I’ve had this website built and sitting around for a week or so, just waiting for me to post something. This evening, like those that preceded it, was destined to go post-less until I saw something on the way home that absolutely infuriated me and inspired me to write. I’m not an intrinsically angry person and I also won’t deny anyone their beliefs, whether I think they’re outrageous or not, but I will not stand for public demonstrations promoting intolerance. When I drove by at 5:30 P.M. today, a group of about 30 individuals were posted on three of the four corners at the intersection of Jeffrey and Walnut in Irvine. The were all holding “Yes on Prop. 8″ posters with blatant misinformation printed on them, trying to incite the passers-by to join their hateful cause. Normally I don’t feel so passionately about ballot issues, but this seems like obvious discrimination to me and I’ve yet to hear a logical argument to support a “yes” vote.
Let’s begin with the language of the actual initiative, as it’s very straight-forward. The ballot measure is titled “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” The actual title states that we, as Californians, are being given the opportunity to strip rights away from a specific group of people. If a “yes” vote passes, the state constitution will be modified to reflect that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” How, in good conscience, can any of us vote to take away the rights of another human while most of us will continue to enjoy that same freedom?
The proponents of this measure begin with the basic presupposition that marriage needs to be “preserved.” In order to determine what they’d like us to save, it bears exploring what marriage actually means. I’m under the belief that there are two definitions of marriage as they relate to our society:
1) The religious union of two individuals as defined by the tenets of their faith and the rituals and doctrine of the church to which the couple belongs.
2) The formal union of two individuals as recognized under state law to which specific benefits and civil rights are legally extended.
There are obviously people who believe in both of these definitions or just the second one (or neither, perhaps), but in terms of passing laws in our country, the first definition can not be used as grounds to legislate. Yet, in their own promotional materials, which ignore the fact that being gay and belonging to an organized religion are not mutually exclusive, ProtectMarriage.com claims, “God himself is the author of marriage. Its meaning is written in the very nature of man and woman as they come from the hand of the Creator.” God’s word, regardless of your faith (or lack thereof), is not a valid argument for voting “yes” on Proposition 8 and modifying the state’s constitution.
While on the topic of religion, there is misinformation floating about that if Prop. 8 does not pass, then churches will lose their tax-exempt status or be forced to marry same-sex couples. Even after the state Supreme Court ruling earlier this year, churches have always reserved the right to marry or not marry any couple they see fit. Catholic churches and Jewish synagogues, for instance, typically only marry couples that both belong to that faith. The Supreme Court decision [PDF] says, “affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.” Churches will not be negatively affected by legalized same-sex marriage in Calfornia and they do not need to be protected by a “yes” vote on Proposition 8.
The next argument I’ve heard is related to the education children receive regarding the definition of marriage. ProtectMarriage.com argues, “State law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code ยง 51890.) If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.” This statement is correct, but notice the “may” and “could” in those sentences. There is nothing in the same-sex marriage ruling or Proposition 8 that mentions education at all. In fact, California law already respects and protects parents’ rights to pull their child from any health or family instruction that they disagree with. Childhood education is not a valid reason to vote “yes” on Proposition 8.
With the opposition’s rationalization dispelled, it becomes clear that this is an issue of limiting the rights of a group of Californian citizens based on disagreement with the lifestyle they’ve “chosen” to lead. I will refrain from sharing my personal thoughts on childhood education, tax benefits to churches, or the place of religion in our society because they are fundamentally irrelevant to this issue. I encourage those on the fence and those who are planning to vote “yes” to really consider what’s on the table here. Please don’t deny any couples the rights of next-of-kin privileges, social security benefits, joint taxes, health insurance, and inheritance, among many others. Instead of working to “protect” marriage, let’s focus on protecting each other and our collective future by eliminating the walls we’ve built between each other and working together in harmony toward a better tomorrow. Vote “no” on discrimination.
I will leave you with this song:
I look into the mirror for evil that just does not exist
I don’t see what they seeTry to control the pull of one magnet to another
[MP3] Tegan and Sara – I Was Married
Yeah, I worry that this is going to pass like the other props similar to it. I don’t understand why people let the whole gay marriage thing intrude on their own lifestyles so much. The arguments in favor just don’t make any sense if you look at the legalities of it, and also at what is already being taught in schools right now.
The thing that gets me the most is amending the constitution to remove rights. I just brushed up on my constitutional amendments to double check (US – I know this is for the state, but i think the purposes are the same), and THE ONLY other amendment that said a CITIZEN COULD NOT do something was No. 18, prohibition, and that was repealed in the end. All other amendments say citizens CAN DO this or that, or clarifies a process or says the gov’t can’t do something to a citizen. LIke I said, I am pretty sure the state constitution is based on the same principles, and so using it to remove rights is preposterous!!
@Bryce: You’re totally right about the US constitution: it’s typically amended only to promote new rights that weren’t previously specified or weren’t relevant in the societies of the time. That’s not to say that our federal government and our state haven’t passed legislation that hinders the rights of individuals. Without going back to the major civil rights issues of the last century, here are some big ones related to the issue at hand:
The so-called Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, states that a legal union is recognized as only that between a man and a woman, thus laying the foundation for future denial of rights to same-sex partnerships.
In our state, voters approved Proposition 22, which changed the language of the California Civil Code to define legally-recognized marriage as that between a man and a woman. What’s interesting here is that before 1977, the law called marriage “a personal relation arising out of a civil context, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary.” Sounds okay to me. This was, coincidentally, the first election we were old enough to vote in and I clearly remember voting “no” on this measure.
What’s apparent to me, however, is that this problem will most likely be resolved with time. Our generation is far more tolerant than that of our grandparents, as evidenced by the absence of segregation. Their generation was far more tolerant than that of their grandparents, as evidenced by the abolition of slavery. But I don’t want to be remembered as part of a generation of Californians that voted to write bigotry into the state constitution; unfortunately, there seems to be no place for logic or compassion amongst the electorate.