In December 2005, Sir Elton John had a civil partnership ceremony in Windsor, England. You may be surprised with Elton John's reaction to California's proposition 8. He says he does not see why gays need to be married and that to him civil partnerships seem adequate. "We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage," he said. John went on to say, "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Who would have known that you would get a dose of common sense on Prop 8 from the world's most famous homosexual?
Tweet
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Sir Elton John's Response To Prop 8
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)
Elton John does not speak for the homosexual community. Further, why shouldn't they be allowed to wed?
ReplyDeleteI love this debate for two reasons. a) civil rights is always worth fighting for. b) we all know what the outcome will be: gay marriage will be legalized, and those who don't like it will continue to protest until they realize it's falling on deaf ears.
i don't know why i posted that as anonymous, it's me, steve from va. how's the family btw?
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that Elton John makes sense. "You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships." Why can't more people take this common sense approach?
ReplyDeleteAs a response to your comments about "civil rights"and your query about why they shouldn't be allowed to wed, I shall re-post part of my initial reaction to the Cal. Supreme Court ruling that had legalized gay marriage and which the people of California rightly rejected with Prop 8. Point 5 specifically deals with the "civil right" issue. I wrote the following:
1. This Is Social Liberalism By Judicial Fiat - This ruling came from none other than the Supreme Court of California, just as Massachusets allowed gay marriage by judicial fiat. Four justices (out of seven) should not be allowed to drastically change the entire definition of an institution that has existed for thousands of years of Judeo-Christian civilization and hundreds of years of American jurisprudence. Proponents of gay marriage cannot convince citizens of a single state to allow for marriage to be for those of the same sex. They have thus implemented the succesful tactic of running to the liberal courts to impose their will on the people. It is only through judicial activism that social liberals are enforcing their visions. This issue should be left up to the people of California to decide.
2. California, Via Popular Vote, Has Already Declared Marriage As Between Men and Women - Proposition 22 was passed reflecting the will of a strong majority of Californians. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000 with 61.4% in favor. The Proposition simply stated, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Yet the court violated the will of the people. Through democratic action and popular vote the people of the Golden State made their voices heard. I do not think it is the job of courts to redefine marriage especially when the will of the people of the State has been so clearly demonstrated. The people have spoken, let their word stand.
3. California Already Has Civil Unions - The issue in California is simply whether the term marriage should be extended to homosexuals. They already are afforded civil unions. So this is not an issue of obtaining some lost rights that heterosexuals have, but rather one dealing with what marriage itself means. Why judges should decide this is even more complexing.
4. Schwarzenegger Is Dead Wrong - Arnold Schwarzenegger responded to the court ruling saying, “I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. . . I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.” This governor has vetoed gay marriage legislation twice specifically because the legislature was acting against the will of the people as expressed in Prop 22. He said both times that he would like the issue left to voters or the courts. Why the legislature should be vetoed but the court supported for doing the same thing, namely violating the will of the people in Prop 22, is quite perplexing. He now fully supports the courts reinterpretation of marriage and further opposes any attempt to give the people a chance to respond through democratic means this November via a vote on a constitutional amendment. He previously acted as if his vetoes were a protection of the people's votes and voice, but now he is against allowing the people to be heard. This makes no sense at all.
5. Marriage Is Not A Civil Right - Marriage is certainly a matter of civil law. But it is not a civil right. The issue is what the government ought to do. The issue at hand is whether the basic assumptions, that in fact predated the law, about what constitutes marriage should be upheld. It is about whether the law is right or wrong. This being the case the issues of equal protection do not apply. Equal protection does not say anything about what constitutes marriage. Equal protection is about the law being applied equally to all. It is about equal rights under the law being afforded to all, not what the law is itself about. If violating equal protection meant not accommodating those who wanted to alter the understood meaning of the institution then anyone could make these ridiculous claims. Caretakers could claim to be married if they so wished. Business partners could claim to be married if it helped the business. Friends who live together could be married. A person should legally be able to have multiple spouses (and at least that has a historical basis in terms of marriage). Anyone could claim to be married to anyone, since apparently violating an individual's idea of what marriage ought to be is considered legal discrimination and a violation of some fundamental right. But the truth is that it cannot, because marriage has a specific definition. The law, based on their underlying assumptions and the definition of marriage, treats all citizens to whom it applies fairly. Blacks get married. Whites get married. Jews get married. Gentiles get married. Immigrants get married. Asians and Latinos get married. Believe it or not, gays can get married too, so long as they marry the opposite sex. But saying that because marriage doesn't include same-sex couples it is therefore a violation of equal protection is absurd. The law does not apply to them in the first place. If one wants to argue that marriage should have a completely new meaning, then a new law is necessary to bring about same-sex marriage. This is because it requires a redefinition of what marriage itself means.
Furthermore, it is nothing short of disgusting when gay activists use the the loaded term "civil right." The term alone brings about memories of the Black civil rights movement. Sometimes they go so far as to compare their cause to that noble movement. Homosexuals are not Blacks in the Jim Crow South. The laws of this land apply equally to gays, they did not apply equally to blacks. There are no signs saying "No Gays Allowed." To make these comparisons trivializes the history of segregation and racism.