On Nov. 4, voters determine the fate of Proposition 8, a ballot measure that looks to illegally take away the rights of same-sex couples to legally marry by creating a set definition of marriage in the state constitution.
In May, the California Supreme Court voted 4-3 in favor of striking down Proposition 22, which defined marriage as “a union between a man and a woman,” eliminating the possibility of gay marriage. As stated on noonprop8.com, the measure was denied because California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying. The ruling also stated any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect.
Proposition 8 has gained controversy as both sides wage a fact/fiction campaign with incorrect details. The “Yes on Prop 8” ads are full of fiction, like “children in second grade will be taught that boys can marry other boys and girls can marry girls,” and “Proposition 8 doesn’t discriminate against anyone.” Proposition 8 discriminates against the gay community.
In an outrageous attempt to fundraise, protectmarriage.com, the main website of “Yes on Prop 8,” sent a letter to an estimated 36 supporters of “No on Prop 8,” demanding that they withdraw their sole support of “No on Prop 8” and a minimum donation equal to their contribution to “No on Prop 8.”
In the letter, protectmarrige.com stated, “Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage.. The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate to protectmarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published. It is only fair for Proposition 8 supporters to know which companies and organizations oppose traditional marriage.”
The letter was signed by Ron Prentice, the campaign chairman, and other committee members of “Yes” as well. Prentice initially denied any knowledge of the letter and its contents, but later contradicted himself by confirming the letters were authentic on Oct. 23.
The “Yes” ads played on television take Proposition 8 out of context. In the ad featuring first grade children attending a wedding for their lesbian teacher, “Yes” took footage of the event from the San Francisco Chronicle’s website displaying two children at the wedding for use in the campaign. The parents of the children demanded that the video be removed from the airwaves entirely, and that this was supposed to be a special day the children shared with their teacher, not fuel for a Proposition 8 campaign
As of Oct. 30, the video was removed from protectmarriage.com, but still available on YouTube under the official campaign name of “Yes on Prop 8.” The main point of the ad was that schools will be able to teach same-sex marriage to all children regardless of their age.
On the California Department of Education website cited in the ad, not one word is said about teaching same-sex marriage to children. Concerning relationship education, the website states, “Instruction shall encourage communication between students and their families and shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.”
“Committed relationships” covers a lot of ground, but “Yes” has twisted the words to fit their own meaning. Parents can object to and opt out of their children receiving health and family curriculum taught in schools. In the actual wording of Proposition 8, not one word is mentioned about education or schools. The smear ads have brought up an irrelevant Massachusetts case in an effort to dissuade voters from voting for equality for all Californians.
If the Declaration of Independence says, “All men are created equal,” all men should be treated equal, and women too. One of the arguments presented by “Yes” is that it infringes on First Amendment rights of religious freedom and free speech. In Massachusetts, many church and synagogue leaders opposed the anti-gay marriage legislation by refusing services to gays and lesbians, and lost tax-exemption from the federal government. Proposition 8 doesn’t infringe on the rights of churches and synagogues any more than they have infringed on the rights of homosexuals by refusing to perform services in the past.
By voting “No” on Proposition 8 this Election Day you can help progress the movement for equality for all. No one should be denied the right to marry the person they love just because of their gender.