Proposition 8

A few weeks ago, I met a couple of young adults who were canvassing the neighborhood to determine how people would vote on California’s Proposition 8, the “California Marriage Protection Act”. I freely explained that I was in favor of Proposition 8–not because I would ever discriminate against gays or lesbians–but because I felt it was time to say No to the re-defining of marriage.

I would never support discriminating against gays and lesbians in the workplace.  Nor would I ever condone the denial of visitation rights in the hospital by a partner.  Contract law fully allows acquiring property, etc.  These should all be protected and provided for under the law.

When Proposition 22, a ballot measure defining marriage in California as between one man and one woman came up for a vote, It passed with 61% percent of the vote.  This past May, California’s Supreme Court overturned this voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, saying gay and lesbian couples could not be denied marriage licenses.

The action of the Supreme Court to reverse the will of the people angered many and caused the current Proposition 8 to be placed on the ballot in November.  This in turn has outraged the gay and lesbian community, who are attacking Proposition 8 as the first proposition in California to remove civil rights.  All Proposition 8 attempts to do is place the decision back into the hands of the voters.  Shouldn’t the people be allowed to make decisions like these?

I was asked by some of the supporters of Proposition 8 to allow them to film me for a You Tube video on the proposition.  If you would like to see it, here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qb1BWRoP2Q

The last thing I would want to do is be portrayed at being unfair or discriminatory.  I feel that matter is rather simple.  Let’s have the courage to say “No” to certain things, even at the risk of offending certain people.  For too long, we have said “Yes” to everything, so we would avoid hurting anyone’s feelings.  We have built a society defending the rights of the “last American”.

Another good argument for the Pro-8 position involves the importance of legal definitions.  If you want to sell wine called “Champagne”, you have to comply with the rules.  The grapes must come from the Champagne region of France, in accordance with the Appellation d’origine contrôlée certification.  If you decide to not comply with the rules of making champagne, you cannot call it Champagne; you have to call it something else.

Dictionary.com defines marriage as “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.”  If you want to change the definition of marriage, it is not longer “marriage”.  Call it something else.  It’s that simple.