I'm a big advocate of personal freedoms and liberties. As such, I count myself among the millions of Americans who -- as of last night -- are excited at the prospect of an Obama presidency, and looking forward to Geo. W. Bush's final farewell.
But for those of us who revere personal freedom in California, yesterday's victory was bittersweet.
I think many of us were surprised (to say the least) when Prop. 8 passed, banning gay couples from being able to legally marry in this state.
Now, I've heard a lot of banter both ways on this. Some people say that you can't call it a marriage unless it's a man and a woman. Some of those people have expressed no other objection to it. Personally, I feel this is splitting hairs and is no reasonable basis to pass a law against it. If we're to begin passing laws based on concise usage of terminology, I have a very, very long list of offenses to offer up, and the current lame-duck president is among the worst public offenders.
But this Prop 8 goes beyond a legal defining of terminology. It is a spiteful attempt by right-wing conservative religious groups to restrict the personal freedoms of those they do not agree with.
I believe this constant attack on the private rights of individuals by the religious right was a significant contributor to last night's sweeping victory by Obama. He represents tolerance, perhaps of another kind, but tolerance of those who are different. He also stands for personal liberties.
It's an amazing contrast to this new legislation in California. Nationally, we take a huge step forward while, in this state, we take a sharp step back.
I, as well as others who are like-minded, noted with incredulity that Proposition 2 passed along with Prop 8. Prop 2 guarantees rights to farm animals. So California has just said that farm animals have more rights than humans if the humans happen to be gay. But I wonder: if Prop 2 were granting rights of pigs to marry chickens, would it have achieved success? I doubt it. That would just be absurd.
I'm beyond tired of the religious right's endless attempts to restrict the personal and private freedoms of Americans who don't happen to subscribe to whatever doctrine they are a part of. They have used THEIR personal freedom - that of religious practice - as tool to stomp out the personal freedoms of others long enough.
Here's my idea: Let's just squelch ONE personal freedom -- the freedom to practice religion openly. If we stripped them of that freedom, we'd accomplish a few things:
- The religious right would no longer have the legal right or ability to mobilize and persecute non-religious personal freedoms.
- We'd be letting them know EXACTLY how it feels to have someone else step in -- and on -- a personal freedom you value very highly, despite the fact that it is no business of those doing the stepping.
- And, in a third possibility, it would have them more busy trying to defend their right to religious practice and they'd have less time to go around trying to tell everyone else how they should live.
What this country needs more than anything is to give the religious right a kidney punch right in the soul. If you're going to run around abusing a freedom, a privilege, a right -- then it is inevitable historically that sooner or later, you'll irritate enough people to wind up having that right stripped from you.
So go ahead, religious right -- keep stepping on personal freedoms. The next one we lose may just be YOURS.
-- The Emerald Quill
5 comments:
We contributed $$ to the 'No on 8' campaign and were sick when it won. The biggest issue is that it's a constitutional amendment--I'm not sure how we get that struck down.
Mary Lynn
What the hell, why don't we force the religious right to go all the way? I propose for the next election some new propositions. Prop 88 that bans divorce, as it is an affront to the sanctity of marriage; Prop 888 that makes infidelity illegal, and makes it a jailable offense, as it, too, is an affront to the sanctity of marriage; and, finally, Prop 8888 that calls for the automatic annulment of any marriage that does not produce offspring within the first 18 months, since their argument is that the purpose of marriage is to reproduce.
Nice points!
I was actually considering that we should pass a law that no Christian-affiliated person should ever be allowed to hold public office, as Christians view the end of the world as a favorable event, making them a total conflict of interest to the rest of the population and to the very idea of public service...
Also, Christians should not be allowed to hold various other occupations -- such as teachers -- since that could unfairly and improperly influence our children.
And while my blog itself was more of a dark satire, I am totally serious about this: Christians/religious people should not be allowed into these positions. Period.
Now, now, don't forget, Barack is a Christian...
True. No one's perfect. ;o)
Post a Comment