Proposition 8 - Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry. Initiative constitutional amendment.prop 8 if passed will overturn the california supreme court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. (in fact, the state supreme court's decision on may 15, 2008, merely made 2000's prop 22 unconstitutional on the basis it violated the equal protection clause of the california constitution.) $40 million is being spent to influence the 16.2 million registered voters of california on this issue.
those who support the amendment, which would in effect put a stop to gay marriages, are suggesting that the insititution of marriage is being threatened and that if the proposition is not passed, churches could lose their tax exempt status, public schools might start teaching gay marriage and/or people could be sued over their personal beliefs. "it's no longer about tolerance," according to supporters of the initiative.
those opposed to prop 8 contend that the proposition does not mention education and would not force churches to do anything. "california's laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
the kinsey report may have intimated that 10% of all male humans tend to be homosexual and 5% of females, but more conservative estimates suggest the numbers are more likely about 4% and 2% respecticvely, world-wide and across all times. so again, by conservative estimate, perhaps one of every 33 people in the state of california is homosexual and would thereby be discriminated against by this initiative to ban gay marriage.
this initiative, along with the obama versus mccain race for the white house, is going to energize the vote in california on november 4th. i have driven past churches with huge signs unfurled from second story balconies urging voters to support prop 8. today i saw a homemade sign in the window of a trailer park that said something to the effect of: marriage should be about love, not gender. vote no on prop 8.
howard f ahmanson jr has put $900,000 of his own money into supporting prop 8. (it is not the first time ahmanson has put his money where his values are in fighting for conservative values.) money is prominently involved in our political struggles because it works, which of course infuriates some people and leads to discussions about campaign finance reform and the like. it is difficult to tell someone how they cannot spend their money and while i am not opposed to that fight, i see it as for another day. what is important now is not to be swayed by the money. every voter in california should vote their conscience on proposition 8.
that said, one should be sure they have uncovered their real conscience before proceeding based on their initial thought. i have read recently of mormons who are defying the mormon church in protest of its stance on this amendment. (the church is officially in favor of prop 8.) i have also read of at least one catholic priest who has risked his job in order to stand up against prop 8. aside from the episcopalians, it seems most churches are officially in favor of the ban. you do not have to be.
jesus was known to hang out with, or minister, to the sinners in his time and place. so if god does indeed hate fags, or to put it a bit more mildly, if homosexuality is in fact a sin, it would seem a couple of christian values are contending with one another. by ministering to harlots and the other downtrodden the pharisees took exception to, jesus as much as preached tolerance by example.
prop 8 is about discriminating against a segment of society, perhaps two of 66. the other 64, or 32 couples, may marry, while this one couple, (who is gay,) is denied the benefits of marriage under the law. is that loving your neighbor? is that fair? is that doing unto the least of your brethren as you would have done unto you?
the benefits under the law may be health care through an employer to one's spouse, or the right to make a decision about that person if they are severely disabled to do so for themself. these are important things.
some may prefer civil unions to marriages for gay people, which does deal with the nuts and bolts of the issue by affording equal rights under the law. in california's case, however, prohibiting gay marriage was deemed unconstitutional as it violated equal protection clauses. it is prop 8 which would add language to the state constitution defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.
again, is that fair? if three of 100 are gay, is it reasonable to say to them, "you are not entitled to your own version of the same institution so many of the rest of us have?" it's not like those who would marry are out to commit crimes.
tolerance is about allowing for differences. for example, i make a point of never discriminating in any way against those who would eat spinach. i would never do something so gross and disgusting but for those who would and do, (like my wife,) as foreign as i may consider them on some level, i tolerate their love of the leafy green.
perhaps a better comparison would be to conjure those who would discriminate in this way, by banning gay marriage. i am not in favor of discriminating against them in any way, even though the behavior may be in my book, much like a sin is in the christian's book. i am not worried though that they will take over my world and force me to go to church or hate gay people or anything of the sort. i believe in the united states constitution and the separation of church and state and therefore, i am comfortable with the idea that i can practice tolerance ad nauseum without any real repercussion to me. since tolerance makes me feel good, since tolerance makes me feel like i love others and respect differences, it is simply a plus plus for me to stand in favor of tolerance, and squarely against prop 8.
i will vote no on prop 8 and i encourage all californians to do the same.
