Please Don't Hurt My Family

 

I find it appaling that this was written saying it was from a child. I can not believe that someone would try to use a child in such a manner to make a lame attempt to pull heart strings. The law is the law, marrige is defined as one man one woman. Those children do not understand the heartache that they will have to face having their mommies married. Kids are cruel and that is just a fact, why give them something to be cruel about?

- Wendi

Posted 11/19/08 08:51 AM

 

 

Gee, Wendi, maybe because many people believe that the law is wrong and many of us think it is no one’s business what type of relationship exists between adults that love each other? And to follow your belief that parents shouldn’t “give” their children something to be cruel about because “kids are cruel” how about teaching children to accept families in all forms? Just 40 years ago it was ILLEGAL for white people and black people to marry, and people said the very same thing you are: why set them up for teasing? Because our Constitution states “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and it isn’t up to YOU to decide how another ADULT seeks a happy, fulfilling relationship. My 5 year old has 2 children in her kindergarten class with lesbian parents…and she accepts it as just the way it is. Thankfully.

- ls

Posted 11/19/08 08:59 AM

 

 

I don’t know WHEN our society has ever benefitted from denying basic human rights to anyone, ever. Is there so much extra love in the world that we should deny it in whatever form it takes? If you want to keep marriage sacred, try legislating against divorce. As it stands, almost 1 out of every 2 couples won’t make it. The people affected by Prop 8 and other ridiculous laws like it pay taxes in our country and no one seems to mind where their money comes from. If the laws of this country don’t accommodate them, then we ought to create tax exemptions for them that parallel the benefits that married couples receive. This is a sick, dark time in our history and shame on all the people that have propigated this legislation of hate masquerading as religious sanctity.

- Kim T

Posted 11/19/08 10:52 AM

 

 

I am 100% pro gay rights - up to and including marriage. I’m pretty vocal about that. And so it pains me to agree with the first commenter in any way, but… This approach makes me very uncomfortable. There are valid points to be made without presuming to speak for someone else. Especially a small child. And this is from a woman who took my kids to a gay rights protest this weekend. But I was very conscience of the signs they were allowed to carry.

- Miss Britt

Posted 11/19/08 11:04 AM

 

 

A touching and nice post. I would agree — children don’t understand the discrimination. The beautiful thing about kids is that they see so many things unfiltered. I was a child with two heterosexual parents and (so I thought) all heterosexual siblings, surrounded by heterosexual relationships. Yet I would create relationships with my dolls and when playing with my younger siblings — my girl dolls would marry each other, my nephew would marry my little sister, my bear would marry my pig, I would marry my favorite stuffed toy, and my blue crayon would marry my yellow crayon. What I saw were relationships, not differences. I think that at young ages, before kids are taught differently, that’s how a lot of children are. The fact is, “marriage,” as almost all people understand it, is a RELIGIOUS institution. And I fully support the right of religious organizations to NOT marry homosexuals. That is their perogative. (Side note: I have a spouse and I have both a legal union and a religious union. It was a church marriage, allowing it to be recognized by God and I got a license, allowing it to be recognized by the government. Had we just had the church marriage, the government may not have recognized it. Had we just filed for the license, my faith wouldn’t have recognized it. I needed both.) But anyone who enters into a legal partnership with another human being is participating in a civil union. These can only be recognized by municipalities. And these must be recognized equally with equal rights to all people regardless of inconsequential differences such as what types of organs rest below the waist. So for as long as the government is going to be in the “business” of recognizing legal unions, it cannot discriminate based on gender, race, religious preference, or physical disability. It can only recognize based on the ability of a person to enter contract (generally defined as mental health and age/maturity). Therefore, I strongly support the rights of all Oompa Loompas, purple people eaters (and purple people), stuffed animals, and homosexuals to legally enter into contracts — and am ashamed of a government and its people who don’t support equal rights and protection for all.

