Recently wed Ellen Degeneres is joining the ranks of Brad Pitt and Steven Spielberg in speaking out against the proposition in California known as the “Marriage Protection Act,” which would effectively overturn the recent decision to allow same-sex civil unions in the state. Ellen took to her blog on the Warner Brothers web site, begging fans to vote down the act.
You know how usually I talk about cell phones or kitty cats or cheese pizza… well, this is sorta like that… without the cell phones, the cats, or the pizza.
There’s a California Proposition on the ballot that’s a little confusing. It’s Proposition 8. It’s called, “The California Marriage Protection Act” — but don’t let the name fool you. It’s not protecting anyone’s marriage. Not yours. Not mine.
The wording of Prop 8 is tricky. It’s like if someone asked you, “You don’t want dessert, right?” But you do want dessert so you say, “Yes,” which really means you don’t want dessert. And if you say, “No,” which means you do want dessert — it sounds like you don’t. Either way, you don’t get what you want. See — confusing. Just like Prop. 8.
So, in case I haven’t made myself clear, I’m FOR gay marriage. And in order to protect that right — please VOTE NO on Proposition 8. And now that you’re informed, spread the word. I’m begging you. I can’t return the wedding gifts — I love my new toaster.
[From Ellen Degeneres’ Warner Bros. Blog]
I’m curious as to why this proposition is coming up now, after the California Legislature and Supreme Court have already approved same-sex civil unions and the rights that go along with it in a very lengthy battle. This has already been left to the voters of the state once, in the 2000 election, in which 61% voted against this right. The Supreme Court overturned that vote, deeming it unconstitutional, earlier this year. But conservative voters in the state vowed to get it back on the ballot in November.
It looks like this is shaping up to be one of those vicious circles in which voters and the Supreme Court are going to keep canceling each other out. I’m sure it’s costing the state’s taxpayers a lot of money to keep holding these votes, then these lengthy court battles. Aren’t there a lot more pressing issues these folks could be spending that money on, such as education and the environment? The smog in that state and medical waste washing up on its beaches are a lot more harmful than some gay men and women getting married. I’m sure that if these conservative voters spent half as much time and energy focused on California’s dirty air and water, the state would be sparkling clean by now. And if the Proposition to “protect marriage” does get approved, what does that mean for the thousands of same-sex couples who have legally joined together this year, such as Ellen and Portia De Rossi, or George Takei and his partner of 21 years? It doesn’t seem fair to negate their status now.
Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi are shown on the beach in Malibu on 8/31/08. Credit: Fame Pictures
I think the rest of the world must be laughing at the United States who is supposedly the number one superpower but is so incredibly backward about stuff like gay marriage, or even smoking a bit of weed. Not progressive at all. It’s a real joke to see such a backward nation in the 21st century.
Don’t you see? If gay people are allowed to get married, the WHOLE universe will collapse into itself and crush us all to bits in the process. See? Let me explain. God hates gay people but he LOVES hypocritical, bigoted, hateful religious people who shun and try to harm all who don’t believe what they believe. Do you understand now? 🙄
Like I say EVERY time this comes up(sorry for bein’ a broken record), WHY can’t these controlling religious freaks let other people live their lives the way they choose?
Don’t worry, crazies, I’m sure that whatever god you believe in will certainly take care of these “sinners” in whatever way he/she sees fit. YOU can go mind your own business now. Maybe go talk to your priest or pastor or whatever and tell him to stop molesting the children, how about? Hmm? THAT might be a little more worth your effort.
Actuallllly, Leandra…. Ellen doesn’t even need to do this because support for the gay marriage ban is way down and probably will NOT pass, meaning California will most likely remain the second state to continue allowing gay marriage.
Love Ellen and support gay marriage, but she’s so totally behind if this is a recent blog. They changed the wording of prop 8 already, so her blogging about the wording is innacurate.
MSat, the prop is coming out now because it’s a direct response to the Supreme Court decision. It’s largely the effort of some out of state religious groups. It would ammend our state constitution to outlaw gay marriage, overiding the court decision.
