Elections in California are less than a month away. Among the items on the ballot is Proposition 8, a proposed ban on gay marriage. If you are a Californian voter who is against such a ban and want to spread the word, then you might be interested in No On 8, a web site dedicated against Proposition 8. It explains what's in the proposition and why it should be voted against. There is also material you can use to show your support, and for those who can afford to do so and have the desire, you can also donate to the campaign.
Not being religious, I find religious arguments against gay marriage to be empty. But it's another thing when the arguments are based on biology. Some people argue that marriage is for procreation, so marriages between same-sex couples should be illegal. Obviously, being a good parent is irrelevant since no one is arguing for banning marriages between heterosexual couples who are bad parents, not to mention that all the actual evidence points to no difference between children raised by different-sex parents or same-sex parents.
Events sometimes tempt me to think that religious people, especially those in the priestly profession, blindly follow authority like sheep. But every once in a while, I hear a nice story which reminds me that deeply religious people can be as moral and ethical as any other person. After the start of same-sex marriages in California, certain clergy members are conflicted about not being allowed to preside over such ceremonies by their church. They look at the happiness from same-sex marriage ceremonies and would like to contribute to such happiness for other gay couples, but they can't because the rules laid down by their religion forbids it.
It's a good reminder that the deeply religious are not just motivated by what other people say about their religion, but also by an inner empathy and a morality influenced by society. I should always keep in mind that religious bigots do not speak for all of the religious.
A proposed constitutional amendment managed to get on the ballot. Considering that an initiative needs get more than half a million signatures to become a ballot measure, it's slightly depressing to think that so many people want to restrict the happiness of others. It would be understandable if gay marriages could bring harm to society, but there's no real reason why this would be so.
What's more depressing is that a measure to ban gay marriages actually passed in 2000. I'll be charitable and assume that this was only because the whole concept was so new that people couldn't get their head around it. I'm definitely going to vote against the proposed amendment, and I have a feeling a lot more people would be agreeing with me come this November than in 2000.