wigblog

Those opposing California’s Proposition 8 do not seem to have thought this issue through very carefully. The opposition has clearly not examined this proposition at a fundamental level and as a result, the campaign makes some very strange statements that have either not been carefully thought out, or they are intentionally attempting to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes in an activist fashion. And please, everyone, let’s cool the jets a moment and have calm and collected minds while we read through the following points. Let’s debunk some of these arguments:

Prop 8 does not deny marriage to anyone.

The slogan on the noonprop8.com website says “Don’t eliminate marriage for anyone.” This statement displays ignorance of what marriage is. Let’s consult webster:

From www.merriam-webster.com:

“the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law”

From dictionary.reference.com:

“the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.”

Now, let’s contrast this with the text of the amendment proposed by Prop 8:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.”

I’m at a loss to understand how the text of this proposed amendment would eliminate marriage for anyone.

Let me re-state some words from the above definitions: “recognized by law”, “social institution”. These definitions are clearly speaking in legal terms regarding what marriage is. This is clearly the qualified definition in the scope of this discussion.

Now I know what some of you are saying…. “Wait! There are *other* definitions on those websites! What about those?” Ok, let’s take a look:

From www.merriam-webster.com:

“the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage”

From dictionary.reference.com:

“a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction”

Now again, let’s look at some key phrases. “like that of traditional marriage”, “in the manner of a husband and wife”. While the committed relationships of same-sex couples does have an entry under the word “marriage” in both of the quoted sources, the definitions clearly denote that those relationships are not the same thing as the committed relationship between a man and woman known as marriage. Two people of the same sex can not by definition be “married” any more than two male siblings can be called sisters or two female siblings be brothers. That’s just not what the English word means.

The tagline “Don’t eliminate marriage for anyone.” is the first thing the campaign opposed to Prop 8 hits people with when they see their material. Given this has not been clearly researched or thought through, it immediately makes the rest of their propaganda suspect. It appears they didn’t even bother to take the time to research the definition of the very word they are fighting to change.

But, just for fun, let’s hear them out and see what else they have to say…

Prop 8 maintains equality of same-sex unions.

I have a neighbor who, much to my chagrin, has one of the Prop 8 opposition’s signs in his front yard. The tagline on this sign reads: “equality for all”. This tagline is also visible in other areas of the noonprop8.com website. Again, either this has not been clearly thought out, or people subscribing to this line are being manipulated.

Saying passage of Prop 8 denies “equality for all” turns this into a civil rights argument. (This is really starting to smell of activism.) But wait…. same-sex couples already have the same rights as married couples by establishing a civil union / domestic partnership. In the eyes of the state the two are already equal.

(Yes, I saw the page on the noonprop8.com website claiming “Domestic Partnerships are NOT the same as marriage” because they can’t “automatically make life or death decisions for each other”. They seem to have missed the easily located Assembly Bill 25 of 2001 that gives partners in a civil union “the right to make health care decisions for an incapacitated partner”. Clearly they must have written this stuff prior to 2001. Wait a minute here…)

In the eyes of the state (the scope in which Prop 8 is applicable), Prop 8 passage would maintain the equality of civil unions. The text of the proposed amendment says nothing of civil unions and they would therefore be unaffected. Prop 8 maintains this equality.

The opposition to Prop 8 is clearly spinning this as an anti-homosexual measure to rile anti-conservative sentiment. Don’t be roped in by this manipulation. Don’t we all have better things to do?

Prop 8 does not promote intolerance or discrimination any more than any other law.

Some people I know like to throw out the word intolerant when issues like this come up. Haven’t we all learned when we call someone intolerant, all we’re doing is being intolerant of their view? The opposition also claims Prop 8 is discriminatory against homosexuals. Keep in mind we presently have laws that are discriminatory. Ever known a 20 year old that would like to buy a beer? Discrimination on the basis of age seems perfectly acceptible. However, in the text of Prop 8, I don’t read any desire to discriminate against homosexuals or promote intolerance of them or what they do. Rather, Prop 8 keeps people from debasing the English word “marriage” to suit their whims.

The fact of the matter is, Prop 8 does not say that homosexual individuals cannot be married. They are free to be married to anyone of the opposite sex that they wish. If they don’t choose to do this, they effectively choose not to be married.

Proposition 8 in short:

• Does not deny marriage to anyone.
• Maintains equality of same-sex unions
• Does not promote intolerance or discrimination.

Also… speaking of strange, why would the Prop 8 opposition:

• Use a picture of an (apparent) male/female couple on their page detailing why people should not pass Prop 8? They are talking about trying to claim same-sex couples in committed relationships as being “married”, but using imagery of an apparently heterosexual couple? Are the opposition’s arguments so weak that they must appeal to the likeness of traditional marriage to make their case? It seems they are not able to walk the walk here…
• Use the imagery of a female bride being thwarted at every turn to get to her wedding to a male groom in one of their commercials? Manipulation perhaps?

Some other thoughts:

Some people I’ve heard claim that Prop 8 stifles their potential for happiness. To those, I would say it’s clear that what’s being fought for is a change of definition for an English word. (Since when has it been within the state’s jurisdiction to re-define English words?) If you’re one of these people and your happiness hinges on changing the definition of an English word, you have deeper seated issues than I am prepared to address.

The Prop 8 opposition website claims “It’s not the government’s place to tell couples who have been together for years whether or not they are allowed to marry.” I couldn’t agree with that more. Marriage has been around since long before California, the United States, and most of civilization. Marriage has proven to be the transcendent building block upon which society and cultures are made. Marriage is more fundamental than government and it’s certainly not within the government’s jurisdiction to start monkeying with its definition.

The overturning of Prop 22 by the activist judges this year was just wrong. Those of you who oppose Prop 8, let me ask this: if a group of conservative judges were seated on the supreme court and overturned Roe v. Wade, how would you feel about that? I bet similar to how those of us who believe democracy had already prevailed with Prop 22.

Please note here folks, there’s nothing here you can claim as a religious argument. An atheist, a Christian and anyone else from any other walk of life could have come up with this stuff. It’s just a matter of stopping to think through what’s actually being said before you get wrapped up in any impassioned dogma.

Think before you vote.

Vote YES on Prop 8.

Now… anyone want to talk about Obama?