Proposition 8 is pretty complex to me. (It simply adds the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to the California State Constitution)
In 2000 Proposition 22 passed, defining marriage as above, by 61% of the vote. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the proposition was unconstitutional. California has a domestic partnership roll which provides for equal rights for gay couples to those of married couples.
On the surface, I think pretty much everyone wants everyone else to be treated equally under the law. Prior to the supreme court decision, homosexuals had the right to marry, just not marry the person that they want if that person happens to be of the same sex. I can understand this argument. I also understand that technically there are no legal differences between marriage and a domestic partnership in California, although the voter guide argument for voting no on 8 seems to say that if a homosexual's partner is injured, they might not be able to get into an ambulance because they are not married.
One interesting point is that both marriage and domestic partnerships appear to be discriminatory as a recent article in the San Diego Union Tribune pointed out. Marriage is not available for homosexuals, but not any two adults can enter into a domestic partnership. It must be for a homosexual relationship, or for the elderly 62 and over. See UT article here:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081013/news_1n13partners.html
From a secular, legal/civil definition of marriage, I can see that people would find this discriminatory. One friend told me long ago that the problem with marriage was that it was taken out of religion and made into a civil institution. He may be right, but then here we are today. The other thing I guess would be to dissolve marriage as a civil institution, and make everyone have domestic partnerships, of course then those need to be opened up to everyone...
On top of this issue is the courts legislating morality on the people of California, something liberals are always demonizing conservatives for wanting to do to them. I don't think it is a good thing for the courts to be in the business of dictating morality to the people. Gay marriage is a moral argument, based on the values of tradition vs. the values of the increasingly comfortable homosexual community and their demands for equality in name as well as rights. Proposition 22 put it up to a democratic vote, the traditional definition won, and then judges on the California Supreme Court decide they know what is better for California than the people. To me this is an important point for voting for Proposition 8. If we are a democracy, we need to stand up for our democracy. We cannot let the very few dictate the law and dictate morality to us. If the definition needs to be changed, then it should be decided by the people, not the courts. The new definition side needs to mobilize voters, get them out there and convince the traditional marriage people that they need to take change their votes. That would be the correct way for this issue to be decided, and I guess it is the way that it will be decided in California.
If the US Supreme Court is becoming too conservative as Collin Powell would have us believe, then you could see a similar issue arrising with completely liberal executive and legislative branches coming to power in January. What if a law is passed to remove all religious symbology and words from public monuments, buildings, and currency, but then the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional? Would liberals take it or would they fight, because it is "morally right under separation of Church and State"? An extreme example, but can be considered similarly.
From a spiritual/religious/historical perspective, marriage is an institutional building block of the family. In no tradition or religion (that I am aware of) is marriage between anything but a man and a woman, and only recently has it been more so, in a very few states, and a very few countries. Like it or not, the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and morals. These morals are woven into our laws, our values, and our principles, i.e. "Thou shalt not murder" may be the ultimate foundation from which our murder laws come from, and Our "inalienable rights" are granted by God.
Even though people have tried to keep the church out of the government (some would have us believe that the separation of church and state is in the Constitution, which it is not), the Western Christian culture is the basis of what is considered good and right in our country. To redefine marriage outside of the traditional meaning on a spiritual or religious level seems wrong, and I think that is why most people (as indicated by the voters) have no problem with granting the same civil rights to homosexual couples, but prefer not to call such a relationship a marriage. Even Barack Obama believes in this position from a personal point of view.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I believe that many people who are married should call their relationship civil partnerships. Unless they really believe there is a god that has something to do with the whole ordeal.
As far as religion is concerned and most religious perspectives are concerned, I believe that if people did half the cross examining of their own beliefs as you do of the liberals, there would be no religions. The worlds mayor religions are full of mediocre shallow thinking its is pathetic. It is sad to see how truly the religion is similar to other people's TV, the opiate of the people.
I do agree that the country, and nearly all of the major writings of our founders were based on Judeo Christian Principles. But, even they were not above treating everybody equally, which today seems very anti-Christian. It took time for people to even realize that fact.
