Yes on California's Proposition 8

On November 4th the country votes for the next President of the United States; in California the voters will also be deciding where they stand on Proposition 8. I've been learning more about this from friends, the news, and from blog posts of my cousin Gina. I've looked into both the ProtectMarriage.com and the NoOnProp8.com websites to try to get both sides of the story. Even though I don't live in California, I thought I'd post my thoughts in case anyone from California happened to read this.

First of all, let me say that I am 100% against any form of discrimination regardless of who it may be directed towards (race, gender, sexual preferences, etc.). The ProtectMarriage.com website talks about discrimination and how it's not a driving force for the proposition. "Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, 'domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits' as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions. Proposition 8 WILL NOT change this." In fact, I imagine Proposition 8 is one the most straight-forward, easiest to understand referendums ever voted on; it consists of 14 words to be added to the State Constitution "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."


The back-story to the whole issue is that in 2000, California's Proposition 22 (the same 14 words, this time within legislation rather than the state constitution) passed by a margin of 61% to 38% (over 4 million voters agreed with the proposition). In May 2008, the California Supreme Court (the voice of 4 un-elected judges) overturned the proposition as well as a 1977 law to make same-sex marriages legal within the state.

Some may say 'what's the big deal, what does legalizing gay marriage matter to anyone besides the two getting married?' I've learned that the answer is 'quite a bit'.

- 1st grade children in California were recently taken on a school field trip to witness the lesbian wedding of their teacher (5 months after the State Supreme Court decision). California law requires health classes to address marriage, however the administrators who were asked could not recall any students ever having been taken on a field trip to witness a wedding between a man and a woman, even though the state law mandating the discussion of marriage has been in effect for years.

- School children of all ages must legally be taught that same-sex and traditional marriage are the same thing, regardless of the personal beliefs of the families involved. The school systems, who have care of our children for much of the day, are legally required to teach that same-sex marriage is morally acceptable (and morally equal to traditional marriage), again regardless of the personal beliefs of the families.

- Kindergartners in Massachusetts (where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004) were given a 'diversity packet' which included a book that teaches about same-sex households. Parents who requested to be notified when this topic was being discussed and to be allowed to opt their kids out (akin to kids being opted out of sex-ed class) were informed that this was not a 'parental notification issue'. One father, who said he was willing to stay at the office until they were more willing to accommodate the parents of the 5-6 year old children in the school's care, was arrested.

- A Catholic orphanage in the UK closed its doors because of Homosexuality Equality laws that would have forced them to provide adoptions to same-sex couples. Also, Catholic Charities in Boston, MA has already been forced to stop providing adoption services. There are many orphanages and adoption agencies that are religiously based/funded in the U.S./California, what will happen to those agencies and the children they represent if the agencies are forced to choose between either placing children in homes that don't meet their religious moral standards, or closing their doors? In fact, the LDS church's Family Services for the New England area is now based out of New Hampshire rather than Massachusetts specifically for this reason.

- Legalized same-sex marriages introduces the possibility of lawsuits against churches who won't host or officiate at those weddings. It also opens the door to lawsuits against churches who preach against same-sex relationships, potentially calling the sermons 'hate speech'. The 'No On Prop 8' website says that Prop 8 has no direct bearing on potential lawsuits, and they are right. But anyone familiar with legal proceedings and rulings will understand the potential that this precedent will set. Legal rulings are frequently based on precedents, allowing the State Supreme Court's decision to stand would set such a precedent (even in other states).

- Religious schools that provide housing for married students may be legally obligated to provide housing for same-sex couples, regardless of the religion's spiritual beliefs and teachings.

- Photographers will be legally obligated to photograph same-sex weddings, doctors will be legally obligated to perform artificial insemination for same-sex couples, and other professions may be legally obligated as well or face charges of 'discrimination', all regardless of the professional's religious beliefs and irrespective of the fact that there are other photographers, doctors, etc. who are willing to provide the requested services.


Other notes of interest:

- The 'No On Prop 8' website says "In California, we let people decide what is best for themselves – without government interference." However, this whole issue is about the government over-ruling the will of the people. The people made their decision, and by a margin of almost 2-to-1 voted to prohibit same-sex marriages, it was then the government who interfered and reversed this. The system is designed to work in a way that the government follows the will of the people, not the other way around.

- Another quote from the 'No On Prop 8' site, "It’s not the government’s place to tell couples who have been together for years whether or not they are allowed to marry." I have a very hard time with this, claiming that the government should not limit the availability of marriage opens a whole can of worms. Why stop with couples, what about 3 or 4 people who have all been 'together' for years, can the government block those marriages? What about the laws requiring parental consent for under-age weddings? If the government shouldn't try to regulate marriage, then what right do they have to 'discriminate' based on age?

- Ultimately this is not just an issue that affects homosexual couples; it affects kids, families, churches, adoption agencies, orphanages, professionals, businesses, and more.


One last thing I wanted to mention. When our founding fathers worked to create a system of checks and balances in our country, they created three branches of government (taking inspiration from prior civilizations/governments dating back to Ancient Greece/Rome). The first branch is the Executive Branch (with such offices as the President of the United States), this branch enforces laws. Second is the Legislative Branch, Congress, which creates/writes the laws. Third is the Judicial Branch (judges) which interprets the law. Members of the Judicial Branch are appointed, not elected.

The boundaries of the Judicial Branch to interpret laws has increasingly become vague and frequently crossed. These appointed judges on the California State Supreme Court, by overturning not only the people's referendums (Proposition 22) but also the legislated law (the 1977 state law defining marriage as between a man and woman), have overstepped their bounds and have effectively created/written their own law. It is the responsibility of the people to ensure that each branch of government maintains its boundaries and to ensure that our country is governed by the will of the people.

As I said before, I have no desire to discriminate and proponents of same-sex marriages have every right to pursue legislation granting them validation of marriage; however this must be pursued through the proper channels, not through bizarre over-turnings of the will of the people by out-of-bounds appointees. Keeping this in mind, I encourage everyone to vote Yes on Proposition 8. If you don't live in California, feel free to pass this blog post along to those who might.

Yes on Prop 8, for the rights of all.

------------------------

Update: My Aunt Jenny just posted a similar blog entry, but included an excellent article and video that I wanted to share as well.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191
http://tinyurl.com/69lu3p

Thanks Jenny!

Labels: family, politics

posted by Brett at 10:19 PM