunt them. I am already resolved to donate more next time and also to encourage others to donate.
I enjoy reading your blog.
Everyone has an opinion on the matter. But I belong to those who are against same-sex marriage.
Ron, I do appreciate your comment. I cannot see that same-sex marriage will ever be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. People should be free to express their opinion, vote, and donate to a cause without fear of harassment or of losing their jobs.
Thanks for your post, people are entitled to their own opinions. I personally don’t have a problem with gay marriage. I myself am not married and was brought up in the Catholic religion. However, I believe in equality and cannot seem to figure out why religion has played a roll in this matter. Church and state are not suppose to enter twine but for some reason deep pocket churches have played a major roll in this measure.
It seems there is a great misunderstanding about religion and Proposition 8. Religions are made up of people and just because a person belongs to a religion they do not lose their rights as citizens. My church (Mormon) did not donate any money to Proposition 8. Also, churches are free to speak up on public issues so long as they do not endorse a specific political candidate. These IRS rulings are plainly explained in Publication 1828 Rev. 06-2008. Attempts have been made to accommodate those with same-gender attraction but the answer is not same-sex marriage. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
My opinion is that same-sex marrige is evil. It’s agains human’s nature. Remember the Ancient Greeks. This was the reason of their death.
In my opinion we need to re-evaluate some terms. “Same-sex marriage” takes some liberties with itself. “Same-sex union/relationship, etc.” seems more correct. Most people tend to the opinion that marriage is a special type of union between one man and one woman. I believe marriage primarily (should) concern itself with an important rule of populations – re-population of a group of people. In simple terms, if a man and a woman are able to produce two children then the net gain is zero for the population over one generation. I don’t think that makes good sense for the human race.
If the same married man and woman (viable parents in a simple re-population perspective) are able to bring another soul to this world then there is a net social gain of negative one (possibly less through death before the second generation can bring children to the social structure). Of course, two parents (one generation) will die. In this case only one of two were replaced. With two offspring you break even- no net growth. That is not necessarily a good thing. Having three children provides a surplus. This makes for positive growth. That is a good thing. I believe these are obvious statements.
My next simple opinion is the source of the concept of marriage. That is really where this “social issue” should gets its roots. Marriage is a concept involving three parties: Two potential parents (Woman/mom and Man/dad) and Heavenly Father – God. Marriage was first performed by God with Adam and Eve. It established an institution – marriage. Under this understanding marriage takes on an important “upgrade”.
The proper (in my opinion) perspective is more than a “union, between a man and a woman”. It is a solemn and sacred covenant made by the couple with Heavenly Father. It involves promises made between each of the three parties. I don’t think it is presumptuous to remind myself that marriage has a “religious” nature. This marriage covenant was performed by one having authority – even non-religious parties acknowledge the need for some authority recognized by the couple and by their society.
This tradition of marriage, as I have clumsily stated, has a strong documented history of being hopefully authorized by God (religion, if you prefer) establishing a marriage covenant between “him and her” and Heavenly Father. Applicable World History proves that the majority of the populations hold these principles to be sound and true. I confine my comments to a Judeo-Christian (did I spell that correctly?) environment. The union between a man and a woman in other cultures are, of course, very sacred and very valid.
The language from Wikipedia attracts my attention:
1. “Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.”, and
2. “Kinship is a relationship between any entities that share a genealogical origin, through either biological, cultural, or historical descent. And descent groups, lineages, etc. are treated in their own subsections.”
I like the idea of having ancestors and having descendants. That keeps society going. That establishes my intended first point.
My second point is a delegate one to be made. I am obviously a little word clumsy, so please be kind!
The next point to consider is whether the “married-to-be” are or are not religious. In a word – are they Christian? Do they see marriage as the covenant I shared earlier (between the party of the first-part and the party of the second-part (sorry!)) and God? If the Christian-types don’t compromise the spirit of the first marriage (with Adam and Eve) then it seems that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. My high school Biology teacher would agree!
If our hypothetical couple are not religious nor Christian then the concept is not a religious one but perhaps a legal one only. If God is not a part of their life then they do not recognize the institution of marriage from its historical roots. At this point, for me, the language “same-sex marriage” does not hold water very well. I will support the social legality of a legal union or contractual agreement between our gender-sharing friends of ours (and I do genuinely consider them friends). But using a religious term for a secular (or non-church) understanding doesn’t seem appropriate.
I do not pretend to understand the legal ramifications of a same-sex union as compared to a traditional wedding. But I don’t think that is the point. Is the marriage “church recognized” (not the best choice of words – I don’t wish to offend anyone) or do those concerned prefer a “out-of church recognized” way of getting things done?
“Marriage” is a religious-rooted proposition. A similar proposition does not make claims to religion. In this country we celebrate religious freedom (and hopefully religious tolerance). Our Founding Fathers were very aware of the not-so-good relations between those persecuted on religious grounds – before adopting the Bill of Rights the Crown overstepped its proper bounds. Hence, we had some of our religious ancestors fleeing to find a safe place to live – you know the history!
My concern is the confusion established by the words “same-sex marriage”. Does such a thing really exist? As I said, a non-church or non-religious (if you prefer) commitment or union work under the principles that which govern it. My concern is where an established religious tradition is being threatened. I don’t believe it is reasonable, nor productive, to have those holding on to a religious tradition to be asked to redefine (contradict) that tradition by anyone – religious or not.
In this country you really can choose how you can (legally) live your life. But let us not impose non-religious standards on religion. The converse also applies. Let me and mine enjoy a tradition of thousands of years stand.
If you feel that there are legal inequalities between traditional marriage between man and woman as compared to a same-sex couple wanting a valid union then, the appropriate remedy is to do what you can to legally change those laws or policies currently practiced. Once again don’t attack the tradition of marriage.
Now, this is my first attempt to present an opinion, on such a hotly debated issue. I am not eloquent nor am I very good with the language thing. I am sure I missed a point or may have implied something that may have caused offense. I apologize now. I don’t watch TV so I am sure I missed an important context. Oh well! I am sure someone will take issue! But then that makes for an interesting debate.
Also, something else very important. Please don’t confuse my way of saying things as being arrogant nor condescending. I do not hold myself above anyone. I hope to be a friend to all that I meet. We can agree or not agree with mutual respect. And please, don’t “kill the messenger”! Doing so may seem impressive or make for a clever argument. It does not and most do understand that. You really won’t rattle me.
Thank you for reading along this far! Take care.