Yes on Proposition 8?

Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election Ballot titled “Eliminates Right of Same Sex couples to Marry. Many churches including the LDS and Catholic church are pushing for a Big yes on this one, while “equal rights” argue that taking away this Right is step backwards for the social acceptance of homosexuals.

Here is my opinion on proposition 8:

California has become a bastion for Civil Rights, an area in the country that cherishes the phrase “all men are created equal.” In fact “In 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage. It was the only state supreme court to do so before the United States Supreme Court invalidated all those laws in 1967. The California Supreme Court held that “marriage is … something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men … Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws” (Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 714-715). The California Supreme Court explained that “the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice” (Wikipedia)

The idea of gay marriage in California was one which the people struggled with, Because the state of california has a history of implementing a modern legal framework in all areas of its governance, (emmissions standards, civil rights, tax reform, etc.) the state has always felt the necessity to properly define the legalities of Gay Marriage. It was in 1977 that California defined marriage as the Union between a man and a woman. And since then there have been many attempts to overthrow that notion.

In 1999, Assembly Bill 26 passed and marked the first time a state legislature created a domestic partnership statute without the intervention of the courts.

In 2000, voters passed with 61% of the vote, ballot initiative Proposition 22, which changed the California Family Code to formally define marriage in California as being between a man and a woman.

In 2004, a number of developments arose in the wake of Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to perform same sex marriages in San Francisco. The 3,995 marriages were annulled by the California Supreme Court, but San Francisco began a legal challenge that was consolidated with other cases as In re Marriage Cases.

In 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. The Act marked the first time that a state legislature had approved a bill authorizing same-sex marriage without a court order.[10] Schwarzenegger press secretary Margita Thompson said, “[t]he governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action – which would be unconstitutional – but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state.” [11]

In 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger again vetoed the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act.

From 2005 to 2008, anticipating that either the courts or the legislature might overturn Proposition 22, opponents of same-sex marriages introduced several attempts to place a constitutional amendment before voters that would prohibit same-sex marriages—and in some cases, domestic partnerships as well.[12] Prior to 2008, none had made it to the ballot.

On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court, by a vote of 4–3, ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution.[13] The court subsequently refused to issue a stay of its order.[14]

As of June 17, 2008, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state of California (wikipedia)

And now proposition 8. The people have a chance to go back on gay marriage and redifine it as the union between a man and woman exclusively.

I believe that this is a bit ubsurd. For what reason do we need to legally insure that marriage is between a man and woman. Marriage is unifying yourself with a person you love, people dont get married just because, these days marriage is a serious commitment. So if a man wants to marry a man, and he obliges, why not? They arent trying to shove it religions face! They just want to get married, the same way I want to get married the girl that I will love (if in fact I do want to make that commitment.)

Religous denominations try to make the acceptance of gay marriage as some sort of assault on freedom of religion. This is rediculous, Churches who dont accept gay marriages, dont have to marry gay people. The church has the right to refuse to marry whomever they want. Some churches wont let you get married if the pastor thinks you are unprepared. So come on, proposition 8 is a barbaric definition of marriage, and should not be taken seriously.

Vote NO on proposition 8

What do you think, vote now on this survey:

5 Responses

  1. Exactly. Well said.

  2. I compleetely agree. gays should be allowed to get married!

  3. We’re starting to see Evangelicals question the wisdom of proposition 8.

  4. It’s a very interesting debate, probably one of the most interesting in many years. I moved back to California 2 years ago after spending 5 in Oregon. Personally, I’m against Prop. 8 but I feel that everyone has a right to a vote and that it should not be the decision of the courts. If it passes, it passes. If it fails, it fails. I have no problems with gays being allowed to have the same rights as everyone else. My mom always tells me that this is similar to things she saw growing up in the South in the 1960’s, only with a different set of citizens.


  5. It boggles my mind that no one is SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF THEIR LUNGS:

    “It is NOT acceptable to have a fundamental right UP FOR A VOTE.”

    “It is NOT acceptable to have FUNDRAISERS to either PURCHASE a civil right OR to EXCLUDE American families FROM a civil right.”

    “Children are hurt by Marriage Inequality.”

    (the Christian Right thinks their children will be “traumatized” when faced with the REALITY of the existence of LGBT families; they have no idea what cruel traumas their family COULD experience if they lacked the rights & protections of civil marriage).

    Oh yeah, and also “No Taxation Will Happen UNTIL Representation”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: