Commentary: Proposition 8 Would Jeopardize Fundamental Rights
While religious groups will define marriage by their standards, the government has no place in choosing who is or is not allowed a civil marriage.
The presence of Proposition 8 on the California ballot this year has generated a storm of controversy and upheavals of emotion on both sides of the debate.
Paul Sorensen recently wrote a commentary (Noozhawk, “Commentary: Proposition 8 Ensures Equality For All Children”) advocating the passage of the initiative on the grounds that its defeat would irreparably damage the family structure, turning out ill-socialized, poorly raised children. Proposition 8, of course, was placed on the ballot by voters as an amendment to the California Constitution that, as its title reads, “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.”
Sorensen’s argument was twofold. First was the emotion appeal, arguing that if you were up for adoption, you would of course prefer to be adopted by a husband and wife rather than a same-sex couple. The key factor I would seek to assess, however, is not sexual orientation but simply the capability to responsibly raise a child. Heterosexuality alone by no means guarantees any sort of parental aptitude.
The second stage of the attack, based on a supposedly “vast” body of social science confirming the advantages of a heterosexual set of parents on a child’s well-being, fails to reference any specific studies and is misleading in its claim of “overwhelming” consensus. A report released by Medscape, a professional health resource, on Oct. 13, 2005, reads: “An analysis of multiple studies of 500 households shows that rearing children in a same-sex household does not affect their self-esteem, gender identity or emotional health.”
This entire debate over child-rearing and science is ultimately irrelevant, however, because the real issue is upholding the equality of all people. However, many proponents of Proposition 8 reframe the argument based on a variety of theoretical negative consequences stemming from the potential defeat of their cause. From what I have heard and read, many of the arguments defending Prop 8 fall into similar categories: that legitimizing gay marriage will damage the vital family structure, lead to the teaching of homosexuality in public schools, encourage the Supreme Court’s “legislating from the bench” and directly oppose the religious beliefs that many people live by.
The first claim, defending the family structure and the “ideal” heterosexual couple, is countered very simply and plainly: Such a claim is based on specific opinions and values held by individuals, not on facts, and therefore, in accordance with the constitutional ideals this country is based on, such beliefs may not be imposed on others. The mere existence of gay marriage has absolutely no impact on existing marriages, and does not in any way compromise the integrity of dedicated and loving heterosexual families.
Many also claim that the civil unions formerly granted to same-sex couples granted the same rights as marriage, and that maintaining such a difference allows same-sex couples their own form of partnership without resulting in the redefinition of marriage. While it is true that California’s civil unions have grown in scope and now are nearly equivalent to marriage, the fact remains that civil unions are not marriage. By giving same-sex marriage a title other than what is reserved for heterosexual couples, the institution of same-sex partnerships is belittled and same-sex couples are systematically labeled as undeserving of full rights. This is, in effect, “separate but equal” all over again.
The second point, that the defeat of Prop 8 would lead children to be “taught homosexuality” in schools, is a nonissue. A comprehensive sex education class will describe the nature of homosexuality regardless of what legal rights homosexuals possess. If the morality of homosexuality is addressed in class, teachers who promote positive acceptance of homosexuals will continue to do so regardless of the passage or defeat of Prop 8, while teachers who withhold judgment or present homosexuality as reprehensible most likely will not change their beliefs based on the result of the popular vote. Meanwhile, a parent whose views clash with what they perceive being taught is free to promote contrary ideas to their child outside of the classroom, but in a government-sponsored public institution of learning, the opinions and values of parents must bow to the laws of equality and anti-discrimination.
