the sky is falling

Or, at least, you'd think it was.

For those of you not in the know, California's Proposition 8 will be voted on in the upcoming elections. Prop. 8 is a proposal to amend the constitution of the state of California to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman. In short, a "yes" vote on Prop. 8 is a vote to ban gay marriage.

For the past few months, I've watched the discussion on Prop. 8 unfold. Almost everyone I know in CA is Mormon, and thus most Californians I know are in favor of Prop. 8. Members of my family have donated considerable sums of money, made phone calls on behalf of the "Yes on 8" movement, gone door-to-door to convince their neighbors to vote in favor of Prop. 8, and so on. It makes me feel funny, to be perfectly honest.

Having been raised Mormon, I think I understand how they think and how they feel about gay marriage. To them, homosexuality is a sin, an abomination. Marriage is sacred, and defined by their church as being only between a man and a woman. Well, currently, anyway. Though no longer a member of the faith, and despite the fact that I have friends and co-workers that are gay, I still have some of the homophobia I picked up during my childhood. I've read many articles and bits of information that suggest that homosexuality is largely the result of genetics, and my gay friends are very cool people, so I think my homophobia, mild as it may be, is regrettable.

The issue of gay marriage is not one that excites me greatly. When I think about all the issues facing our country and our world, it seems relatively unimportant. It's one of the issues that I wish would go away, like abortion. I'm tired of hearing about it, and like abortion, it always seems to come up when there are many other, more important things that we should be thinking about. It's a distraction.

When I consider the issue of gay marriage, however, I cannot think of ever supporting a measure to ban it. Banning it means changing constitutions/laws/regulations to add a form of discrimination. There is something about that that strikes me as being very wrong, especially in light of the fact that sexual preferences are largely a part of a person's genetic makeup. How you act on those preferences is a choice, yes, but if that choice harms no one (and no critic of homosexuality that I've ever seen has demonstrated meaningful evidence that it does cause harm), does it really make sense to ban it? In my opinion, it does not.

I've some interesting arguments against gay marriage from the "Yes on 8" crowd:

- "Did you know that the Roman Empire fell after they became more accepting of homosexuality?" This argument is beyond stupid. It's not even an argument. It's an illogical, post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption about the cause of the fall of the empire. People willing to spout such nonsense probably don't even know when the empire fell, how long it was in existence, or that it lasted almost seven times as long as this country has been in existence.

- "Gay marriage will 'likely' harm the ability of children to form a clear gender identity." Um, I can think of a lot of other things that will do more harm to this, like allowing men and women to hold the same jobs, or allowing men to stay at home with the kids while moms go out into the workplace. Oh, wait--we already do that. Also, the "likely" thing concerns me, as it seems to be at the heart of many anti-gay marriage arguments. "Likely" sounds like "I think but really have no evidence to back up what I think." "Likely" doesn't seem like a great reason to legislate discrimination, if you ask me.

- "The Mormon Church will lose its tax-exempt, non-profit status if it refuses to perform gay marriages in its temples." This hasn't happened in any of the places where the church operates and gay marriage is already legal, so I don't see why it would happen in California. Besides, the church already "discriminates" against non-Mormons by not allowing them in its temples, let alone get married, so if there was going to be a problem with the church's non-profit status, it seems like that would have happened long ago. Why a gay couple would want to be part of or involved with a homophobic organization is beyond me, either way.

- "Marriage is ordained of God; the government should not be defining what it is." Marriage is already regulated by the government--that's why you have to get a marriage license before you can get married. Furthermore, a civil form of marriage is required in many countries (e.g., several European countries) before any kind of religious marriage ceremony (Mormon or otherwise) can be performed. Governments have been involved in marriage forever, and they probably always will be.

- "I don't know why gay people want marriage. Let them have civil unions--that's good enough." To me, this reeks of "separate but equal". We already know what's happened to "separate but equal" laws with regard to race in this country. I suspect "separate but equal" laws regarding gay civil unions would also not hold up under similar judicial scrutiny.

For me, the issue of gay marriage ultimately boils down to an issue of equality, and I just can't see myself ever supporting a law that would reduce equality or privileges for a segment of society when no one can show me any hard facts to support the notion that not reducing that equality would cause significant, tangible harm.

I respect the right of my friends and family in CA to be against gay marriage and campaign against it, but I can't support them. I think Prop. 8 sucks, and I'm surprised so many people out there don't feel the same way. Many men probably thought the sky was going to fall when women's suffrage was granted. Many whites probably thought Armageddon was near when schools were desegregated. Many Mormons probably thought the end of the world was around the corner when blacks were given the right to hold the priesthood. Clearly, each of these moves to reduce or eliminate discrimination have had positive effects that far outweigh any negative effects. In the long run, I believe the legalization of gay marriage would be the same.

Enough politics for one day.