A Rational Discussion on CA's Prop 8 Fiasco

We start our story from the most logical place to start: the beginning. On June 2, 2008, Proposition 8 (Known officially as "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.") was qualified for the November ballot by submitting 1,120,801 signatures. The organization Protect Marriage sponsored the initiative. Other supporters include Senator John McCain, The Roman Catholic Church, the Asian Heritage Coalition, the LDS church, and a number of other politicians and religious organizations. The proponents argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society," that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay," and that gays would "redefine marriage for everyone else." On November 5, 2008, Prop. 8 added Section 7.5 to Article I of the CA Constitution. Section 7.5 states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." 

This rendered obsolete the May 2008 ruling by the CA Supreme Court making laws preventing homosexual couples from getting married unconstitutional. The CASC ruled in May 2009 that the new Constitutional Amendment was valid and legal, making gay marriage unrecognized in California. Same sex marriages performed prior to November 5, 2008 are still recognized as valid.

Much has been made in the mass media (and the not-so-mass media) about the religious influence on the election. Many point fingers at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for turning the tide of public opinion in favor of Prop 8. Calls were made from the Church's leaders in Salt Lake that LDS members were to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time." Protect Marriage estimates that over half of its funds raised in support of Prop 8 came from "LDS Sources" with %45 of its out-of-state donations coming from Utah. Call center across the country used LDS church resources and member manpower to bombard California voters with pro- Prop 8 phone calls and messages.

Many people have a problem with the Mormon Church's involvement in the nations politics. Who ever said that an organized religious group does not have the right to make its voice heard? Every day a swarm of special interest lobbyists flock to the offices of those in power across the country.  What the LDS and other pro-Prop 8ers were doing strikes me as one of the most successful grassroots lobbying jobs in history. However, instead of lobbying our politicians, they were lobbying the voters.  

The Prop 8 battle shows that with enough money, scare tactics, and, a couple of flat out lies, coupled with pronouncements from religious leaders who are able to have a direct impact on their parishioners voting habits makes for a heavy weight that can be used to sway public opinion.

What Prop 8 has shown every Californian is that our laws can be altered and rights can be taken away with a simple majority vote. Now, if the US Constitution is amended to specifically allow gays the right to marry, section 7.5, Article I of the CA Constitution will be voided. This leads to another problem I will address in a later discussion: the issue of states rights.  

It is simply too easy for the majority to impose its will on the minority. This is why we had the Civil Rights movement. While the majority rules in terms of elections, we have set up protections for those in the minority. We are a nation that has always prided ourselves on ensuring individual freedoms. But before those freedoms were granted, a majority vote had stripped those rights away from the minority.  

The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution (February 3, 1870) did not include women as a group to be given the right to vote. It took 50 more years before the 19th Amendment was added, stating: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

The "separate-but-equal" segregation laws legally written and enforced between 1876 and 1964 and were a legal avenue to continue discrimination of non-whites (for example: California's "Jim Crow" laws were aimed primarily toward the Chinese instead of African Americans. Idaho's were aimed at Native Americans) in the US. The laws passed concerning the protection of Civil Rights in the mid 1960's abolished nearly all legal segregation and non-inclusion.

This curtailing of a minority groups civil rights will be concluded as all other civil rights battles have concluded in this nation. We have created law that is unfair, bigoted, and infringes on the right to equal treatment that all Americans possess. Article 1, section 7.5 will be amended or repealed at some point, but we can all be sure that future generations will see the scar left and will mark this point in history as just another low in our nation's quest for liberty and justice for all. Equality, fairness, and the American foundation of freedom will prevail, whether we want it to or not.

I personally believe that homosexuals have the same right to marry the person of their choosing as I do. I feel that the governments part of the equation should only be the legal aspect of the contract itself, a civil-union record, if you will. If the majority of Californians feel that marriage is a practice steeped in religion, then we should allow each religion to decide what criteria are to be met before it performs its religious wedding ceremony. The wedding may not be a religious ceremony at all. But it is still a ceremony. It is time for the government to have less to do with ceremony, and more to do with ensuring equality in its legal and contractual obligations. It is time for Americans to stand up for freedom and equality for everyone, for their freedom could just as easily be extinguished the next time around.