I know I've blogged quite a bit on Proposition 8 and the issue of "gay marriage."  But as today is "Write to Marry" day, where bloggers blog against Prop 8 and in support of equal marriage rights, I'm taking the topic on again because I believe completely and whole-heartedly in the cause.

If you're living in California and have been anywhere within earshot of radio or t.v. in the last month or so, you've heard all sorts of hysteria in the ads put out by the "Yes on 8" committees.  You've heard that "it's about the children."  You've heard that it's about "what will be taught in schools."  If you've been out on the streets and seen a Yes on 8 gathering, you've even seen signs that claim Prop 8 = Less Government.

What you haven't seen is a single, substantive, reasoned argument (backed up by science) about why you should support Proposition 8.  You have not heard proponents tell you why, for the first time in history, we should codify something in our constitution that limits, rather than expands, equal rights under the law.

I submit that the reason you've not seen or heard such arguments is that they don't bear scrutiny.  Here are four of the things most touted by opponents of equal marriage rights in recent years:

1.  If homosexuals are allowed to marry, it will degrade traditional marriage.  The closest thing I've found to an argument was on the Family Research Council's one pager on "Counterfeit Marriage," where Timothy Dailey says, "like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing." 

As to Dailey's assertions about the cheapening effect of counterfeits, simple common sense undermines his reasoning.  If one buys a counterfeit handbag, that purchase does not affect the pleasure of owning the genuine item.  In a similar way, my friend's marriage to the woman of her dreams has nothing to do with the sanctity of my marriage to Dan.

Dailey reasons that gay marriage is a counterfeit because it "lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female."  While I would agree (to a degree) that male/female dynamics wouldn't be part of most gay marriages, I don't believe he proves such a marriage "counterfeit" by simple assertion.  Many heterosexual marriages do not contain components Dailey would find necessary to a biblically correct marriage (submission of the wife, production of children, man at work/woman at home).  Yet Dailey would not deny these folks the right to marry despite their difference from his self-defined ideal. 

The truth is that Dailey's argument is a cover for his belief that homosexuality is evil.  Homosexuals don't qualify for equal marriage rights because they are less than heterosexuals.

What religious folks often fail to mention is that there are only a handful of verses dealing with homosexuality in the Bible.  The majority of these are found in Old Testament "holiness codes," many parts of which are routinely ignored (and explained away as cultural) by the church today.  Furthermore, homosexuality is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments, the Summary of the Law nor did Jesus see fit to address it.  Poverty, on the other hand, seems to be of great concern to God and Christ.  Pity the church (and Mr. Dailey) don't expend their energies on God's true concerns.

2.  It's a slippery slope.  If we allow gays to marry, what's to prevent polygamy, adults marrying children, people marrying animals, etc.  Beyond the utterly insulting comparisons this argument makes between pedophilia and homosexuality, there's a simple answer to the question.

We are to prevent it.  If NAMBLA managed, somewhere in America, to get in a "right to marry children" initiative on a ballot, we would have our say.  Further, the courts, in examining the inevitable defeat of such a measure would not find the argument for human dignity valid in relationships (like polygamy and pedophilia) where consenting adults agree and power is equally balanced.

Honestly, this argument makes me want to say, "Really.  In America.  We'll have animal human marriages.  Really?"

3.  We have to protect the children. This is really two arguments.  First, we have to protect "our" heterosexual children from being taught that gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are equal in the eyes of the law.  For a humorous take on this argument, click here.

Seriously though, California schools teach lots of things that fundamentalists don't agree with.  They teach evolution.  They teach that women and men are equally capable of success in the workplace.  Later they teach that condoms are an effective way to protect yourself if you become sexually active.  Even IF, and it's highly unlikely, some teachers touch on gay marriage in the classroom, it won't present an insurmountable obstacle to parents who disagree.

Instead it will provide them with the opportunity to educate their children on their own beliefs and the origins of those beliefs.  A teaching moment, if you will.

The second argument is that children raised in gay marriages will be warped by the experience.  That is simply not true.  There is not a single, peer-reviewed scientific study that reveals any difference between kids raised in similar parameters by heterosexual and homosexual parents.  To quote the American Psychological Association, "there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosical development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents."

