Regarding California Proposition 8

I know that for some this topic is painful, divisive, frustrating, and just plain emotional. But silence on my part does not show tolerance and love towards others, but rather a disregard for them by not being willing to politely explain the truth - which in itself is one of the most sacred responsibilities of true love.

Proposition 8, on the ballot in California this November, is not a long and confusing document. It is actually quite short and to the point, being only 14 words long. The entire text of Proposition 8 is as follows: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

So why are the two opposing camps spending so much money to convince voters to cast their votes one way or the other? Let's look at the "NOs" first.

Why does the "No On Prop 8" camp feel so strongly? According to what I've seen and heard in the television ads, Internet ads, radio ads, billboards, and conversations, it appears that opponents to Proposition 8 feel as if the passing of this law somehow takes away their rights. Whether this feeling of having their rights offended is something reasoned or learned, whether by thought or pure propaganda, the effect is the same: they are incensed and outraged that anyone would try to take their rights away from them. If I were a homosexual, I imagine that I would feel the same way. Especially if I hadn't considered all the facts.

But the fact is that under current California law (CA Family Code 297.5), all "domestic partners" are allowed the same exact rights as a "spouse". So in all actuality, to clearly define "marriage" as being between a man and a woman does not "strip", "remove", or "steal" any rights of domestic partnership. They already exist. Interestingly enough, the very law that gives all "domestic partners" this spousal equivalency, by it's very existence and wording, clarifies the natural reality that a "spouse" is by definition someone other than a "domestic partner", while at the same time maintaining equal access to health benefits and other privileges typically accorded a "spouse". If a homosexual couple seeks legal recognition as such, they "need only file a 'Declaration of Domestic Partnership' with the secretary of state, who adds it to a statewide database. (Cal. Fam. Code sec. 298.5(a), (b).) It's harder to redeem frequent-flier miles than to register as domestic partners." (Quoted from the blog of Oasis California, a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender organization in California - http://www.news.oasiscalifornia.org/2008/09/domestic-partnership-vs-marriage.html).

The only major difference in the State of California between a "marriage" and a "domestic partnership" is the title itself. Having said this, I can understand why homosexual partners would prefer the title of "marriage" over "domestic partnership". The title of "marriage" or being married just sounds right. It has history and legitimacy and strength. If a homosexual partnership can legally use this title, instead of the made-up title of "domestic partnership", it could theoretically help them to accomplish the sense of equality so longed for in the homosexual community. So... I can and do see why it's important for so many homosexuals in the State of California (and in other states for that matter) to see that Proposition 8 fails so they can continue their quest for "equality" as "married" persons and not just "domestic partners". Again, I would most likely be campaigning similarly if I were a homosexual.

So now let's look at the camp of those promoting Proposition 8 and the "Protect Marriage" campaign. Why do they want Prop 8 passed? If California "domestic partners" and "spouses" already have the same rights under California law, what's the big deal in just using the same title for everyone, regardless of being homosexual or heterosexual?

In theory, because of the current rights and protections under California law, it would seem that there is no real legitimate reason for fighting for a clear definition of marriage as that of a man and woman only. Whether you are a male or female "spouse", or a male or female "domestic partner", the only major difference in the State of California is the title itself. So why not allow "domestic partners" to call themselves "spouses"? There are a few reasons why the "Protect Marriage" folks feel the way they do. Let's take a closer look.

One of the reasons that you will here from many Prop 8 supporters is the fact that marriage always has been defined as being between a man and a woman. The word "marriage" carries with it a sense of honor, respect and commitment that's based on centuries of historical practice and observation (even despite the modern-day divorce epidemic). This is, of course, one of the reasons that this title is so sought after by homosexual partners over the title of "domestic partner". Historically, anything outside of marriage has been referred to as "an affair" or "liaison", be it heterosexual or homosexual. I have to say that I, too, am often frustrated by the re-defining of words that have for eons meant one thing but now mean another just because of popular culture or because "we say so". Whether this is in and of itself a strong enough reason to support Prop 8 is unlikely, but its still a piece of the puzzle.

