I posted a link to this video this morning on my facebook page.
And I asked why they didn't run ads like this during the November election.
My roommate posted a response saying that
"they knew it would scare away the undecided and confused who at the very least had concluded prior to the election that they know they don't want to oversimplify and compare discriminating the definition of marriage, with previous issues of discrimination that they felt were morally incorrect. ... The other side already realizes that gay activists want to compare marriage equality with ethnic, age, and gender equality. The gut reaction from the undecided person is - well wait a second there - not really the same thing. ... If the West Hollywood Presbyterian Church was to perform what they want to call a gay marriage - recognized solely by it's church - it can. The state will not stop the ceremony. ... no religious freedom is being interfered with. A church can say anything is anything inside it's own walls. If I want to say Murder is okay at LadderDayScroddy church, doesn't mean the state is interfering with my civil liberties by making it illegal.The state and church are separate. It just so happens that American values align with Judeo-Christian principals."
It is EXACTLY like gender and race discrimination, because BOTH types of discrimination had their origins based in religion, and had a majority of Americans in sound agreement of said discrimination. Here's a quote from an article I read online:
Christians believed that the African people were a God cursed inferior race. According to Lorenzo Johnston Greene ‘The interweaving of Christianity and white supremacy is considered a defining quality of Southern slavery. Yet this also happened in the North. Not only was slavery sanctioned by the God of the Old Testament, it was a positive duty of his chosen people in the New World, because it brought the Gospel to the pagans of Africa. Thus could a Rhode Island elder rejoice, without any apparent consciousness of irony, when a slave ship coasted in to the wharf, that “an overruling Providence has been pleased to bring to this land of freedom another cargo of benighted heathens to enjoy the blessings of a Gospel dispensation.’ --The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776.
Women were seen as “inferior” because they had “smaller brains” and men carried “the priesthood” ---literally, the power of God. And besides, women were responsible for the fall of man, too—After all, Eve ate the fruit then dragged her husband down with her—it was a sound and widely held belief… which was later proved false.
Racial and gender discrimination originated because of people’s “gut reaction” to things that they KNEW were right. It was “the white man’s burden” to treat Africans and women that way.
Not unlike how anti-equality groups position themselves as being “morally correct” and “compassionate” because they are making it harder for families to form (mind you, the families that will form regardless) with no justification than religion and the traditions that were based off of said religion. They are seeking to demonstrate that same-sex marriage is inferior and “different” and therefore feel justified—nay, smug in their “defense of marriage”, because they tolerate homosexuals so much that they have benevolently created a second-class status of “civil marriage”.
In response to the second part about a church being free to perform any ceremony they choose, in that regard, he is right. But the key point that's missing is that the state is recognizing the marriages of, say the Mormon Church, which uses a unique ceremony and marries people for “time and all eternity”—this is not the same marriage that is performed by the Catholic Church, for example, which marries people with a different ceremony and only “’til death do you part". The state recognizes all the variations of marriage between the differing faiths—so why not the variation of two men or two women? Why is the 24 hour marriage of two drunk morons in Vegas of more value than the the committed fidelity of a same-sex couple?
Leave personal feelings aside and look to the heart of the issue. People are being treated unfairly—people who pay taxes and have kids and serve on PTA boards are having their families attacked by people who are “uncomfortable” with a certain use of a word! It’s absurd, because people won’t stop calling their marriages “marriages” because of Prop 8. My husband will not become my “partner” because of prop 8. Everything that people are fighting against is already here, so what are you fighting?
Mark my words—50 years from now, people will look back on this fight with the same disbelief that people look on the ERA amendments and the civil rights movement and wonder “how did people ever believe that discrimination was okay?”