Hope. Change. Surprise. Relief. Inspiration.
All day long Tuesday, I was tied up in knots, worried that the polls would be wrong again, as they have been other times this year. Even as the results began coming in, I hesitated to become too optimistic. They were just projections, after all. Isn't that what happened eight years ago? We thought we knew the outcome, only to have the battle drag out for weeks.
But it looks like Americans voted for change and hope. As a mother, that makes me happy. I want my children to grow up in a world of possibility and compassion, where we all work hard to achieve our own American dream, while still looking out for those who might need a helping hand.
I'm so sick of the divisive rhetoric, people tearing down anyone who thinks differently than they do. What happened to civility, respect, decency?
I think that's why so many responded to Barack Obama's message. It's not just about change for change's sake. For me, it was these words:
It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation. Yes we can.It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom through the darkest of nights. Yes we can.
It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness. Yes we can.
It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballot; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.
Yes we can to justice and equality. Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this world. Yes we can.
... We will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in America's story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea - Yes. We. Can.
This is the country I want to believe in. This historic step doesn't mean the battles are all over. Many are ongoing or have just begun. But this outcome gives me hope again, for us and for our children.
"Yes we can" but will we?
Yes, we can.
We can once again have a country that cares for its people. Obama will make this country once again great!
I hope so but he cant do it alone.
"Hey Joe"...we know your story.What other country could have given you better care than you've gotten your whole life? Do you honestly think Obama is going to turn on some light switch in your life.Not with turning somebody elses out.Believe in yourself...not Obama.
And what are we going to do with the KKK, the Arian Brotherhood, the American Nazi Party and so many other hate groups. And I looked again at the election map 2008. It looks that there are more Mc Cain states than Obama states.
"One swallow does not make it summer." As long as the race card can't be left out of the deck, there can't be healing. Only palliating relieve. The influence of the electoral college is now mute for four years.
And here in California....the passage of prop 8 is proof that we are still willing to discriminate. And a marriage certificate is more than just a piece of paper. California is a community property state. That piece of paper is legal and economic protection for the family. I don't know how it works in same sex unions.
Isabell,
Just to answer your question, in a same sex union, a couple can be together for 30 years, have a home together, lots of belongings, a nest egg built up over the years, investments, etc. and if partner A dies, partner B has no rights. Partner A's hateful, estranged and disapproving brother can come in and take it all away. Some people think that's perfectly fair and ok, because the loving relationship for 30 years was two people of the same sex.
To deprive same-sex unions of the protection of marriage "Some people think that's perfectly fair and ok" My foot...some people...the majority of voters in California are that unfair to their homosexual neighbors. Be faithful and have charity...are those not the words of a religious song? We, in this family, we may not be faithful fundamentalist Christians, but we found the charity toward our neighbors. The way it was explained to me, by scot, that would tend to make it open season on same-sex union economically. I know that Jesus of Nazareth did not set the stage for that unfairness.
As with anyone a living trust, will and medical POA is necessary.
To those of you like to use the name of Jesus, and take his life out of context to justify same-sex marriage, Christ was very clear regarding marriage. In his own words, when he walked our planet, he described marriage as between a man and a woman in Matthew 19:4. He did not say, this is the definition until the year 2008. Christ also claimed, "I am the truth, the way, and the light. No one comes to the Father, accept by me." John 3:16.
It is not up to the creation (man) to tell the Creator what the rules are. Does the pot tell the potter how to design it?
If you are going to claim that Jesus is the authority, perhaps you should crack open His Word, so you can get his doctrine right.
Redpeach, it is you who are taking Jesus' words out of context. The definition of marriage wasn't being discussed when Jesus reportedly said those words. Rather, he was talking about divorce - you know, that thing that ends about half the heterosexual marriages in this country? If "protecting marriage" was your real goal (rather than a pretext), you would be advocating a constitutional amendment to prohibit divorce, not same-sex marriage.
Which is exactly why secular law should be made by man, especially considering we do not live in a theocracy and the Bible does not dictate U.S. laws, regardless of whatever you want to claim about the founding fathers.
