The California Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision on May 15 that people have a fundamental "right to marry" the person of their choice, and gender restrictions violate the state constitution’s equal protection guarantee. In a matter of weeks, Californians will vote on an initiative measure, Proposition 8, on the 2008 California General Election Ballot. Its wording is clear: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
According to www.protectmarriage.com, the site for the Vote Yes on 8 campaign, voting for Proposition 8 does "three simple things: It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined; it overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people; it protects our children from being taught in public schools that ‘same-sex marriage’ is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs." ?First of all the, "restoration" the site is calling for is referring to Proposition 22 that denied gay marriage, which won by a 61 percent majority in 2000. I certainly have changed a lot of my ways of thinking since almost nine years ago, and I think it is safe to say society has too.
The site’s second point emphasizes the first, so in actuality, there are only two "simple things." The site’s last point stresses the idea that everyone will be forced to accept homosexuality. Although this would be ideal for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender/transsexual community at large, it takes a lot more than a law to force a belief. In fact, there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that a more "traditional" society would never accept, such as marriages with wide age discrepancies, marriages outside of one’s religion or interracial marriages. A law can force one to change his or her opinion on homosexuality about as much as it can tell one what kind of ice cream he or she prefers. Gay marriage would require recognition by our government, not necessarily a grand welcoming of open arms by society.
To counteract the Yes On 8 campaign, www.noonprop8.com has also listed its own reasons, along with a long list of supporters ranging from organizations such as the Black American Political Association of California to California State Senators. Recently, Brad Pitt and Steven Spielberg are among those celebrities donating $100,000 to the cause. An entrepreneur in Ohio has told No on 8 that if the entertainment industry leaders contribute $500,000, he and his family will match it, dollar for dollar.
Also listed on the site is a quote from a Los Angeles Times editorial from August 8: "Proposition 8… would eliminate the fundamental right to same-sex marriage.
The very act of denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry – traditionally the highest legal and societal recognition of a loving commitment – by definition relegates them and their relationship to second class status." To label a person as inherently inferior and deny his or her love as legitimate should be revolting to society. Luckily, there are people who see that inequality for some is inequality for all.
What is interesting about this constant resistance of gay marriage are the other paths being paved for LGBT inclusion in our society. According to a study published in The Gay and Lesbian Atlas, Texas is more likely to have gay couples with children than any other place in the country.
It also found that San Antonio leads the nation by having the highest percentage of gay couples raising children in the nation. Houston ranks fourth.
Texas permits single LGBT adoption, and second-parent adoptions are allowed in some areas. What does it say about Texas when we will permit adoptions, but not a recognized marriage from which to build the family? On average, is a single person more capable of raising a child than a couple willing to share a loving home?
Some states seem to think they are equal, so why does it matter that the same "loving home" consists of a loving marriage, regardless of the couple’s sex?
Some may say that allowing gay marriage is one move for one state. Gay rights advocate Evan Wolfson said in the Washington Blade that letting gay marriage remain in California would be the "Gettysburg" of the gay movement. It may not "win the war," but it could certainly be the turning point for this country.
Pang, a communication senior, can be reached via [email protected]
