Proposition 8 on my mind
Categories: City of Concord Headlines
Written By: Mayor Concord California
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Of all the ballots in the looming elections, nothing seems to be more controversial than Proposition 8. Prop 8 Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry with an attached initiative to amend the Constitution. With every proposition, there are two sides and nothing seems to divide people this year more than the stance on Prop 8. Proposition 8 changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Though I am not going to ask for any help understanding the Presidential race, I would like to outline Prop 8 and where I currently stand. If I am off base here, let me know.
Fiscal Impact:
Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
The Long and the Short
PRO: Proposition 8 restores what 61% of voters already approved: marriage is only between a man and a woman. Four judges in San Francisco should not have overturned the people’s vote. Prop. 8 fixes that mistake by reaffirming traditional marriage, but doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay domestic partners
- The Issue
California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman. Earlier this year, four activist judges based in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, legalizing same-sex marriage. - The Consequences
The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters; it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision. This decision has far-reaching consequences. For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.
CON: Equality under the law is a fundamental freedom. Regardless of how we feel about marriage, singling people out to be treated differently is wrong. Prop. 8 won’t affect our schools, but it will mean loving couples are treated differently under our Constitution and denied equal protection under the law.
Prop 8 is Unfair
Regardless of how you feel about this issue, we should not eliminate rights for any Californian. Prop 8 would mandate, under the laws of our state, that one group of people would be treated differently form everyone else. That’s just unfair.
Prop 8 is Wrong
Prop 8 is fueled by special interest groups that have engaged in a deceptive campaign.
The government has no business telling people who have been together for years that they can or cannot get married.
In California, we let people decide for themselves what’s best for them. We believe in the freedom to make choices without government interference. Prop 8 is wrong for California.
My 2 Cents
At face value I understand both points. I am a hetrosexual male in a hetrosexuall marriage. Does having the two gay guys next door get married have anything to do with me or my wife? I don’t see how there is ANY impact on my way of life by keeping them from getting “married”. Sure it’s seen as unconventional but many things have been over the years like segregation. Times change and I’m young enough and old enough to know that my gay neighbors getting married isn’t going to stop me from doing anything. Because isnt this what Prop 8 is all about, keeping someone from doing something? Why would I want to keep someone from doing what they want as long as no one gets hurt? It’s the evolution of freedom and we should be embracing it not running scared.
Really, as I said, it’s going to affect my life and my child’s life very little. So what, someone asks the question in school about gay marriage and the teacher gives the children an answer. Don’t kids already ask these questions? Is that going to make someone gay? I just don’t get it. One of my main issues is that there is an initiative to change the Constitution for this. Let’s get real people. If we are going to amend the Constitution shouldn’t it be for something like feeding the homeless, healthcare, or something that’s going to make this Country/State better? Help me understand how voting Yes on Prop 8 is going to make America better?
Popularity: 4% [?]
If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to the Mayor of Concord RSS feed!
Check out our sponsor Movie DVD Reviews
October 30th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I’m on your side. If it’s not going to lower my taxes or make me safer from crime, why stop other people from getting what they want?
October 30th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I have many friends trying to convince me that voting YES is the best thing to do. I am more lost than you are on this issue. I need more information I guess.
October 30th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Stop the gays from overtaking the one special quality of marriage. I dont mind them having some rights but I will never be alright with them being called married. It’s against everything I believe.
October 30th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
It’s been a challenging decision for a lot of people. After watching the video, “Proposition 8 in Plain English” on youtube, it was interesting to hear that gay couples already have the same rights as heterosexual married people.
While I’m not in California, if I were I would vote yes on Prop 8. My main concerns lie in educating young, impressionable children on homosexual marriage and lifestyle as an EQUAL option before they are old enough to understand. Parents are able to pull their kids out of class if they’re not comfortable with them attending sex ed. However, in Massachusetts, one parent who was appalled at his young child being taught about homosexuality approached the school and asked for their child to opt out of these teachings. He was informed that any adult in the school could teach their children whatever they wanted to. In an attempt to seek resolution on the matter, he ended up being arrested. While not a parent yet, I reserve the right to educate my children personally on such sensitive matter when the time is right.
Here’s another blog post that may be of interest to you on the subject:
http://sarahandtim.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/does-counterfeit-marriage-affect-me/
Best of luck with your voting decision.
Sarah’s last blog post..Hidden Truth Performance
October 30th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
It may be true that the majority of Californians, or Americans for that matter, *want* something like Prop 8, but engaging in blatant discrimination of a minority for the sake of the majority is the opposite of so many of the values that our constitution strives to satisfy. The government is organized as a republic for exactly this reason: to prevent a tyranny by the majority that would exist in a direct democracy (not that anyone is being imprisoned for being homosexual).
California’s state government should respect this vital function of government to protect the rights of the few from the unjust action of the many.
Of course, one may also note that opposition to gay marriage is largely on purely religious grounds (or else trivial aesthetic grounds), and so Prop 8 might be viewed as an encroachment on freedom of religion. Homosexuals would not be able to partake of an important religious ceremony if they were not allowed to marry.
