Tuesday, August 21 , 2018, 1:36 pm | Overcast with Haze 74º

 
 
 
 

Scott Harris: Eight Reasons to Vote No on Proposition 8

When it comes to same-sex marriage, let's hope we are fair enough to be on the right side of history.

In March 2000, Californians overwhelmingly voted in favor of Proposition 22 — the California Defense of Marriage Act — which in its simplest terms, defined marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. In May of this year, the California Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, overturned the initiative, ruling that same-sex marriage was guaranteed by the state Constitution as a “fundamental right.” Chief Justice Ronald George wrote in his majority opinion, “Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”

Article Image
Scott Harris
The predictable reaction to the ruling is the most controversial initiative on November’s ballot: Proposition 8. The initiative would amend the California Constitution and overturn the California Supreme Court decision. The entire text of Proposition 8 is short, simple and to the point: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.”

Here are eight reasons why we should defeat Proposition 8 this November.

1. Proponents of Prop 8 argue that it reflects the “people’s will,” as evidenced by Proposition 22. As public opinion polls show that support to allow same-sex marriages is growing rapidly, will those who are crying “majority rules” quietly step aside if Prop 8 fails?

2. Until 1967, it was also the “people’s will” that interracial marriages be illegal, and the institution of marriage seems to have withstood this “assault” on its foundation, as it has withstood divorce, adultery and, in my case, a Catholic marrying a Jew.

3. The Supreme Court’s decision is being attacked as bench legislation by a liberal activist court. It is important to note (in light of California’s well-deserved reputation for being extremely
liberal) that the Supreme Court is considered moderate, with Republican governors appointing six of its seven members.

4. Civil unions are a legal issue, which is where the state’s involvement should begin and end. Marriages should be performed and recognized by churches, synagogues and mosques. If a religious institution doesn’t want to acknowledge a relationship, then that is a private matter between that institution, the individuals and their God. However, when a state refuses to acknowledge a relationship, it is a public matter — and is indefensible.

5. I believe that a gay man can be just as good of a father as a straight man, but that he can’t be as good of a mother as a woman, which is why a man and a woman is the ideal partnership for raising children. However, the reality is that millions of children in this state are being raised in situations that are nowhere near ideal and suffer as a result. If two committed, loving adults want to commit their lives to raising a child, God — and the state of California — bless them.

6. I have yet to be shown how allowing same-sex marriage in any way diminishes my marriage, my family or my role as a father.

7. It is easy to say that I would have supported interracial marriage if I were old enough to have lived through the then-controversy. In years to come, when the same-sex issue has faded to all but historical irrelevance, I want to be able to tell my grandchildren that I was there, publicly supporting those who needed the support. It will be the best way to know that if I had been in Birmingham in the 1960s, I would have stood on the right side of the hoses.

8. If one of my children were gay, in love and wanted to get married, it would be impossible for me to look him or her in the eye and say I could not support the desire to be married. How can I possibly support a constitutional amendment that would legally demand that I — or any parent — do that to their children?

Same-sex marriage is a difficult issue, and when it is positioned as an attack on traditional marriage, religion, God and families, it is easy to see why so many are so involved. However, parallels in history and current trends all indicate that this issue eventually will be resolved, that marriage and religion will not be negatively affected and that once again we will find a balance between religious freedom and individual rights.

This year marks the 30-year anniversary of California defeating Proposition 6, the Briggs Amendment, which would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools. We were on the right side of history in 1978, and let’s hope we are wise and fair enough to be there again this year.

Scott Harris is a political commentator. Read his columns and contact him through his Web site, www.scottharris.biz, or e-mail him at [email protected]

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through Stripe below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >