Bittersweet

[kproche]

My mood is classically ambivalent.

I'm thrilled about Obama's election.

I'm saddened by the fact that 52% of the electorate apparently want to erase our marriage.

I can respect that this is a matter of deep conviction for some of them. I hope that our public presence as a committed, loving couple may make some people rethink their positions.

My anger, however, is reserved for those supporters of 8 who in their zeal to push the amendment through, resorted to lies to trick people into voting for it.
If they are so certain their religious interpretation is righteous, how could they be so blatantly sinful as to bear false witness?

I'm not locking anyone out of my friends-list over this. I will confront them with that question if I discover they voted yes on 8.

Comments

[controuble.livejournal.com]

If they voted yes based on a religious interpretation, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote until they understand the separation of church and state. Laws should NOT be made based on religion, because there is NO ONE TRUE RELIGION.

Sorry for the shouting, but this annoys me no end. I stayed up until I knew Obama had won and the first thing I did this morning was try to find out about Prop 8. I have been very sad for you and bovil ever since I found out how it's going.

[lisa-marli.livejournal.com]

*hugs*
Moose and I voted No. The Moose is actually upset about the loss, even through he's straight. He failed to see the reason to deny you the rights his parents have.
Then again, he uses logic rather than religious ferver to dictate how he sees the world. He's such a good geek. :)
Unfortunately, they used the lies because they worked. Fear of change is still a motivator in this country.
Jerry Brown has already stated He's not planning to nullify the marriages that took place between the court ruling and this stoopid amendment. And will fight anyone who tries.
Hey, if the religious nuts fight for annulment of the marriages wrong, they might end up destroying the amendment instead. Weirder things have happened in the fight for equality.
Hang in there. We still believe.

[britgeekgrrl.livejournal.com]

I will confront them with that question if I discover they voted yes on 8.

Hell, yes.

And knowing your smarts and eloquence, you might well change a few minds, given the chance. (I certainly hope you do - change minds, I mean.)

[kilah-hurtz.livejournal.com]

*hug*

I have confidence that it will work out in favor of your marriage.

[laragoth.livejournal.com]

My "no" vote was for everyone who wants to marry those that they choose, but it was especially for the two of you, being the couple I have known longest who are affected by it.

My hope is that it will go splat the way that Prop 22 did.

In the meantime, big hugs for both of you...

I'm sorry

[denisen1.livejournal.com]

I'm so sorry.

We voted no on 8. The friends we talked about issues with voted no. We had a sign in our window saying "No on 8," and shooed a neighbor carrying a petition to put 8 on the ballet off our property months ago. But still it passed. While we as a nation have proven that judging people by their skin color is a thing of the past, there's still a strong enough desire by people to discrminate against other groups for similarly baseless reasons. Defense of marriage indeed - what claptrap!!! Your and Andy's marriage - and those of our other gay and lesbian friends - has our support. We firmly believe that your marriage is every bit as valid and heartfelt as our own.

We will continue to engage in the fight to regain you the rights you should have had in the first place - the rights that were taken from you by religious bigots who would impose their beliefs on the rest of the world. Victory WILL be yours - it may just take us a little while longer of working together to achieve it.

Onward and upward.

[trystbat.livejournal.com]

I'm just so gobsmacked over this -- the contradiction btwn voting for Obama & yet for discrimination is killing me. There's been a lot of tears & gnashing of teeth in this household for the past 12 hours.

T. meets this weekend with a couple whose wedding he just filmed. A wedding that may now be null & void. How many ppl does our govt. have to hurt?

[lferion]

What you said.

I'm feeling almost equal parts ecstatic (Obama!) and devastated (8, 102, 2).

Not used to feeling such strong and almost diametrically opposed things at the same time.

I think it works out to determined, though, and I will by everything I believe in not stop working for equality in this country.

[karisu-sama.livejournal.com]

You know how I feel.

*HUGS*

And I don't care WHAT the fucking bigots say; you two are MARRIED, and in MY book that DOES NOT CHANGE, PERIOD - unless you two ever want a divorce.

[ann-totusek.livejournal.com]

Don't forget that not all objections to gay marriage are religious in nature. My husband opposes gay marriage for strictly financial reasons. He feels that:

a. Straight marriages should be supported by law because they are the "traditional" family that results in children. Both spouses and children need to be protected by law.

b. By viatical standards, gay males are a greater health risk and cost than any other group because of HIV, which went from expensive to treat a dying person in the short term to expensive to treat a person with a lifelong chronic illness because of the cost of drugs. In addition, he feels that since it's an illness spread by a choice of actions (he doesn't assert that orientation is a choice, just action) that insurance companies should have the right to discriminate against people who engage in such behavior. He is, at least, even handed on this issue, in that he feels that insurance companies should also have the right to refuse policies to individuals who smoke, or who develop multiple sexually transmitted infections due to careless sexual practices.

c. He feels that as a health care consumer he shouldn't be obligated to support those whose actions he classifies as foolish, and that other consumers shouldn't be obligated to support those whose actions they believe are morally wrong.

