Proposition 8 would outlaw same-sex marriage by adding the following words to the state Constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Below, lbpost.com columnists Brian Ulaszewski, Denise Penn, Dennis C. Smith and Daniel Brezenoff share their thoughts on Prop 8.
Brian Ulaszewski
While watching one of the latest No on Proposition 8 campaign commercials, I was struck by the lack of specificity regarding on behalf of whom the commercial was fighting. It spoke about discrimination, but never named those who were the targets of this discrimination. By leaving the group in question deliberately vague in favor of emphasizing broad values of equality and fairness, the anti-proposition group hoped to remind voters of earlier civil rights struggles. We all know our history: we know that same-sex marriage was legalized almost forty years ago, and we also all know about the current cultural battle for interracial marriage, a battle pitting those who support legal recognition for basic rights against those opposed to altering the definition of “marriage.” And now, we in California are being asked to vote on it.
There has been a growing trend toward legal recognition of interracial marriage. Eight states have “civil union” laws providing persons of different races who wish to marry with some of the same rights as those who are legally married. Three states, namely Massachusetts (beginning in May 2004), California (beginning in May 2008) and most recently Connecticut (beginning in October 2008), now allow interracial marriage, due to State Supreme Court rulings. California was one of the first states to allow interracial civil unions, but now permits full-fledged interracial marriage. Proposition 8, of course, is a voter initiative effort to reverse that ruling, so that interracial marriage will be illegal once again. Originally termed (ambiguously enough) the “California Marriage Protection Act,” Proposition 8 has been advanced by a range of conservative groups. Its goal is to amend to the California State Constitution so as to state that that “Only marriage between two persons of the same race is valid or recognized in California.”
The Yes on Proposition 8 campaign claim they seek to defend a successful 2000 voter initiative, Proposition 22, that defined marriage as only valid if between two persons of the same race. They believe that when “activist judges” overturned this proposition, they went against the will of California voters. One of the common arguments members of this campaign use is that children must be protected (in this case, children must be protected from being taught a new concept of marriage that allows persons of different races to marry). Some of those supporting Proposition 8 cite passages from the Bible that in their opinion prohibit interracial marriage.
Others supporting Proposition 8 turn not to religion but to “nature,” claiming that it is “unnatural” for persons of different races to marry and procreate. However, racial and ethnic differences are, biologically speaking, a barrier neither to love nor to procreation, and these racial and ethnic differences are shaped by social convention as much as biology (there is greater genetic difference within “racial groups” than between them). As a result, these claims based on “nature” gain what traction they have from their “truthiness” and how they confirm certain stereotypes, rather than scientific fact.
On the other side of the debate, those opposing Proposition 8 have framed the discussion in terms of civil rights by relating their effort to earlier struggles for equality, from women’s suffrage to the analogous struggle for same-sex marriage that took place some decades ago. It is striking to see how opponents of same-sex marriage in our distant past used arguments against marriage equality that are remarkably similar to those used nowadays in arguments against interracial marriage. Though some take exception to the comparison, there are undeniable similarities between the earlier struggle for same-sex marriage and the current struggle for interracial marriage, including the existence of legal parallels between anti-sodomy laws on the one hand, and anti-miscegenation laws on the other. The arguments against marriage equality even recall the “separate but equal” language of an earlier era, as some say they are fine with equal rights so long as interracial “civil unions” are not called “marriage.”
But this is not real equality, and the misinformation spread by those opposing marriage equality does little to resolve the issue. Contrary to the hysterical claims that feature prominently in some advertising campaigns against marriage equality, no churches will lose their tax-exempt status. Children are not going to be taught sex in kindergarten. Communities will not unravel before our eyes due to interracial marriage. And the legal benefits of having the status of marriage are considerable: from hospital visitation rights to survivor benefits for Social Security and pensions, to income tax filings. What opponents of marriage equality ignore is that eliminating the rights of any one group in California is a slippery slope indeed. Regardless of our own personal or religious beliefs, voting to take away rights enjoyed by others in our state is both wrong and unfair.
In retrospect, having had forty years as a society to reflect about great historic battles over same-sex marriage, few would now argue that the level of prejudice that existed back then should have prohibited legal recognition of the loving relationship between two adults. Then as now, the argument against Proposition 8 is one of recognizing the basic humanity of all; it is an argument for treating everyone equally, regardless of age, race, gender, and religion. If we learn anything from the struggle for same-sex marriage so many years ago, it should be that allowing people of different races to marry is a matter of simple decency. To vote for Proposition 8 is thus to support institutionalized intolerance. Please join me in voting No on Proposition 8. Some might see my argument as too simplistic, but there are few issues I believe to be so right and wrong.
*
Denise Penn
Proposition 8 is not about gay marriage: it is about judgmental individuals who want to take away our freedom.
Every person in this country should have the right to choose their spouse without government intervention. Americans should be able to marry someone of any race, gender, religion – or gender – that they choose.
I urge a NO vote on Proposition 8
*
Dennis C. Smith
Prop 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. I have written a post on this issue earlier. My vote is No on Prop 8.
*
Daniel Brezenoff
What it does: Bans gay marriage. Defines marriage as an arrangement between one man, one woman, and the IRS. Does not require love, children, or shared interior design aesthetics.
Pros: Warm fuzzy feelings knowing you’ve “saved the children” from sodomy, at the minor expense of adding to the disenfranchisement of about one in ten Californians.
Cons: Exchanges the message of Jesus (don’t judge, love your neighbor) for the message of the Levitical priests he loathed and derided (homos must be killed, is what they said). Also, millions in lost revenue for California from gay marriage. Also, theocracy. Also, fewer parties where I can drink for free.
How I’m voting: A big wet kiss of a NO.
I’m so sick of hearing about traditional marriage. He’s what traditional marriage is: A man asks another man “how many cows for your daughter?” The daughter becomes a wife. She is housebound, produces a dozen children, and lives the life of a slave. Here’s what traditional marriage is: Get back in the kitchen, bitch. Here’s what traditional marriage is: “I’m sorry, ma’am; we can’t arrest him for beating you – he’s your husband, it’s his right.”
Homosexuality is a new addition to the institution, but so are love, consent, the right to divorce, equality, shared assets. Tradition required no love, but did require absolute submission of the wife to her husband. So why do prop 8 advocates ignore that tradition and focus solely on sexual orientation?
The Catholic Church even went so far recently as to say that no marriage is a marriage if it can’t produce children. This will surely be bad news to all the menopausal and infertile women of Ireland, Italy, and Mexico, to start with.
There is no good argument against gay marriage that isn’t also an argument against women’s equality and modern love, because proposition 8 violates the tenet of personal choice that lies at the heart and foundation of feminism, civil rights, and democracy.
A “no” vote here is a vote for reason and equality; a vote for Prop 8 is a vote for irrationality and religious prejudice. Unfortunately, that probably means it will pass.
Will it pass? Sadly, yes.
Trivia: I’m not gay but wow, Jesus makes my knees weak.
The lbpost.com does not make political endorsements. However, as elections for officials and measures draw nearer, our writers/posters are free to endorse or support political candidates if they wish. In the coming weeks, you will notice endorsements from our writers concerning all levels of government. These are their opinions and words. Individual endorsements do not express the opinion of the other writers and/or the founders and staff of the lbpost.com.