non-Christian thoughts on Prop 8

This is from Sandy, a YAG that's not baptized, looking at it on a non-religious level.

What's in a name?

This November California voters are being asked to DEFINE what marriage is. Proposition 8 defines marriage as 'only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California'.

The current ballot is titled, "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act", originally titled, "Protect Marriage Act". (Side note: Proponents of 8 wanted the original title, but you can read more to find out why: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29)

The origins of marriage

The marriage tradition dates back to the beginning of mankind. Its role in all cultures has financial and conjugal implications as the husband and wife is seen as a family unit (one household), and has the expectation of bearing children. And generally, marriage is seen as a positive ceremony in societies.

Marriage exists in virtually every known human society. . . . At least since the beginning of recorded history, in all the flourishing varieties of human cultures documented by anthropologists, marriage has been a universal human institution. As a virtually universal human idea, marriage is about the reproduction of children, families, and society. . . . marriage across societies is a publicly acknowledged and supported sexual union which creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children that their sexual union may produce."

WILLIAM J. DOHERTY, WILLIAM A. GALSTON, NORVAL D.GLENN, JOHN

GOTTMAN ET AL., WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS: TWENTY-ONE CONCLUSIONS FROM THE

SOCIAL SCIENCES 8-9 (Institute for American Values) (2002)

Historical Legal Perspective

In a society where the man was the breadwinner, and the wife was at home to care for the children, marriage laws were historically created because of the husband's responsibilities to support his wife and children.

As a result, it was never the will of the government to define what marriage was. The government's role in governing its people was to deter and protect spouses, mainly the women and children, from potential financial/economic hardships. In fact, until recently, no one ever questioned what marriage was.

'Legal preferences for marriage are justified by the underlying purposes of marriage: to regulate the sexual relationships that produce children in order to (a) discourage men and women from having children in fragmented families and (b) encourage the creation of children under the conditions in which they are most likely to flourish, and pose the least burdens to the community.'

Modern Times

Today, we are being asked to redefine marriage to be beyond what has been distinctively reserved for a man and a woman. We've been told that anyone who supports prop8 is being unfair and taking away the rights for all. But, we've already established in California since 2000, that civil union partnerships get the same rights as married couples- meaning, same-sex unions already get the same financial benefits as marriage.

Unfortunately, it's not enough for the same-sex communities to get the same tangible rights. 'Marriage in the United States is a civil union; but a civil union, as it has come to be called, is not marriage,' said Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry

'It is a proposed hypothetical legal mechanism, since it doesn't exist in most places, to give some of the protections but also withhold something precious from gay people. There's no good reason to do that.' (source WIKI on civil unions)

However, if there is 'something precious' being held back, what is it? Are they asking government to give them a nod for having such a different relationship? If we assume the role of government is to protect and not infringe on people's personal beliefs (separation of church and state), how is this "precious" recognition protecting and not infringing? If anything, it's asking (popular) government to extend and redefine an ancient institution that has been around in all parts of the world since the beginning of mankind. Are Californians really representative of the entire world? One might sarcastically say "yes", and try to compare this definition alteration to ending or abolishing something like slavery - in the name of civil rights!

However, one must recall slavery and genocide were government condoned systems – and just like the way the government tried to regulate the lives of its inhabitants, attempting to change the definition of a universally accepted institution would be likened to saying someone is " THREE FIFTHS OF A PERSON ". Sound familiar? It was in once written (by popular sentiment at the time) that blacks were not full persons. If man could believe another human to only be part human, it shouldn't be shocking opponents of prop8 claim a "right" is being taken away, even though the intangible right to define marriage was never available to "give" in the first place.

Future Precedence

So, what's wrong with trying to preserve the definition? Why should we even bother to protect the definition?

For the Social Good

Population – We already know that disrupting the natural growth of societies via population control (e.g. China, Japan, and Europe) is not sustainable nor even makes financial sense long term. And we know, same-sex couples can't sustain humanity.

Once a population has disconnected marriage and childbearing, and the norms supporting marriage as a procreative union have weakened or disappeared, there is little political leaders can do to improve the situation for young families without creating enormous resistance.

[Practically speaking] Coming up with the necessary resources to keep pension promises becomes a central preoccupation. Even as Europe begins to dwindle, "European governments were for the most part ignoring the problem, 'In practical terms nothing has been done, or just very, very marginally,'" said Dr. Carlo De Benedetti, an Italian financier who created a foundation to study the effects of aging in Europe.74

Thomas Fuller, Low Birth Rates Pose Challenge for Europe: The

Depopulation Bomb, INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, December 12 2002 at 1.

Separation of Church and State

We are going to be legally reprimanded if we teach children that marriage is between a man and women. This has dire consequences for private schools and perhaps even home schooling- parents will not be able to dictate morals to their children. The government will have even more control in our lives.

"...because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between "any two persons" rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of "marriage." (sounce protectmarriage.com)

Opening the flood gates for legitimizing other unions

I need not add more.