The demonization of “activist judges” overriding the will of the people is likewise misguided and uninformed. The judiciary, a vital element of the three branches of the U.S. government, acts as an agent of checks and balances in part by defending the rights of minority groups from the oppressive tendencies of the majority. When the “will of the people” results in a set of laws that restricts the freedoms of a group too small to be effective in the arena of direct democracy (as occurred with the passage of Proposition 22 in 2000), it is the constitutional duty of the Supreme Court, when presented with such a case as came before it on May 15 of this year, to declare that the denial of civil marriage to homosexuals is unconstitutional. In ruling thus they follow in the footsteps of civil rights movements throughout our history: recognizing that all men and women have a fundamental right to equal treatment under the law.
Lastly, regarding the claimed deconstruction of religious and moral traditions because of the rise of alternate value systems, the debate follows the same logic as that of the alleged assault on the family structure. While many religious groups can and will continue to define marriage by their own standards, and decide who has access to their individual form of marriage, the government has absolutely no place in choosing who is or is not allowed a civil marriage. The only time it is ever permissible to limit the rights of an individual is when that individual poses a clear and immediate threat to others.
While it appears that many find gay marriage to offend their delicate sensibilities, that is not and has never been legitimate grounds for discrimination and the withholding of fundamental rights.
Alex Dunn lives in Isla Vista and is a student at Santa Barbara City College.
» wrote on 10/11/08 @ 08:57 AM
Well-spoken, Alex. What the world needs now - more than ever -is love, coupled with acceptance. I truly hope we will not see hateful and discriminatory comments to your rational and thoughtful argument. I, and my husband and our voting children, are voting “No” on Proposition 8.
» wrote on 10/11/08 @ 09:21 AM
Well written opinion. Prop 8 is a waste of time, money and energy. I agree with pretty much everything Mr Dunn says except “By giving same-sex marriage a title other than what is reserved for heterosexual couples, the institution of same-sex partnerships is belittled and same-sex couples are systematically labeled as undeserving of full rights.” I disagree. I still believe that the term marriage is and should be understood as between a man and a woman. That said, people should have the same freedoms and right to commit to each other and should get equal treatment under the law under the defined terminology. I will vote “no” on Prop 8, but I also do not want marraige redefined to include anything other than between a man and a woman.
» wrote on 10/11/08 @ 10:13 AM
Alex, I think you have written an intelligent and clear response as well as description of what Prop. 8 and is, and isn’t about. Why can’t we just allow for the same freedoms,and choices in this Country that we all so proudly wave our Flag to, especially when it comes to love? It always seems like societies’ insecurities seem to divide us over things like caring and family sharing across the board that are all our values that should be uniting us, especially in hard times like these. Shame on us for being so narrow minded and not embracing of all that Is Good in this world! Let’s protect All Our Rights For All Of Us!
» wrote on 10/11/08 @ 10:51 AM
The Medscape article I reference can be found here:
» wrote on 10/11/08 @ 11:41 AM
An excellent dissertation on the subject. It is unfortunate that the audience for it will be unable to comrehend it, not because they are stupid but because they have been so indoctrinated from an early age to believe a non-existent issue about human sexuality, that it becomes extremely dificult to understand, accept or even to examine any rational explanation.Frankly, it is nobody’s business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home, particularly, when it is not illegal.
» wrote on 10/11/08 @ 03:53 PM
Alex Dunn, why do you hate America?
If we cannot obsess about gay people and how to bash them by messing up the California Constitution, we instead will have to think about the tanking economy and the war in Iraq.
» wrote on 10/11/08 @ 04:19 PM
Alex,
I think you are completely off base and your commentary is misguided. Check the FACTS and you will see that the adopted children of gay couples suffer the most sexual confusion, the most societal alienation and ultimately the most familial rebellion.... significantly above adopted children raised in heterosexual marriages. Check out the VIDEO “It’s Not Gay” featuring direct insight to a child raised by a gay couple for more detail.
