CA Proposition 8: Bigotry on the Ballot

On November 4th California residents will vote on proposition 8, which will add the following 14 words to the state constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California”. Not only is this a thinly veiled attempt at socially condemning same-sex relationships, but it’s (incredibly) a measure that serves to do nothing beyond limiting the rights of a group of people. Proponents of the measure argue that this addition is important for several reasons, all of which are ridiculous.

Flawed argument #1: Allowing same sex couples to marry somehow undermines the value of all marriage

This argument has virtually no merit. If anything, the right for gay couples to marry will strengthen the institution of marriage by extending its boundaries to include everybody. We are all the same in many ways, and our relationships, be they gay or straight, are more alike than they are different. The challenges faced by marriage come from rising divorce rates and a populace that increasing takes the commitment lightly. A group of people who have been fighting for this right (which they have until recently been denied) will almost certainly treat marriage with a heightened degree of respect.

Flawed argument #2: Marriage is between a man and a woman

Says who? The typical reply is that this has historically been the case. Hasn’t it also historically been the case that people are persecuted for their religion? Hasn’t it also historically been the case that women are denied basic rights enjoyed by men such as suffrage, property ownership, access to education, and equal social status? Haven’t people historically been discriminated against on the basis of race? Don’t deplorable institutions such as slavery have a long, ubiquitous past? Shouldn’t we be able to evaluate the moral standards of history and choose differently as it becomes clear that they are unjust? Isn’t that the true history of the greatest among human civilizations?

Flawed argument #3: For the love of god, what about the children?

A number of television commercials have aired recently expressing fear at the thought of teaching our children about gay marriage. This extends no further than “boys and girls, two boys or two girls who love each other now have all the same rights as a boy and a girl who love each other”. Seeing as a percentage of these children will one day grow up and identify as gay or lesbian themselves, shouldn’t it be a positive thing that they won’t have to face the same self doubt, alienation, and lack of understanding that homosexuals have traditionally faced? Why must we hide the idea of alternative lifestyles from our children and pretend that they don’t exist? Nobody is suggesting we delve into the nitty-gritty of sex or behind-closed-doors behavior with kindergartners, only that we teach tolerance and address issues that are real and relevant.

I believe that this fear (as well as many others) originate from the thought that there might be some underground gay agenda to convert our children or ourselves over to the other side, that our children might somehow be tempted at the idea of homosexuality. This is laughable. Every straight person I’ve known sees little personal appeal in intimacy with another person of the same sex. We are all beholden unto ourselves in that we cannot healthily live a lie. If your son or daughter is straight, they will not be somehow turned gay through any circumstance or imagined conspiracy, just as if you son or daughter is gay, it is impossible to forcibly beat (verbally, physically, or through denial) the gay out of them.

Flawed argument #4: Civil unions are sufficient

This sounds suspiciously to me like separate but equal. We all decided long ago that this notion is not grounded in reality, and is not to be tolerated. What if we decided that interracial couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry on the basis that it would not have historically been accepted, and tried to disguise this bigotry by granting them a similar set of rights under the umbrella of a separate institution?

Flawed argument #5: Gay marriage goes beyond tolerance by forcing “mandatory compliance regardless of personal beliefs”

Could I argue that the integration of the school I teach at goes beyond requiring me to tolerate children of different racial backgrounds by forcing me to comply regardless of my personal beliefs? I’d be rightly shunned from society if I made that statement, yet this flagrantly bigoted speech is tolerated when it comes to same-sex marriage. Nobody is suggesting that you must personally accept the lifestyle of any other person, only that you must not discriminate on the basis of a certain set of uncontrollable factors, including race, age, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

I’ve also heard the argument that churches would be forced to perform same sex marriages, even if they are incongruous with the teachings of that respective religion. This is preposterous. As an atheist, I could not have a catholic wedding, as the legal institution of marriage is secular and religious institutions may reserve the right to perform ceremonies for whomever they please. Exercise your right to practice your religion and express your beliefs all you want, just don’t try and use your beliefs as a basis from which to deny the rights of others. If you have a problem with homosexuality or gay marriage, don’t get gay married.

Flawed argument #6: Gay marriage will open the floodgates for marriages to animals, polygamy, incest, etc.

Same-sex relationships have been present throughout all of recorded history, in significant numbers. The idea of monogamous homosexual couples is not a new one, and to compare it to bestiality is downright insulting. Allowing gays to marry will not result in a dilution of marriage to include every possible ridiculous coupling anymore than granting women and minorities the right to vote resulted in the extension of those rights to animals.

Stand up for equal rights, and against hate and discrimination

Strengthen your freedom by extending it to all people. You don’t have to approve on anybody or any lifestyle, but we should all learn to live and let live. We are much more alike than we are different, and the sooner that we can embrace our similarities and focus on what we have to offer each other, rather than allowing ourselves to be threatened by that with which some are uncomfortable, the sooner we will transcend the bitter hatred that has for too long made enemies of brothers and sisters. A world where gay couples are extended the same secular marriage rights as straight couples is richer for its acceptance of diversity, and is a world where countless children, adolescents, and adults might much sooner embrace their own identity without having to battle societal notions of normalcy. I have faith in humanity, but grow increasingly fearful of our collective tenancy to destroy and suppress that which is different. I hope that November 4th will be an example of the best in us, rather than the worst.