Inland Utopia on the Issues: Prop 8


Marriage has been defined differently throughout time, the proponents are advocating they want to simply maintain the traditional definition of marriage of one man and one woman. However marriage used to be about dealing with protection and acquisition of property and used to deal with women as property or chattel as what it used to be called. Marriage used to be restricted based on what ethnicity you belonged to. Our state supreme court also said the argument for marriage is for procreation was irrelevant, because you do not need to be able to make children to have a successful marriage.

Although Proposition 8 is short yet sweet with under 20 words in its language, it will be used to fuel more fire for the agents of inequality. If the Mormons, the Knights of Columbus and other groups succeed, then they will throw money to remove stuff such as anti-discrimination laws, and public accommodation rules.

The proponents have used their money to distort the issue and the No on 8 campaign would like to refute the misconceptions that Protect Marriage have brought forwards.

Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs.
Fact: California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage. Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status. Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."

Fiction: Same-sex marriage would be taught in public schools.
Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it. A Sacramento Superior Court judge has already ruled that this claim by the proponents of Prop 8 is "false and misleading." In fact, the "case" that is cited in the ad is from Massachusetts…the proponents knew what California law said, so they used another state, again to mislead voters.

Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…
Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Proponents of Prop use an outdated and stale argument that we’ve already voted on this, that judges should not protect rights and freedoms, and that somehow what happened in the past should be the guide to our future. This campaign is not about what happened nearly nine years ago. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to eliminate a fundamental right for one group of citizens.

Marriage is secular and religious. However there is a good number of people who would support equality for all couples, but they take offense that gay and lesbian relationships are brought into the marriage brand. Perhaps a statewide law for civil unions, and add language if the federal defense of marriage act gets repealed then it would be convertible into a full on marriage would be a good idea if 8 fails.

I encourage readers to vote No on 8 to protect freedom for all Californians.

One thought on “Inland Utopia on the Issues: Prop 8”

  1. Well said. I hope EQCA and the No On 8 movement use our donations to make an ad to refute the lies as well. The current television ad seems too weak — good for them for staying positive and refraining from the mud-slinging, but unfortunately that’s probably not what voters respond to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *