Wednesday, October 15, 2008

and she pops excellent up in waynes world


the title is part of this song that i heard this morning and now its stuck in my head.

anyway, i took g to courtneys this morning and was a little early so i drove by my old biology teachers house. i didnt stop there or anything, and he still has 'impeach them both' painted on his front window. anyway, what i noticed driving around the neighborhood (mckinley/olive/college/san pablo) was that there are sure a lot of obama yard signs (as well as quite a few proposition signs and local election signs). maybe its that i dont remember too far back, but i really dont remember there being that many yard signs in the past. i had one for bush back in the day, but im fairly certian that it was the only political sign in the whole neighborhood. could this be an indicator that there will be a decent amount of voter turnout??? or do i just not remember very well? anyway, i was kinda excited (even if they were obama signs).

so, i started to think a bit about politics, and humans, and america, and prop 8, and planned parenthood, and i could probably go on and on. now, i think we have come a long way as a country, and i dont want to sound like i think we havent, and i have no doubt that we could be less tolerant than we are now, but i want to discuss the tolerance that we havent yet achieved. i was thinking about prop 8, and i cant quite decide why im on the fence about it. for some reason it makes me uneasy, and i cant decide if its because i feel guilty for not being totally against prop 8, or if its that i dont quite understand the proposition (are they going to teach kids about gay marriage the way they do hetero marriage, which i didnt know they were teaching in the first place), or what. the semi-conclusion i came to though, is that i get angry that they are teaching the wrong damn thing. why arent we passing a proposition that teaches tolerance instead of differences? why are we wanting these kids to grow up learning that gay couples and straight couples are different but they can get married, instead of teaching these kids that people that love each other get married? does that make even a little sense or am i just vomiting words?

anyway, i have quite a bit more about tolerance, but i have work to do and i need to go calm down.


Uncle Skip, said...

lemme know when you figure it out so you can explain it to me.

I think what really disturbs me is that the initiative process has gotten entirely out of hand. Worse, the folks who should be proposing and making the laws ...our state legislators... are doing virtually nothing, except trying to get reelected, and being paid for it.
There is really only one measure on the ballot that I have totally made up my mind about. That's Proposition 11, the Constitutional Amendment regarding redistricting. I'm not sure it is a perfect plan, but it sure looks like an improvement over the current process.
Yeah, I know. I got "off topic." Learned that growing up around Ev. The only thing I have to figure out about Prop. 8 is whether it's about tolerance or endorsement.

Adam said...

That's funny. I was talking to Mellow about this last night and I asked the same question, "Are they already teaching kids about marriage in school?" I certainly don't remember anything of the sort.

The proposition doesn't say anything about that though. Prop 8 quite simply, is an amendment to the state constitution to change the wording so that marriage only means between a man and a woman. So, if you're like me, you say, "Hey, that's discriminatory to have a state-mandated difference of wording based on someone's sexual orientation."

But I'm also of the thought that being gay is something that's inherent and not learned, so I see it like trying to put an amendment in the constitution that says marriage is only between two white people.

It all depends on how you feel about gay people and whether or not you think they have a right to be treated the same as everyone else.

Adam said...

So yeah. No on prop 8.

anna said...

fyi...marriage (specifically family) is taught in early elementary school. also, family life in later grades includes sexual education. at least this is true in cali.

Adam said...

Huh, you learn something new everyday. Thanks Anna.

I still don't think it's a realistic argument for prop 8. Even if it passes, the state will probably still allow civil unions so there's really no way around exposing children to the idea that many, many families are made up of different combinations besides a mom, dad, and kid(s).

And sex ed shouldn't change at all. =P Don't do it till you're ready and either wear a condom or make sure your partner does, etc, etc.

m.wise said...

i really agree with you in liking the idea of teaching kids that people that love each other get married instead of "its okay for gay couples to get married, or its okay for inter-racial couples to get married" or any other arrangement.
so i think what you're saying here makse sense.

timidvenus said...

