Proposition 8 is the latest legislation that has been passed by Californians saying that they don’t want the definition of marriage changed. However, the last bill was rejected by the Californian courts because “certain fundamental rights should be placed beyond the reach of popular votes and elected officials.”ⁱ It is odd that they talk about “rights”. Do people have the right to marry bricks? Of course not. You can’t marry a brick. It undermines the very definition of marriage. If marriage is not between a man and a woman, marriage is meaningless.

I think it is important for us to establish that we are not taking away people’s right to be gay. We are saying that it is no more possible for them to marry each other than for bricks to do the same. I want to respond to the three major arguments that have been presented to the court this time as they attempt to circumvent democracy again.

The first argument is that the people don’t have the right to vote to take away other people’s rights. As I stated in my introduction, we are not dealing with rights. We are dealing with definitions. Also, we have to weigh constitutional values. For instance, people argue that it is a person’s right to have freedom of the press. I agree. But does “freedom of the press” include classified information? I believe that all rights have to be looked at reasonably. And to endanger the lives of Americans through the release of this information outweighs the freedom of the press. In the same way, the people’s right to vote for preserving the definition of marriage protects the right of the American people to vote, without compromising the rights of gays.

Secondly, what about the argument that Proposition 8 was not a true amendment? Quoting the California Policy Seminar in 1991,

Specific changes to the California constitution may be proposed by amendment. Regardless of their origin, all changes must be approved by a majority of the electorate voting on the issue. Initiative amendments may be placed on the ballot by a petition of registered voters equal in number to 8 percent of the total vote cast in the preceding gubernatorial election.ⁱⁱ

Apparently both an amendment and a revision require the same procedure. So why not treat them both the same, rather than opening up opportunities for activist judges to decide whichever way they are biased?

Finally, what about those who are already married? If the definition of marriage is between a man and woman, then they were NEVER married.

I think that the government needs to bow to the wishes of the people. I pray that a day will never come when people would vote in majority for gay marriage. I have nothing against gays, but I don’t want the definition of marriage nullified.