Another reason given, and seen in many of the television and internet ads, is the lesson learned from the State of Massachusetts on this very issue. While it has been counter-advertised that these claims are "not true" by the opponents to Prop 8, I guarantee that I did due diligence to verify the information before posting it on this blog. It is a fact that in multiple cases the Sate of Massachusetts has taught homosexual marriage to young children and then used the State laws regarding homosexual marriage as their foundation for being allowed to do so. In both cases they did it without parental notification and when parental notification was requested by the parents they were denied. When one of the parents asked if they could remove their child from class for the days on which the topic was being taught, the Massachusetts courts told them NO.

The following video is simple and informative in regards to the potential legal ramifications if Propostion 8 is not passed:


Here is a video from the Family Research Council documenting the example of the five-year-old Kindergarten student being taught about homosexual marriage in Massachusetts:


Neither of these videos are intended by me as "scare tactics", nor are they untrue. They are simply examples of the potentialities in the State of California if "domestic partners" and "spouses" become one and the same.

It seems to me that the only thing "lost" by homosexual partners in the State of California - if Proposition 8 were to pass - is the possibility of being able to officially use the title of "married" or "spouse". And again, I have to be honest and recognize that I would prefer that title as well if I were in a homosexual partnership as the historically defined term is a respectable one. But that doesn't change the fact that the definition of marriage is what it is because the definition is what it is. I realize that sounds trite, but it's still true. The reason that marriage is defined as being a life covenant between one man and one woman is because a life covenant between one man and one woman is what marriage is. This definition was not some random thought of a homophobic heterosexual wordsmith. It's the actual definition, understood by those who first received the instructions regarding marriage from God Himself, and then recognized by the billions of souls and countless generations it was passed along to since. Even in cultures which have already changed the true definition of marriage, the truth of what marriage is and always was can still be found in that culture, if you look.

In the ongoing debate over this issue, locally and nationally, I often hear the term "traditional marriage" used. While I understand what is meant by that phrase - the traditional marriage of one man and one woman - I shy away from using it. Why? My perspective is a bit different, having traveled to and lived in other cultures. Where we currently live, it is traditional for a man to marry several women. Should I fight for this type of "traditional marriage"? The issue I have is with the word "tradition". I don't believe our primary motivation for belief, taking a stance, or "fighting" for something should be based upon tradition. It's like a friend of mine once said. His wife's family had a tradition of eating waffles every Saturday and he didn't like waffles. So he got rid of that tradition. The truth of God, His commands, His ways, His will - these always trump tradition. So if God says "traditional marriage" is wrong, then we should get rid of it. In the case of polygamy being considered "traditional marriage", God says it's wrong. In the case of one man and one woman being married, God says it's right, so that is what we should hold to. Not because of traditions, but because of the truth that our Creator communicated to us.

So, in an attempt to conclude my thoughts... It would appear that those who are currently protected as "domestic partners" under California law, really have nothing to lose other than the potential for using the titles "marriage" and "spouse" instead of "domestic partnership" and "domestic partner". But for those who believe that marriage is a sacred institution designed and defined by our Creator Himself, there is a clear reason for defending it as such. Additionally, there is the clear evidence of history that, ironically, provides us with foresight into what could, and probably would happen in California if the definition of marriage is not protected, and instead changed to include anything other than one man and one woman in covenant.

I have been honest and even tried to put myself into the shoes of the homosexual individual so that I might try to imagine their thoughts and feelings on the subject. For those who know me well you know why doing this is so important to me. Having done that, I cannot agree that the importance of what may be gained for the cause of the homosexual community by defeating Prop 8 is greater than the importance of what may be gained for the truth of God's Word and for the families who must live under the laws of the Sate of California should Prop 8 pass.

True love is honest. And though some people very dear to me will be very upset with me over these words, I must trust God with those relationships and honor His word and His truth above my own desires for avoiding conflict or the world's cries for "tolerance" as they define it.