As proud Californian I’m a little offended at the “It looks like this is shaping up to be one of those vicious circles in which voters and the Supreme Court are going to keep canceling each other out” statement. Many of the people trying to get this back on our ballott are NOT from our state and have no business supporting it and throwing money at it. Support is overwhelmingly down and it probably will not pass.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/17/BATM12VSRA.DTL&tsp=1
“..what does that mean for the thousands of same-sex couples who have legally joined together this year?..”
Which is why I don’t understand how this proposition could possibly be approved?
Hearing ya, notperfect! I don’t believe these heteros that claim gay marriage will somehow “devalue” their own vows. Their marriages are in big trouble if that’s a real issue for them. More love begets more love and what’s not to love about that?
I sure don’t understand the rationale of folks who say allowing gay marriage undermines the institution of heterosexual marriage. The wording of this bill is a perfect example – “Marriage Protection.” In what way is the union of a heterosexual couple threatened because some gay folks were able to get legally married, as opposed to just living together? How is one couple’s heterosexual marriage protected by not allowing some other, uninvolved folks to also get married?
As far as I’m concerned, the whole gay marriage thing is obvious – of course gay people should be allowed to get legally married. Why in the world not?
I hope you’re right, elisha!
This will happen everytime the courts decide to rule something without the consent of the people. If the people in California want to honor gay marriage, they will defeat this proposal. Checks and balances people…this is how our country works.
❗
I think they should ban heterosexual marriage. At this point, people take marriage for granted, it is meaningless. Divorce rates in this country are disgusting. Let those who will truly cherish it – You know, the ones people seem to think aren’t worthy of it – be the only ones allowed to do it. Then in 50 years or so open up the option to everyone. Then we can all appreciate it again. Or why not all together just say screw marriage? Screw the diamond ring status symbols, screw the deed, why can’t we just all declare our love for someone and remain with them forever without the piece of paper that declares such and such belongs to you? 🙄
But that’s not what this is about. It’s about the legal rights that marriage gives gay couples – ie. the same ones enjoyed by married hetero couples – eg. property & inheritance rights, life insurance & pension benefits, next-of-kin recognition, parental rights in the event of separation/divorce etc etc.
This is about parity, regardless of sexuality.
Although I agree with you and think it’s the stupidest thing ever (I’m totally for gay marriage), there actually is a point to the proposition.
The idea behind a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is that it negates the court’s decision. If it’s part of the constitution, it can’t be unconstitutional anymore, right? Then, the justices are required to uphold the constitution of California, so any attempts to make gay marriage legal would have to be done through abolishing the amendment. This is the ultimate goal of the right-wing people who are so opposed to this issue that they try to make it a priority for everyone. It’s stupid, but if they win, it works, which is just scary.
I hear what you’re saying, Samantha, but the reality of the situation is that “little piece of paper” that grants a lot of social and legal rights to the chumps that signed it; Including tax breaks, social security benefits (heh), insurance coverage, hospital visitation rights, etc. . .
Whatever your feelings about the institution of marriage, you have to admit it’s ridiculous to withhold these basic legal rights from a loving, committed homosexual couple, when so many hetero douches use and abuse these rights for their own personal gain. Everybody should have the right to be a douche-bag! – Wait, no, that’s not my point.- My point is, is better the dialogue we have on this issue, the more Americans can evaluate their own conception of marriage, and perhaps the quality of married life will escalate for all parties (hetero, homo and mixed).
I don’t even have to post. Notprfect did it for me.
Say what you will about Alec Baldwin, but he made the best clarification I’ve heard on this issue in a long time. In response to his brother Stephen (who is a bible “fundamentalist” and against gay marriage), Alec said that the bible does NOT say marriage is between a man and a woman, as so many of those against gay marriage tend to claim. What the bible says is that marriage is for the procreation between a man and a woman, and if you’re going to tell gay people they can’t get married then you should also tell heterosexual people who are either unable to have children or who choose not to have children that they can’t get married either. But we won’t do that, will we?
