Not long ago, heterosexual couples fought to obtain civil marriage equality. In 1948 California became the first state to declare a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional, 19 years before the Federal government would overturn every state interracial marriage ban and insist the “freedom to marry” belongs to all citizens. Not surprisingly, recent polls indicate a majority of minorities oppose Prop 8, likely because they have a clearer understanding of marital discrimination.
With millions of dollars being spent to protect marital tradition it raises the question, why limit the cause by solely focusing homosexuality? Marriages’ most visible enemy, divorce, destroys roughly 2/3 of Californian couples and should be made illegal. Another traditional marriage perpetrator, adultery, is also too common and should be made punishable by forcing those convicted to display the letter “A,” at all times. Mandating marriage for couples that choose to engage in sexual reproduction (a Bristol Palin doctrine) would further help to regulate tradition.
Homosexuality has been documented in some of the earliest civilizations, including ancient Rome and Japan, yet marital customs mostly stem from religion. Many of these traditional marriage values originate from the Bible, in which women were viewed as property of their husbands. Why not put this decision regarding the ownership of wives to the electorate?
California recognizes the Constitutional separation of church and state, yet marriage poses a problem as it inherently combines the two. However, marriage does not require a religious ceremony, rather a quick trip to City Hall to sign legal documents or an even quicker Vegas drive-thru is sufficient.
Religious organizations main argument is that under the law they will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages. Such claims are untrue in the same way that a priest is not required to recognize a Muslim ceremony under the Catholic Church. Moreover, it is worth noting that Prop 8 is compelling religious institutions to encourage promiscuity over love and commitment.
Many states have found legal compromise in the creation of civil unions but why the need for a different legal category. Should such classification extend to other nontraditional engagements? Perhaps those that choose to marry an illegal alien, thus granting citizenship, should fill out a special marriage-B license. Then again, as the Connecticut Supreme Court recently reminded us, this country has already overturned the notion of separate but equal.In his majority opinion legalizing same-sex marriages, Justice Richard Palmer wrote that the court found the
"segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm," in light of "the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody."
In a political scare tactic, proponents of Prop 8 are suggesting the possible ramifications of legalizing same-sex marriage. One advertisement is truly a conservatives’ nightmare as it depicts a child suggesting the book “King and King” for his bedtime story. Additionally, in a series of blatant fabrications, proponents insist that schools will be forced to teach same-sex marriage. Curriculum though is controlled on the local level and is the same reason intelligent design is only taught in selected school districts.
As same-sex adoption rates continue to rise, marriage should parallel the evolution of the family structure. Children are already exposed to peers with same-sex parents and will be confused to learn that certain individuals are not “created equal” and granted such basic rights as marriage.
Traditions are subjective and continually changing. In contrast, as the California Supreme Court declared, equality is always protected under the Constitution. The passage of Prop 8 is truly a step backwards for society and the gay-rights movement. By voting for tradition as oppose to equality, there will be a lasting detrimental effect further encouraging homophobic discrimination for countless Californians.
