It’s Prop 8 again! (Vote No)

19 10 2008

It’s late here in Europe, no one is chatting to me online and Craigslist only offered up one message of a missed connection with a ‘redheaded goddess’ on the underground and sadly, it wasn’t about me. So I’m here again. And I just read my friend’s blog about Prop 8. We like to keep our sticky European fingers in the affairs of Californians! And if I do ever visit California, who’s taking me rollerblading whilst eating a raisin bagel and drinking fresh OJ??! 

Anyway, from there I found a random link to another blog about Proposition 8, I read it and read the comments. I also posted one back. And it gave me this thought regarding the concern of those who are worried that their religious-based, or religiously-sanctioned marriage will in some way be undermined or threatened or devalued if Proposition 8 is not over-turned. I add it here, and edit it a bit:


“Those who are joined in unity in the presence of their God, will still have that [ie that religious unity would still hold]. Same-sex marriage does not threaten the sanctity of religious-based marriages [ie people can still get married religiously]. Children who follow their parents’ choice of religion will still have that choice to get married in a religious setting, and their children too, if they so choose [because not all children want to be of the religion of their parents, we grow up and we can choose]. But religion is a belief system [ie a personal belief system, and not everyone is religious], and marriage can exist for all outside of it, and it should be allowed to all people should they choose that path. However, the point about marriage being instituted by God, does that mean that Christians, who do not believe in the same god as Muslims, would not recognise the marriage of two, heterosexual, Muslims? Because that Muslim marriage would not be instituted by their (Christian) God.

I put that last bit in bold because I think it’s quite a good point. So people of other religions, in opposite sex relationships would be accorded the same rights by law if they were married – even if a ‘different God’ sanctioned and institutionalised that marriage?? The concept that marriage is a ‘unity between a man and a woman’ is based in religion, and that should be kept out of citizens’ rights. I do acknowledge that religion has formed the backdrop to many of our current day morals, ie don’t kill, don’t steal, but these could also be seen to derive out of a process of civilization and advancement; it’s just that religions have framed them over time. Given also that religions have come and gone over the many years, and take many different forms and shapes across the world, but some principles are shared – ie, don’t steal or kill, then I would suggest that although, for example, English law is in part religion-based, much of the foundations could be seen to stem from outside of a religious framework. So state/law and religion can be kept separate, and marriage does not have to be, by definition, a unity between man and woman.