California’s Prop 8
Although I go to school in Texas (who’da thunk it), my permanent address is in California and I am registered to vote there. My mom sent me the Offical Voter Information Guide along with a bunch of birthday presents (PS I love my mommy!). There are some interesting ones, and this being my first election as a legal voter, I want to make informed decisions on some of these issues. It’s a little hard because I’m not in California right now and I can’t feel out the general feelings and impact of the various propositions. There’s one, however, that makes me laugh my ass off while also trembling in fear: Prop 8.
Prop 8 would eliminate the recently, hard-won right of same-sex couples to marry. Here’s what the info guid says:
Summary: Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
What Your Vote Means
Yes: A YES vote on this measure means: The California Constitution will specify that only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California.
No: A NO vote on this measure means: Marriage between individuals of the same sex would continue to be valid or recognized in California.
(and here’s the kicker…)
Arguments
Pro: Proposition 8 restores what 61% of voters already approved: marriage is only between a man and a woman. Four judges in San Francisco should not have overturned the people’s vote. Prop. 8 fixes that mistake by reaffirming traditional marriage, but doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay domestic partners.
Con: Equality under the law is fundamental freedom. Regardless of how we feel about marriage, singling people out to be treated differently is wrong. Prop. 8 won’t affect our schools, but it will mean loving couples are treated differently under our Constitution and denied equal protection under the law.
The scary thing is, when a similar prop appeared on a ballot a few years ago, it did get voted down. It took that landmark court decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry.
There are a few points I want to address here. First, notice the bright blue portion of the Con argument. It “doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay domestic partners.” Um, excuse me? Doesn’t take away rights? By forbidding ANYONE to marry ANYONE else, we would be denying them rights that other people have! It’s like saying that because I am white, I cannot marry an African American or an Asian or a Native American. How is denying same-sex couples the right to marry any different than denying people of different socio-economic status, religion, partisanship, or eye color the right to marry?
The historical document that Americans quote most is, in my opinion, not the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence. People love that part about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness. These days, how many people marry because it is expected of them? Marriage hasn’t been about possession or cultural necessity for decades now. Ask almost any married American why they got married, and not matter what shape their marriage is in currently, they will probably tell you something like: “We were in love.”
Marriage no longer serves as that official permission slip to procreate that it was back in the Biblical era (and I mention this time period because it’s what so many social conservatives refer to when bashing gay marriage). Back then, the man had to marry his wives so that it was OK with everyone that they had children. If they weren’t married, those children were bastards (i.e. Hagar’s son Ishmael). Although that language still exists to day, it is very not PC to tell an unwed parent that their child is a bastard. And not just not PC, but for many people, insulting to the ideals of life, liberty and happiness that we have in this country.
So tell me this: What is so wrong with letting two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives making each other happy show that love to the world by entering into a sanctified agreement to do exactly that?
If it were a man and a woman wanting to do it, no one would care. But when it’s a man and a man, people flip shit.
But aside from my socially liberal perspective, the reason this Prop should be voted against is because it also defies our constitutionally-defined system. Let’s go back to high school history and government lessons. The job of the legislature is to write laws. The job of the judiciary is to interpret laws. What happens is the legislature writes a law, someone has a disagreeable encounter with that law, and they sue the opposing party. Eventually that case will make it to some kind of supreme court, whether the state or the United States one. The job of that court is not to rule on the morality of the issue, or the religious or cultural relevance of the issue. Their job is to look at the complaint and the law and determine whether said law violates any rights that are granted by the Constitution. Everyone with me so far?
At that point, the court will announce whether the complainant has a reason to be complaining. Often, if they do, the court will then rule the law as unconstitutional. This basically repeals the law.
Now, this is definitely way oversimplified, does not apply to every court case, and completely ignores a lot of the nuances that take place in a court case like this.
But we’re talking about this because of how same-sex marriage was legalized in California. In 2000, California voted in a measure that prohibited same-sex couples to marry. Someone sued the state, it went to the state Supreme Court, and the Court ruled by a 4-3 majority that the law violated the rights of same-sex couples. Contrary to what the Pro arugment says, IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE VOTERS TO “FIX” THE “MISTAKES” OF THE COURTS! Another court case can reverse a previous court decision, but if a law has been ruled unconsitutional, it is not the job of the public to re-instate a law that the courts said was not an OK law. That’s why this prop should not be on the ballot in the first place!
Ultimately, I don’t care what your opinion on gay marriage is. If you think that being gay equals sodomy in the absolute worst sense, and that anyone who engages in such acts will go to hell…OK. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But as an American citizen, everyone should have a problem with taking a person’s rights away. Everyone should have a problem with going against the system that is been in place in this country for over 200 years. AND THAT IS WHAT THIS PROPOSITION DOES.
Leave a Reply