I want to thank those in the gay community who are voting Yes on Prop 8. I know you are out there, thank you.

Why would a homosexual agree that marriage should only be between a man and a woman?

Tammy Bruce, a lesbian, pro-choice, feminist, gives logical reasons for supporting marriage as between a man and woman. In her article Respecting Marriage and Equal Rights, she explains the reasons why the definition of marriage should not be change.

In another post, Bruce also explains her disagreement with the judges overturning Prop 22.

It’s not about whose rights, it’s about America. Thank you, Tammy Bruce, for clarifying the issue.

17 Responses to “Lesbian for Prop 8”

  1. Lesbian for Prop 8 | Lesbian Books and News Says:

    […] I want to thank those in the gay community who are voting Yes on Prop 8. I know you are out there, thank you. Why would a homosexual agree that marriage should only be between a man and a woman Continue here: Lesbian for Prop 8 […]

  2. Ana Says:

    I am a lesbian and I am voting YES on 8.

  3. Joyful Says:

    Thank you, Ana.

  4. Manuel Says:

    That’s sad, just sad. So, you’re voting to make yourself a second-class citizen and are buying into the religious right’s portrayal of all gay men and lesbians. How much do you have to hate yourself and the fact that you’re gay to vote Yes on Prop 8?

    Honey, history is ALWAYS on the side of liberalization. You’re only forstalling the future.

    If you want to strengthen marriage, let the hets start with their own. A little counseling is a better and more effective way to handle a troubled marriage than to amend our State’s constitution to exclude an entire class of people.

  5. Joyful Says:

    Yes, look at history and what happens to those cultures that has diluted marriage and the family.

    No doubt the hets need to strengthen their marriages, but that doesn’t mean the entire concept of marriage should be changed.

  6. Ana Says:

    I am not buying into anything. I have always held these beliefs and despite what you may think I feel about myself, I do not hate myself for the fact I am a lesbian.

    Nothing has changed my personal convictions and beliefs, including my sexuality. To presume that because I am gay means I should suddenly become liberal and change everything I know in my heart is ridiculous.

  7. Manuel Says:

    To Joyful: Do you have some examples of a culture that has “diluted” marriage and the family? i’m looking at history and I just can’t find any examples. And please don’t cite Rome. That myth has been debunked too many times.

    To Ana: look deeply, I mean really deeply. I would be willing to bet there is shame in there around you being Gay. Do you think that a gay couple could successfully raise a happy and healthy child?

  8. Ana Says:

    I think it’s amazing that you think you can tell me how I feel about myself when no one can do that other than myself.

    I am proud of the kind of person I am and am not ashamed of the woman I love and have loved for more than 5 years. I also do not define myself by my sexuality whatsoever.

    I do think however that marriage between a homosexual couple really has nothing to do with raising a child. However I do believe that a gay/lesbian couple in a healthy committed relationship can indeed raise a happy healthy child.

    I for one, do not wish to marry my partner. We do not believe we need something such a legality to persuade others that we are in love and/or are committed to one another.

  9. D Says:

    First of all…NEVER use the Vulcan Mind-Meld like that again. Your whole rant about the need to respect American traditionalism is iinncorrect. America was founded unpon breaking tradition…if our fore fathers had followed tradition….we’d still be a British colony. I don’t understand how you can believe in something like this as a self-respecting lesbian, but to each his own.

  10. billynovaboi Says:

    What? Okay Listen I totally get that you don’t feel the need to marry your partner, and i don’t question your feelings about your partner, or think that you have self hate…. I do however question your intelligence…. why do you feel the need to inflict this opinion on other people? Frankly I don’t give a damn what long standing traditions you feel you have about marriage, they’re stupid, yes that’s right I said stupid, give me one good logical ( note I said logical, not religious, don’t just state a belief, LOGICAL ) reason as to why the definition of marriage should be static? and i read tammy bruces article, i got out of that tradition for traditions sake, sadly that’s lacking in logic….. not gonna buy it, fine you don’t want to engage in that tammy bruce don’t some of us want to be able to marry legally in this country…. I see no reason to deny someone the ability to get married and yes use that term. marriage has never been simply between a man in a woman, in fact if you study your history, it’s often been more about property and domination of women as a whole….. where’s this tradition people keep talking about? I’m sorry I don’t mean to seriously offend, I hope you live a happy life, and a long one, and there’s probably many things you’re smart and knowledgable about but these silly arguments infuriate me…. it’s unbeliveable to me that people still think this way in 2008, especially in America…. I guess the enlightenment didn’t reach everybody!

  11. Joyful Says:

    Is all change good? Is breaking of tradition always a good thing?

    Do you have “logical” reasons for everything you believe in? And it’s logical to say that everyone who disagree with you is stupid?

    Why are religious reasons excluded as being logical? Have you ever studied good logical reasons for believing in God? If you haven’t, you cannot claim that religion is not “logical.”

    When you lay on your deathbed, will you have logical reasons of what will happen to you after death?

