HockeyManAZSoutham

Proposition 102

This election year of 2008, the State of Arizona has made several proposals that are to be voted on and decided by the voice of the people. Of all the issues being proposed, I feel there is none of greater importance than Proposition 102. This proposes that Marriage be defined as being between one man and one woman and it be added to our State constitution (Arizona Secretary of State). In this paper I will visit both sides of the argument, so to see what both sides feel as important. What I hope to accomplish is to bring to light what true values are at stake for all of us regardless where we sit on the issue.
I would first like to examine what this proposal is trying to accomplish. As we already know, Arizona law already states that marriage is only between a man and a woman. So what is the big deal! Why do we need to vote on this proposal at all, it is already law, what will change? Let us start by defining the difference between law and constitution. Law is defined as “the collection of rules imposed by authority; "civilization presupposes respect for the law"; "the great problem for jurisprudence to allow...” or “a legal document setting forth rules governing a particular activity” (Definition of Law). Now let us define Constitution. Constitution is “the basis for which law is written”, “Constitution (political) are the highest laws of the state, country, or government which often require more than legislative enactment to change” (Definition of Constitution). Already we can see there is a big distinction between the two. Now that Law and Constitution have been defined, what does this mean for this proposition? Prop 102 is proposing this very distinction, by amending the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. This is significant because being part of the constitution makes it the basis for the formation of law in this state, and also makes it so that normal legislative enactment cannot change this. I feel that people misunderstand what law is and how fragile and sometimes frequently changed it can be. The State of California has had a law defining that marriage is between a man and a woman. On May 15, 2008 the Supreme Court of California ruled 4-3 against this law stating marriage to be a “fundamental constitutional right” (California Supreme Court). If left as only law, a judge(s) of the supreme court of the state can change this through normal legislative enactment, not by the voice of the people. If it is a constitutional amendment, it takes a lot more than the opinion of a single person or small group of people to change the governing principles of an entire society.
History has shown us over time that Americans have consistently been opposed to same-sex marriage. A recent May 2008 Gallup Poll showed that Americans oppose same-sex marriage by 56% opposed, 40% for. Respondents to a CNN/Opinion Research poll in Oct. 2007 reflected the same results as the Gallup Poll. In the United States, 26 states prohibit same-sex marriage in their constitutions, 19 have it by law only (Ten Facts). The states of California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut are states that allow same-sex marriages with some others allowing civil unions. What history has shown is that Americans have consistently opposed same-sex marriage. Although this issue was never brought into question 30 years ago in the last 20 years it has surfaced and continued to surface at an ever-increasing pace. As recently as 1996 Phil Burress, President of an Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values was quoted as saying, “Gay marriage seemed so far out there that grassroots just didn’t take it seriously” (Onward Christian Soldiers). As you can see, a lot has changed in just 12 short years.
The issues, beliefs, and/or values that are being fought over on this proposition are vast and passionate on both sides of the fence. First I want to look at the arguments against Prop 102. The main topics that come up almost everywhere for those that oppose this proposition are that it discriminates against a certain individual due to their sexual preference they are denied a basic right marriage to whom they love. This seems to be the most prevalent of all the issues based on my research and conversations with others. In one conversation I had with a much respected co-worker who is against Prop 102, she related a personal story of her own family. She has 2 cousins that are lesbians and she shared with me how one of them grew up completely miserable because she never liked men and always had this attraction to women, but because of this she was shunned by her own immediate family, and ridiculed by others. This led to depression and other issues her whole life. She then in adulthood finally met someone of the same-sex and that since they have been partners, that her whole life has changed and that she has never been happier. This is not an isolated incident either. I am sure this has happened to many, and that many have seen loved ones suffer greatly due to their sexual orientation. Another argument is that because they are denied the right of marriage they do not have to right to hospital visitation, health insurance, life insurance, the passing of social security from their deceased loved ones. Also, due to how the laws are written, if same-sex couples have children or adopt and then later separate then there are no laws to protect or enforce child support between the two. Should they be able to marry they could possibly pool their resources together to afford better health insurance, and file taxes jointly. They would also be able to have laws protect them in case of divorce for child support, and/or alimony (Do wedding dresses come in lavender?). I have also come across those that feel this is a civil rights issue. I found this very interesting, and this is a widely held belief as stated in the California Supreme Court ruling it to be a “fundamental right.” As part of my conversation with my co-worker on the topic of traditional values, she brought to my attention that this is similar to when interracial marriage was first starting to become prevalent. It was looked at in much the same way as we are looking at same-sex marriage, as this is evil, or the wrong thing. Now look at us, we don’t think twice about it, it happens all the time. Another talking point was that same-sex marriage would not affect the upbringing of children. How would two loving parents in a same-sex relationship be any different than that of a hetero relationship? There are more arguments that are against this proposition, however, I will only focus on the above mentioned for two reasons; one is they seem to be to major most significant issues, and two for the sake of time. I simply cannot address every issue on both sides.
