Prop. 8, a ballot proposition that would ban same-sex marriage in California, passed by a narrow margin—5,987,332 (52.5%) for, 5,463,833 (47.7%) against, or a total of 11,451,165 votes. See Prop Results.
As of 2006, the estimated number of people who live in California is 36,457,549. People under 18 make up 26.1% of the population, or a total of 9,515,420 non-voting Californians, leaving about 26,942,129 eligible voters. 42.50% of the eligible voters in California voted on Prop. 8. See Census source.
The vote was by a narrow margin, but that might not be too important. Formed by religious belief or not, many Californians think Prop. 8 is wrong and have concluded the Constitution should protect the rights of its citizens.
People might not realize that Prop. 8 was unwise. The religious right did not think their proposition through because, win or lose, equality will always win. Why? Because Americans don't like their rights and liberties taken away.
Not believing in equal rights is bad press for the religious right. To put it bluntly, it's anti-American. Not a good thing. They have put their money and votes where their mouths are—liberty, justice and equality is not for all. Only those who are straight are afforded rights protected by the Constitution. What did the proponents of Prop. 8 win? Nothing.
Another question: Can straight atheists marry in church?
People who don't believe in or don't understand the importance of the separation of church and state should take a basic course in the US Constitution. Many Christians think their tenets should be incorporated into US legislation. Bad idea. For some reason, Christians don't realize that doing so abhors non-Christians (and the not-so-religious right) just as much as voting Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam tenets into US law would repulse many Christians.
This is not the end of debating marriage rights in California and here's why. What if a majority of people passed a proposition that banned the practice of religion in California? Hey, it's a majority vote!
The Prop. 8ers did not think about this. Can a proposition that takes away the rights of US citizens change the California constitution? Time will tell.
1 comment:
I agree with most of this post, but I think both "sides" are showing a lack of creativity and understanding of what freedom means and what an American response should be to the marriage debate.
I am a Christian who thinks that it is NOT the business of the state to define marriage. The state has encroached on the domain of the church, and this is why this dilema exists.
You want seperation of church and state, then get the state out of the church's business. The state should get out of the marriage business and leave the moral and social issues to moral and social institutions. The state should only perform civil unions, protecting the legal rights of any union (gay, straight, I don't care... It is America, do as you see fit.) Churches, temples, synogogues, and non-religious institutions would then define marriage as they see fit, leaving the moral debate out of the political arena.
Some churches would perform gay marriage, some would not. Marriage, then, is no longer the political football of the left or right; everyone's civil liberties are protected; the state gets out of the morality business and leaves it to our religious institutions; and Americans are free to do as they choose.
BTW, Mike, I know you have a problem with those who practice "groupism" to discriminate against certain groups, such as gays. Why do you do the same thing to Christians? Christians are not of one stripe anymore than are gays. I know you have a difficult time with the type of Christians with whom you grew up. I get the fact that you were deeply wounded. There are certainly a vocal minority who rightfully frustrate and anger you (and me as well), but don't lump us all in together as one group whose opinions can be simply dismissed with a label. If you don't care to be dismissed because your gay, don't dismiss people because they are Christian.
Post a Comment