Why Proposition 8 is not a "Live and Let Live" Issue

A common objection to Proposition 8, is that gay marriage doesn't affect anyone else. On the surface, it seems a pretty clear cut "live and let live issue." I've spent a lot of time thinking and researching this issue, because the last thing I wanted to do was to perpetuate ignorance or discrimination. Having grown up around my parents' gay friends, I have very positive feelings towards members of the gay community, and wanted to be sensitive to their feelings and concerns. As I've researched this issue, however, I've found it to be multi-layered, making it much more complex than it initially seems. Unfortunately, changing the definition of marriage, has far-reaching implications.

I believe redefining marriage has implications for the well-being of children. I believe in the American ideal of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I also believe that strong marriages and families are at the core of this ideal. I believe that the ideal nurturing environment consists of a child's loving parents, where both genders contribute, in unique and complimentary ways, to the development and security of their children.

I recognize that this is an ideal, that in many cases, is simply not possible. But I question the wisdom of discarding the ideal. Of ignoring the experience of centuries of family life, and the evidence of decades of social science research. Of undertaking a universal social experiment, in the hope that children will not be adversely affected.

I also believe changing the definition of marriage compromises freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and parental rights. Here are some examples:


Freedom of Speech

"I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman," Associate Vice President of Human Resources Crystal Dixon wrote in a guest piece for the Toledo Free Press.

Dixon noted that, whereas race is genetically determined, the homosexual lifestyle is freely entered into and can be abandoned with proper support.

"I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few."

Ms. Dixon was fired from her 25-year- position at the University for her statements. Even the editor of the Toledo Free Press, while strongly disagreeing with her position, felt that Mrs. Dixon's termination was a violation of her right to free speech. Mrs. Dixon said she hadn't shown any discrimination in the workplace, hiring homosexual candidates, but the university felt her article showed that her beliefs were not in harmony with their mission.

(Sources: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050605.html, http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories08/may/0516082.htm)

Freedom of Religion:

A Vista OB GYN refused to perform an artifical insemination for a lesbian couple as it violated his personal, religious beliefs. He referred the couple to his partner, who agreed to perform the procedure. The doctor was sued, and legal experts predict he will lose the suit. The judge suggested the doctors take up a different line of business.

A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600).

(Source: NPR "When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash.")

Parental Rights:

Superintendant of School, Jack O' Connell has stated that gay marriage would not be taught in the schools. However, this is misleading, as 96% of schools in CA teach sex education, and marriage is a required aspect of sex ed. A friend of my family, who is also a school board member, has said that his district would be required to teach gay marriage along with their teachings on traditional marriage. Parents would not be allowed to opt-out of these teachings, as the opt-out laws in CA are very narrowly defined as follows:

"State law explicitly provides that 'instruction or materials that discusses gender, sexual orientation, or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions' is not subject to the parental notice and opt-out laws. California Education Code §51932(b)." (Pg.31)

In MA, Robb and Robin Wirthlin, found this to be the case when their second grade son told them about a story he heard in class about two princes that fell in love. The Wirthlins felt that second grade was too young for their son to be exposed to adult issues, but they were told that this was not a parental notification issue. You can see them tell their story here.

Just recently, in Hayward, CA, parents were surprised to learn that their elementary age children were participating in a school wide event celebrating "coming out day." The kindergartners were asked to sign a pledge to be allies of the gay community. Parents were not informed, and the event was not on the school calendar.

(Sources: ""http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78829 and http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html)