- TJ

Posted 11/19/08 11:10 AM

 

 

Wendi - I guess it’s lucky for me that you don’t get to decide the law. Not so long ago the law would have made it illegal for my white self to marry my black husband. Then again, not too long before that the law also would have prevented black people from marrying each other and the law also would have made it perfectly legal for my family to have *owned* his family. Just because something is law doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be changed when it causes discrimination. But perhaps you think those laws were okay too.

- Sherry

Posted 11/19/08 11:25 AM

 

 

It’s an interesting writing style. When my wife and I had a blog tracking the growth of our son through his toddler years, we played with this format for a while: having the pieces written in his voice. They were never politically charged, however — but they certainly voiced his parents thoughts at the time. It wasn’t deception; everyone knew that there wasn’t a three year old blogging (or dictating what should and shouldn’t be written). It was quite obvious that his “voice” was really ours. For a political standpoint I’ve now seen this format of writing from both ends of the spectrum. While this is written in the voice of a four-year old child expressing her dismay with people not recognizing her family, there are also those who write in the voice of unborn fetuses with the message that abortion should be criminalized. My own personal feelings about gay marriage not entering into it, I think this piece of writing really evokes a high level of pathos. Good work.

- shiny

Posted 11/19/08 11:31 AM

 

 

Ok I know a lot of you do not agree with me, but let me tell you why I see things the way I do. I had a gay brother. For years I saw him unhappy and rejected. I hated seeing it. In fact he died alone in an apartment from an overdose. I fully believe that you can love who you want. However, I do believe that marriage is one man and one woman. This is in the Bible. It is written that way and has been for a very long time. People live ho they want, but when you have to change laws and such to acomadate you then I think it is crossing a line. As for the kids, there will be a day when they wonder and maybe even ask why don’t I have one daddy and one mommy. It just makes me sad for them is all that I am saying.

- Wendi

Posted 11/19/08 11:54 AM

 

 

I don’t think the post was meant to exploit the children,although I can see your point Miss Britt.I believe the post was more of a plea to people who oppose gay unions.Their family,on it’s most basic level,is simply a family.Those children are loved and wanted just like other children in “normal” unions.I’m embarrased that people today refuse to understand that it matters not where the love comes from or what form it takes as long at there is love.Last August I wad honored to stand up with my baby sister as she married the love of her life,a beautiful,amazing woman we happily welcomed into our family.In attendance were family 80 years to 8 months and every single one felt the love they share.

- Jennifer

Posted 11/19/08 12:03 PM

 

 

I don’t have all my facts straight, here. I’ll just start with that. But is it true that if Prop 8 had not passed that religious institutions would be forced to recognize gay marriages that their doctrines do not support? Wouldn’t that have forced the churches to perform marriages that they would not under other circumstances have approved? Isn’t that a little messed up? If that is the case, then why can’t they rewrite Prop 8 for another ballot in a way that would remove the churches from legally being required to perform marriage ceremonies that they do not approve? I’m not from California, so I really wasn’t THAT informed on this issue. Can anyone provide some clarity for me?

- Kate

Posted 11/19/08 12:17 PM

 

 

My name is Charlie and I’m four years old. I go to preschool, and I have a lot of “brothers” and “sisters” here in the orphanage I live in. I wish I could have parents to love, but because of the law here in Massachusetts, they are stopping adoption services. The state is trying force people to do things they think are wrong, so instead of doing the bad things, they are choosing to not do bad things by not doing anything at all. I don’t understand why the state would want to force the orphanage to give children to “special” families that are at a greater risk of breaking up, greater risk of domestic violence, and greater risk for deadly diseases. I though being “discriminating” was a good thing, that everybody should be able to know what is right and wrong and only do what they know is right. Isn’t that what people who do bad things don’t do, they don’t discriminate against the bad actions, but choose to do whatever they want to do?

