California's Supreme Court should strike down Proposition 8 as meaningless

March 5, 11:54 AMRelationship ExaminerBilly Thieme

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Relationship Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Proposition 8 should be stricken down as meaningless.

    The California Supreme Court will hear arguments this morning on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that added 14 words to the state’s constitution to outlaw same-sex unions in the state. Specifically, those words are: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

     The court is scheduled to address these issues:

     The issue passed in the November, 2008 general elections, by the narrowest of margins  - by a mere 52% of votes cast - and it remains one of the most controversial resolutions on any of last year’s state ballots. Many are concerned that the court stands poised to “overturn the people's choice,” and therefore nullify the democratic process, but can a margin of 2% really be classified as “the people’s choice?”

    I, along with many of my fellow Examiners, have written repeatedly on this initiative, covering its potential ripple-effects in legislation, arguments both for and against, and where the discussion fits into our personal relationships. And, as glad as I am that the courts are hearing the arguments, I am still dismayed that the question persists, and keeps rising to the level of governmental discussion.

    "(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution? (3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?"

    As I’ve said before (a few times): the government has no place in attempting to define relationships for all of us, no place at all.

    Relationships, as we know, are deeply personal voyages that all of us take to fulfill our personal evolution, and are relevant to each of us on deeply personal, spiritual,  psychological, and even quantum levels. No two are alike, and therefore none can be truly classified as “right” or “wrong.” Allowing the government the ability to make this distinction is not only dangerous, it’s ignorant.

    It’s dangerous because giving any official organization sweeping power like this over our personal evolution lays groundwork for some much more potentially restrictive resolutions. Consider how you might live if the government, state or federal, made other life decisions for you - like how many children you would be allowed to raise, which profession you would be allowed to pursue, or which religion you would be allowed to believe. These are personal choices, inalienable rights, and no legislation should be allowed to survive that attempts to restrict them, regardless of sexual orientation, race, or any other factor.

    It’s ignorant because it ignores the most basic truths about our form of government: That we are all created equal, and all have equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Instituting one person’s - or 2% more of the voting population’s  - perception of the inherent “right-ness” or “wrong-ness” of these rights is a much more damning nullification of democracy.

    Consider, also, that the largest percentage of voters in favor of Proposition 8 tend to be the conservative base, which speaks repeatedly and vehemently about the threat of socialism in the United States from growing governmental control. The “S-word” has been circulating quite a bit recently, especially in light of President Obama’s economic stimulus package, as well as government bail-outs of the U.S. financial system. Social conservatives are overwhelmingly in favor of more governmental control over this type of personal decision for ALL Americans - not just Californians. Marrying government control over your personal decisions (a social conservative cornerstone) with an increasingly nationalized economy is like trying to douse a campfire with gasoline.

    The question should never have been brought up to any level of government, ever, and it stands to reason that the courts should strike Proposition 8 down as meaningless. The sooner we all take responsibility for our own evolution and lives, and quit trying to influence and guide each other’s - or, worse, ask a government to take responsibility for us - the sooner we’ll be able to evolve.

For more info: Here are links to more stories about Proposition 8, both for and against: