Vote No on Prop 8

This past May, the California Supreme Court overturned existing legislation, legalizing same-sex marriage for its residents, making it only the second state in the country to do so. Obviously, a controversial decision like this one does not come without contention, so opponents of homosexual rights wrote Proposition 8, an amendment to the California Constitution "to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry." On Election Day, California voters will have the option to pass this amendment by majority rule.

As a proponent of personal choices and freedoms, I have no interest in denying someone the right to marry. Truthfully, at least presently, I'm not too wild about the concept of marriage, but if it's going to be legal for certain people to get married, then it should be legal for everyone to get married.

For a funny opinion on the matter, I defer to Wanda Sykes:


I assumed that California, arguably the liberalist state in the nation, felt the same way as Wanda and me on this issue and haven't paid attention to Prop 8. Last week, however, I read that recent polls show that Prop 8 is likely to pass, thereby re-outlawing same-sex marriage.

Currently, the boost in Prop 8's popularity, at least in large part, can be traced back to the LDS church. The church's leaders are urging their congregation to donate money and take action, with each member committing at least four hours a week, to make sure Prop 8 passes. This goes for Mormons in every single state, not just California, meaning there is money flowing in from all over the country, as well as thousands of out-of-state individuals phone banking to California residents, giving their deceptive facts to help sway the tide. Nearly half of all money collected in favor of Prop 8 has been generated by members of the LDS church.

The most outlandish (and therefore amusing) ad out is this one, which clearly relies on fear-mongering:

Mommy, I can marry a princess! Yup, she's totally gay. There's no helping her now. Advocates for Prop 8 rely on a few main talking points, none of which are particular sound:

Prop 8 supporters worry that students will be taught about same sex marriage in classrooms.

As is California state law, parents have the option to have their kids skip out of any and all health and family lessons, so parents can still delay their kids from learning about gay people for that additional period of time before they are introduced to the real world. Besides, as a former California public school teacher, I can assure you that kids don't learn much of anything these days anyway, so there's no reason to panic.

Prop 8 is not about intolerance. Most Prop 8 supporters actually love gay people. Besides, in California, same sex couples are already afforded many of the same rights as married people.

If Prop 8 proponents love gay people as much as they claim to, why don't they marry them? Sarcasm aside, the nuance is critical here. The fact is, domestic partnerships are not the same thing. This country has tried "separate but equal" in the past, and it was a joke of a policy. Our constitution protects equal rights for everyone; legalizing exceptions to this is unconstitutional. It is ridiculous to pretend you care about a group of people, while perpetuating discrimination toward this same group.

I support Prop 8 not out of hate, but because it is important to maintain the current definition of marriage.

If you've ever checked out a dictionary or tracked etymology, you'll find that words evolve (though, evidently, churches do not.) Words take on new meanings as society uses them differently. You can't just pass a law insisting that people only use the word marriage to refer to unions of people of the opposite sex, that's not how language works. In fact, the first two online dictionaries I checked are already defining marriage regardless of the gender of both people in the union: Merriam-Webster and Encarta Dictionary. If your church, or just you on a personal level, decide to maintain your own way of defining marriage, that so be it, that's your right as a human and language user. However, that doesn't grant you the right to make it a law.

Prop 8 promotes positive family values.

A lot has been made of the fact that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation. Firstly, the world is facing a population crisis: we do not need an institution existing solely for the purpose of reproducing. Secondly, we allow heterosexual infertile, post-menopausal, and impotent people to marry without question, should we reconsider this, too?

Besides, current laws do not prevent homosexual people from adopting/conceiving children. If having parents joined in marriage is in fact the better approach to parenting, why deprive children of this?

Plus, I don't have any data to support this supposition, but I'd hazard that gay people almost never have abortions. When a gay person becomes pregnant, you can pretty confidently assume that that person really wants that child.

Passing Prop 8 actually helps to maintain the distinction between church and state.

Is that so? Last I checked, I could go down to a courthouse and get married by an official without a religious affiliation. Where are the protests against when heterosexual couples of differing or no religious affiliation getting married? Marriage is very much interlocked with the American government. As long as the government grants rights and privileges to married couples, it should be subject to political decision-making. Churches would maintain the right to marry who they see fit, but the government would have the opportunity to exclude no one, just as it should be.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s ruling specifically states that this decision cannot “impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official or any other person.” Backers of Proposition 8 like to cite examples from Massachusetts as proof that religious freedoms are lost. These comparisons are unfair because Massachusetts never made a stipulation about religion, whereas the California law clearly has a safeguard in place.

Taking the church's exclusionary definition of marriage and making it a governmental policy, thus applying it to people who do not practice that religion is the real violation of separation of church and state.

.
.
.

In high school, my history teacher once conducted an informal poll asking whether we thought the country should permit same sex marriage. Most of my peers agreed to allow it, but I raised my hand in the "not sure" category. While I thought it was the fair thing to do to let homosexuals marry, it made me uncomfortable, hence I was unsure. From my perspective, my own unfamiliarity and hesitancy was enough reason to limit the rights of others. (Subsequent encounters and life experiences drastically changed my opinion.)

In this society, I think we're all at least a little homophobic -- including many gay people. We hear so much homophobic rhetoric that, in spit of our better judgment and intentions, we can't help but consider it a "lesser" lifestyle. Until we give it a fair shot, it won't seem normal, because we're not permitting it to be normal.

I believe this discomfort to be the real reason for people to support Prop 8. There are people who are admittedly uncomfortable with the institution of gay marriage and hide behind a few distorted facts to rationalize their position in manners that don’t rely solely upon intolerance. From here, other individuals who are also uncomfortable gladly latch on to these facts, championing them as issues that are deeply important to them; “it’s not that I’m homophobic, it’s that I care about X, Y, and Z.” While I think the aforementioned X, Y, and Z are stretches at best, let’s suppose for a second each of these reasons was entirely legitimate. Why then do these reasons trump the personal freedoms that the Constitution guarantees? Our laws are designed, ideally anyway, to protect the rights of all, including minority groups. Conceding some issues is a small price to pay in order to promote justice for all.

The biggest issue seems to be that people are terrified that gay marriage will lead to restrictions of religious freedom, although religious freedom is clearly protected by the Constitution. These two issues do not have to be at odds with one another. Permitting government sanctioned same-sex marriages does not and should not have effects on religious institutions. The purported fear by religious proponents of Prop 8 is that it puts them one step closer to having the government dictate their private policies. In effect, these people are promoting Prop 8 to preemptively prevent potential lawsuits and other related battles. Obviously, I can’t promise that these conflicts wouldn’t occur, but I would view that as a violation of the church’s rights as established by this country, and would imagine that most citizens would agree and fight to protect these rights. That said, it is wholly unfair to choose deprive a certain group of people of equal status in order to look out for one’s own self first instead. Ideally, we should grant the equality to same-sex couples now, and then, if circumstances necessitate, similarly fight for groups, religious and otherwise, who have their own rights challenged. We can find a way to both reject Prop 8 and still protect the rights of everyone.

I hold out hope that one day society will be embarrassed by our efforts to legalize inequality toward individuals of certain sexual orientations. Our past digressions toward marginalized groups look increasingly stupid as time passes, and I’m betting that this, too, will be a blemish in our history. Let’s not make ourselves look ignorant for any longer than necessary.

No on Prop 8.