California Proposition 8
I got onto Facebook today, because even though I told one of my friends that it was not addicting, I so am!
Anyway, my dad had written a very eloquent note regarding Proposition 8 and why he will be voting NO on this proposition. With is OK, I’ve decided to duplicate his note here on my blog. I couldn’t agree more with his words.
I urge you to think deeply about this issue as you head to the polls in the next few weeks.
—-
I realize different people have different positions on Prop 8, but consider these thoughts. Far-right conservatives often deride what they consider a trend toward government fostering a nanny state — where government pokes its nose into those areas of our lives that should rightfully belong to us alone. None of us likes anyone or any organization looking over our shoulders and telling us what we must or can’t do, particularly when those things don’t directly impact others.
Yet when it comes to denying the right of same sex couples to marry, those same conservatives don’t have any problem enforcing their own moral convictions on the personal behavior of others. In my opinion, this is a clear contradiction. What many forget is that today, conservatives may successfully force others to behave according to the moral or religious convictions of conservatives. But tomorrow, others may return the favor, and then you will hear howls of righteous protest.
Of course I acknowledge the right of society to draw certain lines, but doesn’t it make more sense, when considering behaviors that are strictly personal, to allow each individual to make those choices that seem right to him or her? Isn’t it wiser for us to live our lives as well as we know how, and to change the personal choices and behaviors of others through gentle persuasion, rather than by using the hammer of the law?
The issue is bigger than same sex marriage. It’s about personal freedom. I’m urging a No vote on Prop 8.
Jeff K. said,
October 23, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
This characterization of “Far-right conservatives” neither understands conservative support of Prop 8 or our understanding of the nature of government. By creating and dismissing a straw man argument, you have neither considered nor addressed the actual views of those who reasonably support Prop 8.
Cory W said,
October 26, 2008 @ 10:53 am
Proposition 8 is definitely a difficult issue that has various effects and implications. The first thing that worries me is the growing number of so-called “rights” that seem to be cropping up in society. Is marriage really a right? Is post-secondary education a right? What about health care? I think that our society is moving toward enabling and entitling its citizens, and thereby robbing them of the opportunity to earn the priveledge of success, self-sufficiency and independence.
Is marriage really something that should be regualated by the state? It could be argued that marriage is a strictly moral issue and if so, I think that having the state involved interferes with the line between church and state that our founding fathers put in place to provide its citizens with freedom of religion, which by the way was the reason the pilgrims came here. I am extremely concerned that equating same-sex unions to marriage then sets in motion the requirements of the state to enforce this. When this is then implemented in schools and courts, and when people are denied their right to their beliefs, we have one freedom trampling upon another.
I think that marriage has been culturally defined for thousands of years as between a man and a woman. It is also the optimal institution for raising children and for a healthy society. I think that homosexuals should have rights and I think that the state already provides those through other laws. Unless the state decides to get out of the marriage business altogether, I think that loss of freedom of religion is much too great if Proposition 8 fails.
Jeff King said,
October 26, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
In one respect, I agree. I also think the state should get out of the business of marriage. Marriage, in my opinion, is a relationship that should be sanctioned by religious or other non-governmental organizations. The government’s interests are primarily contractual and would be well served with some version of a domestic partnership agreement. However, that’s not the state of the law today. Let’s work together to make it so.
Many supporters of Proposition 8 argue that the current law tramples their rights. What rights? No individual has the right to expect the law to mirror their personal beliefs. Laws reflect the consensus of society, and as Americans we are obligated to obey those laws. To argue otherwise is to deny the foundational principle of democracy.
However, Prop 8 supporters should be encouraged. Contrary to their claims, the government can never deny anyone the right to their beliefs. We can always believe whatever we want – but we still have to obey the law. That principle is as old as civilization. Obedience to the law, even if we don’t agree with it, is the common commitment that allows for a civil and organized society.
There are still people in America who think blacks, or women, or Jews, or gays, should be denied certain benefits of citizenship that are guaranteed by law. Tough. They can believe whatever they want, but they can’t act without consequence if the law forbids discrimination based upon those beliefs. The bottom line is that it’s not OK to break the law even if our personal beliefs are in conflict with that law. Anarchy would reign if it were otherwise.
I find the last point of the writer confusing. Allowing same-sex marriage does not result in loss of freedom of religion, unless one assumes that the right to unlawfully discriminate against others falls under the umbrella of freedom of religion. Perhaps it used to, perhaps it will, but it’s doesn’t at this moment in time. The good news is that religious organizations that choose to do so will probably be able to continue teaching and practicing discrimination and only risk the loss of their federal and state tax-exempt status. That seems like a small price to pay for following one’s conscience.
