Monday, November 3, 2008

Election Countdown "A to Z" (N is for No on Prop 8)

N is for "No" on Proposition 8

Vote "No" on California Proposition 8, the push to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. All over Facebook pages and the blogosphere, this has become the most advocated position outside of electing Barack Obama. And considering that California holds about 1/8 of the nation's population, the laws made in this state will probably/eventually effect you whether you live here or not.

Personally, I didn't have a strong opinion against Prop 8 until recently. It had nothing to do with my opinion that gay couples should have 100% equal protection and advocacy under the law. I have always been in favor of that, without a question. I just didn't feel it was the government's place to interfere with matters of the church, which I saw marriage as.

But then my view changed. First off, I recognized that the church had long since stopped confining their laws to religious institutions, and had benefited from state and federal laws. This made it a public policy issue. And as such, it became an issue for the voters. And if we live in a state where the majority of the population wants same-sex couples to be able to consider themselves officially married (without air quotes), then that's what it should be.

Secondly, I've learned to always look at the people behind the laws. From there, you can see whose agendas are mixing with politics. In the case of "Yes on Proposition 8" it's a pretty solid base of religious leaders, conservatives and historically anti-gay rights groups. The age-old tactic of using religious rhetoric to play on prejudices and otherwise create divisions isn't a surprise, but it also shouldn't be rewarded.

The supporters of Proposition 8 talk about gay marriage as the unraveling of families, while in truth it will actually give couples more familial structure. And by attempting to withhold the title of marriage from gay couples, they are seeking to relegate them to "otherness" and "outside" status. What does that teach the next generation—the kids they're utilizing for their commercials—about tolerance?

Vote "No" on Proposition 8.

Photo: Tony Avelar/Associated Press


Alexander Christ said...

Great post! If only more people had followed your same train of thought.

Curmudgette said...

One other thought, while I'm here.

"I just didn't feel it was the government's place to interfere with matters of the church, which I saw marriage as."

In addition to this being a public policy issue, it is very explicitly an attempt to establish a law that would interfere in matters of the church. There are many churches that are in choice to perform gay marriages. This law inhibits them in their role of sanctifying the marriages of their choosing.

StayWoke said...

By its very definition, marriage (a union of a man and a woman), is an under inclusive
legal term for use in a society that strives to ensure due process and equal protection
to all similarly situated persons under the law. The term civil union most accurately
describes the socio/political construct of a state sanctioned union. It is all inclusive
in that it can pertain to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Going forward, the concept of "marriage" would no longer be legally operative
and could thus safely retain its physiological and biological and/or traditional
ecclesiastical and/or spiritual meanings including the union of man and woman during
coitus and/or in holy matrimony. Marriage would be a non-legal status and event defined
by the couple and/or their religious and/or spiritual affiliation. This will comply with
the concepts of freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and public policy