The state of California made international headlines in May after its groundbreaking Supreme Court ruling gave same-sex couples the right to marry. The decision declared that discrimination on the basis of one’s sexual orientation would be just as unconstitutional as laws that discriminate against gender or race. But it seems Californians weren’t ready for that level of equality and progress in their state, as 52 percent of the state’s voters on Tuesday approved Proposition 8 ‘-‘- the referendum to ban same-sex marriages. This step backward sends a message that Americans aren’t ready to treat each other equally and would rather go out of their way to limit others’ rights than build a free society.
On Tuesday, the citizens of Arizona and Florida also decided to bypass the courts by deciding to make gay marriage against the law. In a particularly uncompassionate move, voters in California snubbed the thousands of gay couples that had wed over the past five months. Voters snatched away Californians’ rights after it had already been granted to them.
Ballot measures can be a great way for citizens to enact new laws. In Massachusetts, Bay Staters voted to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana and end greyhound racing. Citizens also turned down a proposal that would have done away with the state income tax. Clearly, ballot questions are an effective way to cut through red tape and bypass legislatures that are sometimes criticized for being wasteful and corrupt. But when California citizens decided to challenge their own Supreme Court’s ruling ‘-‘- a ruling overturning a previous ballot measure to ban gay marriage ‘-‘- they put the possibility of discrimination back on the ballot. In doing this, they sent a very troubling message to their fellow citizens, their state and the nation.
Two men or two women marrying each other will never hurt anyone. It is a sad reality that too many people in America believe otherwise, and are even willing to infringe upon human rights to protect their prejudiced conception of marriage. The lobbyist group Protect Marriage in California describes the Supreme Court’s decision as ‘outrageous’ and fears that children will be taught about same-sex marriage in school.
Still, gay marriage opponents should not worry about giving their children too much education. Whatever the issue, be it same-sex marriage, evolution, religion or sexuality, the answer is always education. Keeping children in the dark about even one pertinent subject is a total failure of any learning system. Years of not teaching children about safe-sex practices have led to generations with record teen pregnancy rates. Clearly, an ‘abstinence only’ policy failed. A ‘man-woman marriage only’ policy doesn’t work, either.
Also, censoring a subject is frighteningly close to distorting and disfiguring it ‘-‘- teaching propaganda.
Another factor that seems to drive peoples’ ambitions to prevent universal marriage rights is the guise of religious beliefs. If the United States is truly the land of free religion, speech and assembly, then human rights decisions should never’ be made with the religious considerations. The very act of infusing government policy with religious value is immediately and inherently infringing upon the rights of others, whether fundamentalists are willing to admit it or not.
There is no way to determine what is right or wrong for personal relationships and marriage. If the relationship is loving and strong, how can anyone object? It’s ludicrous to make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. The ‘sanctity of marriage’ is a term often thrown around by politicians, many of whom are on their second, third or even fourth marriages. If there was anyone in a position to determine what ‘marriage’ should mean, it clearly is not those with multiple divorces.
California got it wrong when voters shot down gay marriage. Instead of keeping with the encouraging theme of acceptance symbolized by the election of Barack Obama ‘-‘- the nation’s first black president-elect ‘-‘- passing Proposal 8 reinvigorated discrimination and small-mindedness.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
What does gay marriage do to “tarnish” the “sanctity” of marriage? If anyone is doing that, it’s people (of any sexual preference) who marry for reasons other than love and commitment. <p/>We need to get away from the idea that marriage always has a religious basis. Many people aren’t married in a church, etc., which is completely acceptable. So if churches don’t want to recognize gay marriage… fine. But the state of California? That’s not acceptable.<p/>Regardless of how I, or anyone, personally and emotionally feels about the issue, we just need to consider one thing. If your argument is (A) “because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong” versus (B) “the Constitution says we all get equal rights,” the choice should be B. Absolutely, no question, end of story.
I don’t feel the need to read the entire article after realizing what it is about. Californians made the right decision. “Marriage” is between a man and a woman, and there is no reason to tarnish the sanctity of marriage. They can have their own civil unions if they’d like, but not marriages.