Proposition 8 - the most complex issue on the ballot.

As noted in an earlier post, I generally am skeptical of Constitutional Amendments. This measure would, if enacted, establish a constitutional standard that marriage is only between a man and a woman. It was put on the ballot after a challenge to another initiative which defined in law that marriage in the same way as a statutory idea. In 2000 61% of the voters supported the standard which said “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” But in May the California Supreme Court struck that down in a poorly reasoned case by the narrowest of margins. (4-3)

There are a series of issues here which are very troubling to me. First, I believe that homosexuals should have civil rights which protect their ability to live the way they choose; that should include assuring appropriate family relationships which I believe are fundamentally contractual (inheritance and health care are two primary ones). At the same time, I think there are good social reasons why marriage is a heterosexual institution. I think the attempt by some in the gay community to appropriate a term diminishes the language - to use the language of one politician - it is like putting lipstick on a pig. Under existing California law creating domestic partnerships, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married spouses.

Second, I believe that the California Supreme Court's decision declaring that "any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender" was a seriously flawed decision. The decision authored by Chief Justice Ron George on such a narrow basis(4-3) undermines Californian's confidence in the court. If the Chief Justice could not cobble together a more substantial majority, he should have had the good sense to withhold the decision until after the vote on Proposition 8 had been completed. George seems to have thought that California opinion had moved since the vote on Prop 22, but that should not have been his call, especially when it was clear that the issue would be addressed by the voters in November.

Third, I have been deeply troubled by the schism caused in the Episcopal church, which declared a couple of years ago that they would bless same sex marriages. I believe the leaders who caused that vote cared less about religious doctrine and more about political correctness. I believe their actions will ultimately destroy the Anglican communion.

Fourth, I believe Attorney General Brown's intervention in the short title of this initiative was inappropriate. The retitling will confuse the context of the issue for some voters. Based on those four premises one would expect me to support the proposition, but I do not.

What compels me to vote for this measure is something more. I do not believe that marriage, or its definition, should be elevated to a constitutional standard. Ultimately, I believe we are in a transitional phase in our society. I am not comfortable with the extremes of either the religious right or the secular left. Dan Weintraub, the columnist for the Sacramento Bee said to me a couple of years ago that he thought the state should be agnostic on marriage. Marriage in this state would then be bifurcated, as it is in many other countries between a set of civil institutions and religious ones. The California decision makes the distinction between civil and religious institutions. The arguments for and against can be found on the Secretary of State's Website.

I believe that Proposition 8 will fail. If that happens, I expect that we will spend a fair amount of time assuring that the guarantees in the First Amendment on free exercise of religious belief are maintained. I believe it would be inappropriate for the state to begin to try to legislate its' secular standards on religious institutions. It is questionable whether the militants in the gay community will accept the appropriate division between church and state. But they should.

Because this is a constitutional standard, I will vote no on the measure but I hope and pray that will not encourage the extremists in the gay community to begin a further assault on conservative religious institutions. There are good reasons why the First Amendment has two parts (an establishment clause and a free exercise clause).

One other comment on this issue. In an earlier post on the propositions, I raised a question on Proposition 8, and one Chino Blanco posted a lot of stuff about the California Family Council, who is a major part of the proponents of the measure. I chose not to publish the comments, first because they were off the major point of the earlier post but second because I think the issues on this issue are ultimately not about the issues Blanco raised but go far deeper. I am bothered by the extremists on both sides.