  12. billynovaboi Says:

    No not all change is good….. Do you think all change is bad? ( :P) Is breaking of tradition always bad? (:P) I probably don’t have logical reasons for everything I believe in, but I won’t restrict a couple from getting married based on something illogical. Tradition isn’t a logical truth. Traditions are social constructs, I’m not saying it’s bad to have traditions, but when you’re traditions want to limit the traditions of other people, when I think they don’t affect you, I have a problem. Traditions evolve and change all the time. I have studied logical reasons for believing in god, I took philosophy and religion courses in college, some of these arguments were in the text books and discussions. I’ve also done some reading on my own about it, because I find it fascinating. I’m an agnostic, so i’m not totally sold on the arguments agaisn’t god. I should have been more clear here though this is my fault. What I meant was the religous tradition that states marriage is between a man and a woman. This is not a proven logical truth, unless you can show me otherwise. Same with god. Both of these claims carry heavy weights of doubt, it’s mostly faith, I understand that. And really I don’t think faith is that bad, I understand it, but to base policy off that, or to restrict the rights of others off that, seems illogical to me. The justifications people have for believing in god, or christianity can just as easily be applied to another religion that perhaps views marriage as something between 2 loving people of either gender.
    To argue or to claim that everyone who disagrees with me is stupid is a logical truth, isn’t logical, it’s arrogant. So there was a bit of that in my post, and I didn’t mean to call you stupid. There are probably many things you’re much smarter than me at. I do think on this particular issue maybe your personal faith, or belief in this tradition perhaps blinds you on this issue. I just don’t understand why you would care if 2 same gender people use the term marriage. Why should the government respect your definition of marriage over my definition of marriage?

    Let me try and restate your argument, and perhaps you can correct me where i’m going wrong.
    You believe, that the defintion of marriage is between a man and woman, and because of that defintion, which is also a religious tradition and a historical tradition we shouldn’t allow the government to recognize the term marriage to include same gender loving couples. Now i’m still just not sure why you feel the definition of marriage should be static? All you’ve stated from what I can gather is it’s a tradition so therefore it’s defintion shouldn’t change. So basically you’ve asserted an opinion but made no premises to follow up on your conclusion that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

    Also please include some historical examples of countries or nations that have perished due to diluted marriages and familes, and also how does allowing same gender couples dilute marriage and family? Should I just be waiting with my fingers crossed for countries around the world to collaspe who have allowed gay marriage?

  13. Joyful Says:

    When I say table, you understand what I mean. When I say chair, you know what I mean. Why do you want to start calling a table a chair? Does that make them “equal”?

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. Domestic partnerships/civil unions are something other than marriage between a man and a woman. There is a clear and understandable distinction. The tradition of calling a table a table and a chair a chair is for good reason. You can say that definitions to anything does not have to be static. Sure, we can start changing the whole dictionary.

    No man is an island. What someone else does will always affect you. How marriage is defined will most definitely affect me and you.

    When my children are taught about marriage and family in school, and they are told that marriage with any gender is legitimate, where is my right as a parent to teach my children our beliefs? We already know that there is no parental prior notice to opt out.

    If homosexuality marriage is a “human right” to marry whoever you want, then a church that refuses to marry a gay couple will be considered violating their “human right.” Then where is the First Amendment right of freedom of religion? The State is imposing its beliefs on the Church. This is exacting what the Founding fathers were trying to guard against.

    Consider Canada. Simply saying homosexuality is wrong is a crime. Dr. Laura has been censored. Pastors have been fined. What happened to freedom of Speech?

    Are gay rights to be protected more than First Amendment rights? And don’t say religious organizations can file for exemptions. We’ve already seen that it doesn’t work when it comes to “human rights.”

    According to US Senate testimony given on Sept. 4, 2003, the report shows that “After 40 years of social experimentation, we have enormous amounts of data…the overwhelming consensus is that family structure does matter.”

    According to the testimony stating the research findings, both adults and children are better off living in communities when more children are raised by their own two married parents. There are higher rates of physical health, and lower rates of mental illness, poverty, crime and domestic abuse.

    This is not the consensus of a religious few. This is the overwhelming consensus of family scholars across ideological and partisan lines.

    In endorsing homosexual marriage, “the government will be making a powerful statement that our government no longer believes children need a mother and a father. Two fathers are not only just as good as a mom and a dad, they are just the same.”

    Gay couples who do not believe in imposing their definition on the rest of society shows they are respectful, not stupid.

  14. Joyful Says:

    by the way, my blog is not a forum. So I will not engage in any more discussion. I simply want to point out that those who voted Yes on Prop 8 have good reason to do so. We are not stupid, and we are not bigots. If the other side wants to be respected for their views, they should certainly show the same for the opposing view without resorting to name calling or intimidation.

