The Lantern

Issue date: 11/17/08 Section: Opinion

Meagan Strub, my fellow Californian attending Ohio State, gave an inaccurate portrayal of California Proposition 8 in her editorial "Homophobia at the polls" on Nov. 10.

To begin with, the current controversy began when activist judges overturned the democratically supported Proposition 22 of 2000. The people of California approved the measure, which restricted the state from recognizing same-sex marriages, by nearly a 2-to-1 margin.

This attack on the will of the Californian people provoked the creation of Proposition 8, which again reaffirmed that the will of the Californian majority is to retain a traditional view of marriage (between one man and one woman), a view of marriage that has existed since our country's foundation and dates back centuries further to Western European culture.

Since the passage of Proposition 8, there has been immense bigotry and hatred directed at religious organizations, as well as uncivil conduct during demonstrations by opponents of the bill.

So let's debate. You write, Meagan, that you "could not find a single solid reason for a ban on gay marriage," so I will try to help you out.

Fact: in California, public schools are required to teach about marriage and the role of marriage in society. Changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual marriages thus forces schools to teach all Californian students that gay marriage is equal to straight marriage, even if this view conflicts with the family's religion or moral outlook. Fact: the Catholic Church in Massachusetts - the only state to have legalized gay marriage - was forced to stop its engagement in child adoptions when it refused to comply with state law requiring the Church to allow gay married couples to adopt. The Church opted to follow God's law instead.

A religious organization should not be forced to accept gay marriage when the practice itself is contrary to biblical teaching and Church tradition. Let us also bring up the fact that now only one state out of 50 recognizes gay marriage.

As far as rights are concerned, California Family Code paragraph 297.5 states that "domestic partners shall have all the rights, protections, and benefits" of married spouses. This means that gay couples already have all the legal rights of marriage. So if gay marriage in California is not about civil rights, then what is it about?

Another point to be made is that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." Proposition 8 is a ballot initiative given to the electorate of California. It is not Congress making a law. Second, the proposition is not a law "respecting an establishment of religion;" the proposition did not contain any language stating that it was for religious purposes. It is about marriage.

As for the separation of church and state mentioned in the column, I would love for someone to point out to me where this is mandated in the Constitution or in the amendments to the Constitution, because I have read both and have not found that phrase anywhere. Like it or not, whether you support gay marriage or don't, making a law concerning gay marriage is a legislation of morality. Democracy has shown that it is the will of the Californian people to retain the millenia-old version of marriage over a new-age free-for-all view of marriage. But don't worry, the liberal judges will overturn the will of the people once again, I assure you.


Chris Belanger is a senior majoring in economics. He can be reached at belanger.16@osu.edu.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools