tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3770140822288377593.post41074195848183666..comments2019-04-08T20:47:11.117-07:00Comments on Marriage Equality Amendment: California (XLVIII) Congresswoman Loretta SanchezMadman of Chuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12867538212499011319noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3770140822288377593.post-77672177468717551402009-03-09T17:57:00.000-07:002009-03-09T17:57:00.000-07:00VRae,To argue that Rosie Avila and other Republica...VRae,<BR/><BR/>To argue that Rosie Avila and other Republican candidates did not enjoy political gain from Proposition 8 is tendentious. The fact that she lost is no proof that she didn't see gain. Nationally, Repubican candidates have made a lot of political hay by stumping against marriage equality. I've written over 70 members of Congress by now and I have found very few Republicans who stayed away from it because it was a "hot issue."<BR/><BR/>Much of your argument is incomprehensible and self-contradictory. As a single mother you have the right to marry, which thanks to Proposition 8 same-sex couples do not. Thus ipso facto your claim about having less "equal rights [sic]" is simply wrong.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, you undermine your assertion that opposition to Prop 8 may be unprejudiced by deploying rhetoric flagrantly betraying your own prejudice. Making up false statistics is an age-old tactic of bigots. The Netherlands, which instituted full marriage equality in 1998, has seen declining crime rates (which were already much lower than the U.S.). It also has one of the lowest abortion rates in Europe. Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates in the Union. This notion that marriage equality will produce a domino effect of social evils is a wholesale canard that has never held up under empirical scrutiny.<BR/><BR/>All of the "unprejudiced" arguments you deploy were once forwarded in defense of "anti-miscegenation" laws banning marriage between people of different race. "The health and well-being" of society would be sacrificed if interracial marriage were allowed, so it was said. We obviously have a healthier society now than we did when interracial marriage was banned in much of the country, and we will have a healthier society still when marriage equality expands to encompass the thousands of same-sex couples that want to be able to form fully legally protected families.Madman of Chuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12867538212499011319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3770140822288377593.post-64498102042845830272009-03-09T09:37:00.000-07:002009-03-09T09:37:00.000-07:00Political gain? I don't think so. Marriage amend...Political gain? I don't think so. Marriage amendment is a hot issue and most stay away from it as the result. Three cheers to Rosie for putting her values and views out where everyone can know them, despite possible political harm to her own candidacy. It won, she didn't, but the marriage amendment had nothing to do with the fact she ran with a few thousand dollars against Loretta's millions (largely funded by the pornography industry ... another subject). <BR/><BR/>Why do folks that are anti-prop 8 continue to pretend that prop 8 people are "prejudiced?" This, despite continued reasoned arguments by prop 8 supporters that it is not about prejudice?? Where marriage has been made legal for homosexuals (which WOULD require a state constitutional amendment) there has been proven increase in crime, teen pregnancy, drug use, and more, without exception. Marriage between a man and woman is basic to the health and well being of a nation. Gays can have more equal rights than I, as a single mom, in civil unions. There are two views on this. It has nothing to do with prejudice so please stop using your victim mentality for political gain. It's really very ugly. Thanks,<BR/>VirginiaVRaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02183350099189954871noreply@blogger.com