Thursday, October 30, 2008

Vote for Obama, No on California Prop 8

I'm not a US citizen, so I can't vote in US elections (though I pay taxes like the best of them!), but my wife is. We have two signs in our front yard this week. One simply says "Obama", the other "No on Prop 8". I'd like to put up the equivalent of those signs in my blog.

If you're eligible to vote in the US, do me and the rest of the world a favor and vote for Obama. If you're voting in California, please help to reject Proposition 8, which is a blatant curtailing of freedom, equality and happiness for gay Californians. Defeating Prop 8 in California will pave the way for equal rights in other states and eventually all of the US. Don't make me ashamed of living here!

PS. If you think you have no time to vote, think again.

36 comments:

Bill Zeller said...

Don't you mean "No on Prop 8"?

katre said...

Please fix your post title, it nearly gave me a heart attack!

Chris said...

As always, forward looking. Good on you. The title, though, nearly caused an aneurism.

Guido van Rossum said...

Fixed the title. Sorry! Gave me a heart attack too.

Tyler said...

A man after my own heart...

Guido, if Prop 8 fails... will you marry me?

Just kidding, but seriously, I couldn't agree more.

9000 said...

"Vote for Cthulhu! Stop choosing the lesser evil" (sad grin)

In my humble opinion, the only reason to vote for Obama is that McCain looks even crazier (which I'm not sure about).

But I'm not an American citizen, I'm a Russian citizen. In that country last several elections did not offer even such a choice; there was only one candidate with a chance to win.

So, I can't agree more: if you can, go and vote. Whatever the choice, make the choice, as long as you can.

Greg said...

No offense intended toward anyone, but if I lived in California, I would vote yes on Prop 8.

I have absolutely no problem with same-sex couples having hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, etc. etc. etc. But that relationship is not marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman and always has been from the earliest days of human life.


This is an issue of religious freedom. When these relationships are recognized as "marriage" then many things can occur down the line. Will churches be forced to recognize those unions or lose their federal non-profit status? It is a definite possibility. There are many other pitfalls when calling these relationships marriage. It is a matter of religious freedom.

gregg chadwick said...

"Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere." Californians - Please join us and vote NO on Prop 8!

Ted Hosmann said...

@Greg

I reject your religion deciding how my government is run.

Game Over.

gregg chadwick said...

Ted,

I can't agree with you more.

As a Californian, I am furious that the financial support for this unjust initiative is flooding in from out of state.

As a Californian, I am voting no on Prop 8!

Guido van Rossum said...

@greg: Where's the relationship between marriage and religion? If I'm not religious (as indeed I am not) does that mean I should not be allowed to get married? (I am.)

David Glasser said...

Greg: You ask: "Will churches be forced to recognize those unions or lose their federal non-profit status?"

The answer is quite simply no. Can you point to any instance of a marriage equality supporters stating that they want this to happen? Can you point to any instance of churches being attacked in Massachusetts, which has had full marriage equality for 4.5 years, for not performing same-sex marriages?

(Yes, there is one case in New Jersey where a church owned and rented out a pavilion on the public beach and had a very specific tax exemption based on environmental laws for activities that occurred there, and were told that they would lose that exemption if they discriminated in who they rented the property to. But nothing would have messed with their normal tax-exemptions, just their special and specific exemption for the beach pavilion; and in any case, same-sex marriage isn't even legal in New Jersey, so it's hard to see how Prop 8 would change anything relevant to that case.)

Or to put it simpler: every state in the country allows divorces in their civil marriage. The Catholic church does not allow divorces for their religious marriages. Has anyone tried to take away the Catholic church's right to prevent Catholics from having their (religious) marriages divorced? Of course not.

Jim said...

I don't live in California, but I do support Obama.

Thanks for the great language. I am enjoying learning it.

toxik said...

Homosexuals don't have equal rights in California? Sounds a bit 1800-esque.

Though I live in Sweden, supposedly we're far ahead in the LGBT department.

Guido van Rossum said...

@toxik: They do now. But the Prop 8 referendum, if approved by a majority of voters, would turn this back. Yes, it's very sad.

jim said...

ah politics!
I would be in favor of both signs if the first one had the word "screw" above candidate's name. Between a hypocrit(Obama) and an idiot(McCain), we always choose the latter.

Americans, obama will turn good god blessed America into Europe. Tax this and tax that until that which is being taxed dies. And if immigrants of today like Guido, have a place to find opportunity away from Europe's hypertrophied states, which will be the land future immigrants will find a place to chase their dreams in the Obamas completely socialized america?

Anyway, I ll shut up, there is no way we could resolve these issues here, my yard sign just says "Long live Python!" ;)

rbp said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pat Maddox said...

@Greg be careful not to confuse the religious institution of marriage with the legal institution. Prop 8 has nothing to do with religious freedom, it's about equality and discrimination.

