As it stands, according to the California Constitution, the definition of Marriage is not defined between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 would change the LAWFUL definition of marriage, not the religious definition.
Technorati Tags: campaigns, Civil Rights, law, Marriage, politics, Prop 8
In the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the US, people are afforded “Equal Protection under the Law,” which is something all states strive towards and have made ground on by eliminating voting laws and marriage laws that once prevented people of different races from obtaining the basic rights afforded to the the dominant group of people in the US.
What does this have to do with Gay people?
Gay people are a minority-a group of people marginalized, harassed and discriminated against every day. The basis for this discrimination often comes straight from religious beliefs, but also from the basic, human tendency to be afraid and angry at people who are different from them. Get down to the root of any argument that a supporter of Prop 8 has and it always comes down to this principle: they think that gay people are bad and that they choose to be that way, regardless of evidence to the contrary (including the fact that they themselves can’t ever point out the moment they decided to become ’straight,’ as they think that gay people had to come to some decision to be gay). All told, they just think that gay people are gross because of what they do in bed. (Well, I’m heterosexual and I think that anything anyone else does in bed is gross, gay or not, and so I stay the fuck out of their business, but the homophobes don’t seem to get that).
The laws of the United States are and have always been progressive. The very founding of our nation on the ideology that a people should have representation in government and that “all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is a revolutionary concept. The “consent of the governed” had only been heard of in philosophical theories but never truly put into practice until thirteen lonely colonies in a new world decided to break away from a tyrannical king.
In order to protect these rights, the framers of the Constitution of the US wrote out a Bill of Rights, affording the government and the people certain powers. They included in their first Amendments the freedom to exercise religion and freedom from religious persecution through what Jefferson would later call “the separation of church and state.” Along with those Amendments they included ways to further amend this Constitution as the Nation grew and as times changed. They knew it could not be a static document and so put forth guidelines for passing new ammendments. This brings us to the fourteenth amendment that affords “equal justice under the law.” This phrase was originally used to defend the voting and basic civil rights of black people. As we know, this wasn’t actually put into practice for another 100 years after its passing.
Equal justice under the law, for all men (and women, created equally) and freedom from persecution through religious means and other discrimination. Will anyone argue that these are bad ideals?
If marriage, in fact, is a sacred, religious union between a man and a woman according to the bible, then the word “Marriage” should not be in our law at all because our laws cannot discriminate against any religion or endorse any religion. If it is strictly Christian, non-Christians should not be called “married” under the law. Christians could be called “married” under the church, but there is no place in our laws for a strictly Christian principle. It violates our first amendment and the ideals that America has always reached towards. All ‘marriages,’ then, should be renamed as something like “Civil Unions” in order to afford equal protection and equal rights. Christians can then keep their word, “marriage” and take on that title under the church, but not under the law. It is the only way, other than voting down prop 8 to end discrimination.
Keep church sacred! Keep it out of government! Vote no on prop 8 or change the word the law uses to something that reflects our American ideals!
Chris Said:
on October 24, 2008 at 3:56 pm
A vote FOR Prop 8 is a vote AGAINST the separation of Church and State. If there’s anyone out there who wishes to vote AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION in such a brazen way, please relinquish your American citizenship immediately and move yourself and your family to a theocratically-controlled country of your choosing.
lunawolf Said:
on October 24, 2008 at 8:46 pm
It’s not even just about the Constitution-that just happens to be the best lawful argument against their stupid amendment. The fact that they are bigots who want to single out an entire group because of their own hatred is disgusting enough without the fact that it goes against the principles of our nation and our constitution.
Bohnenstange Said:
on October 28, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I have to say that I’m voting no on 8 as well. There are too many reasons to do it and I talked to katie about it and she was shocked!
Will Rhodes Said:
on November 3, 2008 at 8:33 pm
This always, always happens when government get involved in something they should stay well away from!
ethingtoneric Said:
on November 10, 2008 at 8:11 pm
My dear brothers and sisters of Utah, my name is Eric. I live in SLC and would like to ask you a favor. I grew up and was raised as a faithful member of the LDS church. I attended nursery, primary, served several leadership position in young mens, and was eventually married in the Salt Lake Temple. I’m struggling with an adjustable mortgage and the economy’s toll on my job. I am also bisexual.
Many of my neighbors, and I’m sure many of you, felt confusion, and perhaps misapprehension at the massive protest around Temple Square pushing for “Gay Rights.” Please, I ask that you try to understand what’s going on, and why feelings and emotions are so high on this topic. What we are asking for is not a lessening of the value of traditional marriage. We are not asking for you to change your beliefs. We are not asking the LDS or any other church to change its doctrine. We are not even asking you to agree with our beliefs. What we are asking for, is the possibility of being equal citizens, of enjoying the same privileges and civil rights that everyone else has. We are asking that you believe with us that “We the people” means all of us.
