The Slightly-Belated, Long-Awaited Proposition 8 Blog Post!

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.” [U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker]

That's right, the judge (rightly, I believe) has ruled that people cannot enact laws, even with a majority vote, that have no rational or practical basis and are based entirely on the prejudice of the majority against a minority group with a different belief set.

In fact, not only was there no rational basis for such a law to have been passed in the first place, I can think of numerous rational bases for this law not to have passed. Not only that, I can think of rational arguments against most of the reasons people cited for supporting Proposition 8.

What is marriage? Webster's New World Dictionary defines marriage as “an intimate or close union.” While that certainly is an accurate definition, anyone who has ever been married could tell you that marriage is so much more. An intimate and close union, yes. But marriage is also safety, comfort, compromise, sacrifice, fulfillment. Among the multitude of dictionaries available, there can be found many different definitions for “marriage,” and only on rare occasion do these definitions contain any reference to the gender of the persons entering into a married state.

Personally, I take a wide and inclusive view of marriage.  I think any one consenting adult should be permitted to marry any other consenting adult.

But what of all the people who voted for Prop 8? Didn't they have reasons to vote that way, beliefs that told them that voting to ban same-sex marriage was the right thing to do? Current unverified polls being conducted by various institutions show that, today, the majority of Californians say that they would not now vote in favor of Prop 8, that they do not think it's a good idea. While this may or may not be an accurate fact, it does not change what has already happened: A majority of Californians who voted in that election did vote for the passage of Prop 8 banning same-sex marriage.

Since the passage of--and the more recent overturning of--Proposition 8, I've read the arguments for and against the law. I've talked to my friends, gleaned their opinions and the reasons behind their feelings on the topic. While my home in Pensacola is obviously nowhere near California, I believe people nationwide are aware that the results of this issue in California will have an impact on similar issues all around the country. This really is an issue that will effect all areas of the United States sooner or later; it's not going away, and it's not likely to have a quick or easy resolution.

Let's examine some of the dissenting viewpoints I've heard and read. 

I. The Religious Arguments

• I'm a Christian.

Yes, but not everyone is a Christian. Nor do all Christians or Christian denominations believe that homosexuality is wrong. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) and the Episcopal church all allow their members and clergy to be openly-engaged in homosexual monogamous relationships. Other religions, including most Hindu variations, Unitarian Universalism, The Universal Life Church, and nearly every Pagan sect, have no teachings disallowing or discriminating against homosexuality.

• This country was founded by Christians with laws based on Christian principles.

Yes, the country was founded by Christians who wanted a country where people of all faiths would be able to freely practice their beliefs. They did not specify any one authorized or prevailing religion.

• The Separation of Church and State isn't a law, and isn't in the Constitution.

That's true. But does this sound familiar? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It's the quotes directly from the Declaration of Independence. And the first amendment to the United States Constitution gives citizens the freedom of religion. That means the freedom to practice any religion, or no religion at all.

• Homosexuality is a sin.

Depending on your particular faith and/or interpretation of the Bible, you may believe that homosexual practices are sinful. Without debating the truth or error of this belief, let me just say this: If we are going to outlaw everything that is listed as a sin in the Bible, then we'll need to start drafting laws on ALL of the following: divorce, marrying someone who has been divorced (Matthew 5:31-32), adultery (this includes pre-marital sex), tobacco (1 Corinthians 6:19), Christians marrying non-Christians (Corinthians 6:14), coveting your neighbors belongings (Ten Commandments), greed, hate, not spanking a disobedient child (Proverbs 13:24), not being content with your wages (Luke 3:14), and being willfully unemployed (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

• Sodomy is a sin.

Again, this is dependent on your specific religious beliefs. In fact, many places outlaw sodomy regardless of the gender of the participants. But, do you really want the government regulating what you can and can't do in the privacy of your bedrooms? Will they outlaw the “reverse cowgirl” too?

II. The Anatomical & Biological Arguments

• Human bodies were designed to couple a man with a woman.

Is this really a good enough reason to prevent a marriage? Sexual compatibility? What about people with injuries or birth defects that prevent them from being able to have sex? Should they also be banned from marrying?

• Same-sex couple can't have children.

Well, ignoring the options like IFV or surrogacy, it's true that two people in a homosexual couple cannot give birth to a child on their own without outside involvement. However, if marriage is to be allowed only to couple who can reproduce, what about people who have an injury or birth defect or illness that has made them sterile? There are LOTS of heterosexual couples that cannot have children, either, but no one minds that they get married. Perhaps sterile hetero couples and same-sex couples could be the solution to providing loving homes to some of the 2.8 million orphans in the United States?

• Gays spread AIDS (Yes, I actually read an entire article devoted to this.)

Unprotected sex, exchange of infected body fluids, and dirty needles spread AIDS. I promise you, homosexual people are not militants out to use AIDS as a biological weapon against straight people.

III. The Financial Arguments

• But they'll receive the same tax breaks as real married couples!

Yes, yes they will. Why is this a problem?

• A homosexual person with a spouse will cost their employers more for insurance.

Yes, this is true too. A homosexual person with a spouse will cost their employer the exact same amount as a man with a wife or a woman with a husband. And, homosexual couple are less likely to have children, a fact that might save their employer some money.

• Would a homosexual partner inherit before the person's actual blood relatives?

Since the opposite-gendered spouse of a marries person generally inherits before the blood family, why should it be any different for a same-sex couple? Besides, if your primary concern for your relative is based on whether or not you'll inherit when they die, do you really deserve to inherit anything from them at all?

IV. The Social Arguments

• I don't want my children watching those people kissing in public.

At some point, it is inevitable that your children will see a couple being inappropriately affectionate in public. They might be homosexual; they might be heterosexual. All you can do is to teach your children to do private things in private.

• What sort of message are we sending to our children if we allow same-sex marriage?

What sort of message are we sending? Love, devotion, compassion, commitment, monogamy, tolerance, acceptance, equality, fairness....I think those are pretty good lessons for children to learn.

• What special treatment will the homosexuals want next?

Same-sex couple aren't asking for any special treatment now. They are asking for equal treatment.

V. Same Rules, Different Name

• Let's give hem the benefits of marriage but call it something different, like “Civil Union” or “Legal Union.” That will make everybody happy.

Well, no, that only makes some people happy. The idea of “separate but equal” has a long history. It's the same principle that kept racial segregation alive in the United Stated until the mid-1950s. These days, though, I doubt you'd find many people who think racial segregation would be a good idea. Separate is never equal.

VI. The “Just Because” Arguments

• Why did they decide to be gay in the first place?

When did you decide to be straight? Orientation is not a choice, nor is it an illness that can be treated and recovered from.

• Gay people make me uncomfortable.

Why? If you are uncomfortable around certain types of people, perhaps you should just get over it.

• Homosexuality is “just a phase” people are going through.

Try telling that to homosexual people in their 70s or 80s or older. How long do you suppose this “phase” will last?

• I don't like gay people.

Well, I bet they don't like people who judge them unfairly....like you.

VII. The All-Important Sanctity of Marriage

• We have to protect the sanctity of marriage.

• Same-sex marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage.

• Same-sex marriage will devalue real marriages.

I'm going to address these all together. To the people who are so caught up on the sanctity of marriage, let me submit to you that divorce does far more damage than same-sex marriages ever could. Since the legalization of no-fault divorces in most places throughout the United States in the 1970s, marriage has lost much of the “protected” status it once had. A marriage of many years can be ended by either party, sometimes in only a matter of a few months. In 2007, a study showed that the Unites States had the second-highest divorce rate of any country in the world; only Sweden had a higher divorce rate.

[http://www.darndivorce.com/divorce-rates-around-the-world/]  

Within the United States, Christians, especially those throughout the region known as the “Bible Belt,” had unusually high rates of divorce. “The Barna Research Group, an evangelical Christian organization that does surveys and research to better understand what Christians believe and how they behave, studied divorce rates in America in 1999 and found surprising evidence that divorce is far lower among atheists than among conservative Christians — exactly the opposite of what they were probably expecting.

21% of atheists have been divorced

21% of Catholics and Lutherans have been divorced

24% of Mormons have been divorced

25% of mainstream Protestants have been divorced

29% of Baptists have been divorced

24% of nondenominational, independent Protestants have been divorced

The highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt: "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people. Nine states in the Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Maryland) have the lowest divorce rates, averaging just 3.5/1000 people.

Barna isn't the only group to arrive at these numbers. Other researchers have also found that conservative Protestants get divorced more often than other groups, even more often than "mainline" Protestants. The fact that atheists and agnostics divorce less often than other religious groups was, however, surprising to many. Some have simply refused to believe it.”

[http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm]

None of these reasons for opposing same-sex marriage hold rationally when put side-by-side with numbers and facts. Same-sex marriage hurts no one, and in fact has really no impact on anyone other than the people being married. Allowing these loving couple to be wed like any heterosexual couple isn't going to cause the break-down of society; it isn't going to throw the country into moral upheaval; it's not going to destroy the economy (the Republicans already took care of that).

The single somewhat-rational argument I've heard to date concerned the overturning of Proposition 8, rather than the passage or failure of the Proposition itself. A friend of mine said, “Hell I don't care either way, it's just an issue of being forced to accept something that the MAJORITY of people don't want. California is the most liberal state in the country and even thy said they didn't want it.” I can see a rational argument there, but not a correct one. First, it is the job of the court system to interpret laws to ensure that they are fair and constitutional...regardless of why or by whom they are enacted. Second, it shouldn't be allowed for a majority of people to make a decision like this about the actions of the majority, when those actions will have no effect‒positive or negative‒on the majority. Here's an example: In the year 2000, non-white people made up only about 12% of the population of Florida. Enacting Proposition 8 would be like the white majority of Florida making it illegal for non-white Florida citizens to marry one another, even though it wouldn't effect the white majority either way.

Being a majority group does not give you the authority to repress the people in the minority. In fact, it is the responsibility of the majority to protect the minority, to ensure that they receive equal and just treatment, even if they don't have the manpower and resources to fight for it on their own. It is, also, the responsibility of all American citizens to work toward equal freedoms in all aspects of life for all the country's citizens. If you help to take away someone else's freedoms and privileges today, you create an environment for more freedoms and privileges to be slowly taken away from all people, yourself included. If you value freedom, you must do everything in your power to apply it equally, to all people.

Preserving liberty is not a part-time job.  It is not “someone else's” job. It is your job, your responsibility, today and every day.