Proposition 8

Yes, yes, I said I would not blog on it.

And why should I? I mean, all the people who both a) read this blog and b) live in CA are going to be voting correctly anyway. All my friends already blogged about it. My position is obvious, and I doubt I will convince anyone of it.

But then I had a strong urging to find what the *other* side was saying. I mean, the arguments for No-on-8 are so compelling, that I literally could not imagine what arguments the other side could have. So I googled “Yes on 8”, found, and clicked on “Why Yes”. I really wanted to know, do they have anything that can convince someone?

As dirty as I feel, I am going to quote the central argument for “Why Yes”.


The Consequences

The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters; it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision. This decision has far-reaching consequences. For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.


Now, at the risk of feeling even dirtier, let me summarise this in my own words:

  • It redefines what marriage means for all society (I am not sure I understand what this means, but whatever)
  • Teachers will be required to explain about gay marriage to kids

OK, so the first point is obviously just hype. The second is a specific fact, that parents might object it. But wait, is this really?

Let’s look at

“And no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it.”

I would be happy if the yes-on-8 site, at the least, said “no, this is an incorrect interpretation of the law” or something to that effect. At least they would have a valid argument, if one I find detestable. But as it stands, detestable or not, the only *actual* argument the yes-on-8 site has is a LIE. A bold faced lie about the consequences of not voting in proposition 8, which are not actual consequences.

I am speechless with anger. How is this even remotely ok? I mean, twist the truth, bend it, fine. That’s fair game in politics. But this is simply lying. How come nobody *from their camp* is calling them out on it? This is not a “different interpretation of the truth.” This is a LIE. I am repeating it several times, because I almost cannot believe that anyone would do that, for any cause: if not for ethical reasons, than the embarassment of being caught up in a lie.

If you do happen to read this, and you are voting yes on proposition 8, I want to ask you one question.



5 Responses to Proposition 8

  1. I had a similar anger in reaction to learning that the law specifically pardons religious organizations from performing marriages that are against their beliefs, making the “Yes on Prop 8” crowd outright lying on that front, as well. To this point, I can’t find a single argument that isn’t fear-based speculation or simply a lie. This should not be surprising. Now, I can’t vote on Prop 8 because I am not in California, but the nation has their eye on this one. It is going to make a precedent and I really hope for it to make the right one.

  2. Cory says:

    You should see the commercials. It’s a little kid bringing home a gay marriage childrens’ fairy tale book he acquired from a teacher at school. First of all – fucking adorable! Let’s write one of those! Secondly – you’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

  3. beetlebabee says:

    The trick is that it wouldn’t be taught as a health or family issue, it would be taught under tolerance laws, which are so broad that anything goes depending on the teacher, as happened in Hayward.

    The Hayward incident really galvanized a lot of people because the parents were told, and correctly so, that they had no right to opt out as long as the teaching fell under tolerance law guidelines. So, this teacher basically had kindergartners learning about homosexuality. I am personally of the view that it wasn’t that teacher’s place to decide when or where or how to introduce homosexual topics to kindergartners.

    I’ve got the story and links, sources and a copy of the notice sent to parents here:

  4. beetlebabee says:

    Unfortunately, tolerance laws are not affected by prop 8, but if prop 8 had failed, it would have emboldened these fringe edge teachers groups. Tolerance laws are a fight for another day.

  5. moshez says:

    So, what you’re actually saying, is that you have a problem with another law that has nothing to do with 8, but 8 would somehow magically make the teachers “bolder” (even though they can be as bold as they want now, given that they are covered by another law).

    Another non-sequitur from the pro-8 crowd.

    Nothing to see here, move along.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: