Proposition 8 and a Different Avenue for Gay Marriage

The issue of gay marriage has never been as prevalent in our history as it is today. The recent passage of Proposition 8 in California stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Many homosexuals and activist view the passage of Prop 8 as bigotry and a setback for human rights rather than a referendum on the institution of marriage itself. For all intents and purposes, California happens to be one of the most progressive states in the Union. California voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama for President, the state has elected more Democrats to its Senate and House than Republicans, and its muscle-bound, Republican governor was against Prop 8, he is pro gay marriage, and recently expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn the voter’s decision. So how did Prop 8 pass while Barack Obama was elected President and the overwhelming progressive, secular tide was moving toward a favorable resolution of gay marriage in California?

There are many reasons why Prop 8 passed. The LA Times reported that African American voters voted 2 to 1 for the proposition, while of course voting for Obama simultaneously. Hispanics, who are Catholic in their majority, were a sure bet to vote for Obama because Republicans – not John McCain who was in favor of liberal immigration laws – sank the immigration debate on grounds of amnesty. Hispanics then voted for Prop 8 on religious grounds. The religious establishment certainly had some effect on the voter turnout for the proposition… but, I believe, the main decision to pass Prop 8 by the voters of California was not a referendum on gays or their agenda or their rights in general, but a referendum on the institution of marriage.

Gay advocates would like to compare the issue of gay marriage to the civil rights movement and voter’s rights of the 1960s. They equate not being able to marry as disfranchisement tantamount to riding on the back of the bus, drinking from separate water fountains, or the desegregation of schools. The main focus of gay activist outrage is the religious establishment who by and large reject homosexuality and any redefinition of marriage as an institution. This reaction is natural considering that much of the money raised to support Prop 8 came from organizations affiliated with a particular church or church members. The setbacks of Prop 8 for the homosexual community in California may eventually lead to the larger conflict between freedom of religion / speech and bigotry, slander, equality, and freedom of personal choice.

Should the church and religious individuals abandon its deeply held belief that homosexuality is wrong? If Prop 8 failed or the California Supreme Court is to overturn the voters decision, would churches be forced to perform marriages against their professed values? What is the role between church, state, and the affairs of marriage?

Religious and values voters would like to make homosexuality an issue of morality with the deepening decline of religious and traditional values – of which the institution of marriage is paramount symbolizing the union between man, wife, and God. Religious Americans and those who see traditional values eroding in American life have every right to be concerned. The values of many Americans have been diluted by the constant barrage of a valueless popular culture. Film, reality television, violent cartoons, and almost any sort of advertising overtly stress sex, drugs, and shopping to evoke happiness, release stress, and fill the empty void plaguing the American soul. Those who would like to see a more traditional society focus on certain social issues to highlight the cultural differences between Americans of values and those who are believed to have none. Gay Americans, on the other hand, feel ostracized by a society that recognizes their existence but not their equality as people. This attitude is reflected in the issue of gay marriage.

Let’s be clear: discrimination in any form is wrong.

You cannot be for equality for some and not for others. It may be hard for some to equate the struggles of African-Americans for centuries with the plight of those whom some Americans deem unmoral but the issue should be seen in the same light. If gay Americans are allowed to marry than they could receive the same status, tax benefits, inheritance, medical benefits that ordinary Americans receive and to some degree social confirmation that other married couples enjoy here in the good ole USA. But, religious and conservative citizens should not be forced by any social pressure or laws to conform to any other belief than the one held that marriage should only be between men and women.

I believe there is a better way to save the gay marriage question and give gay couples all the benefits enjoyed by other Americans, while preserving the institution of marriage.

Civil unions for everyone… heterosexuals included.

Now, this article is not going to try to convince anyone that gay marriage is right or wrong. This is just proposing a debatable solution to an ongoing social issue which, eventually, will be addressed.

Marriage is a holy union made between a man and a woman that is pleasing before God. Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and nearly every culture on the planet earth have always revered marriage as a deeply spiritual contract between two lovers and their God. Government has made itself the protector of marriage but this inherently sets conflict between church and state. Government is there to protect the rights of its citizens; gay or straight, black or white. The church is established to nourish the human soul and direct people to the more perfect path of God. If churches believe that God is the founder and protector of marriage while the state is the protector of the rights of its citizens then there will be obvious conflict. The state and the church should alleviate this conflict by proposing that all unions be made civil. And, if the couple and church are willing, there could be a spiritual marriage ceremony symbolizing the union between man and wife approved by God. If Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims say that only a man and a woman can marry then so be it – freedom of religion and speech are covered in one act and protected by the Constitution. Civil unions should be protected by the government because they involve issues related to the government such as protection of rights, taxes, benefits, inheritance, etc… The same Constitution that guarantees rights also protects the speech, beliefs, ideas, and traditions held by the church with the freedom of speech and religion.

Why not have all couples, gay or straight, have a civil ceremony performed by a judge, (a government official) that enables all who enter into that civil contract to have the same rights and protection of the law? The church can ban gay marriage, believe it is wrong, and at the same time the government will not discriminate against anyone based on his or her sexual orientation. All will be treated equally under the law. Americans who fight for traditional values and religious autonomy can fight the good fight of morality and believe in the foundations of Holy matrimony while not infringing on the rights of others.

States that pass laws against gay marriage do so to protect the institution of marriage and the traditional family. But, those states enter into a never-ending spiral of bigotry and discrimination against some of the very people laws are meant to protect.
Gay rights activists are right when they claim that there is bigotry in society. And, yes, there are those in the religious community who see homosexuals as subhuman and degenerate intent on destroying God and society rather than as human beings loved by God, wanting rights and acceptance as citizens in a good society. Christians should question whether they are against homosexuals as people or are they are defending deeply held traditional and religious beliefs. There is also a reversal in that the gay rights movement should ask themselves whether they are trying to subvert the ideas and culture of religion in general – degrading good non bigoted people with sincere beliefs – or just fighting to gain their rightful equality.

The Jesus Christ in the New Testament of the Bible preached against sin but also advocated treating others as you would want to be treated. The Jesus in the Bible made the blind man see and the lame man walk while also dining with sinners while the religious establishment of the time rejected him for his associations. There is a saying that people should hate the sin but love the sinner – this is good advice for the religious and gay communities to both embrace.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are Gods." Let people marry in church and be accountable before God but let rights, civil unions, tax codes, and benefits be subjected to the equality of the government.