This is a post from my friends blog. I think its worth reading!

Okay, I have tried and tried to be quiet...I hate talking politics (HATE it), I am trying to be meek and mild...but that has never been my strong suit

So here I go (dang it...)--and I was doing so well too.My thoughts onA quote from Melissa Etheridge's website:
"Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now...." *ME* Really, Melissa? (can I call you Melissa?) How about ANY of the above? How about "the love of your life?" for starters.
If you choose (I CANNOT emphasize that word strongly enough here.) to allow the passing of prop 8 to determine or change the way you regard the most important person in your life, you two have more problems than a "change" in California's constitution is going to fix. ...but please, by all means continue..."Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books. Okay, cool I don't mean to get too personal here but there is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California. Oh, and I am sure Ellen will be a little excited to keep her bazillion bucks that she pays in taxes too. Wow, come to think of it, there are quite a few of us fortunate gay folks that will be having some extra cash this year. What recession? We're gay!Oh and too bad California, I know you were looking forward to the revenue from all of those extra marriages. I guess you will have to find some other way to get out of the budget trouble you are in."*ME* I definitely think you should refuse to pay your taxes, Melissa. Mostly because you'll go to jail, and I think that would be hilarious. Plus, it would give you another thing to complain about... I think we could call that a win/win right?
I would seriously give my right arm to be in the courtroom when you try to tell the judge that you didn't pay your taxes on the basis that the government is oppressing you with lots of taxation and absolutely no representation. The look on that's judges face will be priceless and delicious because - here's a news flash,It's not taxation without representation when you are given a say in the outcome! Fancy that!If you weren't so busy being a self-righteous liberal, perhaps you would have more time to study history. You had the right to vote to shut down Prop 8. Granted, your vote was outnumbered and your side lost, but you had your vote.
You voted. It just didn't work out, that's all. That's not even remotely the same thing as Americans being taxed, but not given the right to Vote...but hey, feel free to re-write/interpret history any way you choose. Taxation without representation is referring to citizens being denied the opportunity to vote, NOT to pouting and refusing to pay your taxes because you didn't get your way.A civil union (which, by-the-way, is already available to gay people in California) gives gay couples EXACTLY the same rights that married couples have. There is not ONE thing that is excluded. They can have a big lavish ceremony, be on the same insurance, have a 1st priority "say" about medical decisions that need to be made on behalf of their loved one (in the event of an accident, coma, or death) they can also inherit their partner's estates, cars, money - you name it. NOTHING is different except for the name.
But still, it isn't good enough, and from an "intellectual" and worldly point of view, their argument appears to have so much validity that it's crazy, but the fact is, people who hold their religious values to be sacred, deserve to have the right to determine the direction their country is headed as well - it's that simple. And we agreed upon this a LONG LONG time ago when this country began. Everyone gets a vote, and the majority rules. The "almighty government" isn't oppressing the gay population of California, the people have spoken, and the MAJORITY (be it 99% or in this case, 51%) of the people want the institution of marriage to be treated sacredly according to the foundations upon which it has been based for thousands and thousands of years.It's really that simple. The government isn't oppressing you. The 51% of people who voted FOR Prop 8 don't hate/despise/look down upon you either, as much as you'd like to believe that they do. It is what it is. Everyone had a vote. Now, if the "government" or the Supreme Court made this decision without voter consent or say (much the way they did when overturning the original prop 22 in 2000) I could see why you would be a bit upset, but it wasn't that way. This decision was made in the same legal, ethical, and constitutional way that other decisions have been made since this country began. (well, after we stopped oppressing women and African-Americans that is). Had proposition 8 been shut down, there wouldn't be rioting and rallying and angry fist-shaking to the wind. It would have been, "Bummer, but I guess the people have spoken.
