Proposition 8

I admit that a strong religious preference biases my support of proposition 8 but the more I consider and learn about the issues at hand the more I am persuaded that there is a strong secular argument in its favor. While the language of proposition 8 suggests the elimination of rights upon its passage I would like to submit a few rights that would be lost should it fail.

First, the right of religions to define the sacred nature of marriage. Should proposition 8 fail marriage will be granted, by law, to same-sex couples. Religions who refuse, based on their doctrine, to extend this right to their members will fall under persecution from the government. The most immediate consequence would likely be a change in the tax-exempt status enjoyed by the religious institution. Why? Because of their beliefs.

Second, the right of parents to choose what their children are taught concerning same-sex marriage. Sex-ed, as it currently stands in schools around the nation, is silent on the issue of same-sex marriage. Parents who want to teach their children that same-sex attraction is natural and right may choose to do so. If, however, the government decrees it to be natural and right it will become part of the school curriculum. Parents desiring to teach their children that marriage between a man and a woman is sacred and the only correct expression of sexual love and desire, will have to homeschool their children or be forced to try and 'unteach' what was learned in the classroom. Unfortunately, homeschooling is a right that is already under attack. An attack that will almost certainly increase if it is decided that children must be taught the government version of marriage.

Third, the right to define the ideal family. Most Americans consider family to be the central unit of society. Few claim to have the ideal home and fewer would be intolerant of others based on a difficult family situation. What makes same-sex marriage so frightening to me is that it re-defines the ideal. America is great, not because it is perfect in every way but because it has chosen a vision of perfection for which it consistently strives. "One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all." A government that recognizes its position as protector, not definer, of certain 'inalienable rights.' So it is with the family. While no one can claim a perfect family, most of us know what we are striving toward as families. To say that 4 Supreme court justices can arbitrarily define away the ideal destroys the vision of what the family is to become. Without a goal towards which society can consistently strive, progression will be unachievable, indeed it will be undefinable.

The obvious weakness in my argument is this: "What of those who believe same-sex marriage is ordained of God?" First I submit that they are in the minority, welcome to democracy. Second, let them perform religious ceremonies to solemnize there union. I happily acknowledge there right to do so. Defining legal marriage as between a man and a women will not take away a religion's right to marry people by the church only, legalizing same-sex marriage will threaten a religion's right to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. As to the legal benefits of marriage most of them are based on the idea that the couple could have children. What about adoption? Legalizing same-sex marriage makes it impossible for religious organizations to select only hetero-sexual couples in the adoption process. Those who refuse to comply would likely be shut down. Besides the obvious implication of fewer adoptions, the young mother who puts her child up for adoption because she know she cannot care for it looses the right to decide what kind of couple receives the child. Additionally, another attack is leveraged against the age old vision of the ideal family.

Perhaps most frightening of all is the question, "What will these special interest groups target next?" The three major rights listed here only pertain to marriage, what will be lost in the next issue of 'tolerance'?