Monday, November 10, 2008

An Interesting Take On Prop H8

Found this in the LA Times today
Why does it matter whether gay couples remain married in a post-Proposition 8 world? One answer has to do with the dignity and stature that marriage confers. Even if marriage provides no greater rights than domestic partnership, a separate-but-equal regime unavoidably signals that same-sex relationships are of lesser worth.

Another answer has to do with the future of gay marriage writ large. Gay marriage is in the cross-hairs of a culture war, and culture wars, both sides know, are won through symbols, examples and personal experiences that shape one's worldview.

Each of the 18,000 same-sex couples and their families in California represents a potential catalyst for broader acceptance of gay marriage. The more familiar we become with gay spouses and their children -- as our friends, neighbors and co-workers -- the more gay marriage will become an unremarkable thread of our social fabric. Proposition 8 may then come to be viewed, in the long run, not as an enduring constitutional principle but as the will of a narrow and ultimately temporary majority.
If your son were gay, would you not like him to marry the man he loves? The Yes on H8 crowd seems to think that being gay is something one does voluntarily. It's a fact of nature, and should not be denied, but embraced as a part of humanity. The tyrany of the slim majority led us to this very wrongheaded and bigoted piece of "legislation." It needs to be erased as the "will of the people" has been wrong in the past, and is wrong today on 8.


Anonymous said...

Too Much Love: Gay Marriage and the Slippery Slope

What's next, public acceptance of Wasilla hillbillies, Wall Street losers and poor people?

Standards, even ridiculous standards, exist for a reason, though it's not clear what that reason is vis gay marriage.

Anonymous said...

What if Voters Killed Interracial Marriage?

Your editorial "Voters and Marriage" (Nov. 6) on gay marriage in California leaves out some pertinent facts. The state legislature (the representatives of the electorate) passed gay marriage bills twice and the governor vetoed both bills on the grounds that it was up to the courts to decide.

The courts did decide as you say "by judicial fiat" and now the voters have spoken. What would the vote have been had voters voted on interracial marriage when it was essentially forced on them by judicial fiat; or what about integration of the military by President Truman? By all accounts both moves would have been defeated by a much wider margin.

Should voters be able to take away rights based on equal protection under the law by a simple majority or any majority at all? Minorities beware.

Robert J. Del Bonta
San Francisco

Letters to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal. November 8-9, 2008, page A10.