While perusing through magazines online I found a article that caught my eye. The article was on proposition 8, and how with new technology a person could track where most of the contributions came from for the supporters of proposition 8. This infamous proposition was created to put a halt to gay marriages in the state of California. As the article went on it gave specific areas where donations came from which were high income areas in California. This was of no surprise to me because in order to get anything changed there needs to be some type of financial backing.
However, this poses a problem in my opinion. This is such a controversial topic is it safe to have this kind of information floating freely in cyber space. There are angry people out there who are waiting for an opportunity to attack someone because they feel like their rights are being stripped from them. The Internet is a wonderful tool that should be used to create and share knowledge. Is it important for people to know which cities these contributions came from. If it were the other way around and the amendment did not get passed would people be interested in who gave donations to support that side.
In the big picture, of this whole argument who are we as a society to tell anyone who they can be married to! Law makers either impose religious beliefs in their laws or they impose what is "normal". To many people being heterosexual is normal, to others being homosexual is normal. Proposition 8 has left many gay marriages in the air, there are same sex couples out there who do not even know what is going to happen to their marriage. Our law makers just need to let people live their lives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What I don't understand is why other people care if homosexual people get married?! They say that it's because they will ruin the sanctity and purity of marriage but I really don't understand...unless your marriage is incredibly weak and totally based on other people's marriages...then there should not be any issue with people of different orientations getting married. I think it's awfully wrong to prohibit someone else from being happy just because you don't agree with it. I wouldn't want anyone to take away my rights because of their different opinions. This reminds me of amendment 2 in Florida- people totally ignored the fact that the bill would ultimately help more STRAIGHT people who are part of civil unions just because the bill also allowed gay people to have rights. That's ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThere are two issues here: the freely available information on who supported the movement and what might be done with it, and the fact of the proposition itself being a huge divide in American philosophy. In an extremist view, which I am sure there are plenty of now, the movement has divided American thought into two camps: tolerance and prejudice. That's cutting it down to an extremely simple view, but at the base isn't it simple? If you weren't prejudiced against those people, for religious or personal reasons, then why would you care what rights they have unless it impacts your own rights? I know there is more to it, but at the core, this is a war of ideologies: tolerance vs. judgment/prejudice.
ReplyDelete