THIS is ridiculous.and sad. what a lame and gross exaggeration.
politics are so ugly and divisive.
the depths to which politicians stoop is outrageous and so contrary to the values and morals i'm trying to teach my children about being good and honest citizens.
Until today, I have remained quiet on this issue. Both sides of the argument have some merit (as is the case with almost every issue). The reason for my anchoring on the YES side is because ultimately, this video - as well other issues surrounding the two campaigns - demonstrated that in our society it is becoming unacceptable to be religious. I agree that minority political groups are entitled to equality. But I also firmly believe that everyone, including minority political groups, should permit other people to have differing opinions . . . without being labeled hateful, unfair bigots. I have seen far too much hateful bigotry coming from this campaign. Some from the YES side, but even more from the NO side.
If I refuse you to hold your own belief, I am in the wrong. If you do the same to me, you are in the wrong.
Tolerance goes both ways.
I AM MORMON and i can tell you intolerance and HATRED is not the spirit behind the YES on 8 campaign. of course i can't speak for everyone but the leaders of this church are simply trying to preserve the institution of marriage, which is the cornerstone of civilization. PROP 8 DOES NOT BAN HOMOSEXUALITY, it simply defines "marriage" as the union between a male and female.
if you want to educate yourself about the church's real motives and reasons in supporting Prop 8, go here. they counsel to love and to emulate the teachings of Jesus Christ. i realize that we don't live in a perfect world and that ignorance and intolerance is prevelant but "the church" can't be blamed for that. that's not the message i get from the leaders!
i support Prop 8 because "marriage" carries a religious connotation that exceeds the act of living together, being committed to one another, or even constituting a family. i believe that marriage is ordained of God and that marriage is a traditionally religious arrangement that has been incorporated into our civil legal system. as i will discuss below, i would support a distinction between a legal union and a religious union.
that fact that i support Prop 8 does not mean that i hate gay people (think how ridiculous it would sound for me to hate people who smoke. though i don't want them to smoke in my face, i certainly don't regard them as a person any less. it's the same thing). i respect their lifestyle choices (or lack of choice as the case may be). i have many gay family members and friends whom I love dearly. i do not think that restricting the historical application of marriage as between a man and a woman is discriminatory to them, or to other gay people.
. . . there is a place for appellate courts to overrule laws that discriminate (yes, even without a jury)- but I don't see how having different terms for the union between two consenting adults based on the gender of their partner is discrimination. Not when the rights conferred by both terms are equal. Since there was not inequity in the law, I don't think it was the court's place to find Prop 22 unconstitutional.
in California, domestic partnership law provides "two adults who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring" (i.e. domestic partners)
with "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."
(Family Code Section 297 et. seq.)
the legal rights of marriage have already been extended to same-sex couples. the law is also clear that any new law that grants spouses a benefit (or burden) applies to domestic partners as well. prop 8 is not about equality of rights - it is about re-defining the traditional concept of marriage as ordained by God.
it is not legally possible for me to enter into a domestic partnership with someone of the opposite sex (who is under 62 years of age). i could argue that this is discriminatory. on the other hand, i could realize that i already have the same rights of domestic partnership - but because i chose to marry someone of the opposite sex my legal union is called a "marriage" and not a domestic partnership. i can't be "domestic partners" with someone of the opposite sex, and people of the same sex can't "marry." we all share the same legal rights, but the law has created a different term to describe the arrangement. i support this inequity in terms because marriage as a religious term has never been applied to same-sex couples.
but it goes beyond mere semantics. i wouldn't complain if everyone in California were granted a domestic partnership. leave marriage to those religions that choose to designate the union as such. i think a religious marriage can be viewed as a partnership between two spouses and God. take God out of the equation, and you are left with a domestic partnership. as it stands now, however, our nation has deep religious roots and the legal term for the union of "two adults who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring" is "marriage."
to me, a YES vote on Prop 8 permits those with a religious perception of marriage to have that perception remain inviolate, while NOT removing any legal rights from same sex couples.
gay couples already have the same legal rights as straight couples. Prop 8 does not eliminate any of these civil rights. to some, such as myself, marriage is more than a legal arrangement. it is a religious arrangement. Prop 8 reinforces my right to have a religious arrangement. by all means, let the state remove the term marriage from its use of describing legal ties between a couple, but until it does, i shouldn't have to have my personal definition of marriage impinged upon when all it does is confer a title (and not a single right).
The lady scots:
before the party got started:
and after:
this was our palace:
jungle tour and zip-lines:
mike and erin
cenote:
back up:
minus the 2 run-ins with la policia, this was the perfect vacation. we were innocent both times and were able to avoid much hassle w/ a $75 pay-off. of course the optimist my husband is considers the vacation complete for what kind of adventure would it have been without having to brib the mexican police? honestly, the people were very nice even one set of the cops and the military guys w/ the GIANT machine guns!
