Proposition 8

UPDATE: Here is an additional support on why I support Proposition 8.

I noticed that someone I know had put up a link for this website, No On 8. I went to the website and then started sifting through the Fact v. Fiction page.

Frankly, I'm kind of tired of this issue, and I'm not even living in California. Although I wasn't the recipient of phone calls, several other people I know get calls regularly about going to firesides, participating in fundraisers, and they're not even in the state. They're transplants here, but in an effort to be thorough people are still calling them. That's fine.

What kind of bothers me about are little things. For example, a person I know on Facebook put up a status message that said something to the effect of So and So hopes that everyone registered to vote to support Proposition 8. You know what? No. That's not the reason you should register to vote. You should register to vote because you believe it's your responsibility to take part in the democratic process because all of the issues are important. And this one especially so. But maybe I should be happy that at least something is waking up these people to become more active in the political community, so I shouldn't begrudge them their enthusiasm...even though it still bothers me a little bit. I just hope that those same people don't disappear once this proposition passes, or doesn't.

Anyway, I digress. The Fact v. Fiction page is interesting. I know that people already convinced of one position will point out that the other side is distorting the facts, but I'm going to bring up these points anyway (these are the "fiction" points directly from the No on 8 website):

• Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8. First, I think the wording on this particular point is bad. Even if you don't believe, it's a little bit tricky to figure out what it's actually saying. It's poorly worded. I don't know if that's on purpose or not. It is fact. If Proposition 8 doesn't pass, then the court mandated redefinition of marriage including all couples, regardless of orientation, will soon include teaching at the public school level. In fact, this has already started to happen. From the San Francisco Chronicle, Mayor Bloomberg officiated over a lesbian ceremony that was attended by a 1st grade class on a school sponsored field trip.
  
  In Massachusetts where marriage has already been redefined, the Anti-Defamation League stated in their amicus curae brief that: "From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief: “In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]“Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction.” [p 3]"
  
  Targeting public schools was among the first order of business once marriage had been legally redefined. One of the common responses is that even if public school curriculum teaches that parents can opt-out for their children, opponents to defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman are seeking to deny parents those rights.
  
  From an ACLU amicus curae brief: “Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]“This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief.” [p 18]“First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden…Second, in contravention of the axiom that ‘the classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas’’ [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom…Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach the other students.” [pp 22-23]. Source - Protect Marriage.
  
• Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status. This is fact. I wish I could find the links, but there are a number of instances where this is the case. A Catholic adoption agency was forced to close its doors because they refused to allow gay parents to adopt children. In another instance, a Methodist church with an open area that refused to allow same sex marriage ceremony in its confines lost its tax-exempt status. A doctor who refused to perform in vitro fertilization procedures for a lesbian couple lost his license because the couple later sued him for discrimination, even when he had given them alternative doctors who would perform the procedure. A photographer who didn't want to photograph a same sex marriage ceremony for a gay couple was sued by that couple. This also occurred after this photographer had given the couple alternative photographers who would have no problem doing so. I know these aren't all tax-exempt issues, but it's all related.
  
• Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…Fact - this is about four activist judges and people who are trying to take the laws out of the voters hands. This was an issue that was voted on several years ago that was passed by an overwhelming majority. On the site on this point it then begins talking about how marriage is a a fundamental right. That is not true. Marriage is not a fundamental liberty because there are still restrictions on it. Can people who want to marry their own sons and daughters legally do so? Can an adult marry a minor? Or multiple partners? This is a right but within certain contexts. This is about four activist judges who overturned the will of the voters. What's to argue on this point? This was voted on previously, and will have to be voted on again next month.
  
• Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs. As I mentioned above people can, will, and have already been sued for their personal beliefs, because their belief then becomes labeled as discrimination over views about sexual orientation.
  
• Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won’t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school. Again, as I mentioned previously this is something that has already happened in the state of Massachusetts and will happen here if this proposition doesn't pass.

This proposition really is about safeguarding the family. Under California law, homosexual couples who agree to civil unions already have all of the tax and legal privileges that heterosexual couples do (full text of the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act). The institution of mariage is what they're after in an attempt to mainstream the lifestyle. And in the end, studies show that children invariably are at a disadvantage when raised in a family without both mothers and fathers.

A lot of the argument for allowing same sex marriage (SSM) talks about it being a civil right. The problem with this right is that in will come to infrine on my right to live and believe how I choose. While supporters for SSM will argue that will not be the case, it will undoubtedly become an issue when they do attempt to teach and normalize the lifestyle in public schools, or when they come to our churches and attempt to force our hands recognize their marriages as being valid. Make no mistake, it will come to that point.

This commentary here gives some references for some of the points that I've made here in this post.

This website provides 10 reasons why we should oppose SSM. I really like this website because it is complete with references.

Here again is an LA Times editorial on the subject.

Here is a video on some people who have dealt with some of the issues regarding SSM:

This is not about discrimination. We're not saying that these people can't love how they choose to. If the proposition passes, these people will still be able to live their lives and have all of the same rights, privileges, and protections under the law that heterosexual couples are afforded. It's not about that. What this is about, and will eventually be about, is an infringement on our rights to believe and behave as we choose to see fit. Without the protection of a constitutional amendment, these activists will begin to go after our churches and legitimize their lifestyles that we don't agree with. More eloquently put in a Wall Street Journal article:

Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.

I feel like this post poorly expresses the opinion of its author, but I hope you at least follow the links, do some research and come to your own conclusions. I sent in my ballot yesterday with votes on all the issues, including my support of Proposition 8. I encourage you to look at the facts, and to do the same.

UPDATE: I found this article on a different website coming from a gay talk show host in LA. It's incredibly insightful, and articulates much better some of my own arguments from a viewpoint that I just don't have. It's really good, but for those who won't bother to click on the link, here is an excerpt:

As distressing as the state of the American family is today with the high rate of divorce and adultery, the situation is far less stable among gays. This is not a slur against gays as individuals, but rather the reality of what occurs when you have what I call the all gas and no brake environment of male/male sexuality. I should know. I am a gay male.

To say that unfortunately the gay world is in a general state of hyper-sexuality that is not conducive to relationships which marriage was intended to foster is to put it mildly. Further, almost all of the issues the gay left claims it is justifiably concerned about like property, health, and financial partnership issues have already been dealt with by many states and can be dealt with through further legislation as needed. Such legal changes would encounter far less political opposition.

The gay left has still not matured into a position of self-empowerment, but is still committed by and large to the idea that the rest of society must bless being gay in every way imaginable. This includes public parades in all major cities to remind everyone else of what some people like to do in their private bedrooms while in the same breath demanding to be left alone.

What more certifiable blessing than state sanctioned marriage of two men or two omen, even for a group that has offered no indication that most even desire to enter into the kind of commitments that marriage ideally entails, or that serves the real purpose of marriage. Marriage exists in order to create a stable and structured environment for couples to reproduce and raise their offspring.

And so we have come to yet another chapter in the story of those who would portray themselves as victims in need of another sanction from the state. This time the price of social acceptance of gays is the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society. Does that really seem like a wise and prudent choice for America to make at the wish of a handful of judges, and at the behest of those whose real goals are more political than anything else?