On November 4, vote NO on Prop 8

Comments

[sw]

On September 19, 2003 California Governor Gray Davis signed into law the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, a law which took effect January 1, 2005. The purpose of this law was to provide domestic partners with all the equivalent rights of marriage except where preempted by federal law.

There are two ways to extend the given rights of a domestic partnership into other states that do not have the same rights. Redefine marriage and domestic partnerships to be the same thing, or fight the battles to make domestic partnerships equal to marriage in the other states. To correct injustice in other states, activists are trying to redefine marriage in California.

Discrimination should be fought by attacking what is wrong, and by attacking actual infringement of rights, not by redefining labels to give one thing the meaning of another. If I were to assert that capital gains taxes and income taxes were the same thing, and that it was unfair, unjust and discriminatory for them to have different meanings, wouldn’t this offend and outrage certain members of society?

On May 15, 2008, The California Supreme Court decided that domestic partnerships should be completely replaced by the definition of marriage. This ruling did not specifically expand or change the rights of same-sex couples under the law, since as previously stated the rights of domestic partners and married partners were already equivalent. Proposition 8 was put on the ballot to reverse this decision.

There are only two technical differences between marriage and domestic partnerships. The first difference is that domestic partnerships can be dissolved with no residency requirements. The second difference is that marriage requires a license, two witnesses, and some sort of ceremony. Domestic partnerships only require a signed form. Modifying these differences for domestic partnerships would not require a complete redefinition of marriage.

Another argument is that marriage is a religious institution. If this is the case, why should the courts have the right to change the meaning of a religious institution? Also under this argument, Christians and non-Christians who promote the separation of church and state should honestly be advocating the complete abolition of the civil institution of marriage and only allow a religious ceremony to define the event.

Marriage has a very strong social and civil aspect independent of any religious belief. The concepts of shared property between several individuals and creation of a social structure which assigns responsibility to those who are raising children is essential to any society. The demands of certain religions to modify marriage under their own terms (incest, polygamy) have been rightly subordinated to the simple social and biological concept of marriage.

If changing the definition of marriage by the California Supreme Court was the only way to preserve rights, then there might be justifiable support for it. If no rights are being denied, then nothing should be changed because redefinition of social terminology can be used to create many unintended consequences. Examples include taking first-graders to gay marriages and closing down adoption agencies here in California.

Sources:

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/10/11/First-graders_attend_lesbian_wedding/UPI-57841223752023/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/08/03/calif_charity_ends_full_adoptions/

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesex.htm

An equivalent argument would be if the courts decided that marriage included incest and polygamy, and the only way to protect the rights of the minorities who practice these acts was to change the definition of marriage for everyone. Would pastors of christian churches oppose a reactionary proposition to re-outlaw incest or polygamy? Or would they come to the defense of the minorities?

Christians have no civil or social right to persecute those who practice acts condemned by the Bible. Laws cannot reform, they can only punish or allow. Destructive behaviors such as abortion, alcoholism, and homosexuality are allowed in American society because the consequences can’t be immediately seen by everyone. Christians have the right and responsibility to teach, educate and heal, condemning the sin but accepting the sinner.