Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.The ramifications of these few words would be incredible.
And not in a good way.
At first, I wrote a long and rambling rant. It turned out really angry. I scrapped it.
Here's my less emotional numbered list:
At first, I wrote a long and rambling rant. It turned out really angry. I scrapped it.
Here's my less emotional numbered list:
- Prop 8 infringes on a fundamental right in violation of due process and discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of equal protection. A vote for Prop 8 is a vote for discrimination.
- Differentiating between "marriage" and a "civil union" is not harmless. This distinction demotes same-sex couples to second-class citizens deemed unworthy of the true label of marriage. Remember Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Enforced separation stamps same-sex couples with a badge of inferiority. Separate is inherently unequal.
- Like gender, race, and national origin, sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. Sexual orientation is central to a person's identity. Prop 8 penalizes same-sex couples for being unable to change their very being.
- Prejudice against the gay community has been so severe and long-standing that protective legislation is necessary to address and eventually eliminate such discrimination. Prop 8 is, in fact, a giant step in the opposite direction.
- Granting same-sex couples the right to marry will have no effect on the substantive nature of marriage. Same-sex marriage will not deprive heterosexual couples of any rights. Limiting marriage to heterosexuals is not necessary to preserve the rights that heterosexual couples currently have. Permitting same-sex couples to marry is no different from permitting interracial couples to marry, as Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) did over 40 years ago. Broadening civil marriage to include same-sex couples does not affect the legitimacy of heterosexual marriage any more than the allowance of different races to marry does.
- Religious objections to gay marriage cannot and should not be considered in determining whether constitutional principles of equal protection provide for same-sex marriage. Marriage is a state-regulated institution. Same-sex marriage will not encroach upon religious freedom. No religion will be required to change its policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples. No church will be required to perform or to recognize same-sex marriages. No church's tax-exempt status will be affected.
- Prop 8 has nothing to do with teaching same-sex marriage in school. Pursuant to California Education Code section 51240, parents have a right to review all materials regarding sexual health education programs and to have their children excused from participation. Prop 8 does not add anything to this rule that is already in place. Voting no on Prop 8 does not mean same-sex marriage will be taught in schools.
- Voting yes on Prop 8 does not preserve the traditional institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Voting yes on Prop 8 is a vote to withhold fundamental rights from a specific group of people. To those who argue that "tradition" must be upheld, you are saying that discrimination must continue for "tradition's" sake. This exclusionary tradition -- like slavery, segregation, anti-miscegenation, or the denial of a woman's right to vote -- is unconstitutional and wrong.
