Proposition 8
Marriage is considered one of life’s sacred entities, joining two individuals who love each other in matrimony. However, with the recent elections, all in the name of marriage and the “love” within it, has been amended.California’s Proposition 8 redefined the state’s constitution by restricting the definition of marriage to include only those between a man and a woman, therefore eliminating same-sex marriages.
In a close majority ruling, 52.3 percent of voters voted “Yes on Prop. 8” while 47.7 percent voted “No on Prop 8.”
Yet, months earlier, in May 2008, a victory in gay rights occurred with the “In re Marriage Case” when the California Supreme Court ruled in favor, stating that the California initiative measures to ban the right to gay marriage violated the state constitution.
Today, those rights are denied as gay marriages have once again been banned.
Following the days of the election, over 20,000 people in Southern California protested against the win of Proposition 8, often renaming it “Proposition H8.”
Their cry of injustice was felt and shared among others.
But across the protest lines, supporters of Proposition 8 basked in their glory of winning, saying that they have “protected the definition of marriage” by eliminating same-sex marriages.
Despite contrasting views regarding marriage, it is necessary to consider whether denying one’s right to marriage is constitutional or merely an extension of one’s own personal beliefs and religion.
Likewise, a look back in history proves that this is not the first time a certain group has felt “H8” by a constitutional law.
Until 1967, merely 40 years ago, it was declared unconstitutional for people of color—Black, “Mongolian,” “Oriental” or Mexican—to marry White people.
As a biracial American, I would likely not be in existence if these anti-miscegenation laws had not been overturned and because, my parents, deeply in love, would be denied the right of marriage. Thus, disappointment and disgust were felt when our California constitution and people placed discrimination toward a minority group again.
It continues to upset the gay community, that the constitution is denying their right to marry the person they love, same-sex or not. It also upsets equal-rights activists, that our constitution is once again repeating history by denying marriage to a minority group.
As stated in the 121-page majority opinion “In re Marriage Case,” "the right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people.”
It is one thing to protect the definition of marriage, but another thing to deny an entire group of citizens their right to marry and “love” the person they choose. They always say “we need a little more love in this world,” so why then are we banning love, this right of marriage for so many fellow Californians?
posted by Eve @ 6:49 PM
0 Comments
