One man’s voice

California has spoken on marriage once again

Posted on November 5th, 2008 in On Christianity, On Faith, On Family, On Politics, Personal Messages

There were probably no greater a controversial ballot proposition this past election than that of Proposition 8 in my home state of California. The erroneously named “Same-sex marriage ban” proposition had gotten the attention of just about every state in the nation along with just about every media outlet in the nation. It was one of the most expensive, if not the most expensive proposition campaign ever and it is likely to be far from over now that California has, for the second time, voted to recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman.

For those unfamiliar to this proposition (have you been living under a rock?), the entire premise of the proposition is the adding of the following text to the California constitution:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.”

Somehow this has gotten the name of the “Same-sex marriage ban” proposition. The “OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY” as “PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL” in the California voter guide was “ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY”. It was even referred to in some circles as the “Gay Marriage ban” proposition.

I have to tell you I was extremely disappointed with just about every aspect of Proposition 8 with the exception of it’s passing. The text of the proposed constitutional amendment was the exact same text that was proposed in the 2000 election under proposition 22. The text of the law specifically states “marriage between a man and woman”. Minor apologies to those of you who believe that this was a same-sex issue, but the reality of it is that this proposition was for people that believe marriage to be between a man and woman. This was not a “same-sex” issue, it was a “marriage between a man and woman” issue.

I found it ironic that so many people turned the desire of a group of people that want to protect marriage into something that was based on same-gender marriage or homosexual marriage. That is ludicrous. And to say it eliminated rights is just as ludicrous. In 2000 the people of the state of California voted to make marriage valid only when between a man and woman. 52 of 58 counties voted for Prop 22. It was passed overwhelmingly by the people of the state.

Eight years later four judges, four, on the California supreme court overruled the people’s decision stating the Prop 22 was unconstitutional because it discriminated against couples of the same gender that sought marriage. Since when have judges been given the right to overturn vote results? If they can do that, why vote at all? Why not just ask judges to pass all of our laws for us?

So they did. They overturned Prop 22 and for the last five and a half months marriages were being performed between couples of the same gender. They in effect handed the right of marriage to people that up until that time did not have the right to marry under that context. Keep in mind that people of the same gender that have sought to become united have been able to do so for some time now under California’s and America’s laws recognizing civil unions. The only difference is that the term “marriage” has not been recognized in California as marriage unless it was between a man and a woman. Until the judges got involved.

So their decision then gave the Attorney General the ability to label Proposition 8 as “Eliminates the rights of same-sex couples to marry”. Astonishing. Why not read the text of the proposed law and label the proposition as such? “Recognizes marriage as being between a man and a woman”. That sounds more like the proposed law to me.

For the record I want to say that I have no ill feelings toward anyone. I don’t hate homosexual people. I am not afraid of homosexual people. I am not mad at homosexual people. My opinions on marriage are not about the choices people make in their lifestyle. They are about what I believe marriage is. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.

I do, however, get bothered somewhat by folks that believe that because someone makes a choice they should be granted rights that they would not normally have had they not made that choice. These are the people that make statements associating homosexuality to ethnicity or gender. People that believe the struggle of the homosexual community is akin to the struggle of African-Americans that marched with Dr. Martin Luther King or Malcolm X. People that associate homosexuality to me being a male or me being Mexican. Thanks for trying to make your point but please do not place your sexual preference in the same category as my ethnic heritage or my gender. I didn’t choose to be a man nor did I choose to be Mexican. Homosexuality cannot be compared to these.

It can be compared to being a Christian. Or being a smoker. Or being a Republican. Those are all choices that are made. And not one of them carries with it a privilege afforded it simply because one aligns himself or herself with that particular group. A smoker that is told to smoke outside a restaurant because it is a non-smoking restaurant is not being discriminated against. The smoker chooses to smoke and must smoke according to the law.

A man that wants to marry has every right to marry. But if that man chooses to wed another man, according to the law, he cannot. He can unite with the other man in a civil union. But he cannot marry him. Simple. Understandable. Nondiscriminatory.

I am glad the political campaigning is over. I am glad the elections are over. And I am glad that Proposition 8 passed. I know this is not over yet. We live in a state where when certain people don’t get what they want they throw a fit and scream until someone bends. I can assure you there will still be noise on this matter for some time.

But I can also assure you that the state of California has spoken in a mighty voice and it has said clearly that marriage, regardless of your position on it, is supposed to be between a man and woman. It is clear. It is understandable. And now it is constitutional.