Donate to Noozhawk Today

Santa Barbara-Goleta, Friday, January 09, 2009

Weather: Fog 50º

Noozhawk.com Logo

Point of View »Commentary: The Vote to Ban Same-Sex Marriage Crossed a Line

Commentary: The Vote to Ban Same-Sex Marriage Crossed a Line

By Alex Dunn | Posted on 11/10/2008

E-MAIL PRINT COMMENT SHARE

It is not the right to marriage that is a casualty of Prop. 8, but equality.

This past Election Day, more than 5 million Californians voted to ban same-sex marriage in this state. To many it is an outrage, an unconscionable attack on the rights of a minority group with no sound reasoning behind it other than intolerance and hatred, hidden behind plaintive calls to save the children from homosexual indoctrination from both the public schools and adoption centers.

But the real reason, the fundamental base of the entire debate over same-sex marriage, is what I will call religious logic. The term came to me during a discussion I had with a friend who initially supported Proposition 8 automatically, apparently without the need for justification. As I pressed him for a logical basis for his stance, the following conclusion emerged, paraphrased: Heterosexual-exclusive marriage is an ancient tradition driven by religion, and because religious belief is powerful enough to be considered a valid form of logic, it follows that marriage should be preserved in its ancient form. And based on the outcome of this vote, and from my conversations with others, this is a commonly held stance.

Religious logic is, by definition, illogical. The basis of logical argument is to use facts and reasoning to progress to a conclusion that can be widely accepted. With the concept of religious logic, this fundamental universality is eliminated, as people of differing faiths will be entirely unable to see eye to eye. Disagreement on simple matters of faith will derail a discussion before it can start. Therefore, it is essential that logic remain secular. This also holds true for law and public policy, both of which must be based on ideas and facts that are unbiased and universal.

I have often explained to supporters of Prop. 8 that regardless of whether someone approves of same-sex marriage, equal rights to governmental benefits is a basic American freedom. But this argument does not stick, because it is apparent that to many, religious imperatives and public policy cannot be separated, despite the wall of separation that
is meant to keep them from mingling. What this means is that we have a substantial proportion of Californians — and, more than likely, Americans — who maintain a worldview that compels them to reshape the world so it may better conform to their vision of an ideal society, even when these urges contradict both logic and the founding ideals of this country.

Prop. 8 does indeed contradict basic constitutional rights. It is not the right to marriage that is fundamental, but equality. When one group of people has access to a beneficial government institution while another group is denied that access for no reason other than religion and morality, a grievous crime is committed against society. This basic fact of our country is true, and must remain true, regardless of religious and moral inclinations to the contrary. Therefore, it is the duty of all citizens to separate their grand visions of idealized society from the voting booth and compartmentalize their life into two distinct arenas: religion and politics. In this country, each has its own exclusive territory.

For the will of the people has a limit. There is a fine line between democratic power and tyranny. That line was crossed on Nov. 4.

SBCC student Alex Dunn lives in Isla Vista.

Share

Sign up for the Noozhawk Newsletter

Comments (19)

Post a Comment

(Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.)

Name:

» sbnative wrote on 11/10/08 @ 12:01 AM

Enough already. This “rights” argument is irrelevant. You have the “right” to all the same legal protections a a heterosexual man and woman have, EXCEPT usurping the word “marriage” (and propagating your world view inappropriately to elementary school children.)

Take a breath. The people spoke.

» Welcome to Democracy wrote on 11/10/08 @ 08:10 AM

We are all so tired of the whining.  Socially we have had enough.  Voters had to draw a very clear line in the sand to say that we don’t want to go any further on the relaxing of societal values.

Sorry, you just have to accept it.  IF you can’t get the majority in an extremely liberal state to accept it, than it is not meant to be.

The more you yell and scream and protest.. the less people will vote for it.  We have had enough.
The people have spoken!

» tom becker wrote on 11/10/08 @ 08:31 AM

Nothing is preventing homosexuals from living their lifestyle. Alex, go ahead and eat clams or sausage. I don’t care.

A marriage license is issued by the state at the state’s pleasure. The state will not grant a license to a brother and sister, or a father and daughter. It will not give a license to someone who is already married.

The people of the State of California do not wish to give marriage licenses to homosexuals. No one’s rights are violated.

» Not a jesus freak wrote on 11/10/08 @ 09:47 AM

It has been proven to me over and over again that those who can’t get through the day making decisions unless they ask what the bible tells you to do, are not capable of being logical.  They must rely on a book written by men who simply were wrong in a lot of what they were preaching.  Those words are antiquated and of no real use in modern times.
I have had it with the condemnation for loving someone of my same sex.  I might not be able to marry him/her but I still live in California and one thing I know I can do is register a domestic partnership and add my loved one to my work insurance plan.
My jesus freak employers just might keel over with that one.

