GLBT LTTE

[omega minimo]

Both these letters were in the San Francisco Chronicle this week.

The first is from someone who has their own views and also respects the rights of others; the two are separate in a just society; many people could use a better understanding of how individual personal beliefs do not supercede the rights of others.

The second is from someone who read the court's decision on "Prop Hate" and clarifies the legal aspect (another being that the Court's decision was technical, to determine whether the change to the California Constitution was legal or not).


A man and a woman

Even though I voted against Proposition 8, mostly because of the creepy people who were for it, I have never felt right about homosexual marriage.

I have not heard one person raise this point: Children need a mother and a father who are married to each other and who love each other and are committed to their family and their children to form a stable home. There is no substitute for this.

I never even felt right about single women, straight or gay, having children to "fulfill" themselves. How does a child feel fulfilled whose father is the sperm bank downtown?

Of course, I think it's better to have two loving same-sex parents than no parents or toxic biological parents.

I think homosexual people should have the right to a civil union and all the rights entailed therein. If they want to get married in a church or some spiritual ceremony, fine. But I feel, deep down in my gut, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.


Rights reaffirmed

My husband and I married during the pre-Proposition 8 window, and I was furious when I heard the court had upheld Prop Hate.
I was mystified enough to sit down and read the court's new ruling. Having read it, I'm no longer as angry.

The court ruling makes it very clear, repeatedly, that the only reason it allowed Prop. 8 to stand is that, in its view, same-sex couples retain all of the "right to marry" except the use by the state of the designator "marriage" to apply to same-sex couples. The court opinion practically invites bigots to dare trying to prevent a gay marriage from enjoying all the rights of an opposite-sex marriage. It makes it very clear that, if that were to happen, Prop. 8's legal justification would be gone.

The court has brilliantly responded to the Prop Hate bigots, working within the legal framework of California's constitution. To see just how thoroughly they've reaffirmed the rights of gay married couples, including literally the "right to marry," you really need to read the opinion.

Now let's all work together to get Prop Hate repealed.

[Mari333]

1. The first letter shows the blatant apologistic ignorance

I have seen so many times in my life concerning gay parents and couples.
I always counter these idjits when I ask them, gee, I raised 3 kids as a WIDOW...what was I supposed to do, grab some guy in pants right away and marry him so there were 2 parents?
2 loving parents, one loving parent, for christs sake, of any gender, are enough for kids.
this person also is severely uneducated as to what benefits are available to people in civil unions and what benefits are available in marriage. They dont do their homework, they just spout this bullshit.

[omega minimo]

2. there's also honesty, support and respect for rights she doesn't necessarily agree with

Isn't that a decent thing? Esp. as it takes some courage to say so?

"Even though I voted against Proposition 8, mostly because of the creepy people who were for it ...."

"I think homosexual people should have the right to a civil union and all the rights entailed therein. If they want to get married in a church or some spiritual ceremony, fine. But I feel, deep down in my gut, that marriage should be between a man and a woman."


It sounds to me like the writer knows the difference b/w other people's rights and their own gut feelings.

[Mari333]

3. yes but

okay shes on the edge...you are right..she just needs a push with a little education. She doesnt think civil unions and legal marriage are different, it seems. at least she voted against it.

[omega minimo]

4. I thought she was including both

:shrug:

[yewberry]

5. My issue with letter #1: it ignores reality.

Does this writer actually believe that legislating against same-sex marriage will make more people straight and married?

Worse, what good does this do for the actual children of actual GLBT families? Can they make their parents become traditional nuclear families? How does this help a kid who's had to learn what a "right to work" state is at age 8 or knows to be extra-careful when out for the day with the non-biological parent?

If "Children need a mother and a father who are married to each other and who love each other and are committed to their family and their children to form a stable home," should we, the children of GLBT families, believe that our moms and dads are wrong or bad or selfish for not providing that for us?

Seriously, fuck that.

[omega minimo]

6. You ignored what the letter actually says.

Aside from the fact that the writer voted against Prop 8, would you mind reading it again? Try to grasp that the writer is not making the demands you're claiming?

If you don't understand that this IS a supporter and expect the writer to see things YOUR way, you are ignoring reality.

[readmoreoften]

7. No. The person is not a supporter. He/she is just someone who dislikes fundies more than gays.

Anyone who thinks that I am a worse parent for being a lesbian is offensive to me and would be to any gay person. You are ignoring reality. We don't and will never accept anyone who claims we are inferior to them as a social class because of who we love.

[omega minimo]

8. I'm sorry. Your point is well taken. When I read the letter, I don't think this is an example of

someone being judgmental in the way you may see it.

There is no condemnation. There may be statements you don't like -- but they're honest and the bigger picture is the person supports and voted for the rights of those who live a different way.

