factitious: (Default)
[personal profile] factitious
This post is mainly aimed at people who will be voting in California. I think that's a large portion of my readership.

Marriage is under attack this year, on a scale that, as far as I know, is unprecedented. Literally thousands of marriages in California are going to be annulled if Proposition 8 passes.

What's worse, this attack on the constitutionally guaranteed right to marriage has a real chance of passing, according to polls. It's a sad comment on the standards of society today that destroying marriages is even on the table, much less that a significant number of people might vote for it.

I know this isn't the first time you've heard warnings about the need to defend marriage, but this goes far beyond what California has faced before. Yes, even worse than the unconstitutional Proposition 22 back in 2000. The threat this time is that actual existing marriages will be made no longer valid. If you care at all about protecting the sanctity of marriage, please vote no on Proposition 8.

Date: 2008-10-25 01:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] arethiel.livejournal.com
already done!

thank you!

Date: 2008-10-25 02:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] suomifrikki.livejournal.com
i would if i could!

Re: thank you!

Date: 2008-10-25 02:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] factitiouslj.livejournal.com
You could move to California. Very quickly.

Re: thank you!

Date: 2008-10-25 03:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] darthbitsy.livejournal.com
Same -- I've voted already in CT. I did give money to no on 8, however.

Date: 2008-10-25 05:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rabid-bookwyrm.livejournal.com
I'm pretty sure that anyone who is married before the election will stay married after the election, whatever else happens. This is because, at present, the weddings are legal and correct, and laws cannot retroactively change what was at the time legal.

However, thank you.

Date: 2008-10-25 06:37 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] factitiouslj.livejournal.com
The proposition says "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." If they meant for some other marriages to also remain recognized, they really need to fix their wording.

Date: 2008-10-25 06:41 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] factitiouslj.livejournal.com
And I'll note that being a one-sentence proposition that still manages to be unclear on this important issue is a pretty big strike against it.

March 2010

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14 151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 27th, 2017 02:40 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios