Love not 8
Jess and I went to an anti-prop-8 march last night. There were lots of people out (some estimates say 7,000 -> 10,000 people!) and a great atmosphere. It was a giant party. We walked with candles down University Ave and shouted and held up “No on 8″ banners and such.
Those of you not in California may not know about Proposition 8. It’s a proposed amendment to the California Constitution that would only recognize marriages between a man and woman in the state. It’s something I simply can’t support for two major reasons:
- I can’t support ammending the constitution to discriminate against people based on anything they were born with: skin color, hair curliness, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
- I need to know that my children will be able to marry, with the same rights and responsibilities their parents enjoy, whomever they fall in love with.
I’m also quite discouraged by the Yes on 8 campaign’s reasoning behind their proposal:
California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman. Earlier this year, four activist judges based in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, legalizing same-sex marriage.
I’m not sure how kind of thinking comes up:
- These judges were never considered “activist” until they did something the campaign disagreed with.
- The judge’s job is to uphold the state constitution, which they’ve done the best they know how.
- There is precedent (the 1948 Perez v. Sharp case) that “marriage is a fundamental right and that laws restricting that right must not be based solely on prejudice”. That’s why prop 22 failed, not because they want to overturn the people’s vote, but because the people voted yes on a law that is illegal.
The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters; it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision.
In fact that is not what happened. Prop 22 is what was redefining marriage; overturning prop 22 returned it’s definition to what it’s been for decades in the state of California.
For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners.
Indeed. [Begin sarcasm] I am shocked, shocked, to think that schools will be required to teach what is legal and what is not in the state of California [End sarcasm]. Further; being a product of public education in California I cannot remember a time when marriage was discussed in any great detail. Further, if you fiercely oppose anything taught in school (sex education comes to mind) you can have your child pulled during the material you find offensive. California law has guaranteed that right for years.
By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.”
If by “any kind” of marriage you mean one of the three possible combinations: man-man, man-woman, woman-woman.
This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.
This final line irritates me the most. It has to be the most base form of thinking in the entire analysis. There are precisely two people that can undermine the value of any marriage: the couple. Nobody else has that power. Only the couple can make a marriage work. Only the couple can break it. Only the couple can make it stronger and beautiful and something to marvel at. I am simply disgusted to think that the Yes on 8 campaign belives it has any influence what so ever into the strength or value of my marriage. Their audacity is beyond compare.
Vote YES on Proposition 8 to overturn the outrageous Supreme Court decision and restore the definition of marriage that was approved by over 61% of voters.
I can’t argue with this; that’s exactly what Prop 8 will do. It will also tie the hands of the court in a way that cannot be challenged without another proposition to overturn this amendment (think of ending prohibition).
Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else.
In California, Yes on 8 is changing the definition of marriage for everyone else. That is the very essense of Prop 8.