The issues supporting this proposition are just as passionate and heartfelt as the ones against. First and foremost is that marriage is a time-honored tradition between a man and a woman. This is not religious issue, which is what so many make it out to be, it is an issue about morals and values of the natural way of life that has been and always will be. This is not an issue about discrimination, but protection of what the majority of America hold true and dear. This is also not a civil rights issue. By adding this amendment to the constitution of Arizona it protects this time-honored tradition and value from the beliefs of one or a few judicial individuals from changing our law and destroying the institution of marriage for the whole state. This is also in no way similar interracial marriage and the fight this country went through in accepting this as part of our society. Supporters of Prop 102 also strongly feel that the view that this does not affect our children is extremely false. This will affect our children and it will also affect our public schools and what is taught to our children in school from a very young age. The supporters of this bill feel that should the definition of marriage be changed and same-sex marriage be allowed by law it will change the very fabric of society and degrade this time-honored tradition of our American culture.
I have presented arguments on both sides of this issue and provided historical data on where Americans have traditionally stood on this issue. I have also tried earnestly to be as objective as possible in my presentation up to this point. I feel it is now my duty to express my position and the evidence I have researched. I support this proposition. I believe this to be a time for Americans to stand up and be counted and to define as a State, Country, and Nation who we are and what we believe in. I have been fortunate to have had many conversations with people throughout my research and hear their points of view, which have been about equal in “for and against.” I have chosen to speak with as many people as possible because this is the democratic philosophy to be able to speak and argue issues in this form. I feel that this method of research is as valid as any research done by doctors, Ph. D’s, or any other means. In my opinion it is often more valid than other forms because a lot of research is done with bias. The fact is that most the legal reviews have been extremely bias in supporting gay and lesbian rights and defending same-sex marriage. This trend continues, and not enough is published in defense of traditional marriage due to the intellectual taboo arguments that are unsupportive to gay and lesbian rights. Lynn Wardle stated in a law review that, “Tolerance of "gay rights" is a litmus test for academic credibility in such circles; opposition to same-sex marriage is treated as proof of narrow-mindedness, dangerous fundamentalism, or an unprofessional mixing of personal moral or religious preferences and law” (Wardle, par C, #2). The fact that the legal literature is so one sided and bias against the views of tradition that do not support gay and lesbian rights; I feel this has a direct influence on the judiciary process and attitudes of judges. Now even I can admit that the overwhelming majority has been, and is still opposed to same-sex marriage, but this battle is coming up more and more frequently which is why I feel it is my duty to stand up a fight the protection of marriage and how the majority of Americans view marriage.