Lastly, it doesn’t really make sense that any two people should need to ask the permission of the government in order to marry. What purpose can this serve, except to allow the possibility for some to be stripped of their right to marry? The government cannot establish a state lifestyle any more than it can establish a state religion.
October 30th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
It may be a religious thing but I am not going to give into a band or queers that think they deserve rights that they should not be given,
October 30th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Marriage between man and woman originally started out as a religious ceremony. The issue is that homosexuality is being brought into religion through the government. Since religion has no place in government (or at least no place like it used to) why should homosexuality be brought up in the government or even more so into schools. Since children aren’t subjected to religion through schools, why should schools be teaching about homosexuality. I think in schools especially that homosexuality should be treated with the same degree as religion is.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
If one person walked into the state capital and started raving that there fictitious friend didn’t like the color of the walls, and the friend would just go all ballistic if it wasn’t changed right away…That person would be carried off to jail.
But if packs of people and there make believe deities meet once a week they can keep me from being able to share my medical benefits with my girl friend. They can have us harassed at work. We can’t get married, or share each other social security benefits.
All this is because a group of people have a delusion
We will keep on keeping on! Regardless of the stupidity. Education is the only redemption, but Christianity will not point them in that direction.
Peace to all.
Victory on Tuesday
October 30th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
This has nothing to do with walls idiot. Shut up and go hug a tree!
October 31st, 2008 at 3:08 am
VOTE NO on PROP 8
Regardless of what Prop 8 supporters say it does in fact take away rights like:
1. Pension plan survivor benefits
2. Guaranteed leave when a family member is ill
3. Long-term care insurance for public employees
4. Tax exemption of inheritance
5. Spousal veteran benefits
6. Ability to not testify against spouse
7. Property tax and home value can be reassessed after death of spouse (meaning taxes can skyrocket)
8. Tax exemption of assets over $11,000 between spouses
9. Shared property
10. Marriage
October 31st, 2008 at 7:52 am
>Because isnt this what Prop 8 is all about, keeping someone from doing something?
No, not only is that not what Prop 8 is about, it won’t even prevent them from having a private marriage ceremony unrecognized by the state. It merely means the state will not recognize it, neither will the state force people to marry same-sex couples.
If Proposition 8 looses 4 things will happen:
1) The state will not only condone same-sex marriage, but it will also financially promote same-sex marriage the same way it financially promotes traditional marriage. The laws are designed to do so.
2) Ministers will be forced to marry gay people or loose their tax exempt status.
3) Judicial tyranny will have had it’s way, paving the road to do this same thing throughout the country.
4) Marriage as an institution will loose it’s sacred nature and will adopt a purely social and political definition, as has been done in Scandinavia. It will sound the death knell for marriage as it did so there.
If Prop 8 passes, GLBT people can continue to have ceremonies to celebrate their unions, and they will be loved and appreciated as equally valuable members of society. They also will be far more likely to pass legislation toward legally binding unions, with all the same rights and privileges except the term by which the state will recognize it (it won’t be called “marriage” on the books).
Even then they can still call it marriage if they want … just because the books don’t call it that there are no vocabulary police.
October 31st, 2008 at 7:56 am
Let me re-emphasize. if Prop 8 passes GLBT citizens will still be able to pass legislation giving them “civil unions” that provide for them all the legal rights and privileges of unions called “marriages”.
October 31st, 2008 at 7:59 am
Dave0511. Thanks. I didn’t realize all of that.
Concord Blogger’s last blog post..Proposition 8 on my mind
October 31st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
This is not just an issue about gays and lesbians. I recommend you read the post at editorial section http://editorialsection.com for another perspective.
Troy Westin’s last blog post..Propostion 8
October 31st, 2008 at 5:35 pm
While many people have religious arguments for prop 8–there are many social, cultural and legal arguments also.
here are some links that might be interesting:
1. http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/category/legislation-and-social-issues/
2. http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/category/separate-but-equal/
3. http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/category/another-myth-dispelled/
( VoteNoonProp 8 will want to read this one–no fedural rights are granted even if prop 8 passes)
4. http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/category/american-college-of-pediatricians/
5. http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/category/marriage-and-culture/
sorry, i know that’s a bunch, but it may help people who are really trying to think about the issue from all sides.
my main issue is with kids. Government has never recognized marriage for purposes of expressing “love” it has always been about providing and encouraging stability in its citizens. Children do best with a mom and a dad. There are studies that claim there is no difference–but these have fatal flaws (see #4) mainly that there really is no way we can study the issue because there hasn’t been enough time).
I don’t need a study to tell me however that i needed both a mom and a dad. This isn’t always possible, but the government should encourage it in the ways that it can–mainly offering marriage licenses and tax benefits etc.
Children have a right to a mom and a dad. and I’m not going to take that right away from the. that’s why i voted yes on prop 8! on my absentee ballot!
