Proposition 8: Discrimination Dressed Up as Protection of Tradition

As I sit here typing this, a war is going on. No, I'm not talking about the war we got ourselves into thanks to faulty information, or the war we've always been involved in, but in which we declared our official involvement after 9/11.This war is being fought in California, and both sides are determined to win. One says it favors tradition, the other says it's fighting for equal rights. It's the fight over Proposition 8, and it's been an ugly one.

I'll be honest, the only things I'm interested in on my ballot will be my choice for President and Proposition 8. My position on Prop 8 is simple: I'm against it. I cannot stand discrimination, and to me, Prop 8 reeks of discrimination.

First, here's the full text of the initiative:

SECTION 1. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

SECTION 2. Article I, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Next, here's how the proposition will appear on the ballot:

8. ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 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.

The title and summary pretty much says it all, although supporters did try to keep them from being used on the ballot. They failed, and whe you think about it, the ballot entry is telling the truth. They can say that they're only protecting traditional marriage, but their aim is to eliminate the homosexuals' right to marriage, a clear form of discrimination if I ever saw one.

According to the official web site for Prop 8 supporters, it's supposed to do three things:

1. It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.

2. It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

3. It protects our children from being taught in public schools that "same-sex marriage" is the same as traditional marriage.

I'm questioning each of these. For starters, the first point is merely saying Prop 8 is for traditional marriage. Nothing wrong with that, although to be fair, adhering to tradition for no other reason then to maintain it seems odd to me. Also, I always assumed that marriage meant that two people deeply in love want to commit to each other in a deeper sense. Guess I was wrong since some people think procreation is part of marriage, and as everyone knows, two men or two women cannot produce kids on their own. To be frank, if you want to have kids, you don't need a ceremony, you have sex. That's pretty much it, but if for some reason you can't have kids, artificial insemination and adoption are valid options. Prop 8 supporters say that gay domestic partnerships and civil unions will not be affected. I'm thinking not yet, and to be blunt, I feel that domestic partnerships and civil unions are bones to be tossed at homosexuals to make them feel like "traditional" married couples. It's pretty much saying, "Sure, you two men or women can live together and maybe raise a family, but according to God, you can never be blessed in holy matrimony like us straight people." If homosexuals did have an equal right to marry, we wouldn't be using labels like "civil unions," and I've never heard of heterosexuals saying their relationship is a civil union. Oh, and to those people who say the ideal home environment is one with a male parent and a female parent, I say that the ideal home environment is one where love is laced with discipline and the kids feel safe and respected, regardless of who's raising them.

In regards to the second point, I couldn't help but think of another judicial decision that was imposed on us by people in black robes. A good number of people--heck, an entire region and the President of the United States--weren't happy about it, and a few were vehement in expressing their opposition. However, this decision was made to stop discrimination and repudiated an earlier decision. You may have heard of this monumental decision. It's Brown v. Board of Education. You may not think the historical ruling that led to racial integration has anything to do with homosexual marriage, but both situations deal with unequal treatment of certain persons, and I'd shudder to think how life would be if the U.S. Supreme Court didn't care about rights and freedoms in Brown.

The third point is pointless. Remember the full text of the initiative I presented to you? Read it and note what's missing. If you saw that the initiative says nothing about kids being forced to learn about same-sex marriage, then you' see where I'm going. Education isn't mentioned at all. In fact, California law states that children cannot be forced to learn about health and social issues at school against the will of their parents, so if Mommy and Daddy don't want little Billy to learn about two kings or queens living together in domestic bliss, they can pull him out of that class, although they shouldn't be surprised if Billy is called a narrow-minded bigot as he grows up.

Oh, and if you're curious, churches don't have to marry gay couples if it conflicts with their beliefs, and they won't lose their tax-exempt status if they do. When the California State Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, it said that "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs." Besides, state officials are still a valid option.

When I think about it, I understand why Prop 8 supporters are against gay marriage. A marriage ceremony seals a sacred bond between two people before God or the state, and for the deeply religious, same-sex marriage spits on that sacredness. After all, if God blesses these "sinful" homosexuals to live in domestic bliss, the heterosexual traditionalists would be echoing the Pharasees' views on Jesus hanging out with tax collectors and prostitutes. It's interesting that the pro-Prop 8 site says that "while gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Isn't it funny that Prop 8 is doing exactly that? They'll say they're only clarifying it, but it's doing so while excluding a specific group of people.

Prop 8 is discrimination. It's worded simply and to-the-point, that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid. Forget that homosexuals are people too--we'll give them the illusion of holy matrimony, but dang it, they can never have it because their love is different from ours, and oh yeah, they can never have kids of their own. Sounds like discrimination, don't you think?

So why am I, a Catholic heterosexual, against Prop 8, which would guarantee that my marriage in California would be valid if I ever find a woman who would tolerate my many quirks? Well, I tend to put myself in other people's skins when I consider positions on a matter, and to be honest, I wouldn't like being told I can't marry because of my sexual orientation. I'm sure no one else would, either. Also, I try to live my life by two important Christian teachings: Love God, and love my neighbor as myself. If I were to support Prop 8, I wouldn't be following those teachings. Discrimination in any form violates them. I am also against state and religion getting together--let the state deal with state matters, and let religion deal with religious matters. To allow one to dominate the other is calling for disaster.

As of this writing, next week Californians get to vote on Prop 8 as well as decide on that little matter regarding who'll be our leader for the next four years. Regardless of whether or not it gets approved, I will live by the law. However, if it is approved, I'm not required to agree with it, and don't blame me if someone decides to push for more discrimination dressed as legislation. I did try to warn you.

From the desk of H.A. Senidal, 10/28/2008