|
Both these letters were in the San Francisco Chronicle this week.
The first is from someone who has their own views and also respects the rights of others; the two are separate in a just society; many people could use a better understanding of how individual personal beliefs do not supercede the rights of others.
The second is from someone who read the court's decision on "Prop Hate" and clarifies the legal aspect (another being that the Court's decision was technical, to determine whether the change to the California Constitution was legal or not).
A man and a woman
Even though I voted against Proposition 8, mostly because of the creepy people who were for it, I have never felt right about homosexual marriage.
I have not heard one person raise this point: Children need a mother and a father who are married to each other and who love each other and are committed to their family and their children to form a stable home. There is no substitute for this.
I never even felt right about single women, straight or gay, having children to "fulfill" themselves. How does a child feel fulfilled whose father is the sperm bank downtown?
Of course, I think it's better to have two loving same-sex parents than no parents or toxic biological parents.
I think homosexual people should have the right to a civil union and all the rights entailed therein. If they want to get married in a church or some spiritual ceremony, fine. But I feel, deep down in my gut, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Rights reaffirmed
My husband and I married during the pre-Proposition 8 window, and I was furious when I heard the court had upheld Prop Hate. I was mystified enough to sit down and read the court's new ruling. Having read it, I'm no longer as angry.
The court ruling makes it very clear, repeatedly, that the only reason it allowed Prop. 8 to stand is that, in its view, same-sex couples retain all of the "right to marry" except the use by the state of the designator "marriage" to apply to same-sex couples. The court opinion practically invites bigots to dare trying to prevent a gay marriage from enjoying all the rights of an opposite-sex marriage. It makes it very clear that, if that were to happen, Prop. 8's legal justification would be gone.
The court has brilliantly responded to the Prop Hate bigots, working within the legal framework of California's constitution. To see just how thoroughly they've reaffirmed the rights of gay married couples, including literally the "right to marry," you really need to read the opinion.
Now let's all work together to get Prop Hate repealed.
|