Why Yes On Proposition 8?

A Voter Talks About Why He Voted "Yes" on Prop 8

To: Ramon
Subject: Sorry 'Bout That

Dear Ramon,

Although I wished to have the word ‘marriage’ preserved for man and woman, and fought hard for that—the thing which passed [Proposition 8] was not appropriate.

The whole thing was hijacked by the insurance companies and government agencies. Kind of twisted and sick, if you ask me.  

My argument had nothing what so ever to do with a ‘civil union’ between same-sex couples. It had to do with the use of the word ‘marriage’; which has its roots in religious doctrine—despite the dictionary entry which has been used ad-nauseum. I did not want to see church congregations being sued because they refused to host a same-sex union.  

The issue should not have had anything to do with survivor’s benefits, the breaking of a will, insurance coverage, retirement, or any other issue involving privacy or finance.  

I voted against it. I have no idea how to correct this error. All I can say is that I am sorry.  

Eric
 

P.S.:  I personally did not know anyone who wanted to restrict the obligations or benefits of a civil union.  I don’t know what happened.  Maybe the electorate really is that stupid.

Dear Uninformed Voter,

This is a prime example of what happens when voters let semantics override the real issues. Whether the definition of marriage is most correctly detailed in a religious text, the dictionary or on the ballot of a proposition, I'm sure you realize now that it is your responsibility–as a voter–to understand the complete ramifications of your decisions. They–extremist group Focus on Family and other anti-gay followers that sponsored these Propositions–told you and other voters that these Propositions were about protecting the elusive "institution of marriage" and saving our children, but underneath it was a successful attempt to restrict human rights.

Most heterosexual couples take for granted (or are completely aloof of the fact) that they automatically get 1,138 rights when they get married and those rights include exactly what you cited: survivor’s benefits, the breaking of a will, insurance coverage, retirement, or any other issue involving privacy or finance. When gay and lesbian couples argue for the right to marry, it is not a special right; it's an equal right to the same secure benefits granted to every other citizen. Most people are also unaware that in most cases civil unions (although they may sound less intrusive to conservative mindsets) offer less benefits than marriage.

So, while you are stuck on your distaste for the word 'marriage,' there are thousands upon thousands of same-sex couples that pay taxes, raise healthy and stable children and support each other emotional and financially who have had and can continue to have all of that taken away–as you've seen this past election–by the stroke of uninformed voters. Many also fail to realize that Proposition 2 in Florida affects straight elderly couples living together and the successful Act One in Arkansas now prevents straight unwed couples from adopting the thousands of children needing homes. I'm sure they didn't mention that in the "Vote Yes" commercials.

When you let someone restrict any groups' rights, you leave the door open for everyone's rights to be taken away. The fabric of our country is based on the ideals of equal opportunity for all, even though historically we fall short in practice.

I don't know how you identify, Eric. I can only guess. But, imagine being refused the right to make medical decisions should the person you love most get hurt; or, not having legal claim to their assets should they pass away; or, having the children you helped raise taken away; or, being denied the legal validation of your partnership. Imagine how vulnerable you would feel if your family's future lay in the hands of millions of strangers who've never even taken the time to witness the stability of your home.

There has always been and will always be gay and lesbian couples in committed long-term relationships, many of whom are raising children. They have had no adverse affect on the rest of society and will have no negative impact. Yet, we continue to live–in this country–contributing as equals, but benefiting as less.

So, I congratulate you on your post-election revelation, but I must go tend to the 18,000 loving same-sex couples in California who are wondering if they should return their wedding gifts.

Yours more focused than ever,
Ramon

P.S.: There were millions of voters in California, Arizona, Florida, and Arkansas that voted for Propositions 8, 102, 102, 2 and Act One, respectively. There is a way you can help: The next time a group of people on TV and billboards tell you that you are protecting something by restricting human rights, vote "No" and join the 48% of Californians that didn't believe the hype.