This argument is so basic and fundamental that one would think it requires no further explanation. However, I think someone once well said “claiming themselves to be wise, they became as fools instead”. Let’s all hope Californians see the wisdom of PROPOSITION 8 and vote for it to pass, to eliminate the potential for liberal leaning judges to define law and to make this issue go away. We need to keep heterosexual marriage and the definition of a “normal” family in the sacred place it has been for centuries in this country. We have much more important issues on which to focus our attention. Gays will be gays, let them do what they want just don’t try to redefine for everyone else in our state what marriage is all about.
Jonathan in SB
» wrote on 10/12/08 @ 12:41 AM
Alex, Thank you for doing your homework and producing an excellent article with unassailable logic and compassion. Unfortunately, the people in favor of Prop 8 too often check their logic at the door and react in fear and ignorance. As I have said in the forums following each Noozhawk article on this misguided proposition, granting marriage rights to same-gender couples is a positive step for society. It’s too bad so many people are afraidt to take it.
» wrote on 10/12/08 @ 04:53 AM
Foster kids need loving parents first and foremost. A loving set of foster parents who happened to be gay would have been much better than this foster parent:
http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2008/06/13/news/breaking/breaking12.txt
A 3-year-old boy found dead Wednesday in Santa Maria was allegedly killed by his foster mother, police said today.
» wrote on 10/12/08 @ 01:12 PM
It is not a matter of “offending delicate sensibilites”. Like it or not there is a certain basic or natural order of things. Without going into too much graphic detail not fit for the “delicate sensibilities” about sexual relationships, the fundamental family unit is a MAN and a WOMAN. In this regard there IS A NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS!
This committed relationship between a man and a woman has come to be called a marriage over centuries of social history. Numerous studies have shown that the best chance any child has in upbringing is the role modeling and unique inputs from both the OPPOSITE genders and of course, parents who are happily married and well adjusted with a system of values conducive to a happy, moral and productive life.
Obviously having two parents of the same sex is better than having NO PARENTS at all. It is not necessarily true that having only one parent is detrimental because that single parent home has often produced well adjusted, happy and productive children who have gotten the right blend of role modeling either from their single parent or from other sources, or both.
It has become clear to most reasonable thinking people that the availability of LEGAL RIGHTS for two persons, albeit of the same sex, who choose to become “domestic partners” does not offend their “delicate sensibilities”.
What is patently clear is that these domestic partners are not satisfied with tolerance and recognition of legal rights. Instead they want acceptance of such an odd relationship as a “marriage” which, as set out above, has a well understood basic meaning and has historically been the natural order of things for eons.
To heterosexual couples who understand easily the difference between men and women and the fundamental building blocks of a marriage and a “family unit”, it is not a matter of “offending their delicate sensibilities” it is requiring them to accept what is clearly an UNNATURAL COUPLING of same sex persons and trying to call it a “marriage” or force those who disagree that it is something it clearly IS NOT.
That is the bottom line and that is why heterosexual couples or “non-gay” persons are offended by the attempts by gay people and homosexual couples to force them to accept their view and mischaracterize “marriage” as including a liason between men “married” to men or women “married” to women no matter how “loving” and “committed” to each other that they may be!
Like it or not, Johnny does not have two mothers nor does he have two daddies in the same household and family unit.
» wrote on 10/12/08 @ 02:44 PM
Jonathan in SB:
“Check the FACTS and you will see that the adopted children of gay couples suffer the most sexual confusion, the most societal alienation and ultimately the most familial rebellion....”
Show me the facts. Show me scientific studies that refute what I have said. Jax, please do the same.
Also, Jax:
“...it is requiring them to accept what is clearly an UNNATURAL COUPLING of same sex persons...”
Nobody is forcing you to accept anything. I am not trying to make you change your opinion of homosexuality. But you are advocating that same-sex couples be forced to accept your idea of what is and is not marriage, as well as what is and is not unnatural.
» wrote on 10/13/08 @ 11:00 AM
You write a very concise and logic article. I aggree with you and find that those who insist on discrimination of any group is basically undemocratic in thr true sense of the word.
