Excited
The irony was not lost on any of us when the initiative measure known as Proposition 8, which fundamentally alters the California state constitution, would be titled the “California Marriage Protection Act” (emphasis my own). It might have been titled the “Marriage Definition Act,” as the initiative seeks to define what is and is not “marriage.” “Marriage Protection,” however, no matter where one stands on the issue, makes no sense.
Marriage is an institution. It is an establishment, an organization of behavior or relationships charged by social and cultural models. Social and cultural models change with time, with the changes relative to the demographics of the people in that society or culture. Thus, institutions change. They change because people reach little epiphanies along the way about what “fair and justice” or “equality” means.
Please, by all means let us argue and debate over what “marriage” means. Discourse is good. Where civil rights may be involved, though, it becomes imperative that we first find common ground. So let’s say “marriage” at its very basic definition, means the formal ratification of a human union or relationship. Marriage is the institution that governs that formal ratification process. This denominator protects the most people. That’s what our purpose here is, right? To protect people, namely our neighbors, who we love; because when God said love thy neighbor, the implication there is that we ought to protect them. That’s part of what it means to love.
A “Marriage Protection Act” should therefore protect all human unions or relationships that seek to be formally ratified. Then, the details of the governance would be worked out through the democratic ways we Americans have been trying to preserve with our War on Terrorism. A provision that reads “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” (which is word for word how Article 1, Section 7.5 of California’s Constitution will read if Prop 8 is passed) is not a protection of the institution of marriage, but rather is explicit discrimination within the institution of marriage.
Before we go any further, I would like to revise Section 1 of Proposition 8 so that our laws utilize language more precisely. It is the “Marriage Definition Act” at its nicest and “Marriage Discrimination Act” at its most accurate. I would be okay with any of those two titles. I am not okay with the misleading title “Marriage Protection.”
As a social conservative, I am voting NO on Prop 8 because marriage is sacred to me, and I oppose any law that might pervert the sanctity of marriage.
Even if equal protection is irrelevant to me (as a minority in this country, equal protection should NEVER be irrelevant to us), I still care about the economy. Passage of Prop 8 means significant revenue loss, mainly in sales taxes, to state and local governments. This could mean a loss of tens of millions of dollars in just the next few years. That kind of money does not sound negligible to me, and I’m sure a public school district receiving that money for rehabilitation wouldn’t consider it negligible, nor would any other group or institution receiving those “excess” funds.
Finally, if we really want to pass Prop 8, then we must also rethink the Pledge of Allegiance. “With Liberty and Justice for All”? We should amend it with a measure called “Justice for All Protection Act” and include an asterisk with a list of exceptions by the word “All.”
Oh, and no, I won’t bother tying this into Asian Americanism to validate this post’s place at 8Asians.com. As people who have historically been excluded from what “All” means in this country, it would be shameful for any of us to support any form of inequality.
[Editors note: Although the blog post was written by akrypti, the title was conceived by Ernie. Flickr photo credit: brenbot.]
How does this post make you feel?
- Fascinated
- Amused
- Bored
- Sad
- Angry
NOTE: 8Asians.com is a community, and we thank you for being a part of it. While we welcome and appreciate differences in opinion, if you're rude or you're promoting spam, we have a right to edit or delete your comment. Read our comment policy for more information.
If you see a comment that violates the 8Asians.com comment policy, you may flag the comment by mousing over the comment and clicking "FLAG."
I really don't care if gays get married or whathaveyou, I am sure that they will get equal rights in time. I'm just not sure if I'm ready to see the after effects of all that. I'm not a homophobe, but there are certain things you don't want to see, like your parents naked or fat chicks pretending to be skinny or dudes french kissing in public.
Playing devils advocate, what's to prevent people from twisting marriage into lots of things it's not supposed to be? If we're talking full equal rights for all and marriage doesn't have to be just between a man and a woman, then could it be a man and women? Or man with multiple men? Or woman and men (only in porn)? Or thinking more practically (and this would be pretty sneaky), but could you deny a man marrying his daughter or son then? By doing so, they could avoid the death tax as all your assets pass tax free to your spouse.
I really don't care if gays get married or whathaveyou, I am sure that they will get equal rights in time. I'm just not sure if I'm ready to see the after effects of all that. I'm not a homophobe, but there are certain things you don't want to see, like your parents naked or fat chicks pretending to be skinny or dudes french kissing in public.
Playing devils advocate, what's to prevent people from twisting marriage into lots of things it's not supposed to be? If we're talking full equal rights for all and marriage doesn't have to be just between a man and a woman, then could it be a man and women? Or man with multiple men? Or woman and men (only in porn)? Or thinking more practically (and this would be pretty sneaky), but could you deny a man marrying his daughter or son then? By doing so, they could avoid the death tax as all your assets pass tax free to your spouse.
@Really: I'm not gay but I imagine gay people want to marry for the same reasons anyone else wants to marry - they want to commit themselves to one person for the rest of their lives. Maybe they want to throw a big party to celebrate their relationship like straight people do? Or maybe they want to be able to add each other to their insurance benefits and such... or be considered "immediate family" in cases that warrant such titles.
I don't think you have to be heterosexual to want such things.
@Really: I'm not gay but I imagine gay people want to marry for the same reasons anyone else wants to marry - they want to commit themselves to one person for the rest of their lives. Maybe they want to throw a big party to celebrate their relationship like straight people do? Or maybe they want to be able to add each other to their insurance benefits and such... or be considered "immediate family" in cases that warrant such titles.
