HOME | DD

AmberSagrath β€” The Yes on Proposition Eight [NSFW]
Published: 2008-11-05 23:11:12 +0000 UTC; Views: 1620; Favourites: 51; Downloads: 13
Redirect to original
Description November 4th, 2008.

A woman stood up in the crowd of supporters, families, church organizations, and students celebrating their close victory. Her husband tried to stop her, to pull her back down to her seat and her feigned conformity. "I have to do this." She whispered confidently. He felt the love and trust they had for each other, and he let her stand.

"To the proponents of Proposition 8, congratulations." She smiled, beginning the announcement.

The faces all turned to meet her, filled with smiles of anticipation.

"We have stuck down centuries of progress and decades of effort in just a few months. Our victory has been counted, and our lies have come to fruition.

More than 16,000 same sex marriages in California will be broken today. Their 56,000 adopted children will grow up knowing that their parents were denied the right of marriage. We are sure that it will not affect them, that they will happily continue to be our allies when we have given them a few months of holy matrimony and snatched it away from them.Β Whether they fought us in our efforts or not they will surely feel robbed of something, something that we have and they haven't, anymore.

At least we, the straight people will feel alright. Even if we can't have children of our own we will be able to content ourselves with knowing that we can and are married. At least we have the right to withdraw our children from schools who seek to teach tolerance and understanding. Our future generations of gay children will grow up understanding that to be shameful of themselves is right, and that to ask for more is wrong. The cycle of discrimination will never end thanks to our efforts.

The church will stand as a never ending symbol of collective authority and power. This will ultimately ensure that the church and the state is never separate, and we will ensure that equality will never be granted to the groups that we choose to oppress.

Yes, this is the result of our efforts. We can feel happy, sure, and safe that our moral commandments will be held by the law above all others. This is what the freedom of religion has ultimately granted us, a right to to force our beliefs down the throats of the rest of the state, and guide the rest of the country to do so also. This is what freedom of the press has granted us, a right to lie and to use a child's education as the bait that hooked people to enter the voting booth for the purpose of eliminating the rights of an entire group.

We are happy knowing the country and the world will surely follow, that the ideal of the family will be upheld and that the rights of a reproductive household will be cherished above all others. Our ability to produce children will be the source of our rights. To contribute to society is to continue the species of the human race. The ability to give birth to children gives us our right to marriage. This bond of love and commitment will never be more than a partnership. To love and to raise children that are not of our own blood will never be as important as the creation of that life.

We are happy knowing other children are less likely to be raised with beliefs different from our own. We can justify our lack of reasoning with our fear that somehow a group of people will be raised in an unconventional background apart from us. We can justify our lack of reasoning with the commandments we follow, or the backwards logic that what we believe is true to be right, and what they believe should be right is wrong.

We are happy knowing that we will always be superior. That on our graves we may inscribe, if we wish, "Loving Wife. . ." or "Loving Husband. . ." without question. That our children may walk to school safely and possibly get away with the abuse of others to uphold the beliefs we have taught them ourselves. That we may someday have grandchildren in our likeness, for in truth it matters not if half of the unions of our children are divorced, but that those grandchildren will someday exist for us.

We will leave the same legacy of our forefathers in hate, discrimination, and oppression. And we are happy knowing it.

Yes, congratulations to us all."

The silent audience sat still in shock. They looked upon the woman and her family in shame. It was collectively understood that this woman would have no part in their community anymore. She would never be invited into their group in any way again, and someday be forced to move her family to another city.

The group turned their heads and shunned her, swallowing their underlying guilt and continuing with the celebration of their victory. But their hearts were now swayed, their minds betrayed by the possibility that the majority was wrong.
Related content
Comments: 129

AmberSagrath In reply to ??? [2013-02-17 07:21:43 +0000 UTC]

From what I've heard lots of people are standing up for this but yeah, thanks for reading this! It's been a long time since Prop 8 in California ;_; A few other states have passed gay marriage since then but we're still divided about it. D'aww that would be a sweet scene.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

giygas1 In reply to AmberSagrath [2013-02-17 13:53:19 +0000 UTC]

yeah, it would, and learning about this from 2013 and itr was in 2008 makes me feel stupid

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to giygas1 [2013-03-21 20:41:37 +0000 UTC]

Oh. No problem there states don't pay much attention to each other's laws I would think xD

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

giygas1 In reply to AmberSagrath [2013-03-21 21:25:39 +0000 UTC]

yeah...