James Dobson has argued that children do better when "raised by their married mother and father."  The trouble is, the research he quotes deals with children in single parent households versus those in two-parent households.  He also twisted research by Dr. Kyle Pruett about the critical impacts of male role models on children, claiming that it showed children of gay families are at risk.

Dr. Pruett sums up the children issue for me when he says, "it is the love that surrounds children that prepares them to give to the world and to protect themselves from its difficulties."   

Arguments against the Yes on 8 proponents aside, my vote against proposition 8 is informed and illuminated by scientific research and the anecdotal evidence of beloved people, gay and straight, in my life.  I believe in human dignity for all humans.  As my friend, Erik, says--If you're human, you qualify.

I also believe in the constitution of the United States of America when it says that "all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights."  That among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  My gay friends deserve the same right to pursue the happiness of marriage as my heterosexual friends.

Please join me in voting no on H8.

I'm a bit under the weather, hence no blog posts for a few days.   I'm not quite 100% yet so I thought I'd take this opportunity to share, with the author's permission, an open email about Prop 8.  The letter says it all, much better than I ever have.  Many thanks to the letter's author, Jeffrey Bryan.

From: Jeffrey Bryan 
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 4:00 PM
Subject: Today is My Birthday
 

I was born October 20th, 1977 in the far recesses of the Inland Empire (I admit it, I'm not technically an Orange County native).  We did move before I turned a year old though, if that counts.

As a child, I was always involved in the community somehow.  I had a short stint in the Boy Scouts (and also in the Girl Scouts - long story).  I was president of the Lake Forest 4H Club, and Vice President of my High School's Environmental Action Group.  If that's not geeky enough I was a Mathlete and in the Academic Decathlon.

Through theatre, I performed with dozens of groups across Orange County - and through the Children's Mime Experience I was part of the opening ceremonies for Lake Mission Viejo and many other carnivals, festivals, and private parties.

My first job was at Togo's in Lake Forest, and I've also done my time at Disney, PETCO, and FreeCreditReport.com.  My first "real job" was at AppleOne Employment in Santa Ana helping people find jobs to support their families - an experience that will never leave me.

For the last three years I've donated a week of my life to AIDS LifeCycle - a charity event to raise funds to fight AIDS in San Francisco and Los Angeles.  I personally have raised several thousand dollars, and the event has raised almost $30,000,000 in those three years.

But like I said, it's my birthday.  And this year, I only want one thing for my birthday.  For the past 31 years I've given to California.  I've supported the community, paid my taxes, and been the best citizen I could be.  In November, there is a Proposition to amend our state constitution to prohibit marriages between members of the same sex.  I want to get married one day.  I want to have a big amazing wedding and invite all of you to help me celebrate the love that you all keep telling me I deserve.  If Prop 8 passes, that will never happen.

The people supporting Prop 8 have told a lot of lies trying to convince you this change to the constitution is needed.  They said it will legally require schools to teach kids about gay marriage (not true, the state law says that all changes to curriculum must be independently reviewed and approved by a committee of teachers, administrators, and parents).  They have said that your taxes will go to support gay marriage (not true, having gay marriages HELPS the economy and no taxes are required to support them).  They have said that gay couples will force churches to marry them (not true, this law has nothing to do with church rights).

This isn't a political issue, or a "social agenda".  This is personal.  This is my life.  These are my rights.  For my birthday, please vote no on Prop 8.  And if you're feeling particularly generous, please donate to the cause.
http://www.noonprop8.com

Your Friend and Neighbor,
Jeffrey Mahacek

My friend and occasional political sparring partner, Steve Peden, asked me a good question about my Voter's Guide recommendation for a yes vote on Prop 1A.

In my disclaimer on the Voter's Guide page, I say, "--I'm a fiscal moderate.  If government has surpluses and wants to invest in infrastructure, I'll tend to vote for funding.  If, on the other hand, there are deficits, it's going to be difficult for me to justify extending debt--even for worthy projects."

