Prop 8

No election has been as emotionally charged as this one. I believe that's due to our country's current state of being. With the economy on its downside, people cling to their morals/ethics, their religion. It's a natural reaction... when we lose what we once thought was within our control, we cling to what we know -what we've lived with our entire lives and we hope, and we dream and we are steadfast in our beliefs.

Sure, I haven't lost my pension. I don't have any children to feed. I can make my rent. I have a great job that I love. Sure my 401K has suffered, but I've got decades to make up for it. I can't complain. Of course I want to be sure the economy will turn around and my future is secure. Of course I'm concerned with social security -my parents are turning older and I'm worried at what's to come for them. So in this election, it's clear I've made my decision on who I'd like to represent me as an American, but there are other aspects of my life -my beliefs that I want to be sure are represented.

There are a handful of propositions that I hold near and dear to my heart. Those of you who know me are well aware that I am an enormous opponent of Proposition 8. I cannot understand why yes on 8 would be okay in anyone's eyes. Again, I'm up for that debate with anyone who chooses to discuss this with me, but I've read the reasons why and have done extensive research on the Yes on 8's campaign. I still cannot understand how this could be okay.

A little history lesson and a look into how I researched this proposition and came to the conclusion that No is the only way I will vote on this issue:

From 1855 to 1977 California's marriage statutes used gender-neutral language, without reference to "man" or "woman," in providing that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties capable of making the contract is necessary. During those 122 years, we did not feel the need to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I'm also very sure that during those years, there were same sex unions, although much more taboo than in recent years.

Then in 1977, legislature amended Family code Section 300 to read that marriage is a "personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman." Over 2 decades later, in 1999, was the first time we saw a statute of "domestic partnership" enacted into law without the intervention of the courts.

Now here comes the sticky situation in 2000. This is the go-to argument that the proponents of proposition 8 always revert to. Voters passed with a 61% vote, ballot initiative proposition 22 which CHANGED the California Family Code to formally define marriage in CA as being between a man and a woman. That was 8 years ago that this proposition passed. And rightfully overturned because of it's unconstitutional nature.

In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom decided to perform nearly 4,000 same sex marriages. These marriages were soon annulled by the California Supreme Court to uphold the then current law of Prop 22. However, in May 2008, the proposition and the statutes that define marriage were rightfully reviewed. The California Supreme Court voted 4-3 that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statues that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the state of California (Article 1 Section 7: "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.") Now the proponents of 8 are repulsed that these 4 judges could over turn a propositional vote. These judges did their job, and turned to our state constitution in order to ensure equal rights for all CA citizens. The Supreme Court is there as a checks and balance in our legal system. They have a right -no, they have a duty to make sure the laws that are enacted are constitutional. In this case, I feel they did the right thing in overturning Proposition 22 as it didn't grant the same privileges to homosexual individuals (a class of citizens) as it did to heterosexual individuals (another class of citizens).

Now what about the proponent's views on education of 8 and the impact to children and their right to teach their own children about these issues? Under the California Education code, our public schools are under "local control." The Comprehensive Health Education Act of 1977 was originally enacted to teach children about drug abuse. This code gives a long antiquated list of topics that are supposed to be covered -one being "family health, and child development, including legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood." This is a misleading grey area that the proponents of 8 are using to sway voters. Same sex marriage is NOT a part of this curriculum and the only way it would is if the local community/school district would want it to be. “No plan [for the CHEA curriculum] shall be approved by the State Board of Education unless it determines that the plan was developed with the active cooperation of parents, community, and teachers, in all stages of planning, approval, and implementation of the plan.” (Cal Ed. Code 51914).

A final problem I have with proposition 8, I will leave as a question. How is 8 different than the opposition of Miscegentation begining in the 19th century? In many U.S. states interracial marriage was already illegal when the term miscegenation was invented in 1863.