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 protectmarriage.com, 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 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 http://www.noonprop8.com/about/fact-vs-fiction
“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.