» Democracy THIS wrote on 11/10/08 @ 10:33 AM

I never knew California was a theocracy.

» Good Article wrote on 11/10/08 @ 07:33 PM

The Supreme Court ruled this was unconstitutional and will do it again. This is a civil rights issue and not a moral issue. On day our society will look back as we did with Blacks and Woman’s right to vote and look at this the same way. Homosexuality is not a choice it is genetic and the sooner eveyone wakes up to that fact the better. It is no different than saying a black cannot marry a white person or short cannot marry tall.

Once again, SBNative has his facts wrong. There are hundreds of legal documents that utilize the word marriage as the legal binding term and therefore having a civil union does not provide the same rights. I am sure tired of this guy trying to own his own facts all of the time.

The artilce is correct, the Constitution is there to protect the minority class just as much as the majority. No where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is religion or one’s own definition of morality discussed as being the basis of law.

» sbnative wrote on 11/11/08 @ 12:21 AM

You’re telling us the Constitution was drafted by men who envisioned it encompassing gay marriage? Come on! They didn’t envision abortion either. (And I don’t support banning early term abortion.) If it’s any help, I think it’s the foisting of this “lifestyle choice” on children than really rubs most of us the wrong way. We don’t get the sense that COMMON SENSE will be applied in schools. It’s this run-amok-it’s-our-right-or-(stamp foot)-else mentality that sets most of us back on our heels. Try putting some TEETH into legislation protecting children from adult politicking--in grammar schools particularly. Then maybe you’ll get somewhere. Really, that’s the biggest beef. Whoever those women were who held the field trip for grade schoolers to a lesbian wedding blew it.

Better luck. Next time?

» patrick wrote on 11/11/08 @ 07:23 AM

According to SBNative, the drafters of the constitution didn’t envision it encompassing gay marriage.  Likewise, I’d have to say that they didn’t envision automatic weapons, high caliber firearms, Saturday night specials or concealable handguns.  If the Constitution isn’t to be used to justify gay marriage, then it is only fair that it not be used to justify modern “arms”.  If we can’t legalize gay marriage, then we should make anything beyond a musket (or whatever they used in the late 1700’s) illegal, too.

» sbnative wrote on 11/11/08 @ 01:54 PM

I give up. Proving you can’t to be reasonable in any discussion is why you lost. We VOTED to spare children your frothing foment. I do believe the drafters of the Constitution NEVER envisioned GAY MARRIAGE. If that somehow equates to high-powered weapons, well, you chose the analogy. Neither one is good!

» Wow wrote on 11/11/08 @ 04:54 PM

I am a heterosexual married man with two children and I cannot believe what I read here. It is not the right of the majority to oppress the minority. Under the Constitution every individual has equal rights. It is not for anyone to judge. This BS about children being taught or making field trips to gay weddings is just another ploy to unnerve people. The government has no business telling gays they cannot marry, period. They deserve all of the rights others have under any law that defines marriage in a legal context.

I know one day this will be a non-issue as has women’s right to vote and interracial marriage but it is frustrating how long it will really take. Fortunately, the California Supreme Court will step in again and rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional and Thomas Jefferson will not have to roll over in his grave. The Proposition should have never been allow on the ballot in the first place.

For all of those that voted for Prop 8 I hope that your son or daughter turns out to be gay so you can directly relate to how oppressive your actions have been.

» TYPO wrote on 11/12/08 @ 04:38 PM

SBNative:

“Whoever those women were who held the field trip for grade schoolers to a lesbian wedding blew it.”

As I’m sure you realize, the students were attending the wedding of their own teacher. It was not indoctrination, but a sign of support for a dedicated educator. Furthermore, I think the grade-schoolers understand the essence of marriage better than you do:

“Marriage, 6-year-old Nolan Alexander said Friday, is ‘people falling in love.’”
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1)

And regarding your term “lifestyle choice”:

“Brains of homosexuals are structurally and functionally different from those of heterosexuals.”
(http://www.india-server.com/news/homosexuality-lies-in-the-brain-study-1945.html)

“Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause.”
(http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay)

Until you can refute these and other scientific studies, drop the line.

