Prop 8 not a slippery slope to lawlessness
While letter writer Brian Asbury announces he has “carefully studied” the Proposition 8 debate (“Editorial Board intolerant of other opinions,” Oct. 15), he supports his position with the same obfuscatory rhetoric offered by most the truculent Proposition 8 defenses.
First, he brings up the “voice of the people” charge contending that judges overturned the popular will. It’s the job of the judiciary to determine if laws passed are within the bounds of equal protection as specified in state constitution. It was determined that Proposition 22, which would have prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages, was not. I would expect a similar decision if California voters passed a bill legalizing slavery or one that outlawed black and white people from marrying each other. Fortunately, we are not always subjected to the tyranny of the majority.
Second, his letter leads us to believe that same-sex marriage would set a precedent for allowing 12-year-olds to marry adults, as well as paving the road for polygamy and incest. For each of these scenarios, existing laws presuppose conditions of consent. Those include being an adult in order to be eligible for marriage, not being legally married to another person and wishing to legally marry another, and prohibition of incestuous contact (on top of nearly universal cultural taboo regarding incest). These laws flaw the supposed analogy with same-sex marriage.
Finally, we are told that this law will somehow force churches to change their ceremonial and educational practices. The law applies to the state’s licensing and recognition of marriage ““ a secular practice ““ and not to the practice of churches to determine who should be a member or receive marriage rites.
Stepping back from this debate, it is interesting to note how much of this rhetoric seems to be more about an objection, or rather a fixation on sexual deviance, as though marriage, sex and reproduction are coterminous and interchangeable. I fear the true value of marriage and what it really means for two people is seriously miscast. I am straight, so whether or not this proposition passes will have no bearing on my right to marry another consenting (female) adult. But defeating this proposition would hopefully confirm the state’s ability to see all people equal in the eyes of the law ““ something that is good for everyone.
David Mason
Graduate Student, School of Public Affairs, Urban Planning Department
More “˜careful study’ may be warranted
In his letter defending his support of Proposition 8, Brian Asbury says that he has “carefully studied the issue.” However, it appears the extent of his studies was just watching the false and misleading “Yes on 8″ TV ads. Proposition 8 would not affect school curriculums. There is nothing that would affect religion or religious institutions in any way. There is nothing that would allow polygamy or incestuous relationships. What Proposition 8 would do is deny same-sex couples the same legal right to marry as traditional couples. I hope Mr. Asbury is more diligent in his dentistry studies than he is in his studies of civil rights issues.
Rich Thigpen
Computer Support Services Manager
UCLA’s Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center