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

BlackCatMisfortunate [2010-08-22 04:55:21 +0000 UTC]

Incredible work.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to BlackCatMisfortunate [2010-08-30 07:48:04 +0000 UTC]

Thanks x3

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

gwinnya [2010-07-23 15:37:48 +0000 UTC]

Awesome. Really moving I love it!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to gwinnya [2010-08-08 08:31:28 +0000 UTC]

Thanks :3

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

DizzyDrow [2009-11-26 17:09:59 +0000 UTC]

A very powerful read, and I commend and thank you for it.

A couple issues I caught, though:

From about the eighth paragraph down: "...children's education as the bait that lead families and individuals to enter the voting booth for the sole purpose of eliminating the rights of an entire group." Typo: "lead" should be "led."

And then, "...the backwards logic that what we believe is right is right, and what they believe should be right is wrong."

I'm not digging the "is right is right" part. It really confused me, and I had to go back and re-read it a few times. Maybe replace the first right with true, and then emphasize "they" (by italicizing it, maybe?).

Other than that, it was a moving read; thank you, again, for writing.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to DizzyDrow [2009-11-29 06:33:11 +0000 UTC]

Thank you so much for your comment with this, I haven't looked at this piece for such a long time and it's hard to look back on things and edit them. I've made changes on the parts you suggested to make it flow smoother.

It's such a wonderful thing that you've done there, to be honest I see things that bug me in writing all the time and I never mention it to the author. So much more props to you for the feedback !

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

DizzyDrow In reply to AmberSagrath [2009-11-30 04:32:22 +0000 UTC]

Oh, no problem at all; you're very welcome!

I noticed the piece hadn't been touched in a while, and I'll admit,
I was tempted to just let it go, but--I admired the work
too much to. I felt it would have been a poor move of me, as a fellow
writer and a fan of the work, to just let it go unsaid.

And kudos to you, as well, for going back and revisiting the piece.
Really, thank you again for writing it; Prop 8's passing was a very sad
time for me, and so many others. Reading your piece gave me hope,
and a little peace of mind, that someday people might change.

Thank you so much.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

crystalice96 [2009-10-28 03:03:07 +0000 UTC]

Ughhh~ I can't stand it!!!! T^T Why can't everyone just be accepting of others!!!!! This was deep. ;-; Great job. ^^

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to crystalice96 [2009-10-28 09:41:15 +0000 UTC]

thanks :3

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

crystalice96 In reply to AmberSagrath [2009-10-31 06:20:52 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome~

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

The-Queen-Bee [2009-08-05 16:48:33 +0000 UTC]

Wow, this is great! Very eloquent, very moving, and most of all very true.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to The-Queen-Bee [2009-08-06 02:56:59 +0000 UTC]

Thanks. I'm surprised people still read this all these months later ^^

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

The-Queen-Bee In reply to AmberSagrath [2009-09-03 23:41:42 +0000 UTC]

It's certainly good enough to be read more than once, and also after the fact.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to The-Queen-Bee [2009-09-05 03:56:01 +0000 UTC]

*embarrassed* I hardly read it over myself.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

Brave-Toastless-Loki [2009-04-08 03:26:44 +0000 UTC]

wonderfully said; I applaud your creativity and inspiration, because we all know that no matter what happened on November 4th, 2008, everyone lost.
Because in the end, all we HAVE done as a state is tell everyone who had hope in the American dream that, if you are different, you are second-class.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to Brave-Toastless-Loki [2009-04-08 03:48:40 +0000 UTC]

I agree, but I have hope that we will once again find that dream someday. It may take some mindset changes, for all of us...

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

shuuchan11 [2009-03-08 19:48:33 +0000 UTC]

brilliantly said

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to shuuchan11 [2009-03-09 01:00:33 +0000 UTC]

Thanks

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

PuffyDearlySmith [2008-12-27 05:07:37 +0000 UTC]

Very powerful and well thought out

I fail to see the reason the government has in telling us who we can and can't merry

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to PuffyDearlySmith [2008-12-30 19:48:49 +0000 UTC]

Thanks.

And that's a good point. Whatever happened to land of the free?

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

PuffyDearlySmith In reply to AmberSagrath [2008-12-31 00:53:52 +0000 UTC]

Good question

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

LordMordrek [2008-12-04 07:26:28 +0000 UTC]

Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. I am sick to the teeth of the faithful trying to cram their bronze-age values down everyone else's throats.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to LordMordrek [2008-12-05 11:36:28 +0000 UTC]

I think that blaming ALL the faithful for the acts of a few minority extremists is a bit unfair. Remember that their major fault is seeing the world in black and white, us versus them. Really not all of them are bad, they are human beings just like you and me. If you insist on being angry, be angry at the individual people you know are dislikeable. There's a lot of anti-religion prejudice right now from people who believe in equal rights. Now isn't that being a bit hypocritical?