I don't think you have to be heterosexual to want such things.
I don't understand why it's so important for gay people to marry since marriage is a ritual thats probably the most a heterosexual thing to do since the beginning of time.
Perhaps they should find a other ways of demonstrating their union that is not anything so heterosexual-like?
I don't understand why it's so important for gay people to marry since marriage is a ritual thats probably the most a heterosexual thing to do since the beginning of time.
Perhaps they should find a other ways of demonstrating their union that is not anything so heterosexual-like?
I voted no because of the civil, legal, and financial protections that are stripped from gay couples if this amendment were to be passed.
That said, "marriage" has been defined, perhaps implicitly, as a religious union between a man and a woman for ages and ages. Yes, the fact that there have not been gay marriages for hundreds of years means that that's part of the definition (even if it's implicit).
It doesn't make much sense to me to expand definitions to "protect" people, and I think it's perfectly reasonable for people who are religious to protect that meaning because it is something sacred to them.
For the record, I voted no, I don't attach any religious or sacred meaning to marriage, but I think there are people out there who do, and they get unfairly attacked and characterized as ignorant or as bigots.
I voted no because of the civil, legal, and financial protections that are stripped from gay couples if this amendment were to be passed.
That said, "marriage" has been defined, perhaps implicitly, as a religious union between a man and a woman for ages and ages. Yes, the fact that there have not been gay marriages for hundreds of years means that that's part of the definition (even if it's implicit).
It doesn't make much sense to me to expand definitions to "protect" people, and I think it's perfectly reasonable for people who are religious to protect that meaning because it is something sacred to them.
For the record, I voted no, I don't attach any religious or sacred meaning to marriage, but I think there are people out there who do, and they get unfairly attacked and characterized as ignorant or as bigots.
Jason:
Please see:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-law...
If Prop 8 is passed, the new clause in the Constitution will be referred to as the "Marriage Protection Act." See "Section 1"
Taken from the actual language of the initiative.
Government website on Prop 8:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8-t...
Jason:
Please see:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-law...
If Prop 8 is passed, the new clause in the Constitution will be referred to as the "Marriage Protection Act." See "Section 1"
Taken from the actual language of the initiative.
Government website on Prop 8:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8-t...
Actually, Prop 8 is titled "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" not u00e2u0080u009cCalifornia Marriage Protection Actu00e2u0080u009d
Also, Akrypti wrote: "Passage of Prop 8 means significant revenue loss"
Could you please give some examples of how the passage of Prop 8 would cause revenue loss for state and local governments? Sales taxes on what?
Actually, Prop 8 is titled "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" not u00e2u0080u009cCalifornia Marriage Protection Actu00e2u0080u009d
Also, Akrypti wrote: "Passage of Prop 8 means significant revenue loss"
Could you please give some examples of how the passage of Prop 8 would cause revenue loss for state and local governments? Sales taxes on what?
Custom Search
Recent Posts
- Chinese New Year Lanterns
- Is Kim Jong Un Dead? Assassination Rumors Hit the Internet
- Help Fight Stereoptypes With Asian Crew Clothing
- Deftones’ Chi Cheng Wakes Up From His 3-Year Coma
- SXSW 2012 Has a Nice Handful of Asian Movies
- Woman In China Gives Birth To 15 Lb Baby
- Naruto & Dragonball Now Available On Barnes & Noble Nook
Recent Comments
- : @whereisthelove @Biffer It's not that I'm turning it into a tirade against Blacks but folks seem to be on a lovely Kumbaya trip thinking that... – What if Jeremy Lin Weren't Asian?
- : @PhucDat You've obviously never heard of the "no asians, no fats, no fems" that's commonly referenced in the gay community. It's very frustrating and makes... – Asian Men Have The Highest Salary
- : @Biffer I find it interesting how you've managed to transform this great story into launching an attack against african- americans. It's quite offensive for you,as... – What if Jeremy Lin Weren't Asian?
- : This whole article was kinda frustrating and ridiculous. "And maybe this will help put a little more desirability for Asian males in the dating pool."... – Asian Men Have The Highest Salary
- : while it was pretty hilarious, it's a little disconcerting that most of the people who responded didn't use spellcheck. – What I Learned From Posting A Dragon Lady Personal Ad
APA Events
Feb 16: Adam WarRock and Kirby Krackle: West Cost Tour Dates!!!
Feb 16: (New York, NY) Amar Chitra Katha: Monica Ferrell, Chitra Ganesh, Keshni Kashyap, and Himanshu “Heems” Suri of Das Racist
Feb 17: (Los Angeles, CA) All My Sons
Feb 18: (Stanford, CA) Stanford’s 16th Listen to the Silence Conference- Feb 18: (San Francisco, CA) NAAAP-SF Lunar New Year Gala 2012
Feb 25: (Los Angeles, CA) Past Present I Future Imperatives: Queer Space Time
Mar 3: (New York, NY) Vong Pak’s ‘Electric Shaman’ Concert
Apr 30: (Sacramento, CA) California Asian Pacific Islander Policy Summit 2012: iAdvocate
Staff and Contributors
- Editors
- Ernie Hsiung - Founder, Editor-in-Chief
- Moye Ishimoto - Co-Editor, Editorial
- Joz Wang - Co-Editor, PR & APA Outreach
