No on 8 arguments deflect attention from the real issue

Many arguments against Proposition 8 make the issue very personal – stories of same-gender weddings, love stories, etc. They do so at the sacrifice of some very important principles relating to marriage.

One Prop 8 opponent argued that classifying her relationship as anything other than marriage would “cheapen [her] commitment”. Her implicit argument in that statement is that the purpose of marriage is to somehow legitimate the commitment made between two people. This is not true. Marriage is not simply a commitment between two adults, and the commitment between two adults who say they love each other does not require governmental sanction. As a matter of fact, the government is the last person I want to get involved in my marriage or family.

Governments throughout history have RECOGNIZED marriage because of the benefits it gives society – this recognition includes tax breaks and things like that. When marriage is strong, the society is strong, so it makes sense for the government to recognize marriage. The most fundamental benefit society receives from marriage involves the rearing of children (see the link on the sidebar of this blog "LA Times Blankenhorn Article" - I quote from it here:
"Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.").

But the statement I quoted from the Prop 8 opponent at the beginning brings to the front one of the most important reasons we have for voting YES ON 8: by seeking to gain SOCIAL legitimacy through the LEGAL recognition of marriage, the same-gender marriage movement is not seeking to expand the general liberty (something this person and many others fallaciously associate with same-gender marriage and any other issue where people attempt to overcome traditional mores and social restrictions) – it is seeking to force society to accept AS RIGHT something that most people do not think is right. Accepting individuals regardless of their behavior is one thing – seeking to force society to change its definition of right and wrong is something quite different. In this way, the same-gender marriage movement seeks to take away the most fundamental liberties in the founding of our country - the liberty to believe what one chooses to believe. Churches in Canada have been banned from preaching that homosexual behavior is wrong. This woman’s argument, one frequently made by opponents of Prop 8, claims that legalizing same-gender marriage is based on the separation of Church and State. Actually, for the reasons I have just outlined, same-gender marriage brings Church and State TOGETHER in conflict – something that is fundamentally contrary to the founding of our country. Furthermore, the argument fallaciously assumes that the separation of Church and State only refers to organized religion – it argues that it would be wrong to enact legislation based on the beliefs of an organized religion, but those making the argument don’t demonstrate any hesitancy when it comes to legislating their own belief-system regarding their own homosexuality.

For these reasons, this woman’s characterization of the controversy over same-gender marriage is improper and misleading. If you’re asking me to make same-gender sexual relationships OK, you’re asking for something I can’t give you. Right and wrong are defined by God. If you’re asking me to respect your human agency to make your own choices in your life, regardless of whether I believe they’re right or wrong, and to grant you the dignity due to you inherently as a human being, then you’ve got it. And I will do that while I continue to stand up against the encroachments of same-gender marriage into the sacred realm of the family.