I'm skeptical about any proposition which claims to "protect" marriage. I mean, what exactly are they protecting marriage from?
The first historical mention of marriage that has been found is in the Codex Hammurabi, the oldest known complete legal code. Throughout history, marriage has taken a multitude of forms. Really, anyone who claims that they're seeking to protect traditional marriage is a few thousand years too late.
Even in US history, there's been multiple changes to the definition of marriage, yet it's still managed to survive, just as it will when same-sex marriage is eventually recognized in the US.
.
Posted Wednesday Aug 27, 2008 by
Guest;
I am a Lesbian, I have been in partnership with my partner for 24.5 years. We do not really need to be married, but it would be nice to be able to do so in order to participate in each other's benefits provided by the US Government and State Governments and to celebrate our love for one another. My belief is that any law or constitutional change or update for any state that reads "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in xxx" IF these laws are to be voted on, or have been passed, I think that each one of these statements that are protecting the VALUE and SANCITY of marriage should define marriage as a union between "One Man and One Woman ONE TIME." Multiple marriages between hetrosexuals is what really de-values marriage. Thank you.
.
Posted Thursday Aug 28, 2008 by
Guest;
You owe your readers another article about this topic- one that gives as much space to the voices of the opponents of Prop 8 as you give to the anti-gay, anti-family supporters of Prop 8. Without that, this article does nothing to contribute to the understanding of diversity celebrated and advanced by your work and the work the others.
In fact, it is that very lack of understanding, that very lack of valuing and respecting diversity, that it at the core of this controversy. It is simply another manifestation of cultural supremacy resulting in an attempt to criminalize and suppress diversity in a revival of anti-miscegenation laws that were once used to keep people of color from marrying white people whom they loved and wished to spend their lives with - openly and with the protection of the law for themselves and their children.
The entire first half of the article is given to the anti-gay, anti-family SUPPORTERS of Prop 8. (a la Peter La Barbara.) The bulk of the article is given to providing
safe data about the factual existence of same-sex couples and families. This does not provide any balance or equity to the opinion, data-deficient arguments presented in the first half of the article from the pro-Prop 8 anti-equality proponents. (And I respect Shannon Minter tremendously - but a lawyer's rather dry reasoning is not exactly the
same.) If Peter La Barbara was given an entire article so too should an equally passionate supporter of same-sex equality.
If your magazine truly exists to further the understanding of, and contribute to the valuuing of diversity in this culture and society, you will revisit this subject giving equal time to diverse voices. One that is not colored by either your own fears or biases. I write this repectfully as a latina lesbian who values your work and wishes to see your examiation and coverage of this topic rise to the same level as the examination of other difficult topics have.
Editor's Note:
Luke Visconti, Partner and Cofounder of DiversityInc's, Ask the White Guy article
Can anyone give a reason why gay marriage should not be allowed that does not include religious beliefs as the underlying factor?
I cannot understand how my decision to marry my partner will affect or damage someone else's marriage. Is the desire to ban gay marriage any different than the laws which banned interracial marriage? Yet here we are 40 years later and most people think it is silly that interracial marriage was ever banned. Where will we be in another 40 years?
If we are truly trying to protect the sanctity of marriage as those who oppose gay marriage claim, then I support a constitutional ban on divorce. Isn't that a greater threat to the sanctity of marriage than allowing two gay people to marry?
.
Posted Sunday Sep 7, 2008 by
Guest;
Just a note, but the ProtectMarriage.com site has listed California persons, companies and churches that support Prop 8. Checked a few of them out, and I don't believe several of the businesses even exist. Several of the personal names are listed more than once also. You can bet that if I find a company that supports this thing, they won't be getting my business any time soon. Am not gay, but do not wish to patronize homophobic individuals or companies.
.
Posted Tuesday Oct 7, 2008 by
Guest;
I was married on Sept 10th 2008 in west hollywood to the love of my life.
love... bond... forever...
that is why prop 8 should be thrown off the ballot.
if anyone has ever fallen in love with someone and remembers that moment when they make the decision to spend their lives together you know deep down that you want that title of marriage.
I'm skeptical about any proposition which claims to "protect" marriage. I mean, what exactly are they protecting marriage from?
The first historical mention of marriage that has been found is in the Codex Hammurabi, the oldest known complete legal code. Throughout history, marriage has taken a multitude of forms. Really, anyone who claims that they're seeking to protect traditional marriage is a few thousand years too late.
Even in US history, there's been multiple changes to the definition of marriage, yet it's still managed to survive, just as it will when same-sex marriage is eventually recognized in the US.
.