» wrote on 10/13/08 @ 12:40 PM
Very well written. Do people still really believe that just because something has been one way for years that it is the only way it can be and the only right way? Are these the same people who did not think women should vote because it was the way it always was? Where have I heard that expression “Natural Order of Things” before? Sounds awfully prejudicial to me. Do people really think that if children have same-sex parents that they will be gay? If this is true, why are children raised by two heterosexual parents sometimes gay? I have a gay son, he was always gay and I really do not think I encouraged or discouraged this belief in him. I am heterosexual and he was raised by myself and his father. So go figure I guess.
But anyway, nice job on your dissertation of this situation. You would make your parents proud.
» wrote on 10/13/08 @ 02:35 PM
The judge is “activist” if the legal ruling is now what I like, but the judge is a Constitutional protectionist if I do agree with the ruling.
» wrote on 10/14/08 @ 01:03 AM
Prop. 8 is an attempt to deny every citizen the rights we deserve. Very well written article, Mr. Dunn.
» wrote on 10/14/08 @ 10:26 AM
Alex,
you are the one that is misguided! Growing up I never heard any kids i knew that they were proud of their gay parents and them living together. In fact I knew a few that were embarassed by their parents selfish rude behavior around other kids and the awkwardness of the supposed Loving “family” that is created.
You are dellusional if you think a child wants that for a normal family life. If asked by choice even gay people have said that they would not want to be “gay” The life that you lead and the problems that you would bring upon yourself is not the best thing for any one. And gays have segregated themselves because they chose to live the lifestyle they live. Blacks did not segregate theselves by choice the were forced by the whiteman to be slaves and not by choice.
you are so out in left field that it seems bizarre that same sex unions would be a “Marriage”!
» wrote on 10/14/08 @ 01:42 PM
Geesh. Sometimes the things people write truly shocks me. You think the children were ashamed of their parents? I seriously doubt that. More than likely they were afraid of the bigots they would encounter if they made it known that they had same sex parents. These children were probably very loved by their parents and knowing how many bigots there are in the world is what causes them to not reveal that they have same sex parents, not because they are embarassed or ashamed. I look forward to the day when people can accept same sex marriages and not even blink when they encounter one. And since you brought up blacks, has it been so long ago that they were considered second class citizens and not accepted? That was bigotry also and thank goodness it is not quite so prevalent any longer.
» wrote on 10/16/08 @ 12:14 AM
Since the government has no right to tell us who we can and can’t marry....I think we should let all of those polygamists out that they arrested ....Why not? Why are you being so judgemental? They loved each other. This is what no on prop 8 is going to lead too and much worse. Don’t fool yourselves.
» wrote on 10/16/08 @ 02:27 PM
Great article. I’m so ashamed to read the comments below that have tried so hard to legitimize their reasons for denying rights to a individuals in their community.
It is astounding that someone would even try to use the argument that children are not brought up properly in a gay household. First off even without marriage there will always be children with gay parents. so denying marriage won’t make any difference to wether these families exist or not.
Secondly as someone stated below, the only reason why these children are hurt by having gay parents is because of people like those that will support Prop 8. We do not want to be “tolerated” we want to be the next door neighbor, we want to be the nice couple down the street, we want our child to not feel what we felt as gay individuals growing up. We want what’s best for him.
Thankfully my family is that next door neighbor, we are the couple down the street and our son plays with all the kids in the neighborhood. We are part of a community that doesn’t even think twice that we are together and MARRIED and have a son. We are invited to birthday parties, holiday events, playdates, etc.
Our son has two mom’s a dad and 8 grandparents. 8 because like so many heterosexuals who believe marriage is sacred, have divorced and remarried. I’m glad my family has a wonderful support system both within our own family and within our neighborhood and beyond. I’m glad there are people like you out there defending the rights of everyone.
Thank you for a great commentary. You will make a difference in the world, not just for people like me but for anyone who is discriminated against. Congratulations!