warning: opinions follow.
election 2008 has been quite the eye-opening experience; i’ve learned that i stand on the opposite end on most issues with my city. it is like driving through bizarro world. there are ‘yes on prop 8’ signs on every street corner. it’s strangely alienating. every (very) infrequent ‘no on 8’ sign is quickly uprooted and replaced by a ‘yes.’ prop 8 is definitely a hot ticket issue.
some supporters of prop 8 claim they are fighting for a ban on gay marriage to restore traditional marriage as prescribed by religion, between a man and a woman. IF we assume that the ban is solely based on this reasoning, i have a few points that i feel are important to consider:
1) whether anti-gay sentiment is actually consistent with Christian/religious beliefs, and whether a ban on gay marriage equates a restoration of traditional marriage.
2) if a ban on gay marriage is in fact the Christian thing to do, is it justified to create laws on the basis of religious beliefs?
now, regardless of the outcome of the proposition, marriage between a male and a female (traditional) would not be threatened by law. on the other hand, a ban would strip a certain demographic of rights if enacted. it would seem then that prop 8 does not actually restore marriage but rather serves to exclude.
and even if prop 8 is in fact a measure of restoration, it serves to restore an ideal that is outlined by religion. the question then is not whether gay marriage should be legal, but rather if laws should be enacted on a basis of enforcing religious beliefs. all persons are entitled to their beliefs. but california is diverse. not everyone believes in the same things. should the rest of the community be governed by the religious beliefs of others?
is religion an appropriate reason for supporting prop 8? or is it something else entirely? what do you think? thoughts from both sides encouraged.