In about an hour the California Supreme Court will render its ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the state ballot measure that amended the California Constitution to clearly define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The history of this topic goes back a long way, but the voting history of this issue is still relatively young, having first appeared as Proposition 22 in the 2000 election. In that election the state of California voted almost 2-1 in favor of defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.
After several lawsuits and lengthy court battles the California Supreme Court, seven justices to be exact, ruled that the vote of the people wasn’t sufficient and invalidated the vote stating the results of the measure were unconstitutional. Within a matter of months the exact same ballot measure was on the ballot again, this time as an amendment to the California constitution, in the form of Proposition 8. And again the state of California passed the measure.
No sooner had the state spoken on the matter of homosexual marriage for the second time than the opponents to Prop 8 has the legal filings ready. Literally the day after voting day law suits were being filed on the matter. Ultimately the issue was taken up again with the Supreme Court and today the results of the deliberations of the arguments for and against Proposition 8 will be made public. At stake are whether Proposition 8 is legal based on its status as an amendment AND whether all of the marriages performed during the few months when Prop 22 was reversed will still be recognized by the state of California as legal marriages.
At the end of day all I can muster up on this subject now is that regardless of the outcome I will still hold fast to my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I know that this line of thinking is not popular in today’s world and that conservative political views being broadcast over liberal media channels like television, radio and the Internet generally leads to bashing, slamming and the attacking of liberals asking the question “how can you think that way?”. And while I could easily ask that question of my liberal friends who believe homosexual marriage is perfectly acceptable, I won’t.
They have their reasons for believing the way they do and I have mine. I don’t hold their opinions or beliefs against them and I don’t find it cause enough to call them names like “closed-minded”, “intolerant” or “ignorant”. No, in fact I value differences of opinion between mine and others. It stimulates conversation and opens the door to communication between people of differing beliefs.
I have stated more than once my opposition to homosexual marriage. That hasn’t changed. I don’t believe it is about equality or there would be a stronger push for marriage rights for children, inter-familial marriages and marriages among people already married. I don’t believe sexual preference should be the basis for minority status any more than religious belief should so the case that denying the observance of homosexual marriage is discriminatory really doesn’t make sense to me (though legally it does since California does see homosexuals as a minority). No, I think this has more to do with a group of people wanting something that someone told them they couldn’t have and as a result that group of people have done all they can to get what they feel they deserve. More power to them. If I wanted something that someone said I couldn’t have I would probably go crazy trying to get it anyway I could, too.
Perhaps one day when crazy Christians, Jews, Muslims and Scientologists fight for their status as a minority and start trying to get laws passed specifically for their minority group it will become clear what some people that oppose homosexual marriage feel. Perhaps not. But as I have said before, I will not hate you or condemn you for your belief. To the contrary, I welcome your opinion and hope that it can open a dialog between opposing sides, opposing view points and opposing political beliefs so that we as a people can be brought together, even in opposition, rather than being torn asunder because of our beliefs.