I suppose I'll have to start home-schooling my kids when they start teaching "diversity education" at school, sending them home with bags full of fairy-tale books comprised of a prince falling in love with another prince and living happily ever after in a castle somewhere." (As mothers in Massachusetts have had to do when their children brought similar "diversity packets" home from school).I don't need "diversity packets" to help my child grow into a kind and loving adult. He lives in a home where he is taught that EVERYONE is a child of God, and I'm not talking about tolerance here,I'm talking about the unconditional LOVE and ACCEPTANCE of every living person on the face of this earth.He doesn't need the stupid, and ill-equipped school system to tell him that "being gay is okay" any more than he needs to be told that black and brown kids are just as good as white ones. He already knows that! (for those of you who have no idea as to what I'm talking about, Kort was actually forced to memorize a ridiculous poem articulating the differences between black kids and white kids - oh for the love of counter-productive.) Did it ever occur to anyone that the more we talk and talk and talk about differences, the more apparent they become? Why are we still giving exorbitant amounts of focus and power to the things that separate us!? Kort has played with black and Hispanic cousins and friends from the day he was born. That stupid poem only served to teach him (for the first time in his life) that he was noticeably (and possibly not in a good way) different from his cousins. Thanks educational system! Before your incredible "diversity intervention" Kortland simply thought that the unconditional acceptance of his cousins (whose so called "differences" he hadn't even noticed) was a natural extension of his way of life, NOW he has been taught that it is a choice we make. WE CHOOSE to accept them even though they are so terribly different.Do you see where we are going wrong here? For children, it is natural to like and accept everyone. It doesn't occur to them to be wary of children who don't look exactly like them. (speaking strictly of children NOT currently being raised in KKK-ish households, of course.) It is the same for "Homosexual Diversity Education." When Kortland sees a gay couple holding hands in the mall and wants to know what that's all about, I'll say, "Sometimes boys like girls and sometimes they like other boys..." simple as that. I don't need to say "but don't hate them or think they are bad for liking boys...they aren't horrible people like you might think, really..." It's not necessary! It's much like Kortland asking me why snow falls only during the winter time or why dogs like to lick their privates (both actual Kortland questions by-the-way.) I simply say "Dogs lick their privates because that's the way they keep them clean and healthy." He accepts this answer and moves on - he doesn't think any more of it! It really is that simple. It would be bizarre for me to go on to say "But don't think Bubbuh is perverted and gross because he is licking his privates! He really is a good dog, and you shouldn't hold all of that licking against him. We should still love him. We should still accept him." That would just be NUTS! Yet, it's exactly what we do.
Black kids have different pigment in their skin. Period. It doesn't mean we should try to be really tolerant of them and their kind, it means that they have different pigment in their skin.When we let kids come up with answers on their own, we often find that they are far more enlightened than any of us ever give them credit for. My nephew, for instance, says that we are all simply different shades of brown. "Kortland and Aunt Laura are really light brown, I'm medium brown, and the baby is dark brown." Oh for the love of adorable and perfect! How different would our world be if we would all just face the fact that everybody is brown! It's just the shades that very.The same principles apply to the hotly debated issues surrounding proposition 8. We're all just boys and girls. We have different attractions and that's fine. Everything doesn't have to be so dramatic and divisive. Melissa Ethridge's statement makes me sad. Not only because it's completely based in fiction rather than bearing any semblance of truth, but because it makes it clear that she has opted for divisiveness rather than unity (or even the inclination towards developing some sort of unity in the future.) It's just too bad. Yes, the Mormon church wanted Prop 8 to pass. We want the sacred nature of marriage to be protected by law. It's that simple. We don't hate gay people. Period.
We believe that they are beloved children of our Heavenly Father, and that they are good and loving and decent members of society. You can say that our support of Prop 8 means that we hate gay people and that we're ignorant bigots, but that doesn't make it true. If Kortland came to me and said - "Mom, I'm gay, this is my boyfriend, Peter." I would say. "Hi Peter, it's nice to meet you. Welcome to our home. I hope you will join our family for Thanksgiving and Christmas." and then I would say. "Kortland, I love you more than anything on this earth. That hasn't changed and it never will." Period. Then, I would still vote for Prop 8. (if I lived in California, and if Prop 8 were being voted on at that time - of course).That doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite or a bigot.It means that I believe that the institution of marriage should be defined as the union between a man and a woman.Period.Not that "I hate gays, and gays are second class citizens, and gays are going to hell..."Nope. Not any of those things at all.Just: Marriage should be defined as the union between a man and a woman.And that doesn't make me uneducated either. I know the debates inside and out. I got straight A's in all of my history, sociology, philosophy, physics, humanities, psychology and english college classes. I know the world around me and the specific ramifications attached to the passing and failing of the amendments and propositions in question.
