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.