discrimination by any other name...

still discrimination.

this prop 8 thing here in california is bugging the hell out of me. i object to those who favor it on moral grounds. that's right, on moral grounds.

this kind of discrimination is acting like a sort of super x-ray vision light for me, illuminating the bigots and hypocritically religious among us. is your church in favor of prop 8? i know there are plenty of church's opposed to the proposition including mega-church pastor rick warren. (perhaps his purpose-driven life is similar to ted haggard's in its mission to stamp out homosexuality.)

the united church of christ in berkeley and the davis united methodist church as well as all saints episcopalian church here in pasadena, among others, are all opposed to prop 8. and good for, (and on,) them. it seems to me churches should be about love, not hate, inclusion, not exclusion, tolerance, not intolerance, harmony, not strife. by favoring prop 8, religious communities err, plain and simple.

when one thinks about slavery, to include its acceptance here in the united states for nearly 100 years, it is valuable to think about those who accepted it. many of the pilgrims and those who populated the u.s. in the early part of its existence were of a pious nature. surely in those days those people rationalized enslaving people just as ours rationalize legislatively discriminating against gay couples who wish to marry. that is a fair and apt comparison.

nowadays i guess the mormon church and pastor warren and those others who favor prop 8 would freely admit that slavery was immoral. (this is not to say only the religious were in favor of slavery or are in favor of prop 8. it is simply those i am taking exception to at the moment and surely the religious groups are leading the charge to pass prop 8 today.)

the idea that gay people should not be allowed to enter into a legal union of two consenting adults seems to be rooted in religion. in response i refer to thomas jefferson and this sentence from his famous letter to the danbury baptists of connecticut:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. -thomas jefferson

the wall of separation jefferson conjured protects the various faiths as much as it suggests they should keep their beliefs away from the public sphere. (one would think the mormon church would be especially sensitive and considerate of this point in light of the persecution they have endured.)

one other point i want to make on this subject regards the commercials in favor of passing the proposition. they have highlighted a couple from massachusetts talking about how their child was subjected to teaching about gay marriage in school. laws in california differ from those in massachusetts and because state law requires schools to inform parents before sex or other sensitive issues are discussed, and parents have an opt-out clause which allows them to pull their child from any classroom in which a subject or curriculum they do not want their child exposed to is taught before the subject in question comes up, this idea that children will be taught about gay marriage should in fact be a non-issue.

lastly, regardless of how you may vote next week, please do get out there and exercise your right to vote.