Just Call Me a Right-Wing Homophobic Fascist!

Proposition 8 - Definition of Marriage in California

In California, we just finished voting on Proposition 8, and it's no secret to any of my friends & family, I voted 'yes'. California shares with just 23 other states the ability of the citizens to override their elected officials and directly vote on state law. Although with the strict requirements for signatures that many states have, just 6 states, Arizona, California, Colorado, North Dakota, Oregon, and Washington, pass 60% of all citizen originated initiatives. This ability of the citizens to step up to the plate, and over-ride unpopular judicial or legislative law is direct democracy in action.  Many of you reading this may envy the states that allow direct participation in the making of law.

Proposition 8 – which, in it’s entirety, states:

It’s important to note that this identical statement: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, received 61% of the vote when it was on Proposition 22 in 2000. That 61% is an incredible number, reflecting as it does an otherwise left-leaning California electorate. In ‘red-state flyover country’, that number would undoubtedly be much higher.

The issue, as many people see it, is the right of gays to marry… but of course, they already have that right. A gay man can certainly marry almost any woman (barring, of course, such categories as his sister or mother…) Just as a Lesbian woman can marry any man.  What is really meant by ‘gay marriage’ is the changing of the meaning of a word. By changing 'marriage' to mean any societally recognized contract of partnership based in love, rather than the traditional religious & family oriented meaning of the term - gays hope to garner acceptance of their lifestyle... for they already have the legal ramifications of marriage through civil unions (which, by the way, I favor)

But you can’t enforce societal acceptance by judicial fiat.  You cannot force acceptance down the throat of society by judicial decree.  It’s society that defines the rules, not an elite minority. When a decision by four judges can overturn the society mores of a majority of a society – something is wrong. If for no other reason - Proposition 8 deserves the yes vote that it got.

Running to the courts is never a way to ‘win the hearts & minds’ of a people – the way to do it is with communication.  There’s clearly a more receptive audience to the ‘gay lifestyle’ today than there was twenty years ago – as an example. But it hasn’t been forced by law, it’s been attitudes changed by knowledge and communication.

But because the proponents of same-sex marriage tried to do through the courts what they couldn’t do through legislature – they now face a higher hurdle in the form of a Constitutional amendment – rather than a statute – and the problems for those who favor same-sex marriage have gotten worse, not better.

Just to be specific, I personally voted ‘Yes’ on Proposition 8 – favoring the traditional viewpoint of marriage – but not solely for disagreement about the meaning of marriage. I do favor the traditional view of the meaning of marriage, but my objections to same-sex marriage go deeper in a judicial sense - I object to it in the same way I object to the “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)”. Although ADA is actual legislation, as opposed to judicial activism, the consequences are the same – a bonanza for lawyers.

No-one is in favor of discriminating against those with handicaps – but the ADA is bad law. It’s provided a great legal forum for poor employees to blackmail corporate America, and to put money in the wallets of enterprising lawyers.

Likewise, no-one is trying to assert that you can’t love the person of your choice, merely that you can’t call it what it is not. Don’t force me to condone what I do not. The Constitution wisely put a fence between religion and politics – and it’s a two way fence. For just as religion should not dictate policy, the government should not be able to force those who hold religious beliefs to accept what their religion forbids.

If the judicial interference with the will of the people had stood up – I would foresee the same result as with the bad ADA law – a bonanza for lawyers.  Lawsuits restricting the rights of people to freely practice their religion would appear. It would be foolish to deny that the major support for restrictions of same-sex marriage are based on religion. Although Christianity seems to be a favored target of the Left in America today - it doesn't make it right, nor sound societal mores.

I say again – you can’t accomplish societal acceptance with judicial fiat. This is, after all, what the agenda is (and I honestly don’t want to use the word ‘agenda’, laden as it is with negative overtones), not any ‘rights’ that gays already have – but acceptance of their lifestyle. Tolerance is not enough in their view – and in my view its all I need to provide.

So just call me a right-wing homophobic fascist nutcase – I’m proud of who I am, and what my parents, religion, and society raised me to be.

Any thoughts?