  15. billynovaboi Says:

    I never said marriage was a human right, I don’t believe in natural rights but it’s a right the goverment affrords to straights and not homosexual couples
    and for your senate testamony, you’ll have to provide a link, the only testamony for that day I could find, was on the defense of marriage act. The quote you provided wasn’t from several family scholars but from one woman, whom i’m not even sure has a doctorate in pyschology and really I saw the testamonies, wasn’t impressed and certainly didn’t see any scientific evidence to back up what your claim is, I did however find that the American Psychological Association ( the nations largest group of psychologists) believe gays deserve the same rights as straight parents, “Keeping gays from marrying ‘puts a particular stress on them just because of their sexual orientation. It’s a health issue and a mental health issue,'” http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-07-28-apa-gay-marriage_x.htm

    next point, I don’t think you’re a bigot, and I don’t think you’re stupid, on this particular issue I think you’re wrong and also contradictory….. “Gay couples who do not believe in imposing their definition on the rest of society shows they are respectful, not stupid.” that’s what you’re doing to me, and as for the chair and table analogy? I don’t think it really applys there are many different kinds of tables, and many different kinds of chairs, yet you only want one kind of marriage, a marriage between a man and a woman. Lots of words change definition over time. Perhaps you’ve got another blog where you raise a stink about those? For example, in the early middle ages the word girl used to refer to children of either sex and it wasn’t until the 1500’s that the word took on the meaing of female.

    On to the school point, I’d first like to point out, that I think this is a bit of a fear tactic not necessarily on your part, but perhaps by the anti gay marriage groups as a whole, I consider myself pretty young, recently out of school 2 years, well i’m young by my parents age, anyway, im right at my mid 20’s and I took health classes, and i went through school from 1-12 and then had 4 years of college, I don’t remember ever discussing marriage rights, or the family structure as a whole but certainly on this issue I think teaching both sides would be good if it’s even talked about at all.

    On to the first amendment, one as far as I know it doesn’t apply in canada, I’ve never been to canada, nor am I aware of it’s constitution, but by all means as far as I’m concerned Dr. Laura can say whatever she wants about gays or anything else on the air in this country ( I may not like it,and I may think she’s full of crap) but, I care for the FCC about as much as I care for oh I dunno, having my foot get run over by car ( kinda hurt when that happened, wasn’t enjoyable ) And I also support a churches right to deny homosexuals the right to marry, just like I would support their right to grant homosexual marriages.

    I’m gonna quit posting now, you can’t win arguments on the internet, and that probably says a lot about me that i’m trying to lol, but anyway I’ll give you a little tip, turn off the Dr. Laura ( if infact you do listen to her ) and turn your radio dial to the Mike Omeara show, it’s hip, fresh, funny, informative, and yet traditional all at the same time, it’s really quite amazing. ( btw, i retire as champion :P)

  16. Knowledge Says:

    Nice posts, Billy. You’ve espoused a lot of my views that are also shared by many in the gay community. Traditions can, will, and are broken, revamped, changed, updated, and made current in order to coincide with society’s natural progression; culturally and socially. We, as a society, have progressed. There was a tradition of slavery, a tradition of dissallowing interracial marriage, a tradition of the woman staying home to take care of the kids while the husband brings home the bacon, etc. Traditions should not be protected at the expense of denying people basic human rights. And ESPECIALLY not at the behest of religion which is an institution, one that makes money, one that is not always right, and one that is based entirely on FAITH, not primarily basic human rights. A right to happiness, committment through marriage as well as enjoying the safety and protections that such an institution incorporates. This matter is far more important than an individual simply wanting to protect and respect the tradition of marriage. What about the tradition of a loved partner who suddently dies and you are left to pick up the pieces and fight a family who does not respect your relationship or the love you shared with your partner. But, wait, here comes a family who disowned their gay relative years ago wanting to take over whatever property that may have once belonged to them and YOU. Marriage is about so much more than just a tradition; it’s about protecting a lifetime of love, and things accumulated together along the way and through the years. Religion can’t protect that, but being married or joined in a civil union can do just that. It comes in one nice little package but it affects so many areas of life for gay people who want to marry. I used to be against gay marriage, as a lesbian, but I quickly discovered that my reasoning was illogical and completely selfish to boot. Gay people want to get married. If they won’t allow marriage then how about civil unions. People are figting against that as well. Do you join them in their quest to deny gays and lesbians even that? What if you had children, would you feel the same way? The fact that you voted yes on this or even support it as a lesbian, or whatever your orientation sickens and disgusts me and so many others. You are entitled to your opinion, and from that has arisen mine of you. I thank you for writing your blog and expressing your opinions, no matter how unpopular, but I cannot respect your opinion on this subject. I’ll leave you with this… you may want to research people like Lt. Laurel Hester who “lived” for what they believed in and died without being able to leave her partner with security as a reward for a life shared. Something married and windows receive freely.

  17. Joyful Says:

    Thanks for all comments, I believe all were given in a spirit of discussion, not a mean spirited tone. I don’t believe Prop 8 is an unpopular view. In fact, it passed because a majority of the voters agreed with it.

    Comments are now closed for this post.