Image via Wikipedia
Prop 8 in California, which was a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, passed. California failed human rights 101.
I read a quote in the Stanford Daily said by a supporter of the ban: “I believe that once we give the name of marriage to units that don’t have that procreative capability, then we lose that definition of marriage, that it is to protect children.”
This makes no sense. Rabbits deserve to get extra strong marriage rights because I hear they’re really good at procreating, much better than the average human “units.” And I love the knee jerk, “think of the children” appeal at the end.
Does anyone else think that gay marriage bans sullies marriage, not protects it? It takes marriage, a beautiful expression of love, and turns it into a form of descrimination.
We took a big leap forward electing a president that I’ve always dreamed about.
But we also seem stuck on basic civil rights.
Great post Andrew.