Proposition 8 will restore the institution of traditional marriage in California – an institution that has existed for more than 1200 years. Contrary to what gay and lesbian advocates may tell you this proposition has nothing to do with taking away the rights of anyone. It has everything to do with reversing the May 2008 action of four judges of the California Supreme Court who trampled the will of more than 60 percent of California voters who passed Proposition 22 in 2000.
It is important to understand that prior to the court’s ruling same-sex couples were already protected by laws giving them the same rights as opposite sex couples. These rights were assured through the enactment of the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 which specifically states in California Family Codes: “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights protections and benefits and shall be subject to the same responsibilities obligations and duties under law.”
So what exactly changed when four judges of the California Supreme Court issued their decision to legalize same-sex marriage?
The court demolished the institution of traditional marriage with its distinct meaning as a union between one man and one woman and established in its place a model where gender between those married is considered irrelevant. To be sure this decision is not one of addition but rather one of substitution.
In reaching this decision the court tragically confused the “right to marry” with the “definition of what marriage is as an institution.” It thus took an extremely narrow view of marriage focusing only on the interests of two loving adults by virtue of their close relationship and ignoring the vast reservoir of undisputed research knowledge and scholarship attesting to the broad nature of marriage and its definition associated with meeting essential societal needs. What does this mean? Please rephrase.
In June of 2006 the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton New Jersey published “Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles” – a product of a conference in 2004. Scholars participating in this project were from among the most prestigious universities in the country.
The executive summary of this report states: “Too often the rational case for marriage is not made at all or not made very well … Marriage protects children men and women and the common good. The health of marriage is particularly important in a free society … Marriage also offers men and woman as spouses a good they can have in no other way: a mutual and complete giving of the self. Thus marriage understood as the enduring union of husband and wife is both a good in itself and also advances the public interest.”
Proposition 8 will protect a social institution that is necessary for the health and stability of our society. It has nothing to do with bigotry or discrimination and the use of such labels by those who oppose the proposition reveals a level of intolerance surprising for a population that should know better.