Opposition to CA Prop. 8: Hate in the Name of Love
Posted by: Dennis Prager | 10/23/2008 12:40 PM
Next to the presidential election, California Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America.
It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.
In 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had -- the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses). But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.
As a result of this judicial act, the only way to ensure that we continue to define marriage the way every religious and secular society in recorded history has defined marriage -- as between men and women -- is to amend the California Constitution. It is the only way to prevent the vote of one judge from redefining marriage, as was also done in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Which is why Proposition 8 exists.
But even though California voters decided by a large margin to retain the man-woman definition of marriage, passing Proposition 8 will be a challenge.
First, the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition's wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."
The reason for this change is obvious -- to make the proposition appear as a denial of a basic human and civil right.
Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses. And even those who believe that any two unmarried people who want to get married should be given a marriage license should regard as wrong an attorney general changing a ballot proposition's language to favor his own social views. What Brown did was attempt to manipulate people who lean toward preserving the definition of the most important social institution in society -- people who have no desire whatsoever to hurt gays -- to now think of themselves as bigots.
According to Sacramento Bee columnist Margaret A. Bengs, "a recent Field Poll analysis found" that the new wording by Brown "had a 'striking' impact on those newly familiar with the measure, with a 23-point swing against it."
What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create.
And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society.
The second hurdle for Proposition 8 is even greater: the multimillion dollar campaign to label proponents of Proposition 8 "haters" and to label the man-woman definition of marriage as "hate." Or as they put it: "Prop 8 = Prop Hate."
It is apparently inconceivable to many of those who wish to change the definition of marriage that a decent person can want to retain the man-woman definition. From newspaper editorials to gay and other activist groups, the theme is universal -- proponents of traditional marriage are haters, the moral equivalents of those who opposed racial equality. As The New York Times editorial on the subject put it, Proposition 8 is "mean-spirited."
But it is the charge of hate (along with bigotry, homophobia and intolerance) that is the primary charge leveled against supporters of Proposition 8. That's why one major anti-Proposition 8 group is "Californians Against Hate."
Any honest outsider would see that virtually all the hate expressed concerning Proposition 8 comes from opponents of the proposition. While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show.
It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate -- because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree. Why should our generation be different?
These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.
Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?
Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness Is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is www.pragerradio.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.
In 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had -- the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses). But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.
As a result of this judicial act, the only way to ensure that we continue to define marriage the way every religious and secular society in recorded history has defined marriage -- as between men and women -- is to amend the California Constitution. It is the only way to prevent the vote of one judge from redefining marriage, as was also done in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Which is why Proposition 8 exists.
But even though California voters decided by a large margin to retain the man-woman definition of marriage, passing Proposition 8 will be a challenge.
First, the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition's wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."
The reason for this change is obvious -- to make the proposition appear as a denial of a basic human and civil right.
Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses. And even those who believe that any two unmarried people who want to get married should be given a marriage license should regard as wrong an attorney general changing a ballot proposition's language to favor his own social views. What Brown did was attempt to manipulate people who lean toward preserving the definition of the most important social institution in society -- people who have no desire whatsoever to hurt gays -- to now think of themselves as bigots.
According to Sacramento Bee columnist Margaret A. Bengs, "a recent Field Poll analysis found" that the new wording by Brown "had a 'striking' impact on those newly familiar with the measure, with a 23-point swing against it."
What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create.
And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society.
The second hurdle for Proposition 8 is even greater: the multimillion dollar campaign to label proponents of Proposition 8 "haters" and to label the man-woman definition of marriage as "hate." Or as they put it: "Prop 8 = Prop Hate."
It is apparently inconceivable to many of those who wish to change the definition of marriage that a decent person can want to retain the man-woman definition. From newspaper editorials to gay and other activist groups, the theme is universal -- proponents of traditional marriage are haters, the moral equivalents of those who opposed racial equality. As The New York Times editorial on the subject put it, Proposition 8 is "mean-spirited."
But it is the charge of hate (along with bigotry, homophobia and intolerance) that is the primary charge leveled against supporters of Proposition 8. That's why one major anti-Proposition 8 group is "Californians Against Hate."
