Prop 8 in CA

So I had an interesting conversation with someone today. We were discussing about how my values, strong conservatism, came from my parents, and how I needed to divest myself of some of my more "close-minded" feelings. Prop 8 came up as an example of how I am not being cognizant of a person's choice, and that by voting for Prop 8, I'm taking away a gay or lesbians right to marry. I was accused, in as nicely a way as you can phrase it, of being discriminatory. "They are born that way, and are now having their rights stripped away" because of close minded people (the implication being that I am one of those close minded people). It really made me think, because it came from someone whose opinion I respect.

A history lesson is somewhat in order here. Some time ago (2006), a proposition was passed by the people of CA by 61% defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In a narrow 4-3 decision, the CA Supreme Court said that it was against the CA Constitution to define marriage in such a way. Prop 8 is the response to the action.


So I let the ideas kinda rattle around in my brain tonight, and eventually ended up here. I pulled up the two websites (www.noonprop8.com & www.protectmarriage.com). (Reading both of them has given me yet again a lesson in how propoganda is worded. I accept that people have the right and the obligation to word their arguments in such a fashion so as to be the most impactful. However, I think that sometimes people can go too far in their vehement defense of their ideals, and there is a good possibility that this might have happened in this circumstance. ) The Protect Marriage people would have you believe that this would open the way to teaching about homosexuality and gay marriage in schools, while in defense the No on Prop 8 people claim that regardless of what happens with this Prop parents will have the right to not allow their children to be taught about values and family issues. Being the child of a teacher, and dating another, I have yet to hear a single instance where a parent has done that ... and believe me I would hear about it. The PM people say that this is more about activist judges legislating from the bench, and the NoP8 people claim that this is not about judges, but basic human rights. Now let's stop right there. Anytime someone tries to shift the argument away from my point by claiming that you are violating someone's "basic human rights", I start right away looking for the Liberal bumper sticker. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about rights as they are defined in the US Constitution. But the defense of people's "basic human rights" has gotten us into this financial crisis, so you will forgive me if I find this to be a less then believeable defense. I also happen to agree that judges legislating has gotten way out of hand. (See Roe V Wade discussion below)

Those are merely a few of the arguments made by both parties. With all of those thoughts jumbled around in my head, I sat to both blog this out, and sort it out in my head. On one hand, you have people just like you or I, albeight with different tastes, and on the other, you have 61% of Californians whose vote has been completely disregarded. (Oops, I did it too. It's a little bit of word twisting, but the point is still the same. Who stands up for those CA's whose vote just became invalidated?)

Bleh. How did you like that little intellectual throw up?