Proposition 8

November 8, 2008 by Boanerges

I decided to put this in a blog entry because I seem to be saying it over and over.
Proposition 8
Seems many people are upset because Prop 8 passed.

Let's look at the text of the amendment.

Quote:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

#1 the amendment text was obviously written by a person that supports gay marriage hence the "Eliminate the right" phrase.
#2 It doesn't eliminate the right of same sex persons to marry despite the text of the amendment. It does eliminate the ability for any government agency in California to recognize the marriage as valid. Two persons desiring to be married can be by whatever authority they deem valid. The government just can't acknowledge that union as valid.

In light of the fact that in the United States marriage automatically bestows certain legal benefits upon the couple, it would seem that by refusing to acknowledge one couple's marriage but not others would be violating the rights of the couple whose marriage is not acknowledged.

The problem with this line of thinking is if we are going to allow the government to determine if our marriages are valid, then we are also granting the government the power to decide which unions are NOT valid. Otherwise it would be a registration, a process of filing a set of papers at the courthouse so they have a copy. An application for a license means they review your application and make a decision on the validity of it. That decision must be based on some criteria. The people of the state of California have decided one part of that criteria is one partner be female and one be male. It’s not violating peoples rights because

People still have the ability to marry. Acknowledgment of a marriage by the government isn’t a right. People can get married, live as married, tell people they are married and not get arrested.
The law is applied equally to all people. That is to say no person can marry another people of the opposite sex. This concept seems contrary many people because the result is same sex couple can’t marry and opposite sex couples can. This is done in almost all aspects of government. Just because the results are you don’t get to do what you want doesn’t mean you rights are violated.

The point here being that if you are going to grant the government the power to decide which unions are valid and which are not, do not be upset when your group isn't one of the chosen few. Keep in mind that homosexuals are not asking for freedom here. They are begging the government to become involved in their personal relationships.

Blame for this problem goes to the following groups

Government. For trying to dictate every aspect of our lives.
Opposite sex couples: For not putting forth a direct and concerted effort to remove government from our personal lives. For selling out to tax breaks and automatic legal rights in exchange for a say in our marriage.
Same sex couples: For continuing the government involvement instead of asking government to step out of their and our lives. Thereby perpetuating the concept that certain people should be allowed to marry and others shouldn’t. As long as their group is included they could care less about the others.

The real solution to this problem is to side with freedom instead of convenience. The purest form of equality on the part of the government is for them to do nothing. A scale with nothing on either side is always balanced. Couples concerned about marriage should be calling for government to remove itself from marriage altogether. Marriage is a religious ceremony with over 2000 years of history to prove it. Government involvement in it is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment's separation of church and state clause.
A good chance exists this will go to SCOTUS. Will they rule that the government acknowledging marriage is unconstitutional? I doubt it. SCOTUS doesn’t like making ruling that result in major and dramatic changes to government ways. If they rule that states must acknowledge gay marriage then we are looking at a federal amendment to prevent it. This would be the best example of bad government heaped on bad government to brad worse government.

So what say America? Freedom or convenience?

Average:

Your rating: None