Spring Break
Proposition 8 sets nation back
Anti-gay amendments in several states reverse trend of social progress
Kimi Timmers
Issue date: 11/6/08 Section: Viewpoints
|
But despite my elation over the presidential contest, I can't ignore the massive hit to civil rights that occurred in this election. Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage were approved in Arizona, Florida and even California; similarly, gay adoption has been banned in Arkansas.
If you're at all cynical, you weren't surprised by the decisions in Arizona, Florida or Arkansas. But the success of Proposition 8 in California is a bit of a head-scratcher, especially since gay marriage was legalized there earlier this year.
Proposition 8 wound up on the ballot because the opposition felt that the California Supreme Court had not accurately represented the "will of the people." Well, that's great, but I'm quite sure that segregation was the "will of the people" when the Brown v. Board of Education decision arrived. Sometimes social progress just has to be made without the approval of the ignorant.
Proposition 8 doesn't just deny gays in California the right to marry. It actually revokes that right, since same-sex marriage has been legal there since May. I find it shameful that in 2008, an American state bestowed rights on a minority group, only to take them away months later.
Unlike what opponents think, the fight for gay marriage is not about special privilege. It is about homosexuals obtaining the same level of rights that are offered to every heterosexual, because as it is, not even civil unions carry the same benefits as marriage. And even if they did, leaving a distinction between "marriage" and "civil union" implies that the latter is inherently unequal and inferior. It is not an acceptable compromise, nor should it be viewed as one.
Of course, these debates really just get me confused about why marriage - as a religious institution - even exists in the eyes of the state. In a perfect world, all couples would get civil unions for legal purposes, with marriages carried out in churches, synagogues, etc. I realize this won't happen, and I don't expect it to, but marriage has indeed evolved over its long existence. We've moved past treating women like property of their husbands, and if marriage survived that change of its tradition, I think accepting same-sex unions will work out OK.
All told, I'm happy that voters have set aside racial prejudice in electing a black man for president. But legalizing bigotry toward homosexuals is a step backward.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 31
Prop 8 a Great Measure
posted 11/06/08 @ 9:07 AM EST
Please do not equate homosexuality with race. By invoking Brown v. Board of Education, you claim to know a little about Constitutional law. If so, you'll recognize that race is the chief of all suspect classes, protected EXPLICITLY by the 13, 14, and 15 Amendments. (Continued…)
john
posted 11/06/08 @ 9:31 AM EST
Once again, a liberal is complaining because they didn't get their way. It's amazing to me that you can so blithely discredit the will of the people on one issue, and celebrate the will of the people on another. (Continued…)
john.depew
John
posted 11/06/08 @ 9:46 AM EST
It's amazing that you can celebrate the will of the people in one sentence and demand that it be ignored in another. This is America and the will of the people CANNOT be ignored. (Continued…)
Jake
posted 11/06/08 @ 10:28 AM EST
You know, I think I've heard of this issue coming up before, when it was the will of the people that those of differing races couldn't be allowed to marry. (Continued…)
Hugh Hefner
posted 11/06/08 @ 11:00 AM EST
I would like to marry all five of my girlfriends next year. Will you back me up?
alex c Durdan
posted 11/06/08 @ 1:46 PM EST
Majority rule? i think so? Its what happens in a democracy.... why is this taking the place of an opinionated article that actually is prevalent to the daily gamecock's circulation? I mean seriously, California is 3,000 miles away and gay marriage in South Carolina is even further away than that. (Continued…)
voting - (I)
posted 11/06/08 @ 3:23 PM EST
This is a states' rights issue.
If you disagree with a state's constitutional right to vote on their laws - you clearly do not understand the basics of our government and have lost all credibility in spreading your ill-informed opinions. (Continued…)
chris bledsoe
posted 11/06/08 @ 4:02 PM EST
dear head scratcher what happened earlier in the golden state was the will of some liberal judges, what happened tuesday was the will of citizens. but do not worry. (Continued…)
A.J.
posted 11/06/08 @ 6:15 PM EST
I see 'marriage' as an institution of religion. You see, there is no organized religion on the planet (that I know of) that supports gay 'marriage.' Therefore, should, say, a Congress (maybe this upcoming one, maybe a future Congress) passes a bill saying that the "Full Faith and Credit" and "Privileges and Immunities" clauses of the Constitution also refer to gay couples--and incorporates these phrases into the 14th Amendment for gay couples--thus overturning EVERY state statute and constitutional amendment banning it, it should not force religious leaders to marry gay couples. (Continued…)
Cal N.
posted 11/07/08 @ 2:25 AM EST
Prop 8 a Great Measure:
"A number of things. First, realize that the ban on interracial marriage was struck down in Loving v. Virginia and as I stated earlier, race is different from sexual orientation. (Continued…)
Post a Comment