Today, I am ashamed to be a Californian. Tomorrow, I get even.


Today, I am ashamed to be a Californian.
Today, our courts did not have the bravery to ensure equality for all citizens.
Today, the court made me complacent in a crime to which we will be held accountable by the next generation.
Today, the California Supreme Court returned the institution of marriage back to its stone-aged meaning, turning straight women into heifers.
Today, the court tore apart all Californian’s First Amendment right to be free from an established religion.
Today, my struggle to be a tolerant atheist is being tested.
Today, I am angry.
Tomorrow, I get even.

Views: 4

Tags: 8, gay, marriage, prop

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by A Former Member on May 28, 2009 at 6:21pm
But the fight will continue.
Comment by Scott M on May 28, 2009 at 5:01pm
It works for my kids when they misbehave ;)

All I'm really saying is it doesn't matter to me what the government calls the thing that gives a particular set of rights and priviledges to people, so long as all citizens of the government are able to get those same rights and priviledges it's fine.
Comment by LaRae Meadows on May 28, 2009 at 3:36pm
But what you are saying essentially is that because one side is misbehaving, you're going to take the toy away from everyone and replace it with another toy that "should be as good." That I don't understand.
Comment by Scott M on May 28, 2009 at 3:27pm
If I understand you right we're arguing over semantics and in that case I'm content to say I agree. In practice I simply do not care what religious nutjobs think, nor in general with what the label is so long as the contents (rights in this case) are identical.
Comment by LaRae Meadows on May 28, 2009 at 3:21pm
You're right. Gay folks can particiapte in meaningless ceramonies. Whoopty do. It is the things like security, right of successorship, etc that marriage provides that they want. To change the name because the people who voilate the constitution can't handle it isn't wisdom.

Marriage is not religious. It's legal. As such, it should be treated that way, even if the religious people don'w like it.
Comment by Scott M on May 28, 2009 at 3:11pm
There's nothing presently stopping gay people from participating in marriage ceremonies officiated by non-homophobic churches (such as the Unitarian Universalists for instance)... it is simply that they are not legally recognized by the government and that is the problem. Religious people cannot claim marriage, as a rite, is uniquely a heterosexual affair. What they are trying to protect is the special rights and priviledges they enjoy and the knowledge that because they get them and gay people don't that it is the way things are supposed to be.

So regardless of what it is called, be it "Marriage" or "Civil Unions" or "Smurf Snorting", people can say they are getting married and so long as they have the same legal benefits and responsibilities afforded to them as any other married couple then all is well.
Comment by LaRae Meadows on May 28, 2009 at 3:02pm
I don't think if we called it something else, there would be much of a change for most of the religious people who oppose it. Plus, the word means something to people, not me and I am married, but it's a special ritual that means something to most people who want partake in it. To deny people the right to participate in such an important (to them) ritual, and in effect take away their rights because someone else wants to over extend their own, isn't justice, it's giving poland to nazi germany.
Comment by Scott M on May 28, 2009 at 2:40pm
Marriage as an institution dwells in a nebulous area halfway between secular and religious. Religious people will point to the Bible (or other holy book) and show marriage is ordained of God which makes it implicitly religious. However marriage in general as an institution crosses religious boundries and is probably best defined as a social convention wherein a society is informed that a particular woman was the property of a particular man (for patriarchal cultures anyway).

Personally I don't give a flying fig what it is called, just so long as the legal rights and obligations that hetrosexual couples can enjoy are available for homosexual couples as well.
Comment by LaRae Meadows on May 28, 2009 at 2:17pm
Well I pay less taxes.

Marriage is not religious. It is legal. To rename it would give the religious the right of the word when they don't own it.
Comment by Scott M on May 27, 2009 at 7:15am
I think you meant "complicit" and not "complacent". ;)

On a more serious note, I agree and I can only hope that Californians will rally together and fight this through the legislative system.

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service