14 Words

Disclaimer: I have thought for quite a while about how to approach this issue facing California. I had a great discussion with someone recently, who I highly respect their opinion. They were not supportive of Proposition 8. They brought up concepts that I really had to think about, and form my own opinion on. Here is what I’ve come up with.

Natural Rights vs. Civil Rights
Natural rights are those that can not be given by a government. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. “The right to personality”. What you believe, how you respond, the core of who you are. Then there are civil rights, or legal rights. Legal rights are dependent upon laws, customs or beliefs of the society. Just like a drivers license, the right to vote, entering into legal contracts, there are certain regulations which determine who is able to enter into such an agreement. These regulations have been determined on social values. Up until now, the social values have excluded same-sex, underage, and multiple marriages.

History:
In 2000, California passed Proposition 22 with 61% of the vote. Proposition 22 simply stated in 14 words: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." This was an amendment to the previous wording, “marriage is the right between two consenting adults.” In 2004, the Mayor of San Fransisco, Gavin Newsom issued altered marriage applications and licenses. The following day the Proposition 22 legal defense team filed actions to prohibit the Mayor from doing so. The courts denied their request. They appealed to the Supreme Court of California, stating these actions violate the amended California constitution, in the In Re Marriage Case. In June of 2008, the court ruled in a 4-3 decision to uphold their previous ruling, allowing gay-marriages to be legally recognized. Majority decision states that gay marriage is a “basic civil or human right of all people” and that these rights can not be “eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process”. Dissenting opinions stated, “California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow.”

Proposition 8:
The court ruling will not take full effect until after November elections. In November, residents of California will be voting on the exact same wording as in 2000, the same 14 words. “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California”.

My Take:
Marriage is a sacred institution, which has been such since the beginning of humanity. Marriage should only entered into by a man and a woman who see it as a life-long (or eternal) commitment, not just an optional step in a relationship. Do I believe that there should be rights of kinship for those of the same sex? In most cases, yes. (Hospital visitation, power of attorney, inheritance, etc). However, here are some possible concerns that allowing same-sex marriage could implicate:

- Removal of Officiating Authority: Ministers within a large variety of churches are concerned that their authority to marry couples will be stripped from them, if they refuse to marry same-sex couples. Although the courts have stated that this won’t happen, as we have seen in the past, all it takes is one “legislative” court to find this ‘discrimination’ unconstitutional and that these churches are not abiding by the laws of the land, and remove their authority.

- Religious Adoption Agencies: For the same reason listed above, the agencies refusal to adopt children into same-sex marriage homes would leave them vulnerable to law suit.

- Schools: This area is very much ‘he said, he said’ (sorry I couldn’t help myself). Proponents of Prop. 8 have cases from Massachusetts and California of teachers introducing same-sex marriage to elementary school age children, without the consent or notification to the parents.

These are just a few possible scenarios of the legal ramifications of Proposition 8 not being passed. It is apparent the courts overstepped their authority, especially disregarding the will of the majority in California. I have heard suggestions separating the issue into a legal and moral decisions. However, our founders of our country and Constitution believed that the morality of a society was intertwined with the laws which govern. A self-governing society would only survive when there are public morals. Immorality is rampant and condoned, while virtue and chastity are criticized. If you don't believe this will affect you, talk with a junior high student about what is happening with their classmates. Also the following states have made gay marriage, domestic partnerships or civil unions legal: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Washington, Oregon, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Maryland. Other states who have already voted on and written into their state constitutions a similar amendment, several court findings have found them unconstitutional. What I find unconstitutional are judges usurping the will of the people, and deciding for us what laws are appropriate. Tell me how you feel on this controversial issue.