Any honest outsider would see that virtually all the hate expressed concerning Proposition 8 comes from opponents of the proposition. While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show.
It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate -- because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree. Why should our generation be different?
These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.
Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?
Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness Is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is www.pragerradio.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
CATEGORY:
SPOTLIGHT (Editorial Staff Only)
Exactly Dennis's point on who the bigots truly are. Thank you for providing an excellent example of exactly what he is talking about.
Actually, you're wrong in your statement "Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses..."
Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in 1967 by the Supreme Court when it ruled that marriage is a civil right. The case, Loving v. Virginia came about because folks of different races who wanted to marry, weren't permitted to by law. Individual states stuck down several propositions, just like what's happening with prop 8 and prior propositions in the past.
If Prop. 8 is victorious, and a case ends up in the Supreme Court, based on Loving v. Virginia the entire country will have same-sex marriage. So, don't think this fight is over. It's far from it.
Also, your statement that 61 percent of the voters in California voted against same-sex marriage is flawed. It was 61 percent of those who voted. I'm sure nearly every homosexual person and every republican/Christian fundamentalist voted, but there was nothing on the ballot that affected "Joe Sixpack" directly and therefore, people were complacent and didn't vote.
Most of those who didn't vote regret their decision and will be out there this time.
Annienonymous said,
"Most of those who didn't vote regret their decision and will be out there this time."
Really? Most of those that didnt vote regret their decision? Do you have research to support that? I mean, how would you go about finding out? Did you knock on all the apathetic people's doors, and then quiz them on that particular prop?
The apathetic people will stay home again (thank goodness, as they usually dont even educate themselves on the issues.) Those that care, one way or another, will vote, and just like last time, the majority will decide that a sacred institution will remain as such.
I think everyone is missing the point here in that why should we be voting for a constitutional amendment on what is clearly a moral issue. I don't think that we as a society should be legislating morality. Once the door is opened, every moral issue could become a constitutional amendment and that is not what the constitution was designed to do. Dennis is someone I admire and respect, but I feel that he is hanging his hat on a moral issue that probably more people in fact believe is correct than believe is not correct, but does that really give society the right to legislate morality, just because the majority believe it to be right. I sure hope that our society has not come to that point.
Too bad poor Dennis has the legislative background wrong. Jerry Brown didn't change the description of Prop 8, it was litigated by your side and a judge determined that since gays and lesbians can currently marry, this measure is tantamount to eliminating rights that people are already enjoying.
Leave it to the vast right-wing conspiracy to lie about the vast left-wing conspiracy. Vote No on 8 and third-party candidates. It's our crying nation's only hope.
SMS
SMS, You are correct. It's great to see that there are other level-headed people out there.
Kim, I am an elected official and I work at a California University and the consensus is that the last 8 years of the Bush Administration have jolted a large number of apathetic voters out of their stupor and they will be voting this time. If you don't think we pay attention to trends like this, you're crazy. Do I really have to dig up peer-reviewed, published research?
Why don't you challenge me on my main point that the Supreme Court determined marriage to be a civil right in Loving v. Virginia. Therefore, I contend that if Prop 8 passes, someone will take it to the S. Court where they will not go against precedent and same-sex marriage will be nation wide. Either way, it's just a matte of time.
In fact, we legislate morality all the time. Many jurisdictions don't allow liquor sales on Sunday. It's against the law to commit suicide or perform euthanasia. There are lots of examples. But the fact is that morality changes over time as societies change their views. As one of the posters points out, it was against the law before the 1960s to marry someone outside one's own race. How many of us think that practice is immoral now? (maybe I don't want to hear an answer from this crowd...). Most importantly, why should government interfere with a couple's personal rights to marry one another if they're in love? (answer: it shouldn't) How does gay marriage adversely affect my own hetero marriage? (answer: it doesn't).
How about this. Let's work on giving people MORE rights and freedoms, rather than taking them away. And most important of all, let's try to regain those we've lost in the last 8 years. And maybe a bit of our humanity, as well...
Unless you first take away the right of gays and lesbians to adopt children you really have no business telling those fortunate kids who have been taken from state care and given stable family environments that they don't have the right to have married parents because their parents are - bad.