On an only slightly related topic, I agree that a small part of the pro-Prop 8 fervor is about maintaining the sanctity of the family. But I think a bigger part reflects the visceral disgust certain religious people feel when thinking about “unnatural” homosexual behaviors. If I am correct, the issue of sanctity of marriage is, to a large degree, a straw man. If this were not so, wouldn’t the strident supporters of Prop 8 be spending much less time trying to ensure its defeat and much more time trying to pass laws forbidding divorce?
I voted!! Errr… At least I tried. » Smiling Mom said,
October 26, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
[…] other day I filled out my permanent absentee ballot. I’ve not been altogether quiet about my political views in this […]
Steve D. said,
October 26, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
It is unfortunate that the side of the matter pronounced so eloquently by commenter #2 above led to the conclusion that federal government should recuse themselves from involvement in family matters. The fact is, that’s exactly what those who vote “no” on proposition 8 are trying to do. We should have equal rights under the law for those who have expressed their love and devotion through marriage.
Let’s say, hypothetically speaking, the situation was reversed. Let’s say, that in our society, marriage was only permitted between individuals of the same sex. Along those lines, individuals who are wed have rights A, B, and C. Now, let’s say, hypothetically, you are gay. You love your partner. You want to express your commitment to your partner, but the law only allows you to do this in a civil union. As part of a civil union, you only have rights A and B. You would like to have the right of C, but you cannot because symantically you are not married.
Now, if you were in this situation, wouldn’t you want to have those equal rights under the law? Wouldn’t you fight for those rights, regardless of the symantics of the word marriage?
Let churches and religious groups decide if they will recognize marriages between same-sex couples. Do not let the government make that ethical decision based upon the morality of others.
Cory W said,
October 26, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
I think that there are several things that everyone in this conversation agrees on, first, no group or person has the right to discriminate against another for their beliefs, color, sexual orientation, etc. I also think that we are both worried about the same thing, that the government will facilitate the discrimination of a group of people based on the laws of the land. We just differ in which parties we fear risk discrimination.
I also agree and think that it is unfortunate that some of the Proposition 8 supporters are not trying to protect the sanctity of the family, but are supporting the proposition because of anti-gay sentiments, even hatred in some cases. That is something that I don’t understand, the need to add hatred to the debate. I personally have had my Yes on 8 signs stolen off of my property and had them ripped up into pieces and left there. One of the youth at church had a lady get out of her car while he was waving a Yes sign on the corner and cuss him out, push him down and rip his sign in half. I know that both sides feel strongly, but both sides damage their causes and calls for tolerance with their hateful acts. Whether this Proposition passes, I hope that what both sides claim will be true, that nothing will happen and the sancitity of the family will remain unchallenged and unmolested.
JB said,
October 26, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
This is now the third time I have weighed in on this very debate, so I will stick to the point I am trying to make.
Most “Yes on 8″ supporters agree (and certainly everyone here) that in an ideal world law would only govern in unions and not in marriage. That being said, let me pose this question:
Why should someone who supports this idea support a change to our State’s Constitution that further engrains/defines marriage into law?
I whole heartedly agree that we should maintain a separation of church and state, so injecting a religious definition into law would be in direct conflict.
Nette @ Smiling Mom said,
October 27, 2008 @ 7:41 am
Well, I actually agree with a portion of what Cory said:
“That is something that I don’t understand, the need to add hatred to the debate. I personally have had my Yes on 8 signs stolen off of my property and had them ripped up into pieces and left there. One of the youth at church had a lady get out of her car while he was waving a Yes sign on the corner and cuss him out, push him down and rip his sign in half. I know that both sides feel strongly, but both sides damage their causes and calls for tolerance with their hateful acts.”
I recently read a series of emails on Facebook that were initiated by a Yes on 8 supporter. He was writing to the president of the California Teachers Association. He began his email chain like this:
“From: Jeremy Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 08:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: Sanchez, David
Subject:
–hey numbnutz. if you’ve got so much extra money sitting around, why
don’t you actually try paying our teachers a living wage instead of funding
your personal political agenda with their union dues?
sincerely,
jeremy wilson”
It prompted a similar response from the CTA president and was then ended with a similarly demeaning final reply by Jeremy.
I agree that both sides damage their stance with hateful & ugly acts or comments that do not stick to the issues, but attack those who believe differently than they do.
That being said, I think that this conversation has been exhausted on my blog. Thank you for all your thoughtful comments and thoughts. However at this point my comments are closed.