» KAT wrote on 11/12/08 @ 08:43 PM

Clearly, supporters of Prop 8 are anti-marriage, and on some level harbor prejudicial bias against gay people, but the reasoning they used to rationalize their support of this bill is mind-boggling. Many of the supporters refered in particular to the “foisting of the [gay] lifestyle choice on children” as a reason for supporting the bill. This is a huge error in thinking in at least two ways. 1) Being gay is not a lifestyle choice, and the only people who still believe this are either uneducated dupes of bigots, or willfully ignorant bigots themselves. 2)Prop 8 had nothing, repeat n-o-t-h-i-n-g to do with schools! Think about it: if it didn’t pass, things would be as they were before you voted for it. How could *not* passing a bill change how our teachers taught? The notion that *not* passing this bill would somehow cause harm to children, school curriculums, etc was illogical and a complete fraud, and Prop 8 supporters swallowed it whole in true, P.T. Barnum fashion.
Teachers and schools are entirely unaffected by the passage of this bill, and would have been equally unaffected if it did not pass. To the paranoid bigots, teachers are still “propagating [their] world view inappropriately”, whatever that means. To the rest of us, they’re still doing their job of educating our youth, Prop 8 or not.
If you voted for this bill and think you’ve made the world a better place by your anti-marriage stance, you’re simply wrong. Pathetically wrong.

» sbnative wrote on 11/13/08 @ 10:43 AM

To Typo: I never attended ANY of my teachers’ weddings. That’s for family usually, then friends. Not students. These women exhibited poor judgement and clearly wanted to make a statement. They did. We the people did not like it. A friend recently attended a gay relative’s wedding. He was concerned about how to tell his grade children what a “gay” union is. Everyone went, had a good time, and it all got explained in due time. But it’s not the mainstream and it ain’t never gonna be. Throwing it in our faces, like those women did, only makes it less likely we’ll accept it.

» S ADAME wrote on 11/13/08 @ 11:19 AM

Hi Alex,

it seems that left wing liberals of California are starting to turn into a “bunch of whining citizens like those of France” which were voted the whiniest in the world! If you dont like the US and its policies go live in another country, like IRAN. Maybe you would have a clue what “civil rights” you really have. The majority of the country DOES NOT make any connection with gays civil unions and the infringement of the the civil rights. The majority does not have the view that somehow gays are entitled to what is hetrosexual marriage. It is not an issue that is why they VOTED YES ON PROP 8.

» Ex_Inmate wrote on 11/14/08 @ 10:23 AM

I have no problems with homosexuals registering domestic partnerships which entitle them to receive benefits for their partners, but I draw the line at marriage.  There is nothing wrong with respecting the culture and tradition of what the vow of marriage stands for. Gay people say their sexuality is not a choice, but it is also outside of the realm of what society considers “normal”. It is complicated, but I think most people will say what you do in the privacy of your home is your business, but don’t throw it in my face and tell my kids that your lifestyle is normal.  It isn’t normal and should not be promoted as normal, period.

» TYPO wrote on 11/15/08 @ 09:13 AM

SB Native:
“We the people did not like it.”

So because you (don’t speak for others) did not approve of this isolated event, you justified stripping rights away from millions?

S Adame:
The will of the majority is meaningless if it is oppressive and unconstitutional. Furthermore, it is because we live in a free country that we exercise our constitutional freedoms to promote causes we believe in. By calling me (and others) whiny and telling us to let the status quo be, you are articulating beliefs that are directly contrary to the ideals of this country.

Ex Inmate:
“There is nothing wrong with respecting the culture and tradition of what the vow of marriage stands for.”

What marriage is to you, and what your culture and traditions dictate, have nothing to do with the governments execution of civil marriage. Opinions and values are meaningless. Argue with logic, and explain your stance in universal terms.

“It isn’t normal and should not be promoted as normal, period.”

To many people, it is normal. Because it isn’t to you has no bearing on the issue.

» KAT wrote on 11/15/08 @ 10:41 AM

to Ex-Inmate:
So “abnormal” = “illegal”?
You want to start drawing up a list of things that are “out of the mainstream” so we can outlaw them? That’ll be a long list, and who decides how ‘abnormal’ is allowable? The evolution of society is away from oppression, not towards it.

» S ADAME wrote on 11/17/08 @ 02:12 PM

Dear Typo,

you are being called “Whiny” because this issue was voted on fairly and the people that VOTED YES ON PROP 8 WON. So the outcome of our democracy is that you LOST. So quit being a sore loser and try again some other time today your side FAILED. Maybe things will change in the future but for NOW, the minority and majority have spoken.
And no im not articulating any contrary beliefs or ideals our country was founded upon it was played out exactly the way some expected and there are just people that can’t handle the REALITY of it! Just like OBAMA won i have to deal with it, but he was VOTED in and we have to live with 4 yrs of socialism.
se la vie!

» TYPO wrote on 11/19/08 @ 01:40 AM

S Adame:

I continue to discuss this issue because the passage of Proposition 8 runs directly contrary to the ideals of equality that exist in this country. Simply because the majority voted for the initiative doesn’t change the fact that it is a disgraceful abuse of the proposition system that unfairly discriminates against minorities. Therefore, I will not idly stand by and watch intolerance and hate become part of our state constitution.


» The Noozhawk Network