Why I'm Voting Yes: The Follow-Up pt 2

Two days from now Californians are faced with the crucial decision, among many, to vote on Prop 8. When I posted that I was voting yes, many responded with questions and claims against my decision. I'm going to address those that pertain to the legal aspect of the discussion, including what place morality has in all of this.

Legal standpoint

"What about the separation of church and state?"

Let me preface this by saying that separation of church and state (whether Constitutional) is a very good thing and it should be in force. Now on to my argument: morality is legislated all the time. Stealing is immoral, and it is illegal. Spousal and child abuse are immoral, and they are illegal. Murder is immoral, and it is illegal. These things are illegal because it is for society's good- for our protection and well-being. I hope no one here would argue that we should legalize stealing because it is a "moral" or "religious' issue. Legislating morality is done all the time and it is a good thing.

"This is about discrimination."

Discrimination is not always a bad thing. Not every choice is equally valid. Some have been saying that Prop 8 is bad or wrong because it denies humans a right to choose who to marry, but that assumes that every choice is equally good. We would never argue this way in other areas. For example, denying someone the opportunity to beat their child or drive drunk is a very good thing. We would not be up in arms about people being denied the chance to beat their children. We would not be upset about a class of people (those who want to drive drunk) not being protected from so-called discrimination.

"Does morality have a place in legislation?"

Supposedly this is not supposed to be a matter of morality. Yet the campaign for those opposed to Proposition 8 - including the official No on 8 website - is that "it's wrong." Legislation can't be made on the grounds that something is simply "wrong" because that's a moral conviction. This is an attempt to infuse morality in legislation. Surely this fact isn't going to stop those people from believing it's wrong, because to them, "it's wrong." So does morality have a place in legislation? Yes, both sides are doing it.

"This is about human rights."

Rather than elaborating on the alleged unconstitutionality of the matter, and campaigning that way, it's pushed as a violation of Human Rights. This is smart, because what does the public feel more emotional attachment to? The law, or their moral beliefs? Whether or not the term is used in law, packaging the issue as "human rights" doesn't cause the public to scrutinize the Constitution and examine the legality of the issue. Instead, it tugs at their sense of right and wrong - their moral beliefs. Why would you feel so emotional and passionate about something if it didn't set off that intrinsic red alert in you that said "this is just wrong!"?

Humans rights? If that's so, why are we stopping at two partners...why not more than two? If it's a fight for the right to love, then nobody should be discriminated against - polygamists and other groups continue to get ignored, as if their right to love is somehow less important or irrelevant. How is it that it's a fight for equality when it's only about what the gay community wants?

That's because you don't want equality necessarily for all, but just for gays and lesbians. Why? Because morally you feel like they should. It's not your desire for the law to speak for itself, it's your desire to fight for your friends, for yourself, and for those emotional attachments, all the while bullying those who don't feel those moral convictions by threatening them with accusations of unlawfulness or intolerance. You don't feel for the polygamist community, or the manboy love community? Probably because none of them are your close friends. This is about only two-person marriage, not for every man's right to marry.

"This is about fundamental rights."

If fundamental rights is the main issue here, why is it that they don't seem to care that four judges went above our right to vote? Prop 22 was passed in 2000, defining marriage as between a man and woman. Last May four supreme court judges in San Francisco overturned that in California, even though California had fairly voted on the matter. I'm sure it's debated back and forth between law students whether or not this is a violation of the Constitution. My point is not to conclude one way or the other on that (far be it from me to know more than the discourse of law students on the Constitution). My point is why are we not talking about it? The judiciary interferes with our right to vote and we just sit here and take it? Why is it absent among "No on 8" campaigners, from their official website, and from your comments on my posts? My guess is that since if it doesn't interfere with your morality, it's not that big a deal.

"Whom does samesex marriage affect?"

Let's now address the rest of your sentence, Massiel, "especially people whose decisions and lifestyles in no way directly affect our own."

If it remains legalized, Gay marriage will normalize as a part of society. Marriage will now be defined as between any two consenting persons.

Okay, then what?
Schools will teach it. Amongst all the defense regarding education, there is surprisingly no response to the event in which a 1st grade class had an official field trip to go see their teacher's lesbian wedding ceremony. Schools are very much going to be affected.

But schools are not required to teach about marriage.
Whether or not it's required to, it will. Why? Because marriage is a part of society. Marriage is connected to school subjects, it's mentioned in conversation, in pictures, it's connected to other topics. What happens when kids ask how babies are made? So in all the inclusion of marriage, schools would have to provide equal representation for all forms of marriage. Fairness under the law would demand it.

Okay, then what?
It gets to schools, and it gets to the home. All children become raised in an environment where marriage is between any two persons. This means that when Jayden thinks of marriage, there is no one picture that initially pops in his head. The whole idea of marriage becomes rethought for everyone in the next generation. How, then, do you explain that these decisions "in no way will directly affect our own?"

Samesex marriages will affect everyone.

This post isn't to say whether or not samesex marriage is moral or not, but to say that every person believes in one side, and pushes that belief on others. And the more you disagree with me, the more you prove my point. If this is to be dealt lawfully, then let our votes decide.

In maintaining the point of my original post, to explain why I'm voting "yes," I'm going to address what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. Thanks for reading.