Double Standards

This week the state of California voted to pass Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Immediately afterwards, I was saddened by the number of negative Facebook messages that appeared from my friends in California. For example:

“…Californians chose bigotry and discrimination over love and commitment”

“…sad she lives in a state with so many bigots and haters”

The list goes on and on, but the mean-spirited messages were consistent across the board. The word “bigot” is defined as a “person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.” I find it interesting that by participating in the name calling and hatemongering, they are becoming the very thing they are accusing others of being.

Just because someone holds differing views and opinions doesn’t mean they are bigots and haters. It saddens me that people aren’t even trying to understand the other side. Instead, they intimidate and discredit by embarking on a campaign of name-calling against their opponents (e.g. radical right, homophobes, bigots, haters).

Many people, including the writer of this blog, simply want to protect the traditional definition of marriage. They aren’t necessarily saying that civil unions shouldn’t be supported or that legal and government benefits shouldn’t be extended to same sex couples. They just want to protect traditional values and keep the time-tested definition of marriage intact.

For others, the issue of marriage didn’t even factor into the equation. They voted in favor of proposition 8 to send a message to the courts. Courts shouldn’t define American values; that right belongs solely to the people. In 2000, California voters went to the polls and voted overwhelming in favor of legally protecting marriage. Yet, four judges went against the will of the people and declared the law unconstitutional. These four appointed lawyers overruled more than four million California voters — think about that.

No one should have the right or the power to dictate their individual values upon the American people. Our founding fathers took great efforts to ensure that the power of activist judges would be restrained. They attempted to put checks and balances in place to prevent judicial tyranny. If we relax those controls and allow judges to make the laws rather than interpret them, tyranny will prevail — and once it starts, who knows where it will end.

This blog isn’t intended to sway opinion “for” or “against” proposition 8. People have their own opinions, and that’s fine as long as they can respect the beliefs of others who don’t agree with them. If we could learn to accept defeat gracefully (like McCain did this week), wipe out double standards and nasty name calling, we’d get more accomplished. Maybe we could even come up with a proposal that both sides could support — wouldn’t that be novel?

Share

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Derrick S says:

    Very well said. We disagree (not too much, actually) on some of these specific points, but I appreciate that we can discuss things in a civilized way. I get really irritated when people on either side of an argument can’t at least respect the other person’s right to have a different opinion – even if they strongly disagree with the opposing view. It’s an issue of professionalism and common courtesy.

    People like that are such freakin’ moronic idiot loser scumbags…. oh, wait.

  2. Laura P says:

    Haha! Thanks…it just drives me nuts when people refuse to show others the same courtesy that they demand for themselves. Respect is a two-way street.

  3. Thea says:

    I heartily disagree. First of all, if you would like to vote on a law that keeps the courts out of the state legislature, then create a law that states just that. Proposition 8 had nothing whatsoever in its verbiage that related to the courts…so if you voted on Prop8 because of that, you voted for the wrong reason.

    Secondly, as far as maintaining the traditional definition of marriage: how does changing that definition affect your marriage to your husband? Truly, allowing Bob and Tom to be husband and husband as opposed to just partner and partner does not affect YOUR relationship with your husband one iota…nor does it affect your relationship to your family, church or God. So why the big deal?

    Thirdly, to me there isn’t much difference between the “compromise” of domestic partnerships and the Jim Crow laws of the south. Think about it: the Jim Crow laws allowed whites to give blacks – technically – the same rights as whites, while still maintaining them as a separate group of non-whites. And anyone with a history book can tell you that separate does NOT mean equal.

    All the while, people who were walking the fence on racism allowed themselves to say “I’m not racist…I support African-Americans having the same rights as I do. I just don’t want them to be defined as equal to me.” It’s no different with the domestic partnerships that you support – they only give the illusion of equality while still maintaining separation, and all the while you claim that you’re not bigoted?

    I’m sorry, but it’s not possible to walk the line of bigotry. If you deny homosexuals the same rights and privileges that you would keep for yourself – INCLUDING the titles and licenses associated with such privileges – then you do not believe that they are equal to you, for whatever reason, and thus by definition you are a bigot. You may not like to admit it, but that’s how it works.

    Welcome to the civil rights movement of our time. It’s a shame that you’re on the wrong side.