Yes on Proposition 8, and here's why
Andrew McFadden
Issue date: 10/15/08 Section: Opinion
This election season, Californians have many issues to consider and cast a vote on. Many of these measures stand to reshape the landscape of our culture, perhaps the greatest of which is Proposition 8, which hopes to ban gay marriage and put this issue to rest once and for all.
This is not the first time the state of California has seen this measure. In May of 2000, it appeared on ballots in the form of Prop 22 and passed when more than 4 million Californians voted and 61 percent of the vote wrote in our law books: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." End of story.
Or so we thought. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has since then not only condoned the illegal activity of gay marriages taking place, but he encouraged others to go forward in this same illegal manor. Now if you will turn with me in your dictionary to the T's.., Tr's.., Tre's…, oh! There he is! Mayor Gavin Newsom's mug shot is right next to the word "treason." This whole situation could have been quickly resolved and the law upheld, but we saw shockingly little response from the powers that be when Newsom spit in the face of our democracy. Mr. Governator, care to comment? Mr. President, a call to action perhaps? But …nothing. Epic fail guys. Truly epic fail.
In May, the state Supreme Court completely ignored the will of those 4 million people and, as if our definition of marriage never existed, those seven justices donned the mantel of the legislative branch and rewrote the law books for us.
And now we have Prop 8. Yet another sink of time, money and energy that is necessary to defend ourselves from domestic terrorists.
Now, contrary to what you might believe, I in no way oppose gay rights. We all have freedoms and make decisions on how we live our lives, and if two people of the same sex are living and functioning together in a capacity similar to that of the traditional family, they should be accommodated in a similar fashion as well. However, marriage is not the appropriate vehicle to do this.
We need to strongly consider our First Amendment right, the freedom of religion, as well as the idea of separation of church and state. In recent history, separation of church and state has been discussed frequently and used as an argument to take any resemblance of religion out of our legal system. Despite the fact that this is a grave misuse from the concept's original intent, it is time we apply this idea appropriately.
Marriage wasn't created by a government agency; it is a holy union that was borrowed directly from religious establishments. For this reason the state should keep itself separate from the church and respect the fact that Christianity defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. If this isn't sufficient for the people, then it is time to draft a new type of union that will not interfere with one's freedom of religion.
Vote yes on Prop 8 and send the message to our legislators that it is time for them to do their job: Draft a bill that will not infringe upon our rights and freedoms.
Andrew McFadden can be reached at amcfadden@statehornet.com
This is not the first time the state of California has seen this measure. In May of 2000, it appeared on ballots in the form of Prop 22 and passed when more than 4 million Californians voted and 61 percent of the vote wrote in our law books: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." End of story.
Or so we thought. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has since then not only condoned the illegal activity of gay marriages taking place, but he encouraged others to go forward in this same illegal manor. Now if you will turn with me in your dictionary to the T's.., Tr's.., Tre's…, oh! There he is! Mayor Gavin Newsom's mug shot is right next to the word "treason." This whole situation could have been quickly resolved and the law upheld, but we saw shockingly little response from the powers that be when Newsom spit in the face of our democracy. Mr. Governator, care to comment? Mr. President, a call to action perhaps? But …nothing. Epic fail guys. Truly epic fail.
In May, the state Supreme Court completely ignored the will of those 4 million people and, as if our definition of marriage never existed, those seven justices donned the mantel of the legislative branch and rewrote the law books for us.
And now we have Prop 8. Yet another sink of time, money and energy that is necessary to defend ourselves from domestic terrorists.
Now, contrary to what you might believe, I in no way oppose gay rights. We all have freedoms and make decisions on how we live our lives, and if two people of the same sex are living and functioning together in a capacity similar to that of the traditional family, they should be accommodated in a similar fashion as well. However, marriage is not the appropriate vehicle to do this.
We need to strongly consider our First Amendment right, the freedom of religion, as well as the idea of separation of church and state. In recent history, separation of church and state has been discussed frequently and used as an argument to take any resemblance of religion out of our legal system. Despite the fact that this is a grave misuse from the concept's original intent, it is time we apply this idea appropriately.
Marriage wasn't created by a government agency; it is a holy union that was borrowed directly from religious establishments. For this reason the state should keep itself separate from the church and respect the fact that Christianity defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. If this isn't sufficient for the people, then it is time to draft a new type of union that will not interfere with one's freedom of religion.
Vote yes on Prop 8 and send the message to our legislators that it is time for them to do their job: Draft a bill that will not infringe upon our rights and freedoms.
Andrew McFadden can be reached at amcfadden@statehornet.com
Spring Break


Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 65
Jeffrey I. Chang
posted 10/15/08 @ 12:56 AM PST
Clearly, Andrew McFadden did not finish his General ED's yet or failed them. Any relatively intelligent person would have realized that what the Judges did was exercise Judaical Review, "the idea that a constitution--which dictates the nature, functions, and limits of a government--is the supreme law. (Continued…)
Frank Loret de Mola
posted 10/15/08 @ 2:20 AM PST
Language. Language. Language.
The government should recognize "civil unions" between two people, regardless of gender, have that marker be used for all couples, so that all couples can get the same tax benefits. (Continued…)
Ross Archer
posted 10/15/08 @ 4:26 AM PST
Proposition 8 is illegal
Our Founders intended that the rights of individuals be determined by a Constitution, rather than ever by the whims of a popular vote. (Continued…)
Hornet Alum
posted 10/15/08 @ 7:38 AM PST
Um, no. Civil marriage in California - what Prop. 8 concerns - is the domain of a government agency. Religious marriage is another matter that will stay another matter - unaffected, and protected by the 1st Amendment and the language of the court ruling - regardless of whether Prop. (Continued…)
Scott Allen
posted 10/15/08 @ 12:01 PM PST
It's funny that people always attack the concept of judicial review when they disagree with a judicial decision. Right, wrong or indifferent, the job of courts is to make decisions above the political fray and regardless of public opinion. (Continued…)
joe
posted 10/15/08 @ 12:14 PM PST
Is this a satirical story or just really this bad?
"Mantel"? "Illegal manor"? No sources? Seriously I could write this in five minutes.
John Lowther
posted 10/15/08 @ 12:21 PM PST
AM,
How can you whine and complain about freedom of religion??? Last time I checked the U.S. Government had not picked out one specific religion that all Americans must follow(or in your case "obey"). (Continued…)
Kathleen
posted 10/15/08 @ 12:35 PM PST
You are right on target with this one! This proposition is designed to restore the decision that we Californians made in 2000 to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, which was so unjustly disregarded by 4 state Supreme Court justices. (Continued…)
Cullen Riggs
posted 10/15/08 @ 12:56 PM PST
I will have to disagree with you about the origin of marriage. If fact same-sex marriages were legal and quite common in ancient Rome. Marriage was not defined as strictly between a man and a women until the Theodosian Code from the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans which was passed 342AD. (Continued…)
Amy
posted 10/15/08 @ 1:12 PM PST
On this issue I am in complete agreement with Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Bill and Hilary Clinton. I believe that people in same-sex unions are entitled to all of the same rights and civil liberties as heterosexual couples. (Continued…)
Post a Comment