I do find it strange that Christians don't want two dudes of faith getting married, but heterosexual atheists are okay.

Pat Maddox said...

> Between a hypocrit(Obama) and an idiot(McCain), we always choose the latter.

hum, well, now I know how we ended up with Bush!

Guido van Rossum said...

@jim ("obama will turn good god blessed America into Europe"): I still prefer European values actually. Your comment makes me feel unwelcome. I also think you are mistaken about Obama's philosophy. Maybe you've been lied to by his opponent's attack ads?

Noah Gift said...

I agree Guido! Vote Obama and let same sex couples have the same rights and different sex couples. I don't live in California anymore, but I already voted Obama and donated money to his campaign.

I have a few friends that are voting for McCain, and I understand the main reason is because they believe abortion is murder. If I felt the same way, I suppose it would be a tough decision too, but it doesn't appear that either Pro-Life or Pro-Choice people are going to budge on their positions.

It seems like there has to be some form of compromise so that a political party cannot use abortion as a wedge issue to accomplish things that would normally make people not vote for them. Hopefully people will consider the other issues besides abortion when they vote on Nov. 4th, and attempt to see both sides and compromise.

ben.c said...

Thank you, Guido, for speaking out for what's right.

I believe reasonable people can disagree about a lot of policy questions, but denying someone the right to marry the person he or she loves is just unimaginably cruel.

I hope the good people of California make the right choice.

mberi said...

A Use Case where it would be better to be able to change the slug :)

jim said...

Guido,
I'm not an American, but an European, Greek. So there is no way I can make you unwelcome in US!

There are many things I dont like about Obama and his rhetotic. But I wont go further here, I m pretty sure you would already have heard my arguments somewhere else by someone else and rejected em. Bottom line is you mostly prefer European values, I dont, that's fine.

Christopher said...

Done on both counts. Voted by mail 2 weeks ago in California.

Heimy said...

I'm not a USA citizen (nor living there), so I'm not going to talk about the elections but... Greg, do yourself a favor and read some serious Anthropology text. You may be surprised to find that this "it's always been about a man and a woman" is not really what you've been told about.

I'm not gay either and I don't really have that much gay friends, just in case you wonder.

Guido van Rossum said...

I can't wrap my head around the position of religious people who insist that everyone should abide by the rules of their religion, regardless of whether they agree with it; while at the same time claiming freedom of religion, presumably for themselves as well as for others. I'm glad not all religious people think that way; otherwise I would have to be against freedom of religion.

Cristian said...

You've spoken like a true Dutch about Prop 8 :-)

joevial said...

Obamas church (and it's pastor) have a "value system". You can watch the sermons and view the values on thier website.

No more religious nut jobs for me.

Guido van Rossum said...

Someone sent me this video in response. It's pretty funny. :-)
http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/index.html?nid=wWQMgLN4x4Eqa7fO._siBzkwNDU5OTk-&referred_by=13427647-bz8b63x

horace said...

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/10/against_proposition_8.html

joevial said...

Guido. So, with respect to my reference to the value system of Obamas church, this is Amazing.

The Value system Today:
http://www.trinitychicago.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20

The Value system The Other Day:
http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:3sUproZ6JgkJ:www.tucc.org/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D114+trinity+church+chicago+value+system&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Run and HIDE !

George F. Rice said...

Let me play devil's advocate here. I'm not a Californian (nor am I Dutch :-), but my curiosity is piqued. Or maybe I just think too much.

I read Prop 8, and it certainly doesn't appear to prohibit gay marriage (so Tyler, you and Guido just need to call your local Unitarian church... ;-). It only prohibits the California government from recognizing a gay marriage. (You never can tell, though, since the courts don't seem to speak the same language as the rest of us.)

My curiosity is piqued because California is already prohibited from recognizing a variety of other forms of marriage - to or between minors, polygamous, close relatives, marriage to or between non-humans.

Every one of these have been or are rather common in certain past or present cultures. So my question is, given the (judicial) trend toward requiring state government to recognize gay marriage, which other forms above do you believe should be similarly treated?

jim said...

@george

Your opinion would be right n completely respectful if prop 8 was against straight marriage too.

By the time state wants to give benefits to married people, the term marriage needs definition.

I am pro gay marriage just because homosexuals are not that uncommon. There is no need for state to put every abnormality in its legislation.

bradford said...

Wow. You are ashamed to live in the US because the *people* (who got Obama elected) voted no on Proposition 8. This disregard for the people is very bothersome.

Danicho said...

I just read the article, and I couldn't agree more with you. Marriage is a confirmation and acceptance of love between two people, so what does it depend if those two people are man and woman, man and man or woman or woman?

Plus, Obama is an idol for all of us that have difficult dreams and expect them to come true some day (apart from the fact that he is a great speaker and leader, and that he is right in saying that America and the whole world need change).