Blogging Lull & Election Day

Things have been quiet around here; not too much catching my blogging attention, but in case you weren't aware, today is election day!

There have been so many people out on the street corners with their signs; I've received a number of "spam" voice mail messages from those "wanting to be my representative" for this or that. Jess and I were wondering if they know that leaving unwanted phone messages is actually detrimental to their chance of getting my vote...

One thing that Jess and I were discussing the other night, and which we have different opinions on, is the whole issue of "equality" that has been promoted as a reason to vote no on prop 8.

I think that this argument of "equality" is irrelevant to the issue.

I am not in any way promoting hate, or bigotry, or intolerance (ironically, I see the most hate coming FROM the no on 8 crowd...). This is what logically makes sense to me:
-God created marriage, and by default, the way he created it became its definition
("Marriage is: 1 man + 1 woman, for life")
-A homosexual couple, no matter how well-intentioned, does not fit that definition
-It is not a question of equality

In my mind, this is like saying
"I would like to be of Asian descent, even though I am of Mexican descent."
When someone tells me "Dude, you can't be Asian."
I would say "Why not??"
They would reply, "Dude, you just aren't Asian, you don't fulfill the definition of what it means to be Asian (ethnic heritage, physical traits, etc.)"

So I would then say "Well, let's just change the definition of what it means to be Asian!"

Am I a victim of inequality because I can't be Asian? No.

This is the crux of the "No on Prop 8" campaign. That it is "unfair, and wrong" to discriminate. They say that it is eliminating a fundamental human right.

Who established this as a fundamental right?

Marriage was established by God, not the government, and this "fundamental right" is in no way discriminatory or unfair.

Again, is it discrimination to tell me I can't be Asian when I truly want to be, and am committed to being?

No.


Jess' disagrees with my opinion and says it breaks down because if a homosexual couple doesn't fulfill the 1 man+1 woman part of the definition, then a couple that gets divorced does not fulfill the "for life" part of the definition, therefore nullifying their marriage completely. Therefore, if we are willing to make exceptions in the "for life" category, we must make exceptions in the 1 man+1 woman. (not that she is pro-homosexual marriage, this is solely in reply to my above argument)

I disagree with this because marriage is based on a choice to submit to the requirements of marriage, and therefore until they are broken, a real marriage exists. If they are broken at a later time, it would then cease to be marriage, but it would not nullify the whole thing.

Thoughts?