I Have a Proposition for You

Unless you have been living under a rock, you are aware that on August 4th, US District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned California's Proposition 8, paving the way for gays to marry.  Proposition 8 stated, in its entirety: "Section I. Title  This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."      Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read:     Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."   Prior to Prop 8, California sanctioned gay marriages and any such marriages that occurred prior to its passing on November 4, 2008 remained valid.

There was much debate leading up to the vote. Civic  and religious organizations took stands on both sides.  (For an overview, please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)).  The final vote was 7,001,084 (52.24%) for the measure and 6,401,482 (47.76%) against.  Since the overturn, debate has resumed and there are many who call the decision an act of ignoring over 7 million California voters.   Conservative radio talk show host, Michael Medved has engaged his listeners in such debate.  Medved stated that it is not discriminatory for the state to define marriage as between one man and one woman because it has been established that laws can discriminate along gender lines; that women can marry any man they want and men can marry any woman.  Somehow he missing the point of marriage.  How about changing the wording just a little: A man or woman can marry any adult with whom they are in love and share a deep commitment.   Doesn't that grasp the spirit of marriage that people are so trying to protect?  Would you speak to that, Mr. Medved?  How does that tarnish the sanctity of marriage?

As a compromise, it is said that gay couples can create contracts that give them the same legal rights that marriage affords or that they can have civil unions.  That's true.  So can straight couples, but they don't because it is simply not the same as marriage.  Is it?

Here are some questions to ask yourself about why people marry before you make up your mind on this issue:

• Is your motivation for marriage based on a tax break?
• Did you marry so that if your loved one was ill, you could be included in their information and decisions?
• Did you marry so that if you survive your spouse you will have the rights to all of their worldly possessions should they die?

OR

• Did you or would you marry because you were deeply in love?
• Is your motive for marriage to stand up and announce to the world and your God that what you have is sacred to you?
• Did you marry out of a profound belief that your love was forever and that no other love would compare?
• Did you marry to mark the deepest commitment of your life in a ritualized way that everyone would recognize?

The first set of questions, if agreed to, are reason to pursue a civil union.  For me, those so-called benefits are the last thing on my mind when considering marriage. What about the second set of questions?  Those are what marriage is about.  Every adult couple, gay or straight, deserves the right to celebrate their love and set it apart in the way that only marriage can accomplish.

I do not understand the selfishness of those who want to keep marriage from loving gay couples.  Heterosexuals do not have a corner on the markets of love and commitment.  In fact, many gay couples have healthier and more intimate relationships than a lot of straight couples.  So what's the problem?  What are you afraid of really?