Cyclists: Let the Backlash Begin (or Not)
Muni Ticket Agent Arrested After Assaulting Juvenile
So Much For That Plastic Bag Ban
Verizon Droid: Big Deal? Or Just Another Late Arrival Rival?
Feinstein : Will She Or Won't She?
Shamelessly breaking boundaries here at SFist, we're letting budding SFist star Tiffany Maleshefski use the first-person voice with this opinion piece. Not because youu Editor necessarily disagrees with the sentiment; it just works better this way.
By Tiffany Maleshefski
To add one more outraged voice to the mix, I too will echo the sentiments expressed by millions of others today, on how the passing of Proposition 8 is not only heartbreaking and disappointing, it’s unjust, unfair, and a complete breach of privacy. And while this measure dukes it out in the courts, I say we move forward and begin preparing for the next election, where we do not need to plan on resurrecting Proposition 8 (or anything like it for that matter). Rather, I’d like to propose something that digs into the personal lives of people even deeper. For me, Proposition 8 kind of doesn’t go far enough.
Here’s my proposal. Let’s just ban marriage altogether.
I’d like to get everyone on board with a new measure I’m calling the “Divorce Prevention Initiative.” I think marriage is so sacred, that really, the only way to preserve its sanctity is probably to make sure it never happens in the first place.
Let’s all think for a moment think of all those terrible anti-marriage people who file for divorce. They’ll all tell you: I should’ve never gotten married in the first place! Am I right? Just think of how many celebrities wouldn’t have to get divorced, if they just didn’t brazenly get married altogether. Just think of how we many high-powered CEOs could continue having affairs with their interns without risking harm to the purity of this institution. And of course, let’s think of the children. Imagine how better we’ll all feel when we have to stop blaming our kids for mommy and daddy’s marital woes.
Or better yet, this will definitely help clarify those situations when their parents have to explain that mommy and daddy are actually cousins, so daddy is also your second cousin. I think. And those instances when you have to explain why Uncle Ted’s new wife is 13 years old (and possibly one of 7 other wives).
We won’t have to have mixed feelings at the altar when someone who is likely to be a pedophile performs this sacred vow we take. And come to think of it, so many husbands out there won’t feel the pressure to simply hop into marriage because they want to run away as fast as they can from that fact that they’re gay! So they CERTAINLY should have never gotten married in the first place!!
Now, I know this could impact the economics of Las Vegas where drive-thru and fly-by-night marriages have pumped millions upon millions of dollars into this holy tradition, but I’m sure as couples feel less pressure to spend between $50,000 and $100,000 on something that always isn’t built to last, it’ll free up more disposable income for family vacations and gambling.
That’s right. I say we go forward with a proposition so hell-bent on preserving the sanctity of marriage, that it abolishes marriage completely. At the very least, it would protect this time-honored tradition from the unbelievable amount of hate that’s ironically been directed at something that is supposed to be about love, patience, kindness, acceptance, and understanding.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
You know what? You're being a bit spiteful. That's fine for yourself, but nothing is going to get done like that. The further the movement gets entrenched and oppositional, the tougher the fight becomes.
But actually... you're not that far off. The government needs to get out of the business of marriage. No on 8 folks are talking about human rights, and Yes on 8 folks see this as protecting their religions. You know, marriage is a religious sacrament.
So why not have equality for all by SEPARATING government and church, just like we're supposed to? Have Government preside over Civil Unions, with completely equal rights for everyone, then let religions and communities define what they see as marriage. Just as groups define God in their own way (or gods, or lack thereof) people can define what spiritual and community bonds mean to them.
Really, it's semantics. It's hurtful semantics. But it's just semantics. And there is a solution, we just need to set ourselves up for success.
For christ's sake. Why don't we just divvy it up into fourteen different categories? Marriage is marriage. It's just a word. As far as the government is concerned, it's a legal contract between two people. It's not a legal contract to procreate, it's not a statement on parenting skills (or serious lack thereof), and it's not a religous matter.
The federal government should grow a pair of balls and point that out to people, and point out that barren people get married, atheists get married, and there is no possible logical, non-voodoo-based explanation for prohibiting two people from entering into a civil contract with each other.