In our past, as Americans, we have overcome many of our aversions to being tolerant to African Americans. When the country was formed, would the founders have voted that slavery was OK, since many people had them? It has taken time. The Emancipation Proclamation did not resolve the issues of segregation and racism. It still took over one hundred and fifty years to have a Presidential candidate with a chance to win.
It took women until 1920 to have the right to vote bestowed upon them, and now 90 years later we have woman ith a real chance to become vice-president.
It takes time, but our society, through its checks and balances has become more tolerant of different segments of society. The country is still socially conservative, based upon Judeo-Christian principles, but we have seen throughout history that some of those entrenched beliefs have been wrong, and have thus changed.
I guess it just takes time. Maybe it will take more time, more generations, until gays and lesbians can be fully accepted. Clearly, California is much more Liberal than most of the rest of the United States, and I think if we see the vote on Prop 8 closer than 61-39%, we will know that the times are changing already. If the results are the same, we will know that the time has not come. I don't think it will stop the efforts of the minority to fight for what they feel is right.
I am still just not sold on the fact that "All men being created equal" gets trumped by a religious belief that then gets to choose who is equal. Maybe the idea of getting rid of marriage is a good idea, but considering that Yes on 8 is meant to "Protect Marriage", I don't see that happening. Maybe it will just take time.
A friend posted this comment: "How often should a vote on an issue be revisited? and by what means should a vote on an issue be brought before the voters? Seems to me the only reason Prop 8 is here for vote is because the court made the ruling earlier this year. Was Prop 22 due for another look? I say no, because of where I stand on the issue, but if I were on the other side, I would want a vote every year until I could mobilize enough voters for my cause."
Felipe,
I would agree that from a civil or government perspective, that all marriages are essentially civil unions. Essentially you are married in the eyes of the state once you sign off on your marriage certificate at the County Registrar's office.
From a religious perspective, if you read about marriage and homosexuality in the Bible, i.e. the traditional definition, then you see why there are people against homosexual marriage. I don't think that most people who are voting Yes on 8 want to take any of the rights away from people, that they have been granted with civil unions, but to them, marriage means something more than two people who love each other, and make some commitment to each other in the eyes of the state.
I strongly disagree that people would ever give up on religion, espcially the Christian religions.
I don't consider unconditional love, or the drive to be the best you can be, or even the ten commandments to be shallow at all. I am sorry that you feel that way.
I think that religions have and continue to do things that are plainly evil, and unexplicable, but that doesn't mean that most people who are practicing Jews, Christians (Catholic or Protestant), or even most Muslims are the extreme fringe that get the press, and for most people, their religion provides them principles and tenets above the base common denominator of the letter of the law to live life to a higher calling, to the best of their ability.
I don't know what your religious upbringing was, or how much experience you have with religions, but I would invite you to come to church with me any weekend, then we can discuss what was talked about.
Dave,
I follow your logic, and I believe that only time will tell. Prop 8 may infact make it so that there is no chance for marriage to be defined any other way, but at the same time, the ammendment to the Constitution to prohibit alcohol was repealed, and someday this ammendment may be repealed (if it passes).
I would say however, that even in the Bible, it talks about treating all people, regardless of race, including slaves, as children of God (See Colossians 3), and the choice is up to the individual to accept Jesus and live a Christian life.
I have no idea if homosexuality is a choice or a genetic predisposition. I do know that the Bible treats it as a sin, and I think this will be the biggest stumbling block for homosexual marriage in America.
G,
As far as California law goes, the propositions need some level of support to be put on the ballot, usually by collecting enough signatures on a petition. I suppose if enough signatures could be gathered, another vote could go forward. There are other props on the CA ballot this year that allegedly are duplicating law on the books already. I think that the Pro-Homosexual Marriage side figured that judges in CA would go on their side, and this was easier than getting the signatures. The Prop 8, Traditional Marriage side then had to go out and get the signatures to put it on the ballot again. If it gets into the constitution, then I still think the fight will go on. How often, I don't know....
Post a Comment