Argument for Proposition 8

I have been thinking about this post for a long time. Ever since I've become a resident of California again, I've felt the importance of this upcoming election, specifically the proposed Proposition 8 which would add to the California Constitution the words, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." You may be aware that in 2000, this statement defining marriage as between a man and a woman passed as Proposition 22. Recently, the California Supreme Court overruled this decision so an amendment is now required.

I remember when Proposition 22 was on the ballot. I was in high school. I am sad to say that even though I believed then in "traditional marriage", as many call it, I was embarrassed to state my opinion. My parents, who wanted to support the cause, had a yard sign that said "Yes on Prop. 22". I remember one day being dropped off by a friend (I don't remember who) and feeling embarrassed by the sign. Even at a fairly young age, I believed the fallacy that is even more pervasive in our society today: standing up for marriage as between a man and a woman = hate speech against gays and lesbians. I hope and pray that anyone who would happen to read this post understands that I in no way hate anyone for the way that they choose to live. I am not homophobic. I am strongly opposed to the mistreatment or discrimination of anyone based on their sexual orientation (I suppose "mistreatment" and "discrimination" are subjective terms; you'll have to read on to understand my meaning). I now understand much more fully the need for respectful dialogue on this issue, devoid of name-calling or hurtful language of any kind. I hope that I will never again be ashamed of standing up for an issue that I believe in and exercising my right to free speech by making that position known.

I believe that marriage is ordained of God. I suppose that right there I lose those who are not religious. I can't help that. My belief in my religion is such a part of me that I can't talk about an issue, especially a moral issue like this one, without talking about my beliefs. I believe that "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal and eternal identity and purpose" ("The Family: A Proclamation to the World"). I really do believe that. I believe that men and women were created differently but with the ability to come together and form a union in which they complement each other and together are stronger than the sum of the parts. Marriage is this union and I believe that when a husband and wife are truly committed to their family above all else, it is the ideal environment for having and raising children.

Now, this is the ideal. Yet, we live in a world that is not always ideal for many reasons. Marriage and having children are not always possible. We make mistakes. Other people make mistakes that can profoundly affect our lives. What about all of this? None of it is for me to judge, thank goodness. But, just because there are exceptions, the ideal should not be abandoned (here's a good church address about this point). As a married woman with children, I know that this does not mean that I am living in some sort of blissful state, free from challenges. It is precisely because challenges will come that I feel grateful to be in the situation that I am. I know that I have made a commitment to my husband and to God that I will not break and I hope my children grow up feeling secure in my commitment, too. I feel secure in my husband's commitment to our family, too. It is this kind of environment that is the safest place for children to be taught how to become loving, compassionate, decent human beings. Does this mean that I think that only children raised in these kinds of homes will turn out well? Of course not. I just feel that as we are blessed with precious children, even children of infinite worth to their Father in Heaven, to care for and teach, we owe it to them to do our utmost to give them the best start possible.

I have been volunteering to try to help Prop. 8 pass, and as I've talked to people, it seems that the major concern of those who would vote no on this issue regards the rights of gay and lesbian couples. These people don't want homosexuals to be denied their rights. I understand this completely and definitely agree to a point. It is important to note that it already states in the California Family Code that "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" (297.5). To me, this issue is more about the recognition of gay marriage as being no different than marriage between a man and a woman. To remove the distinction between the two could potentially bring about many consequences in both the public and private sector that I think most Americans would not feel comfortable with, particularly as is concerned with freedom of religion. I won't get into these here but there is an article written by NPR that shows some of the recent clashes between gay rights and religious liberties.

What is marriage? Is it a right that should belong to any two individuals who care for one another? Or, is it an "essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself"? I believe it is the latter. The previous quote and this one following are from an article called "The Divine Institution of Marriage":

When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment.

Of course, not everyone will even agree with my definition of marriage. Some do feel that it is a right that should be extended to all. I would just encourage those who feel that this issue won't affect them to study and try to determine what the long-term effects of this might be, both to them and to the generations to come.

Also, lest anyone think that this is a party issue, please read this editorial from the LA Times. It is well-written. Or, check out this video with quotes from the presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

My sister, who is much more eloquent than me, started a blog with some very good arguments for Prop. 8.

If you are a California resident and are in favor of this proposition, please vote! Thank you to anyone who has taken the time to read this.