1. In Brazil, the senate is considering a law which would imprison anyone for saying homosexuality is wrong:
http://www.tfp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1057
2. This article goes through studies to show:
a. same-gender relationships show statistically higher rates of abuse and violence
b. same-gender relationships (especially long term) have higher rates of disease (including but not limited to AIDS)
c. same-gender couples (on average) do not practice monogamy as part of their relationship (ex: even in committed relationships partners have multiple sex partners). And in places where civil unions or marriage (netherlands) is possible, they are less likely to take advantage of these benefits than heterosexual couples. And when I say less likely i mean by a huge percentage.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02&f=PG03I03
prop8discussion’s last blog post..Articles you should Right Now
October 31st, 2008 at 5:36 pm
also this:
1. In Brazil, the senate is considering a law which would imprison anyone for saying homosexuality is wrong:
http://www.tfp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1057
2. This article goes through studies to show:
a. same-gender relationships show statistically higher rates of abuse and violence
b. same-gender relationships (especially long term) have higher rates of disease (including but not limited to AIDS)
c. same-gender couples (on average) do not practice monogamy as part of their relationship (ex: even in committed relationships partners have multiple sex partners). And in places where civil unions or marriage (netherlands) is possible, they are less likely to take advantage of these benefits than heterosexual couples. And when I say less likely i mean by a huge percentage.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02&f=PG03I03
prop8discussion’s last blog post..Articles you should Right Now
October 31st, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Man-woman marriage is the only natural way to build families, which in turn builds a society. In the United States, same-sex couples are free to live as they choose. It is dangerous, however, to treat marriage as a “social construct” that is changeable. Husband-wife unions are the basic source of society. Because society is not the source of marriage’s definition, it cannot change the accurate description of marriage by its own will.
November 1st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
1) The state will not only condone same-sex marriage, but it will also financially promote same-sex marriage the same way it financially promotes traditional marriage. The laws are designed to do so.
Yet why would that be a problem exactly? Why would you be against the promotion of family, and stability among gay folks? Also, wouldn’t the same laws that you haven’t mentioned also require that the state promotes the equivalent of domestic partnerships for same-sex couples? What if opposite-sex couples decide to sue the government and request a domestic partnership for perhaps fewer restrictions on dissolving their union?
2) Ministers will be forced to marry gay people or loose their tax exempt status.
False. Religious establishments will always have total control on who they can marry or not, and this is based on the free exercise clause first amendment, because it would cause government to infringe upon religious establishments. Has the Catholic Church ever been successfully sued for refusing to perform a marriage for a divorcee? Even if there was such a successful – and unconstitutional – lawsuit, how exactly is Prop 8 going to prevent churches being forced from performing other types of marriages, for divorcees, interfaith, and even interracial marriage, against their faiths?
3) Judicial tyranny will have had it’s way, paving the road to do this same thing throughout the country.
Just like it did with Loving v. Virginia, or Brown v. Board of Education? Wasn’t that a case of ‘judicial tyranny’ against the will of the people? The social conservatives of the time certainly perceived it to be, and some still do. There’s a very good reason for the separation of powers, and why the United-States of America is a constitutional republic, and not a democracy. You personally aren’t forced to recognize any marriage.
4) Marriage as an institution will loose it’s sacred nature and will adopt a purely social and political definition, as has been done in Scandinavia. It will sound the death knell for marriage as it did so there.
Has marriage really been in decline in Scandinavia, and due to same-sex marriage? Well on that one it doesn’t simply because none of the Scandinavian countries recognize, or permit to register, same-sex marriages. Only Norway will recognize same-sex marriages starting in January 2009. Still, they do have domestic partnerships for a little while, yet can you show that they’ve caused a decline of marriage with credible information and statistics?
Even then they can still call it marriage if they want … just because the books don’t call it that there are no vocabulary police.
Why should you care what the government calls them or not? Just because the government calls mercenaries, ‘military contractors’ when people don’t buy into that term doesn’t mean they have to respect it.
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:01 am
The story about the Boston Mass. family is true. I don’t want my kids to learn about gay families and culture. If you don’t think that teaching 5 year olds about the joys of anal sex is dangerous, than I don’t know what your vision of America is. Gay people are not a minority, they are mostly white and very rich. Thats coming from their own mouths. The people’s will was overthrown thats the purpose of prop. 8. If activists judges hadn’t usurped our will and stomped on the constitution this wouldn’t be happening. YES ON 8 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 21st, 2008 at 10:23 am
[...] 8 is the most controversial ballet measure of 2008. Before the elections I had my own thoughts of Yes or No on Prop 8. People were standing on street corners all hours of the day holding Prop 8 signs, some people had [...]
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:55 am
Koka,
“Why would I want to keep someone from doing what they want as long as no one gets hurt?”
This is a key assumption…many have made convincing (in my mind) arguments that people will be hurt by SSM.
Greg Koukl has a tightly reasoned column explaining things here:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6553
Rich Bordner’s last blog post..Hmmm?
December 14th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
[...] supervisors of Contra Costa County had a vote in joining the lawsuits challenging the petition of Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage. Over 50% of Contra Costa County voted NO in the Novembers [...]