Defending California's Prop 8

First of all, you can read and understand my feelings concerning gay marriage and porp 8 in my archives here at bcandafter.

But beyond that, this is not a fight against a particular group or the rights of one group over another. Some in the gay movement would have you believe so. But many understand the dynamism, the Conservative Christian Right and some liberal religious factions demonstrate, and that it is not directed in a personal way towards our gay brothers and sisters. A belief in the traditional concept of marriage, that of one man and one woman, goes far deeper than the discussion of benefits for two men or two women. In no way can it be construed, to be other than a battle for many, as standing against the change of a definition. The gay agenda is to redefine marriage, and to do so, must redefine the argument to something other than it is.

Providing silly quotes by one and out of context anecdotal evidence by others does not advance nor refute, the valid arguments for maintaining traditional marriage. More importantly, at this point in the debate, one would wonder why we are not talking about the discrimination the court is exhibiting in the disgraceful denial of the defense of Prop 8

If the system is to be changed, it should be in the area of civil unions. Dealing in a very formative way with the right of association, that the fundamental element of personal liberty is the right to choose to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships. These intimate human relationships are considered forms of "intimate association." The paradigmatic example of "intimate association" is the family. To deny that, to any soul, is to be other than human. To deny the complexities of male and female, to lessen by magnitude, the natural balance the differences play in the production and maintenance of the family is counter intuitive to logic and to the greater societal good.

Speaking in terms of guaranteed rights by our Constitution, we all should seek the strictest intent but allow the most liberal of definition. In other words, it’s not my interest what two people do behind closed doors. But that in no way allows for the exiting from behind those closed doors to make authoritative declarations about traditions and the defining of such. Should you meet the criteria by which a particular tradition is exercised, then no judge in the land should hold sway over that. Should you choose, as is the intent of the gay community, to alter those criteria, then it is a matter to bring before the people.

Prop 8 did just that, and the people spoke.