I am so glad I am not a Californian. The way I see it, back in 2000, the *people* decided against gay marriage. And now the Californian Supreme Court, in all of its enlightened, european thinking ( sarcasm there), decided it was their duty to negate the will of millions? I hope that ballot measure passes with flying colors and that the court realizes ” hey, maybe we should dictate the constitution and not legislate our feelings”.I’m ok with the whole gay thing in Massassachusetts. The east coast deserves what’s coming to them. But California is to close to Alaska for my liking especially since we are also under the 9th CCoA.
Go Palin!
I don’t why people think that religous or moral beliefs based on religion have any basis in the talks about marriage or civil unions. When you get married it doesn’t cout till you go and register yourself with the state. Doesn’t matter how many church services you have, you’re not married till the state says so. When you get divorce what do you do? You file with the state, not the church. Remember that founding basis of our country that keeps religion and the state separate? Yeah. This is basic high school government.
What is it, exactly, that us “East Coast” people have coming to us? I am breathless with anticipation.
Also, the CA Supreme Court didn’t just randomly turn over that referendum on a whim. It wasn’t like the judges were just hanging out on the patio one night, kicking back a few beers and decided to overturn a law. There was a court case, filed by – you guessed it – people! Who live in California! And guess what else? They won that case.
As for Alaska, could you please take Palin back? We’re all set with her. Thanks!
David V does not understand that our laws are not voted into effect by popular demand but are based on the constitution and how it is interpreted. Duh.
I spent Sunday afternoon holding up Vote No On Prop 8 signs, and I live in California. Most of the people were positive, but some were not. I really hope it doesn’t go through.
you would think conservatives would be much more concerned with the enormous economic crisis we are facing right now…just another example of religious hysteria at its best…i am so fed up with religious hatred being masked as something else.
if a couple were married prior to the the ‘new law’ if the anti-marriage thingy goes through those marriages would be grandfathered in by law. Just as when a state raises the drinking age they do not recind the rights of those already enjoying the law but grandfather them in.
it isn’t anyone’s business what two consenting adults do.
David V. you are a loser.. God bless you.. you poor soul
Equal taxes = equal rights. Unreal to deny a segment of the tax paying population the same rights as anyone else. Not even sure why this stupid Prop. 8 came up in the first place.
“Ntprfect” – You try to come across as very passionate about your ‘argument’ but you just come across as an idiot.
Voice your opinion if you wish, but to call anyone that doesn’t agree with gay marriage a “religious freak”, well you’re just as narrow-minded as you believe them to be.
And that jab at priest and pastors “molesting the children”, WHAT are you on about you ignorant little person?? That is not relevant in the SLIGHEST, and the way you portray it as being something that occurs regularly is COMPLETLEY unintelligent and just plain ridiculous.
Next time calm down, get your facts right, and THEN attempt to write something remotely true. 🙄
The lefties sure can dish it out but they cry like babies anytime any of their view points are challenged. Boo-hoo.
Who’s crying?
I’m still waiting for a non-biblical explanation of why gay men and women should be denied this right. Religious beliefs should have no place in legislation.
Its a very confusing time for your country, isnt it?
“The California Marriage Protection Act” is confusing, and I bet the law makers are even more confused.
In this day and age why is there so much confusion? its California! home of movie makers and Britney Spears! owpps! again..home of movie makers and Arny the Governor! oooowww!!……..:?
its like yah all stuck in a time worp! what with everything going On, politics, wall street, cheating husbands!!
its a wonder theres so much confusion, its all about commitment.
This is a very sad time in our country. Prop 8 is not about disliking homosexuals or our inability to be tolerant and/or accepting of them. It is about defending something that we believe to be true that was originally instituted by God. But I guess if you don’t believe in God, then it doesn’t matter. And if you think that you can redefine God’s character to fit your own needs, then you are sadly ignorant as well. Just because I say that the sky is red doesn’t make it red. God is God and His character and who he is will remain the same no matter how much people try to fit him into their little lifestyle. We oppose gay marriage because it is what we believe in, and believe that it is not what God desires – we are not prejudice towards people who are gay, we just don’t believe in the lifestyle and have every right to voice our opinion with regards to our belief – that is called freedom of speech – YES ON PROP 8