As I browsed through my mail today, I quickly tossed aside the cable bill and carpet cleaning advertisement in excitement when I found the California General Election Official Voter Information Guide.
Yes, it’s just about that time to start browsing through the normally dense pieces of recycled paper and play my part in the role of a United States citizen.
This November the call for students to come out and get their voices heard is louder than in any other previous election.
Why would the Daily Bruin sex, romance, and relationship columnist care so much about an upcoming election, to spotlight it in a column?
Proposition 8.
Relationships are my thing, hence my concern.
In May of this past year, the California legislature ruled that the definition of marriage as a union between only a man and a woman dishonored the clause of equal protection present in the state’s constitution.
With that, the legislature decided to grant marriage rights to all couples, same and opposite sex alike.
The advocates of Proposition 8 would like to go back to the “˜traditional’ definition of marriage “that only marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized by California law.”
Ron Prentice, President of the California Family Council, explains in the official voter information guide, “Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle.”
That very sentence implies an extreme paradox.
Not allowing a certain group of people to engage in a legally recognized commitment that others can is, in itself, a blatant attack.
Professor of World Arts and Cultures Robert Sember provided an enlightening opinion on the role of the government in people’s relationships.
“The government should be organized in a way that maximizes its clients’ life choices in their right to the pursuit of happiness … marriage, as an intimate relationship, should fall outside of the state domain altogether and the government should only concern itself with legal issues over property and assets. Proposition 8 will not solve any dissent” Sember said.
The primary concern of those in favor of the proposition is the exposure of children in public schools to the idea that same-sex and heterosexual marriage are equivalent.
Proposition 8 is actually advocating that they are not the same at all.
Furthermore, the proposition has absolutely nothing to do with education, so the argument that it could affect educators in the classroom is irrelevant.
Even if it were the case, that same-sex marriage were to be taught alongside traditional marriage to students, the entire subject would still be left to the individual school district and the parents.
If your mommy or daddy would not like you to see the video of the live birth that most of us were horrified by in school, then simply sign a waiver.
Just like in normal Sex Ed, anything relevant to health education comes at the discretion of parents.
The argument against Proposition 8 states, “Marriage is the institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple. Proposition 8 would deny lesbian and gay couples that same dignity and respect.”
We’re just talking about equality here. In my opinion, homosexuality can be seen as a lifestyle choice. Denying same sex marriage would be like denying marriage to members of another lifestyle choice, like practicing medicine or doing drugs.
Sounds ridiculous, right? It is.
And furthermore, in my opinion, the advocates of Proposition 8 are blind as to the possible economic windfall of weddings.
Studies done by the legislative analyst of the official voter information guide state that “because marriage between individuals of the same-sex is currently valid in California, there would likely be an increase in spending on weddings by same-sex couples … This would result in increased revenue.”
The financial implications that would come from passing the proposition eliminate revenue in state and local governments in an amount upwards of ten million dollars. All that money, and sales tax, that people would spend on venues, cakes, and even wedding dresses have the potential to impact the state economy.
We are in the middle of the biggest debt problem in years. We can use all the help we can get.
The fear of what people may do behind closed bedroom doors is irrelevant. The state and its voters have much more important issues at hand.
When these issues, such as the $700 billion bank bailout or depleting ozone layer, make significant progress toward a resolution, then we can worry about the petty complaints of the selfish advocates of Proposition 8.
For now, get over yourselves.