Opposition to California Proposition 8: Hate in the Name of Love

By Dennis Prager from Townhall.com

Next to the presidential election, California Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America.

It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.

In 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had -- the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses). But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.

As a result of this judicial act, the only way to ensure that we continue to define marriage the way every religious and secular society in recorded history has defined marriage -- as between men and women -- is to amend the California Constitution. It is the only way to prevent the vote of one judge from redefining marriage, as was also done in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Which is why Proposition 8 exists.

But even though California voters decided by a large margin to retain the man-woman definition of marriage, passing Proposition 8 will be a challenge.

First, the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition's wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."

The reason for this change is obvious -- to make the proposition appear as a denial of a basic human and civil right.

Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses. And even those who believe that any two unmarried people who want to get married should be given a marriage license should regard as wrong an attorney general changing a ballot proposition's language to favor his own social views. What Brown did was attempt to manipulate people who lean toward preserving the definition of the most important social institution in society -- people who have no desire whatsoever to hurt gays -- to now think of themselves as bigots.

According to Sacramento Bee columnist Margaret A. Bengs, "a recent Field Poll analysis found" that the new wording by Brown "had a 'striking' impact on those newly familiar with the measure, with a 23-point swing against it."

What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create.

And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society.

The second hurdle for Proposition 8 is even greater: the multimillion dollar campaign to label proponents of Proposition 8 "haters" and to label the man-woman definition of marriage as "hate." Or as they put it: "Prop 8 = Prop Hate."

It is apparently inconceivable to many of those who wish to change the definition of marriage that a decent person can want to retain the man-woman definition. From newspaper editorials to gay and other activist groups, the theme is universal -- proponents of traditional marriage are haters, the moral equivalents of those who opposed racial equality. As The New York Times editorial on the subject put it, Proposition 8 is "mean-spirited."

But it is the charge of hate (along with bigotry, homophobia and intolerance) that is the primary charge leveled against supporters of Proposition 8. That's why one major anti-Proposition 8 group is "Californians Against Hate."

Any honest outsider would see that virtually all the hate expressed concerning Proposition 8 comes from opponents of the proposition. While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show.

It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate -- because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree. Why should our generation be different?

These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.

Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?

My Proposition 8 Op-Ed

Amidst the frenzied emotional opposition to Proposition 8, I’d like to make a rational argument to vote yes on this constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

First, I’d like to dispel some myths. Proposition 8 wouldn’t take away any rights from same-sex couples. According to California’s domestic partnership laws, same-sex couples are given every right that opposite-sex couples have. See Family Code section 297-297.5. This includes visitation rights, divorce, probate and medical and other benefits.

Also, those opposed to Proposition 8 purport that gay marriage would not affect anyone but the same-sex couple. However, since the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts and the introduction of civil unions in other states, a plethora of lawsuits have been filed against religious-based organizations for discriminating against gay couples because they refused service to them based on their religious beliefs. “When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash” by Barbara Bradley Hagerty on NPR.org cites several cases won by gay couples forcing adoption agencies, churches and parochial schools to either go against their beliefs or close their doors. This is a violation of their constitutional religious rights as guaranteed by the first amendment. This could and probably will happen in California if Proposition 8 fails.

Another consequence would be the teaching of children about same-sex marriage in school as early as kindergarten. The opposition would tell you that saying this is an exaggeration but, the education code section 51890 requires public schools to instruct children as early as kindergarten about marriage. If Proposition 8 fails, teachers will have little choice but to teach that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage – or face complaints or even lawsuits. This takes away parents’ rights to teach this issue to their children the way they see fit.

Another issue is who decides the law? In 2000, 61% of Californian’s voted to maintain the traditional definition of marriage through Proposition 22. Unfortunately, this was simply a change to the family code. So, earlier this year, four activist judges from San Francisco were able to overturn the will of the people. This is why Proposition 8 is on the ballot again, this time as a constitutional amendment. Once it passes, these judges will not be able to overturn it again. The will of the people, not a few left-wing judges, will prevail.

This is not an issue of equality. Same-sex couples already have that. This is an issue of what constitutes a marriage, which has been understood to be an institution between a man and a woman since its introduction thousands of years ago. In an article entitled “Protecting Marriage to Protect Children”(LA Times, Sept. 19, 2008), president of the New York-based Institute for American Values, David Blankenhorn, a self-proclaimed Liberal Democrat, says that marriage is not primarily a license to have sex nor to receive benefits or social recognition, but a license to have children. He says that children have a right, specifically guaranteed by the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, as much as society can make it possible to “know and be cared for” by their biological parents. Gay marriage will always violate that right.

To this, some will argue that in the world today, we have divorce, hetero couples unable to have children and other instances that keep children from being raised by both biological parents. Blankenhorn points out that most time children are denied this right, it is thought of as a tragedy, whereas with gay marriage, this loss of a child’s rights is celebrated.

I urge you to vote yes on Proposition 8 to uphold the will of the people, the rights of children and proper definition of marriage. Those supporting Proposition 8 have no will to lessen the rights of same-sex couples. We, however, must not let them and left-wing judges change what marriage means in our society for the rest of us.

A Powerful Feminists For Life Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEQR1-1OXK4
A very powerful video from Feminists For Life, of which I'm a proud member. They have a dead-on approach to the Life/Choice issue. Check them out at: http://www.feministsforlife.org/