No on prop 8

Sorry for all the non-California residents reading this, but we have a hot-topic issue coming up on Nov 4th.

A little while back, we had a court case go through that allowed gay marriages to happen here. The gist of the ruling is that although our legal concept of marriage comes from the religious base, it has been tied up with legal ramifications (visiting rights, health insurance coverage, next-of-kin, etc) and many people do not get religious marriages anymore, but rather seek legal entities (judges) to perform the ceremonies. So, with this as a given, the constitution has no ruling in it about who may become married, and thus, the state should not discriminate based on the races or sexes of the humans involved.

So, this year, a group called "protect marriage" is pushing prop 8 through which repeals this decision and attempts to amend the state constitution to forever prohibit gay marriage. Their primary method so far has been to quote incidents from Massachusetts where a book "King & King" was read to second graders. They sued to get the book banned, but the judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_King

So, after that scare tactic failing to work, they've picked up a new campaign, one without commercials. They're actually threatening to build a list of all companies who donate to 'no on 8' without an equal or greater sum going to 'protect marriage'. That list will be publicly posted as "marriage haters." My favorite computer company has responded:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/24/182745/66/429/641316

Just a little back story on marriage.
When we wandered the lands as nomadic peoples. Everyone's survival tasks were pretty clear. Women gathered local plants, found water, and protected the children. Elders formed long range scouts and often filled in the time gaps where others hated to be awake. Men, all of them of hunting age, would leave together and return together for hunting. There were no real assets to pass down other than genial leadership. And since any pair bonding that happened was pretty much public knowledge, the males could easily track their progeny. Women, of course, have been able to assuredly track their progeny up until only a couple of decades ago (in-vitro fertilization).

When we settled into farm life, two big things happened. First, assets, particularly land ownership, stated gathering fast. Second, occupational specialty made a rise. You see, when all the males of breeding age hunt together, there's no one left behind (other than elders) to muddy up the family lines. But when you have farmers, blacksmiths, milkmen, shop keeps, etc, the opportunity for discrete infidelity arises. For the women, this means they get the best genetic mixes, so it's advantageous to them. For the adulterous men, they have an opportunity to pass progeny without giving up assets to attract a mate or tend to her or their offspring. Only the faithful male loses out on the deal; his property passes to someone else's child and he puts in all the work of support with no genetic benefit.

These faithful, but cuckold, men often became disgruntled and problematic for the community. So, they turned to the highest order of power they could: the priests and the leaders. Slowly, but almost universally, the promise of fidelity got woven into the fabrics of major religions, and into the laws of the land. Frequently the punishments were very harsh ('stoning' in the times of the bible), and carried the additional incentive of being a "sin".

Nowadays, anyone with tickets to Jerry Springer can get a paternity test done and proof-positive identify a child's genealogical decent. The specific need for "sin" and "promises" to track progeny and inheritance lines is OVER. Frankly, if we don't need gay marriage, I say we don't need any marriage. Certainly not from a legal stand point. Married couples get so many legal benefits from our government that other pair bonded couples, and singles, do not get. So I say let's give to Caesar what is Caesar's and God to God, If you want to have marriage between a man and a woman only, fine, but you lose all government supported benefits: tax breaks, health care coverage, next of kin rights, Special 5th amendment powers (cannot be forced to testify against spouse), etc.

Or you could give a few "perverts" a break and let them help reduce the divorce rate. :)
No on 8. Separation of church and state.