On 4 November 2008, California voters were asked to vote 'yes' or 'no' on Proposition 8. On the ballot, voters saw the following:
PROP
8
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.According to the California General Election Tuesday, November 4, 2008 Official Voter Information Guide, the following is known:
Text of Proposed Laws:
PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1- Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2- Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Analysis by the Legislative Analyst:
BACKGROUND
In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state.PROPOSAL
This measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. As a result, notwithstanding the California Supreme Court ruling of May 2008, marriage would be limited to individuals of the opposite sex, and individuals of the same sex would not have the right to marry in California.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Because marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid in California, there would likely be an increase in spending on weddings by same-sex couples in California over the next few years. This would result in increased revenue, primarily sales tax revenue, to state and local governments.
By specifying that marriage between individuals of the same sex is not valid or recognized, this measure could result in revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, to state and local governments. Over the next few years, this loss could potentially total in the several tens of millions of dollars. Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
Results:Proposition 8 - Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry
YES: 5,782,670; 52.2%
NO: 5,301,540; 47.8%
Aside from the argument on the question of love, there is an inherent question of legality that remains. That a commitment between two people can not legally be certified as a marriage brings into closer examination a whole host of legal questions.
Not the least of which is property. If I am in a homosexual relationship and I suddenly die without a will, to whom does my property go? Were my relationship unknown to family, they would have precedent legal right to claim my property in court. Were my partner to object, he/she would not have a legal leg to stand on.
Another question is that of medical catastrophe. Suppose I survived my brush with death and am laying in a hospital. My partner would not be able to see me if the hospital restricts visitation to family only.
Another question is in regards to insurance. Not very many companies (and probably fewer these days) would accept a non-married partner to be covered under the employee's health-care.
Yet another question is that of a split. Suppose a homosexual couple had been together for twelve years, bought a house, a car, had a yard, mowed the grass, raked the leaves, paid property tax and then decided, as do 50% of 'straight' couples in a relationship for twelve years, to call it quits. Who gets the house? Who gets the car? Who gets the money? Who gets the ugly ottoman in the downstairs living room? Who decides this, and on what legal basis?
Sure there is room to answer these legal questions in the form of 'Civil Unions'. Civil unions. What does that mean? What do relationships certified with a marriage have that those certified with a 'Civil Union' not have?
That there are 'marriages' for one segment of the population and 'civil unions' for other segments of the population sounds, regrettably, like SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.
Have we learned nothing from the last half of the last century about discrimination?
For the sake of all that is reasonable, we have just elected as the 44th President a person of color. This is the Dream of which Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of and made his entire life's work- that his followers died for, that people were beaten for. We have, in fact, not come this far without getting scarred up a bit. What would he say about the passage of Prop 8? What would he say about the denial of rights to a segment of the population?
Separate is inherently unequal. Are we prepared, as a country, to go down this road again? Should we get the fire hoses out? Should we ready another bridge, perhaps the Golden Gate, for a blood bath? Are there still people in this country so threatened with their own insecurities that they are ready to drag us down the road ALREADY traveled? And to what end? How many homosexuals must die in order that we as a people must recognize that the founding fathers meant it when the word equal was written into the constitution?
This issue is about love, but peripherally. It is mainly about rights. It is about Civil Rights.
We as a people on a whole, are in fact better off because of what the Civil Rights Act afforded to people of color because it was a re-affirmation of everyone's rights.
That there is language anywhere that denies to anyone based on anything basic civil rights is an endangerment to all of our civil rights. It is dangerous and a road that none of us can afford to travel down again. We've already learned this lesson, quite painfully.
Posts
0 comments :
Post a Comment