On November 4, 2008, voters in California had the opportunity to vote on Proposition 8. Proposition 8, if enacted, would amend the California Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. It would effectively overturn a 2008 California Supreme Court decision that, for the first time in California’s history, gave individuals the right to marry another of the same sex. The Proposition passed with approximately 52% of the votes.
The purpose of this article is to analyze the arguments made by the opponents of Proposition 8. The two most common arguments made by those who support same-sex marriage were 1) that the government should not legislate morals and 2) that to deny an individual the ability to marry someone of the same sex is discriminatory, wrong and unfair; therefore, those who support Proposition 8 are bigots. Let’s tackle each of these arguments.
The first argument was that the government should not legislate morals. This argument is the most astonishing because of its absurdity. One of the primary and most basic roles of government is to legislate morals. Upon typing the word “moral” into
http://www.dictionary.com/, the first result you will see reads: “of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.” The argument commonly goes something like this: the government should not codify the beliefs of the Christian right because it takes away other people’s beautiful experiences and happiness. So it is wrong to take others’ joyful experiences away from them. Let’s look at a few examples of legislated morals.
With the first example we can look at driving under the influence of alcohol. Regardless of how much enjoyment people get out of driving while under the influence of alcohol, the government has prohibited and criminalized the act. The vast majority of people agree with the government’s point of view. The voters and the government agree that it is wrong to drink and drive and it is right to penalize someone for doing so. This is a moral judgment legislated.
Another example involves tax law. There are those who believe that it is appropriate and right that those who make more money should be contributing a larger portion of their income to the common good. Others believe it is appropriate and fair that everyone contribute an equal portion of their income to the common good. These are moral preferences that are legislated.
It is safe to say that, when pressed, the opponents of Prop 8 would agree that, in fact, the government should legislate morals. They just don’t want morals that differ from theirs to be enacted as legislation; they want their own morals to become law. None of the protestors made a fuss when the California Supreme Court made the law that created the fundamental right of same-sex marriage.
That brings us to the second argument, which is to deny an individual the ability to marry someone of the same sex is discriminatory, wrong and unfair. If we look for the definition of “discriminate” in
http://www.dictionary.com/, we read: “to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit.” The Prop 8 opponents loudly declared that everyone who supported Prop 8 were prejudiced, bigots, and discriminatory. In other words, the opponents lambasted an easily-identifiable class of individuals (supporters of Prop 8) solely because they fell in that category. The biggest problem with this accusation is that the opponents of Prop 8 either did not know what “discriminate” means, or they did know but did not care. To simply support Proposition 8 does not make a person a bigot. If a person says, “I hate gay people; I want them to be unhappy; I do not want them to be able to marry; and therefore I support Proposition 8,” it is safe to say that that person is bigoted because he is making a distinction against a class of people on the basis of the class rather than according to actual merit. However, if an individual says, “I understand the circumstances and hopes of those who wish to enter into same-sex marriages. I also understand the rights already afforded to those in domestic partnerships. I also understand the consequences that will likely result from same-sex marriages. Overall, I am more concerned about the consequences—negative consequences—that will result from allowing same-sex marriage than I am concerned about the consequences of disallowing same-sex marriages,” it is safe to say that that person is not a bigot at all, any more than an individual who says, “I understand the joys that alcoholics get from driving while drunk, and I understand the negative consequences of drunk driving, and I fall down on the side of disallowing drunk driving.” The point here is not to compare drunk driving with same-sex marriages. The point is that with every political issue, voters are faced with a choice of supporting one preference over another preference. Coming down on one side of the issue over another does not make a person a bigot; it makes the person a rational thinker.
The bottom line is that the arguments opposing Proposition 8 were irrational and inconsistent. It seemed those opposing Prop 8 were only concerned with being heard instead of being persuasive. Assuming an intelligent and informed electorate, Prop 8 was bound to succeed.