Fremont anti-haters love gay marriage
By Matt Artz
Friday, September 26th, 2008 at 4:36 pm in Uncategorized.
The Fremont Alliance for a Hate Free Community has issued a resolution in support of gay marriage and in opposition to the ballot measure that would outlaw it.
To read their statement, click where it says to click
In support of equal marriage rights
regardless of sexual orientation, the Fremont Alliance for a Hate-Free
Community affirmed by resolution its opposition to Proposition 8. “We
call upon the citizens of Fremont and the state of California to vote
against Prop 8 because no couple should be denied the right to marry,”
said Jeff Spencer, the organization’s President .
The resolution was passed on September 8th, 2008. It affirmed marriage
rights for all, opposed Proposition 8, and urged the Fremont Human
Relations Commission and Fremont City Council to adopt similar resolutions.
The full resolution is below:
WHEREAS the state’s recognition of marriage carries with it significant
access to institutional support, rights and benefits; and
WHEREAS children of all families regardless of the gender of the heads
of household should receive all the same legal rights and protections; and
WHEREAS legislation to ban recognition of same-gender marriages further
undermines the civil liberties of gay and lesbian couples and
contributes to a climate of misunderstanding and polarization,
increasing hostility against gays and lesbians; and
WHEREAS, if passed, Proposition 8 would amend the California
Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is
valid or recognized in California; and
WHEREAS equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender is an
issue deserving of serious, discussion by all people, taking into
consideration the long, complex history of marriage and family life,
layered as it is with cultural practices, economic realities, and
political dynamics; and
WHEREAS all person are entitled to full civil liberties and equal
protection under the law without discrimination related to sexual
preference;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Fremont Alliance for a Hate-Free
Community affirms equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender
and declares that the government should not interfere with couples
regardless of gender who choose to marry and share fully and equally in
the rights, responsibilities and commitment of legally recognized
marriage; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Fremont Alliance for a Hate-Free
Community affirms equal access to the basic rights, institutional
protections and quality of life conferred by the recognition of
marriage; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Fremont Alliance for a Hate-Free
Community calls for an end to rhetoric that fuels hostility,
misunderstanding, fear, and hatred expressed toward gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgender persons; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Fremont Alliance for a Hate-Free
Community calls upon the citizens of Fremont and the State of California
to vote “no” on Proposition 8; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Fremont Alliance for a Hate-Free
Community calls upon the Fremont Human Relations Commission and the
Fremont City Council to adopt resolutions similar to this one in support
of equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender and in
opposition to Proposition 8.
Adopted by the Fremont Alliance for a Hate-Free Community
on September 8, 2008
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
September 27th, 2008 at 12:09 am
I noticed your blog mentioned Prop 8, and I wanted to respond with some thoughts on that. Prop 8 isn’t an issue about “rights”. It is about preserving the definition of “marriage” as between a man and a woman. Gay people can do what they want, and they can even enjoy many civil benefits through civil unions and the such. But that isn’t marriage. Gay people should be treated with kindness and respect, like anyone. Gay people aren’t the issue here nor the problem. The problem is that 4 arrogant judges in black robes sitting in their ivory tower overturned the express will of a clear majority of California citizens when they ruled by fiat and illegally legislated from the bench when they unilaterally redefined marriage. Prop 8 allows the citizens of California to say no to Judicial Activism and Judicial Tyranny. There are elements of the judiciary that are way out of control and are endangering the balance of power in our republic by getting involved in “legislating”. This has got to stop. Voting yes on Prop 8 will help put those elitist judges back in their place and let them know they cannot arrogantly overule the will of the people in a matter as fundamental to the future of civilization as the bedrock institution of marriage. That is something important enough that it should not be left to 4 elitist judges to impose by fiat.
May I speak a word to my gay friends, neighbors, coworkers, and fellow-countrymen. You are a minority and I’m sure you recognize that. And that is ok. But please show kindness and tolerance for the rest of us and vote with us to help preserve marriage as between a man and a woman. I know you may not have any personal parochial interest in voting yes on Prop 8. But as your friend and neighbor, I’m asking for your vote to help preserve the definition of this institution that is so important. Thank you.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Dear SonAmerica,
I really dont have a problem with gay folks getting married. In fact, I think they should be able to!
So, I will not join your crusade, but rather vote to defeat Prop 8.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Separate but unequal? I thought we got past those forms of discrimination years ago. Prop 8 is clearly unconstitutional, specifically relating to the 14th Amendment.
September 28th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
SonAmerica,
Can you please explain to me why allowing gay people to be married and use the word “marriage” devalues your own marriage (presumably you are a man married to a woman)?
I don’t understand the logic that says we have to “preserve the definition of the institution.” How does allowing gay people to marry degrade the definition of the institution? How does it hurt you (or anyone else) to have someone else use the word — and the rights that go with it?
I’m guessing your logic is based on something said in the Bible, as that’s how most people justify this opinion. Please correct me if I’m wrong on that.
