Please don’t fuck this up.

<3jp

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 § 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 see

Try to control the pull of one magnet to another

[MP3] Tegan and Sara – I Was Married