“Are we actually voting to take away other people’s rights? Turning the American Constitution into American Idol? Letting the contestants stay as long as they amuse us?”
On November 4, Californians will vote to amend the State Constitution, which currently allows the right of same-sex couples to marry.
There will be no winners in this referendum. Whether the proposition succeeds or fails, we’ll all be diminished by it. That always happens when one group of people has the authority to take rights away from another.
In California, gay couples have a right to marry. Prop 8 isn’t about preventing people from enjoying that right, it’s going to the unprecedented step of taking it away. It’s the equivalent of voting to take away a woman’s right to vote.
It’s too bad we can’t get online and pull up a moral Mapquest. We could input the starting location (the corner of Rule and Law) and the ending location (the corner of Playing and God). We’d click the “Get Directions” button and see the quickest route: Proposition 8.
Voting to take people’s rights away circumvents the rule of law. Actually, it does more than that—it transforms the law into a tool for persecution. Which may sound fine, if you believe the persecuted pose a danger. But who gets to decide that? You? Me? What if we disagree? Majority rule? But what if you’re not in the majority?
Here’s the exact wording on Proposition 8: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
The problem with “letting the voters decide” on that simple sentence is that once we get used to deciding who deserves a right and who doesn’t, once we get a taste of that kind of power, we’ll want to exercise it again and again. Where would we stop? Imagine if you will, a Proposition 80:
“Only marriage between a Christian man and a Christian woman is valid or recognized in California.”
. . .
Part of the reason so many can’t see the folly of Prop 8 is the belief that the vote is about preserving the sanctity of marriage. It’s not. Imagine yourself at the entrance of a dying man’s hospital room. He doesn’t want to die alone. His lover is in the room. You’re voting on the right to throw him out.
Part of the folly is the belief by so many that the vote is about stopping two women from getting a marriage license or two men from registering at Bloomingdale’s. It’s not. Imagine yourself at an orphanage with an eight-year old girl nobody wants. She found a couple who’ll love and take care of her. The papers are signed. You’re voting on the right to leave her in the orphanage.
Part of the folly is the belief by so many that the vote is about stopping two women from entering into a committed relationship or two men from filing joint tax returns. It’s not. Imagine a lonely 70-year-old woman who can stay in her home because she’s receiving spousal death benefits. You’re voting on the right to cancel her checks.
Is that what being an American is about? Voting to take away other people’s rights? Are we going to turn the American Constitution into American Idol? As long as the contestants amuse us we’ll give them another chance?
This isn’t just about gay marriage. It’s about codifying the ability of one group of people to punish another by taking away their rights. That’s why it’s imperative that this amendment fail– so it doesn’t continue as an option to be used against others. Vote No on 8. Not because you’re for gay marriage, but because you don’t believe you have the right to stand in the entrance of that hospital room and reverse a dying man’s decision, because you don’t believe you have the right to keep that little girl from loving parents, because you don’t believe you have the right to cancel a widower’s checks.
But most of all, vote no because you don’t believe other people should have the power to take away your own rights.