He and I would not have voted the same way on Prop 8, but I just wanted to remind you that religion is not always the thing that causes someone to be opposed to gay marriage.

Personally, I'm against the state being involved in marriage, gay or straight. I'm one of those folks who thinks that the only think that the government should track or take any responsibility for is domestic partnerships, and that domestic partnership contracts should be a civil law issue that only goes before the government in any way if there is a violation of the contract or if the partnership is dissolved. That being said, if they couple wishes to write a covenant clause into their contract, they should be allowed to do so. Marriage should be considered a religious (or irreligious) sacrament and should be recognized/celebrated in a house of worship (or house of non-worship) of choice.

[kproche.livejournal.com]

Hi Ann --

I can respect your husbands arguments, although I would argue most vehemently with him over point (a) By extension of that logic, childless "traditional" marriages should not be protected at all, but nontraditional families built by adoption or other means should be protected. Besides, marriage has never been only about procreation, it is also about social, financial, and community stability.


However, as I said, my ire is not at those who voted sincerely based on their convictions, religious or otherwise. It is reserved for the supporters who knowingly conducted a campaign of lies and fear to trick people into voting for it.

please excuse my holding my nose due to the reek of hypocrisy.

[karisu-sama.livejournal.com]

Both spouses and children need to be protected by law.

So by this logic, he would feel that the over 52,000 children being raised by gay parents in California do not deserve protection under the law. Especially when considering the thousands of lesbian parents who have borne their own children, and the thousands of gay parents who have adopted "special needs" children that no one else wants. What a "lovely family-and-child-affirming" sentiment this is. [/sarcasm]

Re: please excuse my holding my nose due to the reek of hypocrisy.

[ann-totusek.livejournal.com]

I doubt he'd make that argument. Since you've brought it up, I'm going to ask him since I'm curious. I'll report back his answer.

[targeter.livejournal.com]

Hi Ann,

Your husband might be interested to know that HIV/AIDS (to the best of my knowledge - I don't have references to back this up off the top of my head, but I could probably find them) is currently primarily transmitted between heterosexual individuals rather than homosexual individuals. From what I've been told, this is due at least in part to the amount of targeted ads, education and vigilance among the homosexual community about HIV/AIDS since they were made aware of the epidemic, and the general view among the heterosexual community that they aren't at risk and therefore don't need to use a condom or other barrier during intercourse of any kind.

In response to "c.", I wish him luck finding an insurance company which only insures clients whose life actions, moral standards, and choices conform with his view of 'wisdom.' If he decides to eschew insurance entirely and pay out of pocket, he may have far more success with this, and see the true expense of his views.

Laura

[ann-totusek.livejournal.com]

I'm reporting his argument, not agreeing with it.

[kayotae.livejournal.com]

As a health care worker, I feel a need to interject a correction in one statement regarding HIV risk. Intravenous drug users are currently the highest risk group for contracting HIV. Those engaging in unprotected intercourse are second highest, (regardless of sexual orientation.) Anal intercourse is the third highest risk group, (whether hetrosexual or homosexual), though is closely followed, sadl, by being African American, (I suspect this is largely influenced by the prevalence of AIDS in Africa.)

[ann-totusek.livejournal.com]

I am an RN who works with HIV clients. See my comment above- those are his assertions, not necessarily correct, and not something I agree with. There's a reason we don't discuss politics at my house...

[kayotae.livejournal.com]

Ahh. My apologies for not catching that in your original post. I simply wanted to assure that was understood, but can certainly understand where, for the sake of harmony, politics are left at the threshold.

[voidampersand.livejournal.com]

This isn't over. There will be challenges. Prop. 8 was an illegal revision of the constitution. Regardless of how many votes they got, it's still an un-constitutional amendment. And if the challenges don't work this time, there is the legislature and the initiative process. I think the pro-8 forces pulled out all the stops this election. Can they do it again, and again, and again? If they really want to protect their marriages they should stay home and spend some time with each other, instead of going out on street corners shouting.

[mikeysmilinguy.livejournal.com]

I voted no on 8, the phrase "with liberty and justice for all" means something to me. Banning gay marriages is not liberty and justice for all.