RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
Vote no on Proposition 8
Californians need to move beyond the divisiveness that Prop. 8 has engendered and embrace tolerance and reconciliation. Live and let live.
| Wednesday, Oct 15 2008 7:57 PM
Last Updated: Wednesday, Oct 15 2008 8:00 PM
Proposition 8 has inspired more passion and outrage than any measure on California's November ballot, and for understandable reasons.
Our readers recommend:
Loading Stories
Both proponents and opponents of the proposed same-sex marriage ban draw their arguments not so much from the finer points of responsible public policy as from a deeply felt sense of right and wrong. To many proponents of a constitutional ban, homosexual unions are simply undeserving of the societal or religious recognition that marriage represents. To many opponents of the ban, denying any segment of the population a right so basic as marriage is discriminatory.
With both sides at an impasse over the perceived fallout of permitting same-sex marriage -- one side saying it damages the institution of marriage, the other that it represents a stabilizing force -- nonpartisans on the issue (and it seems there are relatively few) must view the question through the prism of the state constitution.
On that matter, the California Supreme Court has spoken. In May, the state's highest court ruled that the law defining marriage as between one man and one woman -- underscored in 2000 by Prop. 22 -- was unconstitutional, a violation of the equal protection clause.
Same-sex marriage opponents howled, chalking up the reversal to an "activist" court that ignored the will of the people and legislated law from the bench. Never mind that the court, dominated by justices appointed by conservatives, was exercising precisely the role laid out for it by the framers in weighing law against the constitution.
Same-sex marriage proponents remind opponents that interracial marriage was also once illegal. Opponents argue that the comparison is not valid because that sort of commitment -- unpopular though it might have been in 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Virginia's Racial Integrity Law -- still involved one man and one woman.
Both arguments have legitimacy. Discussions about same-sex marriage are different by their very nature. But the interracial comparison illustrates the point that popular opinion can run counter to something that, in the final analysis, may be fair and reasonable (and, with time, deemed more acceptable). And legislation that mandates who one may or may not love is, in all but the most extreme cases, flawed.
Proponents of the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage suggest that Prop. 8's failure would eventually open the door to people marrying their underage nieces, or exchanging commitment vows (presumably by proxy) with hamsters and assorted inanimate objects. Please.
California has domestic partnership laws that encompass many of the basic legal privileges and responsibilities that married couples take for granted. But barring same-sex couples from legal marriage relegates them to "separate but equal" status. The term ought to sound familiar. It's the same oppressive language we once imposed on racial minorities in this country.
The bottom line is the California Constitution and ultimately the U.S. Constitution. Both guarantee all people equal protection and equal rights under the law. We must not support any constitutional amendment that would serve to take away fundamental rights. It's as simple as that.
Californians need to move beyond the divisiveness that Prop. 8 has engendered and embrace tolerance and reconciliation. Live and let live.
We recommend a NO vote on Prop. 8.