I was very much on the fence on Prop 1A because of the current economic situation in California.  We have large deficits; our housing market is imploding; our state legislature is in deadlock over any meaningful budget reform; and even if we get the deadlock removed through redistricting, we've done so much ballot box budgeting in recent years, we'll need more reform to allow legislators the ability to actually budget.

So I didn't lightly recommend Yes on 1A. 

My reasoning is that this type of infrastructure project (necessary for the future, forward-leaning in a technological sense, broad-based and multi-year in scope) can be more helpful to the economy than hurtful.  It creates jobs for the immediate future and for the long term.  It also looks toward a future where fossil fuels are exorbitantly expensive and alternatives will be needed to air and car travel.

Some, Steve among them I expect, will feel that these potential benefits do not justify taking on a big chunk of debt.  I don't agree.  But I can certainly understand their reasoning and appreciate their fiscally conservative impulse.

Thanks for the question, Steve!

I just finished my opinion on the first of 12 propositions for the upcoming election.  Enjoy.  (And share!)

California voters got it right yesterday and voted down Prop 98 while approving Prop 99--thus restricting eminent domain without also eliminating rent control.  Woo-hoo!

It just goes to show that deceptive advertising does NOT always win.  I think the AARP ads helped but so did all of you, getting out the word.

Now if we can just have more of the same with the odious initiative for the constitutional amendment on marriage--1298. 

Maybe the catch phrase can be "Against Hate?  Against 1298!"

More on November propositions to follow after I return from my trip to the Baltic.  I leave today and return on the 18th.  Look for sporadic updates from the computer room of the Crystal Symphony as Mom #1 and I make our way around the northern European ports.  Click here for itinerary.

Ciao!

If you're a California resident, tomorrow is the day for the California Direct Primary election.  If you haven't already voted absentee (like me), make sure to schedule time to VOTE!

I don't have any endorsements on various candidates for political offices but I do recommend:

A NO vote on 98 and a YES vote on 99.  (Click here for an explanation.)

If you want to do a tiny bit of research before voting for judges, then check out this website.

Exercise your rights, people!

Believe it or not, it's nearly time to vote again in California.  On June 3rd, there will be a Statewide Direct Primary Election.  Bless the folks at the Secretary of State office for limiting us to two Propositions this time around.

Both propositions aim at restricting the State's right of "eminent domain"--the process whereby the State takes possession of private property for its own purposes.  Without going into extreme detail, these propositions were made necessary by a Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that found it legitimate for government to take possession of property in order to sell it to developers.  Most states have enacted legistlation restricting the right of eminent domain to instances where the "public good" is a public facility rather than a new shopping mall.

The two propositions on the ballot both call themselves Eminent Domain legislation.  And there are a number of fairly deceptive radio ads playing right now in favor of Proposition 98.  So it's important to understand that they are not equal at all.

Proposition 98 is broader in terms of the types of property owners protected.  It includes churches, small businesses and rental properties along with homeowners.  Unfortunately, it also has a section that eliminates rent control (and could allow all rent controls to immediately be lifted).  In general, I'm in favor of the limited use of rent controls although I'd welcome a well-written measure limiting rent control some time in the future.

But in this proposition, a particular sub-group of rent control--mobile home space rents--is included.  Since many mobile homes are individually owned  but placed on rental land, and because they're costly to move, they are a particularly good example of why some rent control is necessary.

There's also the potential that the measure will eliminate one of the most effective tools of city governments in promoting affordable housing, something called "mandatory inclusionary housing."  This is the process whereby cities require developers to include a certain number of down-market homes in their project.  Without this, there would be very little affordable housing in California--housing recession or not.

Finally, the money behind proposition 98 comes primarily from the real estate owners, property managers and mobile home park owners who would benefit from the lifting of rent controls.

For all of these reasons, I urge you to vote no on 98.

As for Proposition 99--it's a straightforward limit to eminent domain for the primary residence of homeowners.  I'd like to see additional protections for small businesses and churches in the future.  But it's a good start.  Vote yes on 99.

League of Women Voters agrees with me.  Yaay!