Some clarification to the situation in California is in order here.
In 2002, the electorate voted on this issue and the large majority of people voted on a traditional definition of marriage. In May, four judges decided that the people were wrong and took it upon themselves to change the definition of marriage for everyone in the state. The opposition to Prop 8 would have you believe that it is a civil rights issue--it absolutely is not. Homosexual couples already have all the same rights, privileges and benefits of traditional couples (and in some ways are better off--they qualify for more tax breaks, for example). So, they would have you believe that a vote to RETAIN the historic definition of marriage as understood in our constitution since the inception of our statehood would strip away a 4-month-old "right" the court created when it overturned the PEOPLE'S right to keep the traditional definition of marriage.
Justice Marvin Baxter wrote in his dissent to the court's decision, "The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. California statues that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman are explicit...The court simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice." Abraham Lincoln once said that "if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by a decision of the Supreme Court, the people have ceased to be their own ruler." I thought the governing power of our country was ultimately in the hands of the people, yes?
It is also a religious rights issue. A person has every right to not be religious, as they choose. I have every right to be religious, as I choose and to define marriage as I choose. To have the state tell me how I am ALLOWED to define marriage, to have them tell me how I am allowed to TEACH MY CHILDREN what relationships are proper and right and moral, is not consistent with the laws and rights that are supposed to be inherent in our society and constitution. Yet this is exactly what will happen, and IS happening right now in Massachusetts.
http://link.brightcove.com/
As was stated by Margaret A. Bengs, "If voters decide to authorize same-sex marriage, they should do it based on a full understanding of the fundamental moral and civil issues involved, not on the falsehood that they are overturning a constitutional "right" that simply isn't there."
3 comments:
I totally agree with you: The world is completely going to pot. Here's hoping to a good outcome on this!
What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? I gave it about a half an hour searching the other night and couldn't figure it out. There were too many emotion-laden web-sites competing for my attention with out making reasoned arguments so I eventually gave up and went to bed.
I believe that a civil union is the same thing as a civil marriage. A "domestic partnership" is the name that was given to homosexual partnerships that wanted to have their relationship legally recognized. The California Family Code, section 297.5 states, "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law...as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."
That is why I say so forcefully that it is not a civil rights issue. They ALREADY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS. I have no problem with them having the rights and the relationship. I DO have a problem with them forcing me to condone it and teach it to my children as something that is morally OK--which is what would happen if it were legalized. Their "rights" should not preclude anybody else's.
Some absolutely fantastic, reasoned explanation can be found at:
http://www.gr8prop8deb8.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment