Editor, Daily Nexus,
I voted “Yes” on Prop 8. Sue me. By proclaiming my vote, you’d think I’d just thrown a newspaper in a trash can instead of a recycling container, based on the reaction of others here at UCSB. Crazy, I know. My vote was not based on any religious beliefs. Section 297.5 of the California Family Code is why I voted “Yes” on Prop 8. It states, “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations and duties under law, whether they derive from statuses, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”
You people got your ideal president-elect, yet you are still pissing and moaning. Has it ever occurred to you that Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden oppose gay marriage? We let four San Francisco judges overrule 61 percent of California voters in 2000. This was an assertion of political power, not democracy. California voters spoke again in 2008 and you people still won’t shut up. What’s it going to take, free rainbow wristbands and a latte on the go?
If this was really about “equality for all,” why not fight for the right of individuals to marry multiple spouses? Why not fight for the rights of adults to marry minors? Why not fight for the right of freaks to marry their pet cats?
This isn’t about equality; it’s about wanting to let the whole world know that you are a homosexual. I support civil unions. I don’t support re-defining the term “marriage.” You can denounce me or call me a bigot, but just remember that I don’t give a tinker’s damn. I stand behind my vote.
For Shame, Mr. Gates!Supporting same sex civil unions but not same sex marriages? They’re equivalent, you say? Kind of different, but the same? Separate but equal? I wonder what Thurgood Marshall would think about that. P.S. Why are you ranting about marrying pets, polygamy, and pedophilia? It IS unconstitutional for the law to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, and religion. It is NOT unconstitutional for the law to discriminate the difference between people and animals. It is NOT unconstitutional to discriminate between a child and an adult. It is NOT unconstitutional to discriminate between ONE person and MULTIPLE… Read more »
Civil unions = Seperate but equal = lawlThat civil unions are given to homosexual couples as a concession makes them inherently derogatory. For instance, if "domestic partners" in California move to other states, their pseudo-marriage won’t be recognized. Ever heard of the Defense of Marriage Act? This is basically proof of this. There are many legal benefits that specifically say "marriage" that a civil union is not qualified for. Seperate but equal in terms of racial segregation was defined by one "equal" side getting the meat and the other "equal" side getting the bone. Same deal here. Civil rights should… Read more »
props to you jww.
"Separate but equal?"
–No, homosexuals have the right to marry.
And based on California’s recent decision, it is NOT unconstitutional to say the term ‘marriage’ means between one man and one woman.
Separate but equal has never worked.
The entire issue is about respect. Gay couples want to be treated as equals and not as roommates who share a bed.
Many laws about miscegenation in the US were overturned by state supreme courts that went against the will of the voters. In West Virginia, most people do not support interracial marriage.
Does this mean it should be illegal??
If you are going to try and make a valid political argument, you may want to choose your words and comparisons a little more carefully. It is disgusting that you would compare homosexuals to pedophiles and people who would try to marry their pets. Homosexuality is not a disease or mental illness. It is not a religious choice. This is the inherent problem that is leading to the discrimination of gays, and I hope people will begin to realize that, and I hope they do soon.
Hello again, Zac.Once again, you’ve lowered the level of intelligent discourse by putting pen to paper and brought shame to our illustrious university with your small-mindedness. Keep it up, and you may have a future in AM radio. As someone before me pointed out, it is odd that you would say civil unions and marriage are somehow equivalent and yet still vote against marriage for queers. If the two are the same, why then would you give a damn one way or the other? The fact of the matter is that while civil unions are an important step forward for… Read more »
Laff it up while you can, Reaganite.
I Voted "Yes" on Banning Interracial MarriageI voted “Yes” on Banning Interracial Marriage. Sue me. By proclaiming my vote, you’d think I’d just thrown a newspaper in a trash can instead of a recycling container, based on the reaction of others here at UCSB. Crazy, I know. My vote was not based on any religious beliefs. Section 297.5 of the California Family Code is why I voted “Yes” on Banning Interracial Marriage. It states, “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations and duties under law, whether they… Read more »
What do you mean "you people?"But seriously, let’s not freak out and start putting things in each others’ mouths. I think the real issue here is that us single folk are getting fisted by the government. I want me some legal benefits even though I don’t know what they exactly are. It feels like us single folk are bound and gagged while married folk are free to tease and slap these benefits in our faces. It’s making me want them so bad that I just might be willing to fight for the right to marry a woman, a man, multiple… Read more »
Commendations to Daily Nexus for printing this letter. I can’t say I find it entirely accurate, but it’s a sound argument and disagreement can be a beautiful thing. It has also come to my attention that no one has actually confronted head-on the slippery slope issue of redefining marriage to let people marry their pets, marry multiple spouses, and so forth. It’s not unconstitutional you say? No problem, I’m sure Daily Nexus will come out with a another offensive editorial about how it IS unconstitutional to discriminate based on age and the like. If you’re changing the definition of marriage… Read more »
Marriage is a privilege and not a rightHowever, what is a right is to not be discriminated by your government based on race, gender or orientation and should extend to obtaining a marriage license. A license that by definition is the legal recognition to conjoin two individuals and provide them with joint ownership and power to represent the other. Minors nor animals can enter into contract (and in the case of minors every state recognizes minors as able to marry only by consent of parent or guardian). As for polygamy, that alters the entire dynamic of a marriage contract as… Read more »
I am now a second class citizen.The problem with referring to the California Family Code and saying it means we have equality is not every same-sex marriage in our state is between two California residents. And our domestic partnership benefits don’t mean much in New York, but a wedding certificate does. There are over 14,000 places where the federal government grants rights for married couples – and civil unions don’t allow those visitation rights or tax savings. And yes, I voted for Obama and I am proud to call him my president-elect. And I WILL also piss and moan until… Read more »
either everyone needs to be able to be married or everyone can only get civil unions. i think that if people want to get married they should be able to, to no matter what. it’s not my business or my problem. if you want to marry your dog, cooll. it doesn’t affect me. shouldn’t we all be allowed to do anything we want so long as it doesn’t harm anybody else? i also voted no on prop 8 because i am getting really sick of the people who support it. who says that somebody else’s personal life is their business?… Read more »
To konijnMaybe he does it to cause people like you to go bitch and moan on the internet and call him a ‘bigot’ when he clearly stated that he doesn’t give a damn what you think of him in his letter. I know Zac personally. Even if you agree with him or not, he is one incredibly intelligent kid. I love everything he writes for the Nexus. He takes positions on issues that are unheard of here at UCSB. We need more of that. Zac is going to do big things in the future. PS. I dare any of you… Read more »
i didn’t call him a bigot so i don’t know where you got that from. i’m glad he doesn’t give a damn about what other people think, because if he did he might have to feel bad about his position. i honestly don’t think he’s intelligent though. i mean, maybe he’s good at writing papers for political science but that doesn’t mean anything. he’s stupid enough to write a poorly written article about how he’s passionate about people’s personal lives. i’m sure zac is going to do big things. with a ba political science degree you can do big things… Read more »