Am I a homophobe if I see a couple of guys making out and become uncomfortable?On the other hand if I see a couple of attractive women making out...I might stick around and watch.Maybe I'm a lesbian trapped in a mans body.If only Dr.Gail were still around to sort things out.I saw in the Bee today where a guy sexually molested a dog.Shouldn't he be allowed to marry that little pooch.He probably thinks they are in love. Maybe if lawyers can overturn Prop.8 he'll get his chance.
Scot,
Your answer to Isabell's question is not correct. Without a will or trust, anyone's assets are up for grabs, and the state is usually first in line. I thought you were more aware of the laws, since we've addressed this one before.
Isabell,
Go here http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=15381013991+5+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve . It's CA's website for looking up laws. Section 297 and 297.5 clearly delineate the entitlements due to domestic partners. Over and over again, Section 297.5 compares domestic partnerships and spouses as equal. Please read it and you'll understand why I disagree with Scot's statement.
Here's another falsehood the opponents of Prop 8 are telling us, Isabell: that Parental Rights will not be restricted. To the contrary, in Massachusetts, after gay marriages were legalized, schools began teaching about gay lifestyles without notifying parents. One parent was arrested and thrown in jail because after his child told him about a lesson on gay marriage, he demanded that his 2nd grade child not be taught about the topic because it was contrary to his beliefs. This is all documented and verifiable. The issue of exposing children to the topic is not the point, the issue is about the mandate to teach it without parental choice.
It's not my place to judge gays, but it is my place to guide my children. I cannot stand by idly while that is taken away from me. Prop 8 has allowed me to retain that right as a parent. The ACLU, by challenging the decision of the people, is clearly communicating that my rights as a parent don't matter.
I think the comparisons of the KKK's violent intimidation tactics to the protection of parent's rights to guide their children on moral issues is preposterous, and intended to inflame emotional reactions. (I'm referring to other threads and posts, not your comment above, Isabell) The "big picture" of Prop 8 and this issue is about the government overstepping its boundaries and taking away parents' rights to teach morals.
Jesus compared his love for the church to a husband's love for a bride. Jesus didn't love the church like a sibling, child, best friend, or Partner A, but like a "bride." That brings up two points:
1. First, he was committed to proving his love for the "bride," up to the point of death. Any committted husband will testify to that feeling.
2. Second, by using the term "bride" He clearly refers to intimate relationships as belonging to males/females. Nowhere in the Good Book does it allow or advocate homosexuality, but it does clearly forbid it in both the Old and New Testament. (It also says I'm not supposed to feel angry towards others; I've broken that one plenty of times, but I'm not pushing for legalization of my behavior. I'll answer to that when it's my time.)
Mike D, we agree on something: I'd also like to see those proponents of Prop 8 develop a law or amendment that makes divorce harder. Priority #1 is to outlaw the "prenup." #2 would be to repeal the idea of a "no fault" divorce. #3 would be that everyone planning to marry would have to prove they got premarital counseling, including notification that as spouses, (a) you will NOT live happily ever after, (b) that there WILL be disagreements, (c) that having children is very stressful [and C-1; agreement must be made on general discipline procedures for the child(ren) ], (d) that a woman's body chemistry changes temporarily on a regular basis (and that the husband better be able to tolerate that!), and so on. Potential spouses unwilling to submit to the premarital counseling would have to go to Canada or somewhere else if they really wanted to marry that badly.
Yes Brian, that's homophobic behavior. Please don't bring up the "they shove it in our faces" argument. How many baseball games have you been to with "kiss cams"? Talk about shoving it in people's faces.
And enough with the conflating homosexuality with beastiality. Dogs can't give consent. Your mind is twisted.
You are way out of line Brian. Proposition 8 and the little dog have nothing in common. Classifying two grown, same sex people, in love, wanting to marry and have a consensual relationship is not in the same category as a person who abuses animals. No, a human and an animal will not be allowed to marry ever, because an animal can not understand nor communicate their consent; as can not children. I appreciate a joke as much as anyone but doing so at the expense of homosexuals should be beneath even you Brian.
