A Few Thoughts on Proposition 8

Normally, I use this blog solely for travel updates. However, since I haven't been on any trips lately, there has been nothing to write about. Today, I feel like posting some thoughts which I hope will travel far and wide (even if I don't). So, for anyone wishing I'd update my blog more often - this is for you!

dave

---

Family, Friends, Co-workers, Travel Buddies, Future Girlfriends (with luck), and everyone else (even a couple X-Girlfriends),

As the November election draws near, I feel impressed to share some thoughts regarding an item on the California ballot. On November 4, California voters will vote on Proposition 8 - a proposal potentially amending our state constitution to define marriage with the following words, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

First - excuse me if this message reaches you after far too long a silence. If nothing else, take it as evidence that I value our past association and hope for continued contact with you (most of you, anyhow). Second - excuse me if you already saw this when I posted it online. If nothing else, take this repeat presentation as evidence that I really care - but know that this is not the beginning of a spam-campaign on my part; one notably long email on this matter will suffice.

It is with some trepidation that I reach out so broadly on a matter that elicits such a strong emotional response. Feelings about this measure (for and against) are extreme because of how it personally touches so many lives - we all have people whom we love and/or respect who are gay. Some feel that Proposition 8 is designed to take something away from them. This is not true. California domestic partnership laws already provide gay partners the same legal rights as traditional married couples (FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5) and Proposition 8 does nothing to change or curtail these rights.

Eight years ago, a 61% majority of California voters passed Proposition 22, which clearly defined marriage for Californians as "between a man and a woman." Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court ruled that law unconstitutional (in a 4-3 split decision: a margin of 1 judiciary) thereby legalizing same sex marriage. Proposition 8, which uses identical wording as Proposition 22, will let California voters "overrule" the California Supreme Court by amending the California State Constitution to yet again define marriage in California as "between a man and a woman."

There are many good reason to support Proposition 8 as well as strong arguments against it. Having contemplated the merits of both sides, I support efforts to pass the proposition. Here are some of the reasons I will be voting "Yes" on Proposition 8:

Marriage Concerns More than Just the Couple
If marriage only concerned the couple getting married, then by all means: let anyone call their union a "marriage." But, marriage is about more than just the couple being wed. It is also about the lives that those two people can help create (their children) and the society in which they live. For its ability to create and nurture life, bind generations together, and provide an anchor to society - I believe marriage is a divine institution that should not be changed. It concerns far too many people beyond just the two being wed.


Children's Inherent Rights
Throughout the ages, marriage has signified the formal acknowledgement of two people's commitment to each other and the expectation that - within that setting of commitment and love - children will be born and raised. I believe that every child has an inherent right to know, have a loving relationship with, and be raised by the two parents whose biological union led to its creation. Children raised in loving two-parent homes have the highest chances for emotional, physical and psychological success. I also believe that such children are better prepared to enter healthy family relationships and become better parents themselves.

In light of this, I believe that it is every child's inherent birthright to be raised in a loving family, ideally by the parents whose union actually created it. Various factors may deny some children the benefit of being raised in such a traditional family. Adoption provides an excellent alternative to deal with these factors. But these exceptions do not change the data, nor the strength of the argument that every child has a right to expect a mother and a father. Marriage is the only institution that attempts to protect this right for future generations.

Same gender coupling fundamentally breaks with this definition of marriage because it lacks the potential for offspring. True, they may adopt children or bring them from a previous relationship (and such may indeed be the best option for specific children - when all factors are considered). But any family configuration built on anything less than a mother and a father ought not be called by the same name as the the heterosexual coupling that produces a child in the first place. Therefore, it should not be called "marriage."

In such a redefinition of marriage, children are ultimately an afterthought, not the focus of the union. Their needs are subordinated to the desires of the adults who choose a lifestyle that cannot provide for the children's full inherent rights (however diligent and loving those parents may otherwise be and regardless of why they chose that lifestyle).


