Letter: What would happen if other advocates gave up

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Protests are held to showcase injustices placed on those who don't have the rights they deserve. The passing of Proposition 8 is a big step back for not only the gay community, but for the freedoms this country is supposed to afford its entire people. The people have indeed spoken, but both sides realize this fight is not over.

Where would fights such as those for women's rights, interracial marriage and the black vote be if the nation did not evolve in thinking and grant the minority and less powerful the rights they deserve as Americans? What if the trailblazers of their day shrugged it off as a good try and just went home?

Such scenarios seem ridiculous today, but I'm sure that in their early stages, many people would have preferred these advocates step down in such fashion. The gay community is not going away, and its allies will only grow in number and strength.

Proposition 22 passed in California in 2000 with nearly 62 percent in favor. Proposition 8 mirrored much of its message this year, but the number in support dropped to 52 percent. I wonder what would happen with another four years of solid campaigning by the gay community to bring this issue back for another vote.

This is not a matter of religion or creed. This is about equality. A law advocating marriage for both gay and straight couples does not diminish any other couple’s union although many religious leaders and churches would like their congregations to think otherwise.

Why people think lawful gay marriage is a problem is amusing to me. The only people this vote truly affects are those who want so badly to share in a life that straight couples take for granted.

— —Brian Walters is a senior from Catherine.

Comments

kshusker (anonymous) says...

"Tradition" is just a fancy word for bigotry, it seems.

November 24, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

empirelucas (anonymous) says...

There is no mocked tradition in gay marriage. It is still two people in love declaring that through a ceremony of devotion to each other. A gay couple's marriage has nothing to do with any other marriage. It has to do with the two people in it. Does your neighbors divorce or infidelity mock your marriage? Does their commitment? I would think you would say no.

Also I find it amusing that you haven't done some simple math GW. A liberal (meaning broad not political) estimate puts the percentage of the population that is gay at %10. That would suggest that to get the %48 of the vote their would have had to have been many straight people who voted against the ammendment. Thus I find it amusing that even in California there is still a large amount of bigotry.

November 24, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

glenjamin (anonymous) says...

Lucas, quit the childish name-calling. You may think that throwing out words like bigot, intolerant, and homophobe equate to talking points, but they don't. They just reveal that you lack substance.

This letter is flawed from the outset: the author equates sexual (dis)orientation with skin color. Faulty connection, Brian. You can't choose your skin color. People who identify as "practicing" homosexuals use that term for a reason. It's a behavior, not a phenotype. There hasn't been ONE scientific study that shows homosexuality to be anything other than a product of nurture and choice.

In reality, this is purely a political move by the far left to tear at the moral fabric of our country. Once the family unit is broken, we're defenseless.

December 4, 2008 at 11:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

pantheon (anonymous) says...

What about the gay penguins? And more dangerously, the big gay bears? It seems more likely that penguins are naturally gay, and it is unnatural for the dude penguins to be getting it on with the lady penguins, considering the tap dancing proclivities of said penguins. (Note: Everything I know about penguins I learned from Happy Feet and a letter to the editor I once saw.)
And as far as family unit goes? [citation needed] mate.

December 10, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

glenjamin (anonymous) says...

Pantheon, that argument's been used for years. Whenever we see "natural" homosexual behavior in animals, it's done as an alpha male domination tactic. It's an animalistic way of asserting your authority over the other males.

Now, obviously, this isn't the case in humans.

December 11, 2008 at 8:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

pantheon (anonymous) says...

[citation needed] kid. I'd like to see you back that up.

And you know I'm only partially talking about your claim.

December 12, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement