I have never been much of a political person, but this election year, in the midst of the presidential race and the economic crisis, I have found myself speaking out passionately against Proposition 8, which was the proposition on the California ballot to re-define marriage as between a man and woman, effectively invalidating all same-sex marriages. The proposition passed by such a narrow margin that the votes are still being tallied.
I have been surprised and saddened at how many of my friends and colleagues were undecided or in favor of this proposition, because this is 2008, and I thought that we were at a point where we could all recognize discrimination and take a stand to oppose it.
Every person has a right to express his or her opinion about gay marriage, but we don't have a right to impose our opinion into the constitution and thereby infringe on the rights of others.
So I am compelled to make one more appeal to anyone who supports inserting a discriminatory declaration in our state constitution, because it is never too late to speak up to repeal the proposition.
I ask how anyone can teach one's children that everyone is equal in the eyes of the Lord, that everyone deserves a fair shot, that prejudice is wrong, and to do unto others as you would have them treat you, and still support something that legally prohibits two people from declaring their love for one another.
I ask those who would never call an African-American a "nigger", a Chinese person a "chink", or a woman a "whore", why you think this small issue of semantics is not deeply hurtful.
I remind anyone whose spouse is not of the same race, that only a little more than 40 years ago, your love and relationship was not considered the norm and outlawed in almost half of the country.
Finally, I quote from the text upon which this great nation was built:
"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...That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it...."
And I ask what greater pursuit of happiness there is than the right to marry whom one loves. How do we honestly say that we live by the tenets that forged this country if we are willing to deny someone his or her inalienable rights, simply because we don't fully understand their love. It is love, nevertheless.
4 comments:
We agree that all Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law. That's a given. Does that mean, however, that every American is entitled to every state sanctioned institution, regardless of eligibility or qualifying criteria? Can there be no institutions uniquely suited to a subset of Americans without a vocal contingent crying foul? In a wholly noble effort to eradicate UNFAIR discrimination, the pendulum now swings so far in the opposite direction that we're led to believe that every person is entitled to whatever one might desire simply because other, fellow Americans are in possession of it. Or belong to it. Or partake in it.
In this case, "it" is marriage, a civil institution steeped in religious/sacramental significance for nearly every culture. In seeking to redefine the very meaning of marriage, i.e. the legal and religious union between one man and one woman, we completely abandon the historical underpinnings and cultural traditions that make marriage such a critical factor in the building of families--the most fundamental and arguably most important societal building block.
Equating opposition to Prop 8 with hate mongering and bigotry is a shallow and dismissive attempt to demonize millions of Americans, most of whom are neither hateful nor bigoted. Myself included.
Having said that, I am not opposed to civil unions or some other legal arrangement to protect property between two, unmarried companions. Of either sex or sexual preference. Can we please just call said arrangement something other than marriage?
That's all I'm saying.
One more thing...in the last paragraph, I mentioned OPPOSITION of Prop 8. I meant SUPPORT of. As you know, I don't live in California and sometimes propositions are especially confusing to those of us out of state. Sometimes, one has to be reminded of whether the initiative is affirming or opposing certain legislation. Sorry.
Sometimes well intentioned people make big mistakes. I believe that many of those who were against Prop 8 did so expressly for the reasons you list. They buy into the argument that allowing same sex marriage is the moral equivalent to allowing different races to intermarry and so on. They bring up the equal protection clause of the Constitution and argue that same sex marriage applies. I disagree.
Some things are too fundamental to how society functions. Isn't it curious that in almost all societies there is something akin to marriage and it is always between a man and a woman or a man and many women. The fundamental reason for this is the protection of women and children. Until the modern world, women were vulnerable, as are children. You may not like to hear that, but it is the truth. Marriage is a religious event in most societies. It is an elevated thing. It is not just some people saying they want to be together and yippee skipee, that's cool. It is a really big deal.
When you redefine really big deals, when you redefine thousands of years of meaning, you had better be sure it is not just the popular thing to do among the educated "I know better than you do" crowd. It had better be done for a bigger reason than some group feels slighted. And with civil unions giving all the same rights as marriage to gay couples, that is exactly what we are talking about here. Opponents of Prop 8 want the word "marriage" because they feel entitled. But it is not the same thing. They believe it is, but it is not. One has thousands of years of history behind it. One is a new idea.
People who voted for Prop 8 did so because they like society as it is. They do not want sexuality discussed with young children, which is what will be forced upon them in public schools. They want a more traditional society, which, coincidentally, has worked. They are fundamentally fair. Most are ok with civil unions. They want gays to be happy, but not at the cost of tearing down one of the most basic of societal institutions. You may argue that including more couples in the definition of marriage is building it up and not tearing it down. That is false. It used to be that marriage was for life. Divorce was illegal or big time frowned upon. But we became more liberal as a society. We said that people trapped in bad marriages weren't happy. We made it easier to divorce. Removed the social stigma. Okayed children out of wedlock. So now, what do we have? We have generations of children growing up without fathers, as well as other countless social problems that would probably be better if we had not changed the definition of marriage from a life-long deal to a breakable contract.
Again, well intentioned change of a social institution reaped unintended consequences. Those who are Pro Prop 8 understand this. They don't want to close the doors to the barn after the horse has escaped. Instead of believing the worst about traditional people, it might behoove you to try and accept and learn from their wisdom, instead of yelling about how unfair they are. You might be surprised they are not as stupid as you think.
I am happy that my blog post has spurred passionate responses. I will try to keep my reply brief since I had promised not to speak on this topic any more.
First, let me say that I don't think those in favor of Prop 8 are stupid. As I said, I have friends who supported the initiative. I said I was disappointed that they were in support because Prop 8 supports discrimination.
Marriage is indeed a loaded word, and the emotions attached to the word are part of what the fight against Prop 8 is about. How hurtful it is for someone to be told, "I can be part of this wonderful institution, one of the most important societal building blocks, but you cannot. I reserve the use of this word for me and people like me only."
In the eyes of the law, the union of two people, regardless of their gender, should be the same. If we call this legal union something else besides "marriage", it should apply to all couples, gay or straight.
Let's ALL relinquish the word "marriage" to mean the spiritual and social partnership only and call the legal and civil union something else. Because the fight is really one for inclusion and to be treated equally under the law.
Post a Comment