On November Fourth, as many of आप know, California passed Proposition 8, which proposed to amend the state constitution to read that marriage is between a man and a woman. This effectively rendered several marriages between gay and lesbian couples void, hurtling them into limbo, and stripping them of rights that were awarded to them द्वारा the California Supreme Court, which deemed that to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. So how do opponents of same-sex marriage combat this? They change the only constitution they can-- their state constitution.
But just because आप have it written down on a piece of paper, no matter the importance of that piece of paper, doesn't mean it isn't wrong. Now I try to be a really understanding person, really, I do, and I acknowledge that sometimes I can snap. Sometimes I can be snippy, या condescending, and sometimes I can be an outright bitch, there, I कहा it. But I rarely call something like this outright wrong. Especially when my opponents will call homosexuality wrong. I try to... and not to be condescending, but take the moral high ground, so to speak. I try to acknowledge how they feel, try to लपेटें my head around why they feel that way, try to find some other explanation other than outright fear या ignorance.
So I just wanted to say that, regaining some of my logic and reason in my strangely emotional state, that if your religion says that homosexuality is wrong, and आप don't have the volition to challenge it, या ask why, then that is fine. That is fine, because this is a free country, founded on the principal of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the freedom to be who आप are. But what I don't understand is why some people feel like they have a monopoly on those rights. No one dictates whether या not atheists can get married, या whether या not loosely-affiliated Christians या non-practicing Jews can have a simple, non-religious ceremony and call it marriage. And allowing these people to marry hasn't diminished the sanctity of marriage. And if allowing Britney Spears to elope in Las Vegas hasn't diminished the sanctity of marriage, then I don't see how two loving people marrying would.
I... recognize, with great effort, that some people may feel threatened द्वारा this. As if allowing this to happen would be an affront to their religion, a personal insult, but for once, for goodness sake, just acknowledge that it is you who are threatening us, it is आप who is insulting our beliefs, because it is our belief that love... is love, regardless of color, gender, disability, age, या creed. It is our belief that "Separate But Equal" didn't satisfy us then, and it won't satisfy us now. It is our belief that प्यार is blind, and that understanding is key to acceptance, and denying someone, anyone no matter who that person is, denying them basic civil rights is wrong. So there, I कहा it.
Maybe homosexuality is wrong. So what if you're right, and we're sinners, and we'll burn in hell. There are sinners in every marriage. Murderers keep wives, adulterers keep husbands, and they get to call their unions marriage. Are their sins somehow better than ours? I just don't understand how this isn't discrimination, pure and simple, because every reason for denying gay marriage that has been thrown at me is either based in... In scripture that this nation does not hold as law, या in studies conducted द्वारा biased parties, या in just sheer ignorance of the people whose rights they are denying... and to me, that's discrimination.
The US constitution, nay, the Universal Declaration for Human Rights declares that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
Do आप hear that? Brotherhood. How brotherly are your actions now?
Olberman pointed out on his दिखाना that he keeps hearing the term "redefining marriage." He pointed out that if we hadn't redefined marriage in the past, blacks would still not be able to marry whites. In fact, blacks wouldn't be able to marry at all, as marriages between slaves were not legally recognized as they were property. If we hadn't redefined marriage, women would also still only be property, exchanged from their father to their husband. If we hadn't redefined marriage, lords of feudal feifdoms, and kings, द्वारा the droit de seigneur could come and deflower virgin brides.
When आप fall in love, आप fall in प्यार with a person. आप don't see their gender, आप see their spirit. Shakespeare himself has shown us this, through comedy, in the way that Olivia falls for Viola when she is disguised as Cesario, या how Phoebe falls in प्यार Rosalynd, disguised as Ganymede. Is it the gender we fall for, या is it the person beneath it?
Alright. It's now 2:21 and I think I'm done.
Sorry if I offended. Sorry if I came off as... desperate, but I promised myself to टिप्पणी दे very little about proposition 8 and it's been festering inside me, and I read all the टिप्पणियाँ of people who supported it, and were glad that it passed that I... I was just so disappointed in the human heart, as Olberman calls it, that I had to say something.
So there. I कहा it.