Well, we're all hypocrites. But a little less hypocrisy can't hurt much.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

LordMordrek In reply to AmberSagrath [2008-12-05 17:15:58 +0000 UTC]

Would you call 52% of california voters a minority? And there can be no equal rights while mankind still clings to the values of its barbaric ancestors, unless the faithful outright reject what their holy books tell them. Now THAT's some hypocrisy for ya.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to LordMordrek [2008-12-08 04:54:48 +0000 UTC]

I don't blame them. Frankly I believe that they were tricked. So much of the advertising on Prop 8 made it sound like children would be in danger if it wasn't passed. Those were blatant lies, and I think it was because enough people fell for them that the Proposition was passed.

The faithful already reject a lot of what their book tells them, certain passages become outdated with time. At least, no one that I know of is being stoned for not going to church on Sundays.

There are religious folk too who support marriage equality. They are a true minority, though.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

LordMordrek In reply to AmberSagrath [2008-12-08 07:35:00 +0000 UTC]

The true subject of my ire has always been the clergy, men and women who have always been willing to break their own tenets if it meant their power remained secure. That is the true reason the Mormon leadership gave so much support to proposition 8. They knew that if the country continued to progress down a more liberal path, their followers would become disillusioned with their dogma, and their power would wane. But if we regress back into superstition and blind faith, the clergy would once more become the true rulers of the world.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to LordMordrek [2008-12-08 08:32:42 +0000 UTC]

Perhaps. It is an ironic idea that church leaders should have enough reasoning to make that decision. Perhaps they gathered some new recruits during the event.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

furkel [2008-11-26 14:55:19 +0000 UTC]

I'd really, REALLY like to think that a lot of people didn't bother to vote no on prop 8 because they, like me, honestly thought it just couldn't pass, and that the people who voted yes at least THOUGHT they were doing it for the right reasons, because I just don't want to live in a world where the majority want to take away the most basic rights of an entire group of people for no decent reason whatsoever.

Agh, sorry. I tend to construct these kind of never-ending sentences far too often. Anyway, there's people who think like you in this world too, it can't be all bad

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to furkel [2008-11-27 03:23:23 +0000 UTC]

Well, don't think of the world as all good or all bad. Most people have good intentions at heart, we're just all wrong sometimes. ^^' It's a part of being human. Don't worry about it so much and just stand up for what you believe in.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

RealmKnight [2008-11-26 09:57:42 +0000 UTC]

A huge problem for the marriage debate is the fact marriage consists of three distinct elements: religious, social and legal. Religiously, you swear to your divine entity and congregation of choice that you will love and protect your spouse, and in turn ask for the god/angel/spirits blessing. Socially, you announce that you and your spouse are committed to another and live as "a couple" instead of simply "two individuals". Legally, you and your spouse are granted special rights of authority and protection to match your lifestyle.

Socially speaking, anyone could have a backyard wedding ceremony and become "married". It wouldn't mean anything legally or spiritually, but it would proclaim your relationship as being beyond a basic pairing. For many people this is also as far as they can go. Gays, the polyamorous, differing castes, or differing religious/racial couples all have problems getting legal or spiritual unions in this world.

The people stopping others from enjoying their chosen partners' company are hurting a lot of people. On the other hand, there was no increase in gay-stereotyped social and moral instability in the brief period before prop 8 passed.

I am curious about the issue of "civil unions" though. Does California still have legal unions for same-sex couples now that "marriage" isn't allowed for them?

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 2

AmberSagrath In reply to RealmKnight [2008-11-27 03:33:42 +0000 UTC]

This issue in California is still being decided. The 16-18 thousand couples that got married in the last 8 months have their status in a sort of limbo right now. No other same sex couple can get married in this state from now until around 2990 when gay marriage does FINALLY happen on a federal level .

I think probably California will still have some form of civil union or domestic partnership however. It just isn't the same as marriage since you can't move around to different states with it, and it doesn't include the same government benefits.

Religiously and socially, however, there are a few churches around that support marriage equality. An open-minded and supportive community will definitely recognize these people as married whether the law says so or not.