And my marriage is happy, so I'll leave it as is, thank you very much. The solution to gay people having their rights taken away is to take everyone's rights away? Yeah, that makes a lot fo sense.
And to add to the above, just to make myself clear, the marriage license should look the exact same for everyone. Spouse one, Spouse two, and then you can call it by whatever word you want, it's exactly equal among everyone.
Ok, I think the commenters are taking this article a little too seriously. Clearly, the author is poking fun at the supposed "sanctity" of marriage. This article is fab!
You're right. I should lighten up. I'm finding it rather difficult to be anything but enraged right now.
I really expected better of California. I fled my homestate precisely because of the kind of people who would gladly vote Yes on 8. I guess I fed into that "land of fruits and nuts" thing and thought it extended statewide, not just in the bay area. It's a little disappointing to find out that just outside this area, there are just as many bigots and homophobes as back there.
I remember reading an article by Hank Donat a couple of years ago where he said the only time he leaves SF is to leave the country. Now I know what he means.
Digitalhoodie has it. Make marriage the domain of churches/religion and have the government only concerned with the legal and financial issues under the rubric of civil unions. All it would take would be a measure to replace the word "marriage" with "civil unions" in the law books to redefine what the state controls. These redefinitions happen all the time, so it's not like this idea is from Mars or anything.
Of course, this would require people doing more than getting petitions signed in front of Starbucks on New Montgomery, but life can be tough that way.
when i was in high school i was part of 'youth in government' when 100s of high school students took over the state capital for a couple of days and pretended to be congressmen. i proposed this exact argument, "civil unions for everyone! let the churches call it "marriage."...everyone looked at me like i was insane.
Marriage makes you more intelligent. When you're in a relationship, 94% of your brain power is spent dreaming up the most cruel and vindictive way you can dump the other person. When you get married, you're stuck, and your brain is free to unleash its full pub-quiz winning power.
Wow. A pro gay-marriage rant. In San Francisco. How groundbreaking.
careful you don't choke on all that sarcasm, davey k.
Oh Tiffany, I love you. Will you marry me?
Doh...
How about something more realistic? I propose: Banning the ringing of church bells and making it illegal to park your car anywhere you want during church services. I'd love to take away their state tax exemption status too!
XXX
I was actually thinking of something a bit different...
California gays should collect a bunch of money and change the Utah constitution to outlaw Mormon marriages. That is a proposition I think I might get behind.
Don't ban it, but we should boycott it. Yeah that's right, if you are straight, don't get married. At least if you do, do it in Connecticut or Massachusetts when it becomes legal for out of state residence next year, or maybe Spain, Holland, South Africa, or Norway. If you are invited to a wedding in any other place you should think hard an long about declining to attend and tell the Bride and Groom why.
This article and discussion is great. I've been trying to dream up my own answer to Prop 8 a la johnnystarseeds Mormon marriage ban. Keep 'em coming.
@ mushmouth. I think you would lose a lot of friends without actually accomplishing much by boycotting ceremonies.
Separation of church and state. How hard is that to grasp? The government should refer to all marriages as "civil unions" and give every citizen the right to partake.
Prop 8's win kept me up all night on election night obsessively refreshing my browser to see if there was any hope for defeat. I am disgusted and heartbroken, but I know that the fight is far from over and that someday the queers will be afforded the same protections and benefits of "marriage."
Even if a "No Marriage for Anyone" prop did get on a future ballot it would never, ever come to pass. Now is not the time for spite, resentment or boycotting marriage. It's time to continue the work without crying victim.
Now, if someone could tell me how to get involved (aside from blog-ranting) in the North Bay (Santa Rosa), I would love to donate my time and energy to the cause.
Works for me. Saves $$ on rings and prenups.
I'm all for it. If marriage discriminates against specific groups of people, it is meaningless.
If anyone stopped being my friend for taking a principled stand, refusing to engage in an activity that promotes those around me as a second class citizen, I don't think they understood me well enough to actually be considered a friend. For equal rights people rioted, sat in, had hunger strikes, and not only those who were of the oppressed minority. Right now it is time for all of us to sacrifice, not just those directly effected.
This means that all future marriages have to be thoroughly checked for male and femaleness, right?
