oh, propositions

let's talk about politics and some current ballot propositions. i'm in california and there are a couple of heavy, controversial ones. protecting marriage is one. the title says it all: eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry. let's talk about this.
eliminates right. well, to me that means there is a right present. the right that is present is marriage.
how is taking away rights in any way what we want to happen in this country? a country of freedoms and equality for all. an amendment to a state's constitution and over the california supreme court ruling allowing same-sex marriage is threatening to disallow freedoms and grant inequality.

proposition 8 discriminates in two ways--one favoring heterosexual couples by continuing their right to marriage and the other oppressing and discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (lgbt) couples who will lose the right to marriage. it is a proposition that segregates the population and chooses in favor of or against based on religious values. i say this because the writers of and primary fiscal contributors to the proposition are from religious organizations. should the right to access marriage be decided upon my religiously affiliated beliefs?
my issue is there are all these protections and freedoms we are supposed to have, namely equality and separation of church and state. neither of which seem to be occurring in this proposition. as a sidenote, i am aware that separation of church and state (and proponents of proposition 8) is not all or nothing; there are religious organizations who oppose eliminating the right to marriage for same-sex couples. it is their stance that actually attempts to keep a separation of church and state. unfortunately, it must be a pretty small separation.

throughout all this, there are some lovely perfectly logical explanations (ples) for taking away equality/eliminating rights/ruling the state through church. it is okay to eliminate rights because proposition 8 will:
restore marriage.
"It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be."
not an attack on the gay lifestyle.
less government.
"It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people."
protect families.
"Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father."
protect children.
"It protects our children from being taught in public schools that 'same-sex marriage' is the same as traditional marriage."
"As social and legal norms change, there would be many unwanted consequences for families. For instance, all children would be taught that they can marry someone of the same or of the opposite sex when they grow up. Their parents would be unable to object to such teaching. Experts predict such misinformation will cause developmental insecurity in many children and encourage experimental behavior, with disastrous outcomes."
protect marriage.
and my favorite, proposition 8 doesn't take away the rights of gays.
"Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else."

why are these ples, you might ask. i have some thoughts...
restore marriage--before the 1970s in california there was no definition of marriage being between a man and woman. which means that since california became a state over a hundred years ago (1850) the definition of marriage was written in gender-neutral language. so, from what time period does marriage as being between a man and a woman need to be restored?
less government--it sounds like when there needs to be a constitutional amendment that overturns a state's supreme court ruling, that is more government that is involved in people's personal lives. we are all part of the government! when you have an elected official, you are part of the government. when you vote, you are part of the government. when you write legislature, bills, or propositions, you are part of the government. all propositions on their face are for more government. also, this proposition is about amending the constitution, not about reversing the ruling of judges. this proposition is about amending the constitution in order to take rights away from lgbt couples.
protect families--children are not in danger with both of their legal guardians/parents are able to marry. children are not in danger when raised by lgbt individuals or couples, on the sole merit of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity and expression. this ple is all about fear. the logic is there, but the need for this argument is based on fear. when fear of the lgbt community is so high that there is a movement to try and remove children from settings with these individuals, there is a problem. families are not threatened or in need of protection when all people have access to the right to marriage. in fact, when all people have access, more families can be legally recognized. why would families need protecting when there can be more of them?
protect children--this is a similar ple to "protect families." although, in this ple, it is important to note the assumptions that are made...there is not one word, one mention of education in proposition 8. current california law gives parents the overall authority over their children's education in terms health and family issues. parents have an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. this ple is saying that it is okay to eliminate rights of lgbt people because of the potential that kids will be taught that everyone (straight and lgbt folks) has the right to marry. ultimately, this once perfectly logical explanation becomes perfectly ludicrous explanation--we should eliminate rights to one group for fear that we teach our kids about equality. that's interesting reasoning. let me know how that works out.
doesn't take away the right of gays--heck yeah it does! that is exactly what this proposition says it will do--IN IT'S TITLE! for this reason, i wouldn't say it is actually logical, however i suppose it could be read as such. on the radio i heard this ple used because "gay people are allowed to marry; gay men just have to marry women." this is another topic altogether, but this is why we need to begin recognizing the differences between equality and equity--this argument raises the need for equity.

the value of marriage is not lost when all people have the right to marriage. the value grows exponentially. i challenge the thought of marriage losing its value as fewer people have access to it, and more people are prevented from choosing to enter into it.

now, i am not saying vote this way or that; i am saying think about the effects and impacts of your vote. what do you want your vote to stand for?