A Couple's Rights
I am not saying that two people (of any gender) who want to make a legally binding commitment to each other should not be able to do so. Making and keeping lasting, worthwhile commitments is a good thing. All Californians currently have this right and Prop 8 does nothing to change it. Nor am I saying that same-gender couples should not be afforded the same legal rights as traditional couples (for over a decade, California has been forefront in ensuring that they do).

What I am saying is that these (and any other new family configurations) should not be called "marriages" because that's simply not what they are. They may contain some components of marriage (e.g. love, commitment, passion), but they do not contain all the pieces. They can not lead to children, they can not create links between generations along genealogical lines, and they can not generate the family units that have long been the basis of stable society.

Certainly, I recognize that not all heterosexual marriages will lead to these results (either by choice or circumstance), but they can. Same gender unions can not. To call these new relationships "marriages" not only creates confusion by suggesting that they are the same. It also cheapens the long extant institution of traditional marriage by placing it on an equal standing with an unequal substitute - one that is based primarily on the desires of the two people pursuing it, rather than the rights of future children and their place in society.

While the lives of tens or even hundreds of thousands of same-gender couples in California may be impacted if Prop 8 passes, the lives of millions of future Californians will be impacted if it fails. These future children deserve every chance we can give them to being raised in an environment of love by their own two biological parents. Admittedly, not all of them will get it - but if we don't protect the only institution designed to provide it, then we will undoubtedly see fewer and fewer children enjoying it. Ultimately, it will be the rising generation that will bear the full cost.

I welcome the chance to discuss this is greater depth. Please let me know.

Sincerely,
Dave Broadbent
Los Angeles, CA


To those who are undecided about Proposition 8
This message is primarily intended for you. As you study the matter, I wanted to share with you the following materials which I have found helpful:

S147999 - In re MARRIAGE CASES
The California Supreme Court ruling from May 2008 which legalized same-sex marriage. I found the dissenting opinions (page 128 and 154) quite solid.

ProtectMarriage.com
The website of the coalition sponsoring Proposition 8, which includes FAQs, Myths, and Facts.

Protecting Marriage to Protect Children
LA Times Opinion piece

Prop. 8 protects rights of those who support traditional marriage
San Francisco Chronicle Open Forum Submission

WhatIsProp8.com
An independent web site highlighting some of the benefits and ways of supporting Prop 8.

Marriage Facts
An attempt to summarize the legal arguments on both sides of the same sex marriage debate, as they have been presented in various courts of law.

Upholding the Constitution
An obviously strong opinion-piece that touches on some of the potential, yet not-so-obvious, constitutional issues at stake.

To those who support Prop 8
Get involved. I am encouraged to see so many already speaking out on this matter. If you haven't already done so, visit ProtectMarriage.com to learn how you can participate or let me know and I'll point you in the right direction. Also consider making a financial contribution(or an additional contribution- if possible) and mostly: reach out to everyone you can through whatever means suit you. If you do an e-mail like this, be sure to copy me. And above all else - when advocating traditional marriage, be respectful of other people's feelings and opinions. Reject any statement (from either side) that has even a trace of bigotry or insensitivity. Respect the deeply felt convictions of those who oppose Proposition 8 (many whose lives have been shaped by desires that many of us don't have or feel).

To those who oppose Prop 8
I expect that some of you hold an opposing view. I respect that and I hope you'll do likewise. I hear too much of people lowering themselves to slandering, name calling, threats, and a myriad of other demeaning acts. That is below us. Or at least I hope it is below you: those I choose to call my friends.

If this message offends or upsets you, I apologize. Please keep in mind that there are people who support Prop 8 who are thoughtful, sensitive, reasonable, and who feel compassion for those whose lives will be impacted by this. I hope you will respect those on the "yes" side by seeing the honest intent behind our motives (and not let the distasteful actions or arguments of a few color your perception of everyone on the "yes" side of the issue). Don't perceive bigotry or impute ill-will where none is intended.

To those living outside of California
As California is the most populous state in the country (more than one in ten Americans lives here), and as California does not have a residency requirement for receiving a marriage license, what happens here is sure to have nation-wide implications. Consider what support you might give to the campaign from wherever you are, including financial contributions and/or - better yet - simply reaching out and sharing your personal views on the matter with people you know who live in California.