"It all depends on how you feel about gay people and whether or not you think they have a right to be treated the same as everyone else."
adam, something about that statement doesnt sit well with me... i dont know what yet, but ill try to figure it out.

edluv said...

as adam has said, 8 has nothing to do with what we teach. in fact, i would guarantee that there are already books in the california curriculum that talk about homosexuality in a positive light.

if i was on the fence on prop 8, i would be so offended by the fear mongering being done in commercials, both tv and radio for prop 8. instead of saying, 'hey, we think marriage should only be defined in this way,' they're going with the whole, 'somebody save the children,' bullshit.

if you want to be against allowing gay marriage, fine, be against it. if you want to be for it, fine. either way, be honest about the issue instead of clouding it with what they teach in school nonsense.

not that i'm saying you're doing that sara.

edluv said...

on another note, i'd guess that this neighborhood (your & my teach lives on my street) always has yard signs as the tower is frequently a rather politically active area.

Gye Greene said...

A few months back, the author of another blog I read (Raving Black Lunatic) suggested that maybe we ought to disinguish between "marriage" (a religious concept) and "civil union" (a legal concept).

The govt. can regulate civil unions, and various religions can regulate who they want to marry.

Back in the Medieval times in England, most of the folks that the Catholic church married were never registered with the govt.

And -- FWIW -- back around 1000AD (I'd have to go check), the Catholic church actually had liturgies for sanctifying same-sex unions. But then, a few hundred years later, they took 'em off the books.


Gye Greene said...

Oh: But I think you've made an insightful distinction -- should focus on teaching tolerances, instead of differences.


timidvenus said...

gye- that is interesting about the catholic church (but then again, most things about the catholic church are interesting).

edluv said...

marriage doesn't have to be a religious institution. in fact, i would venture that a large number of marriages have little or nothing to do with religion and are only state sponsored unions.

marriage by the state is a legal contract.

marriage by a religious group is a religious bond.

Gye Greene said...

Well -- put differently:

The state doesn't really care whether you'll love each other and get along forever and ever. It just wants you to jointly own property and pay your taxes, and have a standardized way of dividing your your assets if you decide to go your separate ways.

Thus: two fairly distinct functions. You can **label** it "marriage" - but really, the govt. only cares about the "civil union" aspect of it -- the business arrangement (and the raising of the kids).


Demirep said...

Sara, I would have to disagree with one of your comments - have you sat through a Catholic Mass? *snore*

This is what happens when my self-righteous fire is extinguished by comments that say what I would have said, had I posted a day ago.

edluv said...

not that i'm trying to argue about it, while the gov't may only care about the civil union/business end of marriage, they do call it marriage.

timidvenus said...

demi- i sit through about 2 catholic masses a week, and i find them ver interesting. actually, my godmother got me a book titled 'why do the catholics do that' which was VERY interesting to say the least.

Carrie said...

I think in 50 years we are going to look back on this debate as we now look back on women's voting rights or segregation...Why did we ever think that way?

Why shouldn't same-sex couples have the same right that I have to marry and receive the same tax benefits, etc? I can see no reason that they shouldn't, and I can't imagine allowing them to do so will hurt the hetero couples in any way. Maybe it's a simplistic way to look at it, but why are we trying to limit anyone's rights? I think it's within the bounds of a church's rights to determine what a "marriage" constitutes based on doctrine, but the government should steer clear of such theology and just give the same rights to all citizens, regardless of their orientation.

And on the issue of more political signs...I think this election could make history, and people know they are on the verge of something big, and want changes for our country, want to be a part of it, and are making the most effort to make their voices be heard.

Adam said...

I know, it's crazy Carrie. Maybe we'll break 55% voter turnout this year!

Geez that's sad. The last time we had over 60% voter turnout was in the 1960's. What a bassakwards country we are.

Gye Greene said...

re: Carrie's

"And on the issue of more political signs...I think this election could make history"

A few elections ago, I saved my parent's Nader yard signs. Kept on; sold the other on e-bay (got $20, I think!).

Sadly, I don't think Obama signs will be as collectable: too many of 'em. :)


Uncle Skip said...

GG -
The net thing about Nader signs is that they're reusable every four years.