*on edge*

[bluejeans07]

Oh god, Prop 8, you are not good for my health. More than the elections, it was prop 8 that I was most eager to vote a big fat "HELL NO" on my ballot. And now, holy crap, it's not over and it looks like it's going to succeed.

With liberty and justice for all, right people? And if anyone voted YES for prop 8 because of the commercial of a little girl going home and saying "I learned at school that a prince can marry a prince!", I have no respect for you. I don't know how much clearer it can be than the California State Superintendent declaring repeatedly, "WE WILL NOT BE TEACHING ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE IN SCHOOL."

If it was me giving that speech, I would've added, "...especially not in that ridiculous manner, you stupid gits!"

Someone close to me voted yes on Prop 8 and I'm honestly having trouble looking at her. She doesn't understand that her vote may have caused human rights to be taken away, that friends might not be able to get married to the one they love, she just parked a black spot on a ballot because her church told her to. Not because she did research, or really realizes that she does know people that aren't straight, but because she was told to. And while I'm all up for making own choices, etc, this is different because now, people will be held back and it's the fault of others who voted 'yes.'

The fight isn't over and I know people will keep fighting. And after this, I'm going to join in the good fight as well. Viva la revolution! Let our gay men and women be allowed to marry their choice! Let freedom ring!

Comments

[nekomimi-ruri.livejournal.com]

The only thing more dangerous that a non-voter is an uneducated voter.

I wish people would let themselves out of their shell and think for the whole and not for themselves.

[nekomimi-ruri.livejournal.com]

And if you haven't checked out my LJ, here's something I found off of LATimes.com:

"Perhaps more powerfully, the Proposition 8 campaign also seized on the issue of education, arguing in a series of advertisements and mailers that children would be subjected to a pro-gay curriculum if the measure was not approved.

"Mom, guess what I learned in school today?" a little girl said in one spot. "I learned how a prince married a prince."

As the girl's mother made a horrified face, a voice-over said: "Think it can't happen? It's already happened. . . . Teaching about gay marriage will happen unless we pass Proposition 8."

Many voters said they had been swayed by that message."

Ironic much?

[bluejeans07.livejournal.com]

I read that article too, and I just think it's ridiculous that they totally ignored No on 8's follow up commercial with the California State Superintendent reassuring them that a kid's education wouldn't be done that way. So buy into the propaganda but when the person in charge of the education tells them the facts, they ignore it? Weirdos.

[daitenshi-dream.livejournal.com]

When I first saw that commercial, before it turned negative and the message became clear that it was supporting prop 8, I saw what the little girl said as a triumph. Imagine glbt children not having to hide who they are and not be ashamed of how they feel?

[bluejeans07.livejournal.com]

I totally agree. Besides, in Utena, a girl can be a prince and marry a princess! xD

[garfeimao.livejournal.com]

The first time I saw those ads with the kids, I was horrified. How low can you stoop? And how do gay people getting married threaten hetero marriages? And what is this bullsh*t about protecting the Sanctity of Marriage? Henry VIII tore that one up nearly 500 years ago when he introduced divorce, get over it already. Hetero marriage and the family structure is NOT the basis of this country. That negates the impact of all the single parent families that now exist in this country, not to mention the other family structures that now exist. I can't believe how long it takes for people to pull their heads out of the sand.

If gay marriages begin to get anulled, I hope the No on 8 people are smart enough to film the saddness of those impacted and use that when this issue comes around again. Why? Because the idjits who didn't investigate the issue, who voted because church said so, or a stoopid commercial played to the kids, they need to see the faces of the people they hurt. That will change some minds, it has to.

[strollerman.livejournal.com]

The sheer ignorance is appalling, to say the least. But, it will be hard to face anyone of the Yes on 8 people.

Anyway, I appreciate your support, and gay people should totally be entitled to lose half their stuff in marriage.

[soundingfurrows.livejournal.com]

I agree wholeheartedly...the government has no place telling people with whom they may or may not form unions. Churches tend to do enough of that on their own with their versions of marriage, and if a church wants to do so, that is their choice.

Removing the income tax would alleviate a lot of the tax benefits of being married. There is no good reason for the government to discriminate against any sexual orientation, especially when you consider the benefits (that are largely a result of an economic system with too much government interference) granted to couples and those defined as family units. Insurance comes to mind, as an example. IF the government has to be involved in unions, they have no grounds to discriminate. More ideally would be to remove the government from the arena of unions altogether and let the free market take its course.

*shrug*

[sffl.livejournal.com]

That passed? :/ Boo. I'm actually kind of surprised that California, of all states, would let that pass.