Tomorrow they’re coming for you…
In the imortalized words of Pastor Niemoller:
First they came for the Socialists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left
to speak up for me.
In his case, he was referring to the Nazis during World War II. We are now staring at another of these times, though.
In three weeks, California will be voting to make “non-traditional” marriage unconstitutional. While the word unconstitutional is simple, and something amended to the constitution cannot, by definition, be unconstitutional, we, as Americans, see the Constitution as that document which gives us all rights and guarantees. How then, can we expect to make a behavior or life-style choice unconstitutional? The US constitution guarantees us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights grants us freedom of religion. Aside from certain religious organizations which are gaining a majority in this great nation, no one questions the right of people to associate when and how they choose.
On November 4th, we in California are faced with a choice. Do we vote on this “protection of marriage” proposition, and allow certain religious organizations to tell us how marriage is defined? If so, what will be the next block to be covered under the term “non-traditional”? Will we force Catholics to accept and recognize divorce? Will we allow Catholics to make divorce unconstitutional, because allowing it forces our beliefs onto their belief system? Will we require all cultures to engage only in arranged marriages? Will we require all brides to marry in white dresses? Will we punish non-virgin brides who are married in white? All of these are components that may be labeled as “traditional marriage”.
If we allow certain organizations to define tradition, where will it end? If, fifty years ago, some hadn’t stood up when it was proposed, inter-racial marriages could, today, be considered un-constitutional. I do know members of certain cultures who have been disowned for daring to marry someone not of their ethnic or religious group. However, to the “moral majority” this is a prejudice that is unconscionable.
Why, then, do we ask that we open the door to religious control at a constitutional level of our “traditions”? Why are we so afraid of allowing equality, that “educated” men, doctors and lawyers, speak out against allowing homosexual marriage, in the name of a fear that it will force that on them?
Proposition 8 is not about protecting anything. Proposition 8 is a fear-mongering attempt to introduce religious control to the California Constitution. No one is being required to engage in “non-traditional” behaviors.
What IS being requested is enforcement and education on a prejudice that should be out-dated. No one is suddenly going to have their marriage fall apart because now their spouse can go marry their gay lover. No one is suddenly going to “decide” to be gay because it is now forced on them by the state.
Novemember 4th is your chance. California allows you to register to vote until October 20th, at least in Alameda county. Don’t let our state constitution start eroding the rights given to us by our national constitution. Don’t let fear-mongering and religion over rule good sense and equality.
