The author writes:
One of the things that undermines the logic of the anti-prop 8 people is that they don’t actually believe that everyone should be able to marry anyone they want. They don’t believe that if a man loves two women that he should marry them. If they really believe that the government must recognize everyone’s love then a brother should marry a sister and so on. Once the debate rightly turns to how should marriage be defined then the anti-prop 8 group is weakened because of the obvious nature of the social structure of marriage. To redefine the institution that families are built around (marriage) into something that has nothing to do with families is a step in the wrong direction.
The anti-prop 8 people only gain strength when they self-righteously compare themselves to the civil rights movement, something that they have no resemblance to. It should be offensive to most people to compare the idea of preserving the definition marriage to Jim Crow laws and violent racist.
The primarily purpose of marriage is the responsibility of a family. It makes a huge difference in a child’s life if you don’t have a mother or a father. I have no hatred towards homosexuals, I simply do not think my father can offer me what my mother can and vice versa. To compare this to racism truly is offensive to victims of racism.Most people in support of prop 8 believe homosexual couples should receive equal protection under the law with civil unions. But people against prop 8 commonly say this is another case of “separate but equal”. This is not the case. The left commonly confuses sameness with equality. Like I said before at the heart of this is the roles of the mother and the father, who have equal roles but not the same roles. This is “separate but equal” as much as we have separate male and female restrooms.[...]
I must have said the words, "Are you kidding me!?" out loud at least a dozen times when I read the post. I would like to add a small response to their blog, just to get conversation started.
So let us think about this: considering that we are having to court hearings and constitutional amendments and such around the topic of marriage, it is now clear that marriage is not a religious institution. Besides if marriage was just a religious institution, then people would not be able to get married at city hall. Also, when a couple divorces and decides to legally end their marriage, they do not go to their pastor, because obviously their marriage is a legal (or civic) institution.
Now, as a person of color, I have no problem, nor am I offended, by making comparisons between racism and the oppression of LGBTQ people. I experience discrimination and oppression as a queer individual much in the same way that I experience discrimination as a brown-skinned individual. Proponents of the proposition are uncomfortable with linking the two because that would mean that if they are anti-gay rights, then that would mean that they are same level as racists. And who would want to compared to a racist?
My last point: if you want to make this an issue of religion, that's fine, I can go that route too. I am sorry that you may think otherwise, but I have a religious right to marriage!! Not only is Prop 8 a violation of my human rights, but it is also a violation of my religious liberties. My faith in God and my relationship and journey with Jesus affirms same-sex marriage! And as Americans we uphold that we have the right to religion; many evangelicals will make sure that they are fully exercising that right. Well, I too exercise that right, because as a Christian, I know that God loves and affirms LGBTQ individuals and celebrates our relationships!
The other posts at this blog are also rather depressing and the arguments are not cogent and are completely bizarre. But this response goes out to not just this blog post, but to all proponents of Prop 8. My heart goes out to the proponents though, because just as Christ said, "Father, forgive them, for they not know what they do" (Luke 23:34).