First I want to address the attitude that this is discriminatory. I do not feel that this is discriminating, but protecting what I hold dear. We are all subject to legal constraints when it comes to marriage. An adult cannot marry a minor or a child, you cannot marry another person if you are already married or have multiple spouses at the same time, or you cannot marry close family such as a brother marrying his sister. All of us are subject to legal constraints when it comes to marriage. Therefore if the law were to allow for same-sex marriage what is to stop others who feel they should be able marry multiple people at the same time, or an adult wanting to marry a minor because of “love.” If we are to subject what is traditionally defined as marriage to include same-sex marriage, there would be little in the way of stopping others from pursing the same legal avenues. This is a dangerous road. Furthermore, if the law were to be changed allowing same-sex marriage, then the discrimination would then be on those that do not want these views to be taught to their children and family in the public form. This has already happened! In 2005 in the State of Massachusetts, David Barker, the parent of a six-year-old boy protested at his sons’ elementary school after his son was taught about “homosexual relationships” in his kindergarten class. After refusing to back down on his protest that the schools honor the Massachusetts parental notification statute he was handcuffed and arrested for trespassing. He spent the next few months in legal battles until the charges were finally dropped by the school district (Ten Facts). This sort of battle would, I fear, become commonplace should the law be changed.
I have heard the argument about the benefits that same-sex couples do not have that traditional marriages do in terms of health insurance, social security, filing of taxes. I have even heard some go as far as say this is their right. I will choose not to go into the definitions of what is a right and what is a benefit, but let’s be real. These are not rights conferred upon all, but benefits offered by our government and society to married individuals. Why are they benefits? They are benefits because traditional marriage is beneficial to our government because it provides happier, more prosperous generations to come. Traditional marriage is beneficial to society and our government, and the government in turn offers benefits for this institution. The facts are, that anthropology and psychology have shown that children need a father and mother in their lives, and that children raised by their biological father and mother are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than in any other type of living situation. Now there are arguments stating there is no evidence showing children being raised is same-sex marriages would be harmful in anyway to the children. This is just false. First and foremost, the idea of same-sex marriage by law is a relatively new idea and there simply is not enough evidence or studies out there to show that this is or is not harmful to children. In the article “Do wedding dresses come in lavender?” the author stated that studies have shown that children raised in same-sex households are no less likely to be gay or to be less successful than those raised in hetero households, yet failed to cite even one of these studies (Do wedding dresses come in lavender?). Why is this important? How do I know these studies even happened, or who conducted the studies, or how where they conducted. All of this is necessary to determine the validity of this claim. Now I have not cited any studies either in this paper and I have chosen not to because this is really commonplace knowledge. You can pick up any psychology textbook and there are chapters on the traditional family unit and the benefits and importance of the father and mother roles in children’s lives. For same-sex couples the task of providing evidence as to their benefit to society is a burden they cannot meet.
One point that was brought up in my conversations is comparing the issue of same-sex marriage to that of interracial marriage. At first glance this might seems quite logical. Same-sex couples have faced similar battles of acceptance that interracial couples had to go through before it became an accepted part of our society. This thought process is also flawed. Race and sexual preference are two totally separate issues especially in the realm of law. Interracial marriage does not challenge the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. The issues are separate and cannot be intertwined.
So what do we sacrifice if we allow same-sex marriage laws to be passed? We are sacrificing the very core values that have been learned and proven for thousands of years of human growth and development. In my opinion we are sacrificing the very values this country was founded on and we would be jeopardizing our future and the future of our children. To say that this would not profoundly change the very fabric of our society is a foolish and naïve view. It will change everything from our judicial system to our public views and teaching affecting each and every one of us. It would in turn just create more intolerance and persecution of others based on moral or religious views. This is not a religious issue; it is a moral one of values essential to the progress of society. Peter Sprigg, Vice President of the Family Research Council stated, “Religion alone is not enough to define marriage in a particular way; but the “separation of church and state” alone is not enough reason to change the traditional definition of marriage either (Testimony).
My recommendation to voters is that you vote yes on Prop 102. Do not fall into the false notion that there are other issues, all dealing with money, that are more important to voters this election year for the State of Arizona. I urge each of you to take a serious and long look at what is truly at stake should we allow this to remain as just law and be subject to change by the beliefs and values of a particular judicial figure which could change it simply due to his/her own personal feelings on the matter. We put at risk the great nation and society we have created if we continue to degrade the values and the traditional family unit which has been defined and proven through generations. If we continue put the traditional family and marriage values at risk based on the claim that this is tolerance, and intellectual-forward thinking, we will see a direct correlation to the digression of our society and the ever-growing problems we face. The evidence is all around us if we just open our eyes.