Vote No on Proposition 8
This is a rather lengthy cross-post from my regular blog, here for posterity.
Essentially, it's why I'm voting no on Proposition 8 next week and why, if you're a registered voter in the state of California, I urge you to do the same.
There's been quite a lot of discussion in California about Proposition 8, which is intended to alter the State Constitution to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. Those of you in the audience who already know about Prop. 8 may remember its predecessor, Prop. 22, one of the so-called "defense of marriage" acts that have been on many ballots around these United States. Prop. 22 had major backing from religious groups, particularly among Catholic and Mormon voters. Prop. 22 passed, but was challenged in court and ruled unconstitutional. Predictably, these same interests opted to change the state constitution itself and thus the current Prop. 8 was born.
Prop. 8 is a crock. If you're a registered voter in the state of California, please vote "No" on it.
Here's why...
There is no rational argument to deny same-sex couples the right to marriage and all the civil and legal benefits that accompany that commitment. When approached from a rational secular perspective, it's clearly obvious that society has more to gain by accepting the idea of same-sex marriage and granting same-sex couples the same rights and protections that a mixed-gender marriage enjoys. Those who promote the family as the building block of society are correct; they also often fail to take that argument through to its logical conclusion. A same-sex marriage can also be the basis of a family which also strengthens society. They'll buy homes, appliances, cars, and send their children to schools and universities just the same as "traditional" married couples.
I have friends on both sides of this debate. Some of my friends have religious upbringings and maintain that same-sex marriage runs counter to their beliefs and the traditional definitions of marriage. On the opposite side of that argument are friends who want to get married to another consenting adult who happens to be of the same gender.
Those who oppose same-sex marriage all clearly believe that marriage should continue to be what it was: one man married to one woman. The simple and obvious counter to that argument is each and every one of the other former "traditions" which have fallen by the wayside as society advanced, ranging from slavery to suffrage. We used to be able to own other people. Now, slavery is illegal in the industrial and civilized world. Women used to not be able to own property, get a higher education, or vote. Now they can do all three in Western cultures. Therefore, the status of a pattern of behavior as "tradition" does not ensure that such behavior continues in perpetuity. Times, people, and societies change.
Today the argument of those opposed to same-sex marriage appears to have shifted. Now there is a perceived homosexual "agenda" to be considered; some vaguely defined "slippery slope" which must be avoided and denying same-sex couples the right to wed somehow stems that tide. Any slippery-slope argument is by nature a sophistic one: by elaborating what the top and bottom of said slope are you've defined the inherent dangers and in so doing established what consequences could await. By showing their is a slope, you've ensured we won't slide down it.
Ultimately, those who are in favor of Prop. 8 and against same-sex marriage fall back to a belief as to what marriage "should be" and that belief more often than not stems from a religious philosophy. This, gentle reader, is why Prop. 8 is a crock: what its proponents will not cop to is the religious component of their belief. Because if they did, they would be tacitly (and ironically) admitting they're in favor of violating the First Amendment; the same freedom of religion that they enjoy also applies to those of a different belief, or even no religious beliefs whatsoever. That's right, the First Amendment protects atheists, too. Because it protects the freedom to choose and worship as you see fit. Even if that's as a Pastafarian.
In case that explanation was too convoluted, here's an example. Let's say a coalition of Jews and Muslims got together to introduce a proposition to ban pork sales. They believe pork is bad, pigs are filthy animals, and that nobody should be eating them. The problem is that those beliefs come from their religion, and only really applies to members of that religion. I'm neither Jewish nor a Muslim, so I get to eat bacon.
So please, on November 4, vote no on Prop. 8 if you're a registered voter in California. Because it has nothing to do with the so-called sanctity of marriage. It's a religious belief being forced on those who do not follow those religions. And that is clearly against the US Constitution and common sense.
Essentially, it's why I'm voting no on Proposition 8 next week and why, if you're a registered voter in the state of California, I urge you to do the same.
There's been quite a lot of discussion in California about Proposition 8, which is intended to alter the State Constitution to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. Those of you in the audience who already know about Prop. 8 may remember its predecessor, Prop. 22, one of the so-called "defense of marriage" acts that have been on many ballots around these United States. Prop. 22 had major backing from religious groups, particularly among Catholic and Mormon voters. Prop. 22 passed, but was challenged in court and ruled unconstitutional. Predictably, these same interests opted to change the state constitution itself and thus the current Prop. 8 was born.
Prop. 8 is a crock. If you're a registered voter in the state of California, please vote "No" on it.
Here's why...
There is no rational argument to deny same-sex couples the right to marriage and all the civil and legal benefits that accompany that commitment. When approached from a rational secular perspective, it's clearly obvious that society has more to gain by accepting the idea of same-sex marriage and granting same-sex couples the same rights and protections that a mixed-gender marriage enjoys. Those who promote the family as the building block of society are correct; they also often fail to take that argument through to its logical conclusion. A same-sex marriage can also be the basis of a family which also strengthens society. They'll buy homes, appliances, cars, and send their children to schools and universities just the same as "traditional" married couples.
I have friends on both sides of this debate. Some of my friends have religious upbringings and maintain that same-sex marriage runs counter to their beliefs and the traditional definitions of marriage. On the opposite side of that argument are friends who want to get married to another consenting adult who happens to be of the same gender.
Those who oppose same-sex marriage all clearly believe that marriage should continue to be what it was: one man married to one woman. The simple and obvious counter to that argument is each and every one of the other former "traditions" which have fallen by the wayside as society advanced, ranging from slavery to suffrage. We used to be able to own other people. Now, slavery is illegal in the industrial and civilized world. Women used to not be able to own property, get a higher education, or vote. Now they can do all three in Western cultures. Therefore, the status of a pattern of behavior as "tradition" does not ensure that such behavior continues in perpetuity. Times, people, and societies change.
Today the argument of those opposed to same-sex marriage appears to have shifted. Now there is a perceived homosexual "agenda" to be considered; some vaguely defined "slippery slope" which must be avoided and denying same-sex couples the right to wed somehow stems that tide. Any slippery-slope argument is by nature a sophistic one: by elaborating what the top and bottom of said slope are you've defined the inherent dangers and in so doing established what consequences could await. By showing their is a slope, you've ensured we won't slide down it.
Ultimately, those who are in favor of Prop. 8 and against same-sex marriage fall back to a belief as to what marriage "should be" and that belief more often than not stems from a religious philosophy. This, gentle reader, is why Prop. 8 is a crock: what its proponents will not cop to is the religious component of their belief. Because if they did, they would be tacitly (and ironically) admitting they're in favor of violating the First Amendment; the same freedom of religion that they enjoy also applies to those of a different belief, or even no religious beliefs whatsoever. That's right, the First Amendment protects atheists, too. Because it protects the freedom to choose and worship as you see fit. Even if that's as a Pastafarian.
In case that explanation was too convoluted, here's an example. Let's say a coalition of Jews and Muslims got together to introduce a proposition to ban pork sales. They believe pork is bad, pigs are filthy animals, and that nobody should be eating them. The problem is that those beliefs come from their religion, and only really applies to members of that religion. I'm neither Jewish nor a Muslim, so I get to eat bacon.
So please, on November 4, vote no on Prop. 8 if you're a registered voter in California. Because it has nothing to do with the so-called sanctity of marriage. It's a religious belief being forced on those who do not follow those religions. And that is clearly against the US Constitution and common sense.