Proposition 8 has evoked a passion in students on campus that no other issue in this election has been able to. It has awakened the sleeping giant that is the youth vote and has inspired $60 million in support and opposition, a national record for spending on a social initiative.
Prop 8 will do more than reject or allow the right for same-sex couples to marry — it will negate or preserve basic civil rights.
The proposition’s outcome, whatever it might be, will set a precedent for how human rights are dealt with in this country — either a precedent of equality or of oppression.
In light of these implications, the Daily Trojan encourages all USC students voting in California to vote No on Proposition 8.
In 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22, which changed state law to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled to strike down Prop 22 and legalize same-sex marriage, citing that the state constitution’s definition of marriage was unconstitutional and violated the equal protection clause.
Now, eight years after California residents voted to deny the right of marriage to same-sex couples, they have an opportunity to set things right.
Unlike Prop 22, which changed California law — Prop 8 would inject permanent and discriminatory language into the state’s constitution — language that the California Supreme Court would be forced to uphold.
Prop 8 comes down to basic fundamental rights. If passed, the California Constitution will contradict itself and the federal Constitution, which guarantees equality for all.
Changing the state constitution to deny the right of same-sex couples to marry — society’s ultimate recognition of loving commitment — is a dangerous move down a slippery slope.
There’s a famous saying, “As goes California, so goes the nation.” And now, California’s youth vote has the opportunity to trigger the beginning of the end of one of the last remaining civil rights battles in the United States.
Vote No on Proposition 8.
Vote No on Proposition 8
From the Editors
Published: Thursday, October 30, 2008
Updated: Friday, October 31, 2008
This is about restoring the true, traditional interpretation of what "marriage" has always been. And I mean ALWAYS! As in, since the beginning of recorded time. Oh, you don't want a book to tell you about something? Well, our laws are written on pages in books. They’re sectionalized and defined by numbers, etc. The Holy Scriptures, no matter what your faith, are on pages in books. Saying you don't want to be told what is in a book doesn't make it a very rational argument. This is the way it is in the world. All societies write their ordinances, codes, and laws in books. All religions have books that they refer to for guidance.
The word "marriage" cannot and will not be stolen and changed in its meaning because of the will of the minority. It isn't their right. Co-habitation is not marriage. To stay away from the religious overtones, a couple that wants to live together and be recognized in society as a couple are allowed the terms “domestic partnership” or "civil union." I don't want those term applied to my wife and me. Those are terms meant for those who have opted to not follow the traditional role of "marriage." The entire text of Proposition 8 is as follows: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."
Leave it alone for those of us who are traditional in our belief structure. Don't steal it because you want it. It's not your right.
Going back to this ruling in May of this year, those four activist judges in San Francisco ignored four million voters and imposed same-sex “marriage” on California. Their ruling isn’t about ‘tolerance.’ Mandated acceptance of same-sex “marriage” triggers a series of consequences that affect all Californians, especially our children. As the father of 11 children and grandfather to five children, this concerns me. I have lived in California about 43 of my 48 years. Some argue that same sex “marriage” won’t be taught in schools. Well, too late. It already has been in Massachusetts and in California. I’ve read the articles in newspapers reporting on this. I’ve watched the news clips on TV and video replays on the Internet.
The leading proponents of the No on 8 campaign say Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools. But in Massachusetts, they filed official court papers to mandate instruction of gay marriage in schools. They said that such instruction should happen at the earliest possible age. And they argued that parents should have no right to take their children out of such instruction. They will do the same thing here in California if Prop 8 fails. (See Parker v. Hurley – 514 F3d 87 (1st Cir 2008).)
Prop 8 gives California voters the opportunity to reverse the court’s decision and restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the state Constitution. Unless we pass Prop 8 here in California there is no end to the consequences caused by mandated acceptance of same-sex “marriage” in every aspect of society.
It doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partnerships shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses (Family Code Sec. 297.5.) There are no exceptions to this. Prop 8 will not change this. Those of us voting or supporting “Yes on 8” are for the most part not intolerant neither are we bigots. I will not force someone to go straight. I have friends and some family members who are gay. I have had co-workers that are gay. I have never been intolerant of their lifestyle choice. I do not argue with them about this issue.
Prop 8 restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be. It is between a man and a woman.
Vote Yes on 8.
Fri Oct 31 2008 14:46
Its good to know what side the DT leans toward.Yes, because it's an editorial.
McCain/ Palin 08
COUNTRY FIRST
But I believe very strongly that "marriage" was a gift handed down from God and started in the Garden of Eden when God created Adam and then taking a rib from Adam he created Eve as a helpmate and companion.
I could quote scripture about marriage, but I won't do that.
Now here's a thought - what religion has in their "holy book" has any condoning of approval of same sex marriages, maybe a cult here or there.
Ever year we stray a little further away from the basis our for forefathers built this country on.
I also remember the story of destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and why it happened, and those people had to pay a very steep price for their ways
Imagine you fell in love with someone, and you wanted to marry them. Imagine if the government had the right to deny you this marriage. What if they belittled your bond by saying "Don't say that your domestic partnership is a marriage." They would tell you to be happy with what you have. "Domestic partnerships" are not guaranteed the same basic legal rights as marriages. We would be denying a part of the population these rights under the law, and we would be treating them like second-class citizens. For what? For being born different? Sounds like a civil rights issue to me.
If that doesn't convince you, the ideals of our country began with "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." This is completely a matter of equality, and therefore a matter of civil rights.
As for your "polygamy, or God knows what" argument, this is not about that, and trying to tie same-sex marriage to "God knows what" is laughable and tenuous at best. This isn't about "redefining a social institution" to beyond marriage between two consenting adults. This is about giving the legal right of marriage to all couples who should have the right just by the fact that all men are created equal. Ma'am, if you had compassion for your fellow man, and a belief in the ideals of this country that I'm sure we both love so much, you would vote No on 8.
Imagine you fell in love with someone, and you wanted to marry them. Imagine if the government had the right to deny you this marriage. What if they belittled your bond by saying "Don't say that your domestic partnership is a marriage." They would tell you to be happy with what you have. "Domestic partnerships" are not guaranteed the same basic legal rights as marriages. We would be denying a part of the population these rights under the law, and we would be treating them like second-class citizens. For what? For being born different? Sounds like a civil rights issue to me.
If that doesn't convince you, the ideals of our country began with "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." This is completely a matter of equality, and therefore a matter of civil rights.
As for your "polygamy, or God knows what" argument, this is not about that, and trying to tie same-sex marriage to "God knows what" is laughable and tenuous at best. This isn't about "redefining a social institution" to beyond marriage between two consenting adults. This is about giving the legal right of marriage to all couples who should have the right just by the fact that all men are created equal. Ma'am, if you had compassion for your fellow man, and a belief in the ideals of this country that I'm sure we both love so much, you would vote No on 8.