There has been a lot of discussion that if same sex marriage was legalized, a church could be sued if it refuses to perform the marriages, but that same concern existed during the civil rights movement, and that never happened.
We don’t hate any church, and we love each and every one of our neighbors here in this great state. Please, recognize that we have the same feelings that you do. We want to be able to express our love for each other in the same way that husbands and wives everywhere do. America has come a long way in such a short time. We recognized that women are equal to men, that people of color are in no way lesser citizens. We recognized that there is nothing wrong with interracial marriage. But there are still steps to take, we haven’t perfected it yet!
We have to come together, right now, as a common people; and say once and for all that we are all equal, that every human being in this beautiful world should enjoy the same rights as everyone else. That no one is better than his neighbors. Please, stand with us. Our rights are your rights.
With all my love,
Eric E.
The link is: http://ethingtoneric.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/dear-utah/
normbetland Said:
on November 12, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I could argue that Christians are a minority group that are harassed and marginalized. And I am not talking about so-called Christians, but real ones who believe in God’s laws.
normbetland Said:
on November 12, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Eric, here is the thing. I admire what you have to say and I am glad you were able to speak respectfully, unlike some people. I want to clear some stuff up first. One, Prop 8 is not about hating gay people. If I hated gay people wouldn’t I encourage them to continue in their sin? And doesn’t 8 NOT do that? My faith says that I am to love God with my all and then to love my neighbor as myself. As for myself, I love myself enough to accept Christ’s sacrifice. Now while I can encourage you to do the same, I cannot make you. But I also should not condone and encourage activity that I think is sin. So, while I would maybe not create an amendment that prohibits same sex marriage, if presented with the idea, I would have to vote for it and I hope that you see why.
Also, a Catholic charity in Massachusetts was NOT protected when gay marriage was made legal in that state and was forced to close its doors for not adopting children out to gay couples. So the idea that churches would not be affected by gay marriage is not true, it has already happened.
lunawolf Said:
on November 13, 2008 at 11:32 am
“I could argue that Christians are a minority group that are harassed and marginalized. And I am not talking about so-called Christians, but real ones who believe in God’s laws.”
First, Christians make up a larger group of people than all other religions combined, by far, according to the Statistical Abstract of the US, put together by the Census Bureau.
Second, who are you to decide who is a real Christian or not? If someone calls him or herself a Christian, what’s to say he or she is not? Is there a screening process to determine the true from the false?
lunawolf Said:
on November 13, 2008 at 11:40 am
“But I also should not condone and encourage activity that I think is sin.”
No one has asked you to.
The law, however, must be unbiased.
If it were against the law to be gay, yes, the law could treat gay people differently, “under due process of law.” But being gay is not illegal, because being gay does not harm anyone or take away anyone’s rights, just as simply being hetero doesn’t harm or take away a gay person’s rights. Demanding that the law conform to a religious idea, however, is bias and frankly unconstitutional.
There is no room in our Constitution for “seperate yet equal” as we have learned in the elimination of segregation and in the fights of mixed race couples who were trying to “change the traditional definition of marriage” in order to validate their relationships.
kashicat Said:
on November 28, 2008 at 10:25 am
The law is secular for the exact purpose of protecting people from having religious beliefs made law in the country. So no Muslim judge, for example, could legally impose wearing a hijab on a Christian woman.
Christians, however you define them, are NOT persecuted in any way shape or form in either your country or mine (Canada). The lives of Christians here in Canada, where equal marriage is legal right across the country, have not changed ONE BIT in the years since the law was changed to allow all citizens, equally, to marry.
The only “discrimination” against Christians is that they are no longer allowed to claim that legal marriage MUST be defined by their religious interpretations. But when it comes to their own freedoms and liberties, they: 1) are NOT required to marry anyone of their own sex if they don’t want to: 2) are NOT required to rush out and get divorced and ruin their own marriages just because two gentlemen down the street have joined their formerly-exclusive marriage club; 3) are NOT required to endorse equal marriage in their own churches, not perform them in any religious institution that doesn’t want to do so.
In short — all the “discrimination” is in their own minds, entirely because they can’t control other people’s lives in the same way they used to, in their name of their “God.” Considering what other people do to hurt people in their name of their own ‘God’ (9/11 anyone?), this is a Very Good Thing.
lunawolf Said:
on November 28, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Absolutely. What the supporters of Prop 8 don’t seem to understand is that the lawful definition of marriage and the religious definition of marriage are and must remain completely separate things.