Saturday, November 01, 2008

the california props

i've been in california on and off for the past 4 months. in that span of time i have seen a lot of informercials regarding this or that proposition, denominated by a number.

from what i understand the proposition system is a way for the state residents to vote on amendments to the state constitution. (correct me if i'm wrong)

interesting, isn't it? i do not know enough to speculate on the effectivity of such a system so i will just go by what i've seen.

as i've said, infomercials for the pros and cons of a particular proposition abound, sometimes one on top of the other. however, one particular proposition seems to have gone beyond the idiot box.

of all the proposition infomercials i've seen, only one particular proposition seems to have urged people to take to the streets. or at least it is the only one i have witnessed.

proposition 8. a proposition that would insert the following words into california's constitution:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

whoa. this after that big do over ellen and portia's wedding (o di ba close kami).

a vote of yes would include that proposition. a vote of no would junk it.

the infomercials on voting yes put emphasis on the negative effect of same-sex marriages on children, and on the concept of traditional marriage.

the no camp's infomercials say, however, that getting married is a fundamental right that should not be restricted, regardless of who you want to marry.

my nephew kevin asked me what i thought.

i don't know if i should even go down the fundamental rights road, or the traditional marriage route. i probably wouldn't be able to come to a decent conclusion based on those arguments. any logical mind would be able to make a convincing play for either one.

i can't make a conclusion based on logic. but i do know that i've known same sex couples practically all my life, and some of them have married.

they are no different than straight couples, they have the same joys, woes, and concerns as regular people. they love just as much, and hurt just as much. and they have the right to live their lives and pursue happiness.

put yourself in their shoes. how would you feel?

if i were to vote here (thankfully not), i'd vote no. but that's me.

so, there's my two cents' worth.


  1. I'd vote "no," too. Strangely enough, a lot of my Pinoy friends are urging their friends to vote "no" as well. Who said we were a conservative?

  2. ...a conservative *people*?

    P.S. It's almost 3am and I need to get some sleep, obviously!

  3. box224:14 AM

    I'd vote no. Although it is true that in the Bible, marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman, back then was there anyone who really admitted that they were a third category? Back when cooking was not an essential method prior to eating, humans used to have a fourth molar. Our bodies have drastically evolved since then what with more processed foods and more updated ways on food and farming. The need for the 4th molar is no longer there. And frankly, no offense intended, an addendum to the Bible, ought to be entertained, encouraged , to keep up with changes that has taken place in the last century or so. Respect and acceptance of same sex marriage is no different from any of us heterosexuals wanting the same treatment. If I were gay, I would so marry a Lance Armstrongn( stamina of this man is worth the energizer bunny...) material guy if I so desired. If I were a lesbian, I'd so hook up with Ellen. My happiness with my partner should not be decided on by a anyone, or a misleading Yes on 8, no on 8, maybe on a 69? It's true, they are human beings wanting the same treatment. No one should forbid them to do so. ... And so.... No on 8.

  4. gracie - well i think just like anywhere else, there are conservatives, and there are the exceptions.

    i don't know. my parents brought me up to be accepting and open-minded. up encouraged me to be more so.

    hmmm. that's an entirely different argument. nature or nurture. hehehe.

    box22 - yeah.