Oh, the fun we'll have.
Boycotting a friend's wedding however, hurts no one but your friends. The only people who notice your boycott is the friends who miss you.
No offense, but it just sounds like useless grandstanding. I wouldn't be offended if a friend didn't show up to my wedding for this reason, I'd understand the feelings behind it, I just don't think it accomplishes anything.
I propose picketing Mormon weddings. There are loads of 'em. You can even make out in the background of all their pictures (or do they still believe cameras steal your soul).
I propose picketing Mormon weddings.
Just be sure to bring your own liquor for the reception.
Fresh off the world watch-wire, Buckaroos: an e-petition to repeal the Mormon church's tax-exemption status...
http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/#petition
Well duh. But don't they have a barn raising, rather than a reception? Or is that the Amish? I get all those medieval crackpots mixed-up.
@ fizzandpop:
Apparently some people have taken yours and others' suggestion re picketing mormons to heart. A woman down the hall from me (I'm in LA), said she can't go home because there is a giant protest going on outside a mormon church in her neighborhood.
Well duh.
Sorry. Just trying to help. Catholics are just as intolerant as Mormons but at least you can get drunk at the wedding receptions. Don't forget to picket their weddings, too (just factor in time for the pre-wedding Mass. Those things tend to go on a bit...)
where you a intern who gave it up to the boss Avoid all you want but at some point, you will have to address those black and hispanic voters. And "pushing" them will only enhance their resolve...trust me.
Also, the gay community might want to avoid further comparing gay rights struggles to the civil rights movement.
Believe it or not, many blacks find that highly insulting.
If my candidate had just won the most historic presidential election in our nation's history, I'd be celebrating instead of being Debbie Downers.
Blacks Americans have endured centuries of inequality before reaching this moment. You might do well to remember that by expressing a bit more appreciation for how far we've come rather than what we didn't get.
Oh, here we go....
Hey lahipster, we saw this comment like the first three times you posted it. Nice cut-n-paste job, but how about commenting on the thread?
Actually, I am seriously for banning marriage altogether. This is America. We should either all have the same rights or none of us should have the right. My girlfriend and I, after much deliberation, have called off our wedding until everyone can get married. I am disgusted by my country's ignorance and bigotry voting hate into our constitutions. What's next? Are we going to make it okay to start killing gays? Maybe they should have no rights at all... No, this is a war. It's easy for people to be against gay marriage when it doesn't affect you, which is why to win this war, it must affect everyone. Too many legal rights come with marriage to just accept the small mindedness of what, unfortunately, seems to be the majority. I refuse to play dead. Starting January 3rd, we are staging our first protest of a wedding. It will be at a church in S. Florida that was especially vocal in campaigning for amendment 2. The couple getting married also donated money to that end. Now they can see what it feels like. Honestly, in the end it doesn't matter if their wedding gets ruined. When the dust settles, they'll still be married. Ten percent of my country does not have that right. Once upon a time, I would have cared about alienating people from this cause, but the votes have been counted. They're already against equal rights for all Americans. As the Weather Underground would say, this is where we bring the war home. They can't understand yet, but they will when they're on the receiving end of having others butt into their private lives. Ban straight marriage! Protest locally!
If you banned marriage under the law, it would be legal nighmare. Who would get the kids? Who would get the money? Would you be able to have visitation rights?
But I am for banning the word "marriage" in the lawbooks and calling it civil unions for both gays and straights and others.
Religious people can have their religious "marriage" ceremonies in their churches and get their civil union licenses to get civil union benefits from the government. The state doesn't have to pretend to recognize any divine sanctity of their union.
Gays can do the same.
Eileen
=============
Toronto wedding
my name is Tiffany. and who wanna marry me.LOL :)
great stuff u got in here.. take a look at psycholog internetowy and psycholog online and pomoc psychologa przez internet and psycholog on line and fotografia slubna
And while this measure dukes it out in the courts, I say we move forward and begin preparing for the next election, where we do not need to plan on resurrecting Proposition 8 (or anything like it for that matter). Rather, I’d like to propose something that digs into the personal lives of people even deeper ,Looks very interesting. Thanks for sharing............ tiffany jewellery