Adam(a biblical name) and KT&T(a phoney)...You would deny this man happiness?It was not meant to be a joke but to serve as an illustration of the possibilities that extremists will bring before the court when lawyers and some liberal judge(s)overturn the "Peoples Will".Your empty promise of what the future will or will not bring is of no comfort to me based on your self loathing and hypocrisy...your mind is bent.
Mr. Matt McIntyre:
Hurray to someone who finally brings up the true "issue” i.e. the "War of the Roses", the feminist and the homosexual agenda(s).
Their agenda's are to totally dismantle, destroy, and obscure the concept that has stood for over 2,000+ years. That is, marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman, in the presence of God (and secondarily, the State) so that the couple may procreate, (i.e. have children), who are members of a family, a family that has actual Uncles, Aunts, Cousins, and grandparents.
Not a surrogate family, where-in one son is a bastard child, and the woman is a "free-spirit".
Notice how the "liberated" feminists and the secular gay's push, over and over again that they are "normal"..........yet.........can a feminist procreate as a solo person? Can, any homosexual couple procreate?
Opps, looks like their arguments lose on the basics of simple biology!
So, it's about time that people see and understand how extensive misandry exists in our society.
I urge all to look up the definition of misandry, and then, recall the events of the Duke University Case, awhile back!
Again, marriage is not a property of religion. It is not solely a religious institution. And, the Bible does not make the laws in this country.
And has it occurred to anyone on the right that those of the same sex who seek to enter into marriage, have the same respect for what it stands for than heterosexuals? They have no intention of "dismantling" or "destroying" anything about it. If it didn't mean anything to same sex couples, then why are they fighting for their rights to be equal? I would think that anyone who has ever been divorced or has been unfaithful has done more to damage it than anyone.
No one on the right has been able to answer the question, If homosexuality is inborn, from birth, as in, fixed into the Xs and Ys, then should they be allowed to marry? There are arguments on both sides of whether or not that's the case, but it's really where the argument of legalizing same sex marriage originates. And it's what needs to be addressed.
I don't want to see homosexuals or heterosexuals sucking off each others faces. There is a time and place for that and out in public is not it.
J. Henry. Your logic has a flaw. No one can procreate as a solo person.
In fact, your whole rambling, disjointed, errant diatribe is flawed. Look up strawman while you have your dictionary out.
Brian, your comment was meant to draw comparisons where comparisons could not be made. Standard fare for you.
I will say this again. Civil Unions have, in fact, NOT given homosexuals the same rights as married couples. They grant approximately 400 state benefits that have been previously granted only to married couples. But over 1,000 federal rights and privileges that married couples receive automatically are denied "civil unionized" couples because of the federal Defense Of Marraige Act (DOMA). It prohibits the federal government from recognizing civil unions. Challenges to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United State Supreme Court since its enactment, but so far the Court has declined to review any such cases. Just a cursory look it is obvious the DOMA violates the 14th Amendment "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". As far as that goes they are also violating the Constitution right to due process. The citizens of the United States have not been heard as to the Constitutionality of the DOMA law because the Surpreme Court REFUSES to review any cases concerning this law. Tell me that is not against the very fabric of why the Constitution was written in the first place!!!! All because of one WORD. Since when did any court have the right to deny usage of a word in any language for use by all human beings on this planet?
Adam(abiblical name)...from where do you draw your authority? Am I not entitled to what I see as valid comparison to make or should I run it by Adam(a biblical name)first. Sounds like an "Obama" complex.
Brian, obviously you're entitled to say whatever you want. I would think that would be clear to you by now. And just like you're entitled to be rude to people, make illogical statements, misrepresent other people who comment, and generally deflect from answering for what you say here, I'm entitled to respond.
I'll ask you as I've asked before, do you treat people like crap when you talk to them face to face or just when you know you can get away with it in a forum like this? Let's have coffee some time and see if you can carry a conversation without sidetracking yourself with name calling.