To my knowledge, Atheists, Agnostics and people of just about any religion may get married without a religious ceremony. I’m Jewish and married to an Atheist for 28+ years, and I’m pretty sure our marriage is OK with the state. Marriage is a legal contract, not a religious one. So the bible should not be the final authority on what constitutes the definition of marriage.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:15 am
SonAmerica, you state that gay marriage would devalue your marriage. Do you think the heterosexual couples who have shot gun weddings by Elvis impersonators and get divorced two hours later in Las Vegas understand the sanctity of marriage? If you are so worried about “saving marrige” then perhaps you should create a constitutional amendment to make divorce illegal. Good luck in the games! I would like to know which organization you represent? Is it the hateful LDS organization or the Jesus addicted Evangelicals?
October 15th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Dear Vote No on Hate,
Homosexuality is socially unacceptable and immoral. It is an attack on the family and headship by the man.
We need to restore anti-sodomy laws and take care of both civil unions and gay marriage in one blow.
Vote for Charles! http://www.charles4council.com
Or join the Minutemen… http://www.goldengateminutemen.com and we’ll get this town back on track.
October 15th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Charles,
I thought I’d chime in to say that I couldn’t disagree with you more… on homosexuality being “socially unacceptable and immoral”, an “attack on the family”, as well as your desire to “restore anti-sodomy laws”.
I am all for tolerating people’s views on gay relationships- pro and con. I understand the frustration that comes with being forced to accept gay marriages as mainstream, when we should only be expected to tolerate the differences between us.
Even though I am likely one of the most conservative respondents to this blog, I really don’t see a place for you in my city government.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Dear Friends (Gays & Straights): its official thanks to all of the “Homophobic” blacks, Hispanics, republicans and democrats alike who made sure this gay ban on marriage had not passed in Florida, California and other States that my partner of 10 years and I will not have equal rights. And there seems to be a whole lot more than I thought - look at the number of votes! It’s a sad day for us.
What did gay people ever do to them? You would think that since Hispanics & blacks are a minority they would be understanding and tolerant of ALL minorities, but here’s the proof that they are not! Everyone just cares about their own cause. I can’t understand how hypocritical those people are who preach tolerance towards all races and people and claim to be religious and then you vote against this. How does that make any sense? The bible says marriage is btwn a man and a woman, OK that’s the excuse, well then the bible needs to be revised to not say they are tolerant of all humanity, because the way that it is now is a contradiction.
I just hope for their own homophobia that they are never faced with a close friend, family member, a son/daughter being gay, it is only when it hits close to home that people realize how hateful they are being towards human kind. BEING GAY IS NOT CONTAGIOUS IT DOESN’T SPREAD LIKE A DISEASE, WHY ARE WE ALL SO SCARED OF AND HATE THE THINGS WE DON’T UNDERSTAND?!!! I’m still hopeful that I will live to see the day when we leave all of these hate prejudices and biases behind and REALLY become tolerant of all humanity, whether they are female, black, yellow, gay or straight!
Sorry if this email comes-off as offensive (to some) and defensive, but I just had to vent and share my side of the token.
The bottom line is that the title of marriage is not what is important to me. As apparent by the state of most modern marriages and the rate of divorce-the ritual means absolutely nothing to the success of a union.
I don’t ask for much-I don’t expect for people to consider us a “normal” relationship and teach their kids that there is nothing wrong with being gay nor do I expect to be able to walk down the street holding hands with my girlfriend without getting dirty looks-I know the world will not evolve that much at least not in our lifetime. What matters to me, however, is that if the person I love is ever lying sick or dying in a hospital bed, the law forbids me the right to see her and care for her just because we are not blood relatives or married. That if I ever fall into a coma, she will not be able to make medical decisions on my behalf or carry out my wishes, etc. These are the kind of basic rights that I ask for.
I don’t think it’s much to ask since conveniently enough I am considered a full citizen when it’s time to tax me for my hard work and when my tax dollars are used to fund the public schools where other people’s children can get an education and to build the streets and parks where other “normal” straight couples can walk hand in hand. So I am too “immoral” to be given basic civil rights but my “immorality” is conveniently overlooked when it comes time for me to contribute to their society. I have the same obligations as every other citizen but do not enjoy the same privileges.
It’s clear from recent outcome that African-Americans were never fighting for “civil” rights but only for “black” rights. They, along with Hispanics, are the most stridently bigoted, hate-mongering groups in our society. They came out to show their support for Mr. Obama as a symbol of leaving the hatred of the past behind and ushering in a new era of “change”. But I guess the only thing they changed was their minds when they got in that voting booth-their bigotry overtook them and they dealt a severe blow to human rights by supporting hate-based legislation.
Ironically, this amendment will have a greater impact on straight couples than gay ones. You see gay marriage was already illegal in Florida so all this amendment did was eliminate the few rights that other non-married (straight) couples had. Unfortunately, many of the victims of this legislation will be our senior citizens who tend not to remarry when they couple in an effort to safeguard their benefits. For the sake of sending a reminder to us gays about how much they hate us, they ended up hurting their own.