I also know beyond any shadow of doubt that the institution of marriage is sacred, and that I want to continue to have the right to teach my son moral issues IN THE HOME. Not have them pushed on him by less intelligent, capable hands (sorry school system - sad but true) and that is precisely what would have happened (among many, many other things) in the event that Prop 8 was shut down. More important than anything else is the fact that I know that God has deemed marriage to be between a man and a woman. (oh, and p.s. Believing in God doesn't make me stupid or "sheep-like" either.) I still think for myself (contrary to what atheists are inclined to believe). I simply find that after I have pondered, studied, and weighed the moral and social ramifications of each issue, my findings inevitably fall in line with God's. (that's because He's smart too - by-the-way...)So I guess all I'm saying is, you can protest at our temples, but we'll still call you brother. You can blame us, and you can hate us, but we won't hate you back. We are only striving to protect the beliefs that our ancestors died for. The religious beliefs that they were burned and raped and tarred and feathered for. The beliefs that resulted in their being forced from the homes and forced to watch their children die on frozen plains. We know a thing or two about suffering, persecution, and intolerance, and I, for one, do not want to face those devoted saints who sacrificed everything they had, and endured suffering and persecution that I cannot even begin to comprehend - all in the name of "freedom of religion", only to say "Sorry, we decided that it was better to change our values in order to gain acceptance from the world at large. Your suffering and sacrifice were in vain."If gay people were being denied the right to live together, or share insurance, or eat in certain restaurants, or sit at the front of a bus, then yeah, I would have a problem with that.
If they were being unconstitutionally forced from their homes by angry mobs while the government decidedly looked the other way, my soul would cry "injustice!" but they're not. They live the way that most Americans do. They are free to eat, and travel, and work, and love the same way everyone else is free. They have their own T.V. shows, music careers, sitcoms...you name it! Same. Civil. Liberties. Look it up. A civil union is the equivalent of marriage, and I'm sorry that Ellen thinks it's like I'm saying "You have to sit over there while we sit over here." Though I guess that clearly illustrates the mental/emotional place that Ellen is operating from in this situation. There's that divisive attitude again. I say "My beliefs deserve to be protected as vehemently as yours, and there's a fine line where they meet and then there is a distinct point at which one of the party's beliefs begin to encroach upon the other's." I believe that by endowing gay couples with all of the civil liberties that are the right of every American, we have met at that fine line, and rightly so. But to change the definition of marriage is to cross that line and encroach upon the "Freedom of Religion" that the constitution is supposed to protect. At that point, the constitution officially says that our religious beliefs are illegal and then we, again, will be the ones subject to persecution. (fun cycle, right?) And you wonder why we want to call it good at "civil union"...We are a peaceful people. We have no ill will toward anyone. We will not persecute gay people any more than we persecute/attack/mob any other people who don't live according to our beliefs. (i.e. sex before marriage, drug and alcohol use, drunk driving, you name it.)In closing, let me just say:If I have learned anything being raised in a family of EXTREMELY TYPE-A, debate craving, political lunatics, it is that the chances of getting other people to see things your way when they are passionately predisposed (for one reason or another) to an opposing view, is as likely as getting Bubbuh to stop licking his privates or convincing snow to fall in July...probably just not going to happen.
I guess I'm just tired of being quiet, and tired of being told that I'm a bad person by people who don't even know me or the heritage that my own people have come from. So, sorry for the rant. Everyone gets a say, and I guess that's mine.I don't hate anyone.The end.
Oh, and taxation without representation means taxing someone without giving them the right to vote. Melissa Etheridge, fire your publicist. She had no business letting you put that embarrassing joke of a rant out there for everyone to see. Oh, and take a history class. You've made it clear that you can afford it, put all that stolen government money to good use why don't ya?
Now it's the end.I promise this time. ---Laura Dugovic