I didn't post this as a challenge and don't mean to argue your POV. IMHO this letter writer didn't either.

They expressed their POV and began and ended the letter with acknowledgement of other people's rights. Despite that personal POV.

I posted this as a rare expression of that kind of honesty and support, based on a larger view of life and what we call human rights.

You don't really need the writer to completely endorse a way of life in order to be a supporter. You need someone who understands what human rights are.

The same is true of the reproducive rights. If someone wrote a letter like this and expressed clearly their views on the issue and indicated they supported women's rights no matter what, that would be a good thing.

:thumbsup:

[TheWatcher]

9. To letter Writer #1 I would say.

Bigotry is Bigotry no matter how sweetly you try to put it, or how diplomatically apologist you try to be.

Your silly gut feelings do not and should not have a right to determine what rights people have

GET. PAST. YOUR. BULLSHIT.

And Get The Fuck Over Yourself.

No More Ms. Nice Queen.

:grr:

And yes, maybe I AM being reactionary, but after a lifetime of putting up with this bullshit, I am at the BREAKING POINT.

So maybe I am not a good voice of reason right now.

In fact, I know I'm not. :(

[omega minimo]

10. The writer understands that. How can you not see that?

"Your silly gut feelings do not and should not have a right to determine what rights people have"

That's the point of her letter and that's the reason I posted it.





































:think:

[TheWatcher]

11. I reread it, and I do understand. Just being a reactionary bitch tonight

Like I said om, I am NOT in the frame of mind lately to be a voice of reason.

And I live in a relatively SAFE place in Seattle.

Please pardon the bile.

Someone tried to attack me in my own DRIVEWAY tonight.

I am just not in a safe frame of mind. :(

A lot of us are on edge right now.

[omega minimo]

13. It has been the weirdest damn week

So much hostility in the air and bile on DU.

We got accosted by someone last night standing on the sidewalk, clearly someone disturbed who's another casualty of bankrupt local gobmint.

Speaking of "on edge."


:grouphug:

[LooseWilly]

12. Ahh, the half wonderful people...

A woman who is able to see past her own judgementalism and prejudices to do the right thing... and a person who doesn't think the term "marriage" is a valid issue worth consideration.

I'll leave it to LGBT folks to judge whether or not the term "marriage" is of interest to them. I suspect that it is... but I don't presume to answer for them. The tolerance of being supported because one is "less creepy" than those trying to take rights away from one is liable to also be a difficult pill to swallow... but a vote is a vote. I'm not sure if I am personally "practical" enough to let the host of offensive and ignorant views espoused by the first letter writer slide simply because of a vote... but I won't bother to address these views here... as only addressing this person will help her to get a grip on a less "queasy" view of the subject.

Your post is remarkably mediocre. Or maybe I just lack sympathy with the "people" involved... or at least their views.

I'll shrug in the face of these expressions of well intentioned ignorance... and not bother to address these opinions since I can't address them to the people who actually hold them.

Or would you like to hear me rant at you on the subject, Omega?

[omega minimo]

14. On my read of the letter, you missed the point:

"I think homosexual people should have the right to a civil union and all the rights entailed therein. If they want to get married in a church or some spiritual ceremony, fine."

[LooseWilly]

15. I'm sorry, maybe I was conflating the California Supreme Court's decision with the statement...

But I think the "I think homosexual people should have the right to a civil union and all the rights entailed therein" portion of the statement plays into that conflation. Adding "If they want to get married in a church or some spiritual ceremony, fine" is all well and nice... but if that ceremony doesn't equate with a "marriage"... then it would seem that it's a hollow "allowance".

If I were "speaking" to the LTTE writer, I would expand upon this point. Unless you can give me her email address, however, I don't know how to do this. If the "ceremony" does not grant full marriage recognition, however... then it's not really a case of "married in a church..." it's a matter of hanging out in a church and making happy noises.

My point was legal recognition of the term "married", in all of its legal "goodness". The use of the term civil union in the first sentence suggests that the LTTE writer is holding reservations about the use of the term of "married"... though I would welcome a correction... from her.

In the meantime... I don't think I've missed the point. I think I've just withheld full support for the apparently luke warm statements of support that seemed not entirely whole hearted. If you'd care to prove to my satisfaction that the LTTE writer is supportive of granting the term "married" to same sex couples who have a ceremony in a church or what have you... I'll further rescind my judgement.

[omega minimo]

16. I dunno bout their meaning. I read it as some will want civil and/or spiritual contracts and that's

up to them, which seems to be the whole point.

Esp due to her personal reservations, I thought her vote was significant. A lot of the messages are like the ones in this thread -- if you're not totally on board, you're totally clueless.

This writer represents IMHO an honest, openminded POV that understands the difference b/w personal views and civil rights and is willing to vote to support those rights.

We need more of that awareness in support of reproductive rights.