The problem is I feel like this Prop 8 thing goes against our American ideals. Whatever happened to the Bill of Rights, anyway?

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

RealmKnight In reply to AmberSagrath [2008-11-27 04:05:02 +0000 UTC]

I sure hope it doesn't take that long for a federal government to allow universal unconventional marriage. Here in New Zealand (currently a very liberal country, though the government has recently changed to center-right politics) "gay marriage" doesn't exist, but civil unions give same-sex couples identical rights in everything except what their partnership is called. Some churches refuse to join same-sex couples, but NZ society in general is accepting of the concept - perhaps because it's obvious there are far worse things going on here than gays marrying.

I'm always a little amused when people try to use the US founding documents to try and prove a point about what the united states [b]should[/b] be. When the country was formed, slavery was a booming and mainly tolerated industry, "religious freedom" only needed to cover alternate forms of judo-Christianity, and civilians were encouraged to form militias and own guns - in case they were invaded by colonials, Mexicans or Natives. Thus, the issues the declaration of independence, constitution and bill of rights needed to cover were a world away from today, and the documents are often outdated now as a result.

How the founding documents relate to gay marriage isn't something I'm too familiar with, but I would assume the first amendment would allow anyone to live and express their relationships as they see fit.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to RealmKnight [2008-11-27 04:31:07 +0000 UTC]

What kind of things are happening in New Zealand?

Well the bill of rights were the first 10 constitutional amendments in the US addressing human rights issues. It's outdated but has a bit of historical significance to it. It at least sets the standard for what rights US citizens are supposed to have, but it's getting blurry.

And well, religious freedom implies that the church should be at least separate from the state. It's kind of scary when a personal issue such as marriage is systematically discriminated.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

RealmKnight In reply to AmberSagrath [2008-11-27 05:33:14 +0000 UTC]

NZ is generally a nice place, but there have been several high-profile cases lately highlighting societal problems including horrific child abuse, gang violence, proliferation of drugs (meth in particular) and vandalism. It's worth noting most of these issues have traditional (albeit dysfunctional) families at the core.

Religious freedom and disestablishment aren't necessarily compatible with democracy, though. A church might not have direct political power, but if it convinces its members to vote a certain way, it has more than enough indirect power to swing a strongly religious democracy a certain way. The only way around that is to counter-convince the public to vote with their heads instead of their bibles.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to RealmKnight [2008-11-29 01:37:09 +0000 UTC]

Unfortunately societal problems aren't a legislative matter. It's more up to the persons running the show. The only way I can see fixing something like that is a lot of social reforms. But there are problems everywhere.

There has been talk that the United States is a secular nation, though. I think it wasn't so much religious influence as general lack of education about the matter in the US. There are so many people who still believe that a civil union is enough, or that homosexuality is a mental disease.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

rollingstar In reply to RealmKnight [2008-11-27 02:46:11 +0000 UTC]

there's a reason for non-denominational marriage certificates and officials.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

RealmKnight In reply to rollingstar [2008-11-27 03:02:28 +0000 UTC]

Indeed. But even when the state allowed same-sex marriage, individual churches still had the freedom to choose who they would and would not marry. Likewise with irreligious marriage celebrants - who, as private service providers, had the right to choose who they provide their services to. Neither of these types were forced to marry gay couples, so they really had no freedoms to gain by supporting prop 8.

If anything it would be bad for them due to a loss of potential business.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

rollingstar In reply to RealmKnight [2008-11-27 03:22:25 +0000 UTC]

I was hoping that "get married at the courthouse" was implied in my original statement.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

DrYosh [2008-11-24 16:38:05 +0000 UTC]

That was very very beautiful, and at the same time, very sobering. I'm very thankful to have had the chance to read this.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to DrYosh [2008-11-24 18:23:01 +0000 UTC]

Thank you.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

ParanoidMan [2008-11-23 08:13:24 +0000 UTC]

Very moving.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to ParanoidMan [2008-11-24 07:34:40 +0000 UTC]

Thanks.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

ParanoidMan In reply to AmberSagrath [2008-11-24 15:59:19 +0000 UTC]

My pleasure.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

dominantfemale [2008-11-21 19:31:55 +0000 UTC]

AMEN...most amazing, real truth I have read in a long, long time.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AmberSagrath In reply to dominantfemale [2008-11-24 07:35:56 +0000 UTC]

Seriously?

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

dominantfemale In reply to AmberSagrath [2008-11-24 22:09:45 +0000 UTC]

Yeah!!! Don't believe me?

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0


| Next =>