- Charlie

Posted 11/19/08 12:27 PM

 

 

That’s the point. They WANT to FORCE everyone to accept their “marriage” and their “lifestyle” choice as normal and be able to force churches to marry them and allow them to adopt children, no matter what the church believes is right and wrong. They don’t want anyone to be allowed to discriminate (definition: to use good judgment) against things they believe are wrong. If they really just wanted the “tax advantages” and “partner rights” they’d accept Civil Unions instead of trying to force “gay marriage” down everyone’s throats.

- Charles

Posted 11/19/08 12:36 PM

 

 

So based on Charles’ argument, the gay rights activists who get angry at evangelicals for forcing their beliefs upon others are, in fact, doing the same thing to the evangelicals? And the evangelicals exercised their right to protect their churches from being inundated by federal laws? Seems to me that’s why the pilgrims came to America… because they were tired of the government controlling the people by controlling the Church of England.

- Kate

Posted 11/19/08 12:49 PM

 

 

@Kate — to answer your question concerning churches being forced to perform gay weddings even if contrary with their own belief systems: No, it is not true. Churches and other places of worship (as well as their clergy) can grant or refuse to perform religious ceremonies.

- shiny

Posted 11/19/08 01:01 PM

 

 

Thanks, shiny. So then what is the difference between a “civil union” and “marriage?” Seriously. It sounds to me like Charles is ok with granting homosexuals the freedom to enter into a civil union. Why is it that the gay community insists on legalizing “marriage” over a “civil union?”

- Kate

Posted 11/19/08 01:13 PM

 

 

How are evangelicals forcing their beliefs on others? You don’t like what they preach, don’t go to their church. Freedom, it’s a great thing.

- Charles

Posted 11/19/08 01:14 PM

 

 

@Kate — This will be a pretty dramatic way of saying it, but I heard it said elsewhere and the parallels resonated with me: What’s the difference between the freedom to ride on the bus and the freedom to ride on the bus as long as you sit in the back behind all of the white folks? Arguably you’re still able to get from point A to point B, right? Some say that “marriage” and “civil union” are just words. And that, in theory, they can be treated equally. But there are those who are skeptical that there will be the same sense of equity in many facets of society. For example: if someone checks “married” on a loan application and it turns out that s/he is actually in a civil union which is not marriage, that person can be denied for being inaccurate. If someone were to ask “are you married” — those involved in a committed, same-sex relationship want to be able to answer “yes” rather than have to explain the terms of the relationship. Hope that clarifies things a bit…

- shiny

Posted 11/19/08 01:37 PM

 

 

Wendi said “I can not believe that someone would try to use a child in such a manner to make a lame attempt to pull heart strings.” Well, Wendi, isn’t that EXACTLY what the “Yes on 8” folks did in their commercials about the little kids “forced” to learn about gay marriage in Massachussetts schools? The difference is that Abby really DOES feel this way about her mommies. I’m sure that the actors playing the Massachussetts kids don’t care at all that they are taught about gay marriage…

- Andrew

Posted 11/19/08 01:47 PM

 

 

Andrew, I just have to point this out: a 4-year-old named Abby did not write this piece. She’s is a ficticious character created by the writer to illicit an emotional response from a group of readers. Maybe there really is a little girl named Abby with gay parents. Maybe she’s even the little girl in this picture, but that’s not who wrote the story. How can you assert that the kids from the Massachussetts commercials don’t give a crap about the issue? Whatever. The point that Wendi is trying to make is that it’s kind of wrong to use children to make a political statement. It doesn’t matter which side of the issue uses the kids - it’s just low.

- Kate

Posted 11/19/08 02:04 PM

 

 

The Law is the Law. This was the will of the people. If your cause passed and people were protesting the outcome you would cry foul. I appreciate you effort but the people spoke. It’s not illegal by any means. It was an amendment to the State Constitution. This is a State rights issue not a Federal issue. The law is the law and an amendment to the Constitution is binding approved for and by the people of the State of California.

- Tom

Posted 11/19/08 02:32 PM

 

Comment Page: <<   1  2  3  4  5   >>