Today I attended what was originally a "Yes on 8" rally, but was turned into a sort of protest against the "Yes on 8" campaign, with numerous "No on 8" supporters showing up. I floated around the event listening to all the different sides supporting, and opposing the proposition, and was enlightened as to the reasoning behind the proposition. The following are the points that were made to me, and my counter claims to them. While not necessarily having anything to do with the proposition itself, these arguments are made by supporters of the proposition, so I feel it is necessary to address them in order properly argue against it.

• Marriage by definition, according to the church, is defined by the union of a man, and a woman. Allowing the state to have homosexual marriage legalized will allow people to persecute the church for its beliefs and prevent it from denying homosexual weddings recognition.


This is not true, due to the separation of church and state, in the first amendment to the constitution, the state government has no right to interfere with ones religious practice, so long as it doesn't affect the safety of those affected by the practice. While not recognizing the marriage might be seen as discriminatory, it in no way affects the safety of homosexuals; therefore they should be allowed to continue this practice.


• Homosexuality is unnatural, and is unable to allow procreation to take place, due to the biological fact that two humans of the same sex are unable to produce offspring.


Regardless of whether or not people are able to procreate within their relationships is insignificant to the states definition of marriage. Procreation is not a necessity for marriage, otherwise under the same concept, the elderly, those who go through menopause, and the sterile should not be allowed to marry either, regardless of sexual
orientation.


• Children brought up in an "ideal" family, mother and father, are statistically proven to be happier, and better functioning in society. Without both the mother, and father figures in their life growing up, they are likely turn out dysfunctional or awkward in society.


This argument should not even be considered do to how subjective the "ideal" family is. It also leads to gender roles in the family claiming that only a mother (woman) can fulfill certain responsibilities, and roles that the father (male) cannot. This is untrue due to the fact that ones gender is acquired through experience, not necessarily determined by sex. Therefore men and women are equally capable of fulfilling the necessary roles in raising children. Otherwise single parents ideally should not be allowed to raise children according to this thought process.


• The term marriage is a term created by the church. Misuse of the term (allowing homosexuals to marry) is interference by the state government in the practice of this religion which violates the first amendment of the constitution and the separation of church and state.

This point, I believe to be the only seemingly valid point that the proponents of this proposition have. Essentially they want the word "marriage" to be changed in state marriages (whether for solely homosexual marriages, or all marriages in general, I am unsure). Supporters of this point tend to claim that they have no issue with homosexual rights and equality so long as the word is not the same word that the followers of the church use. These beliefs are reminiscent of "separate but equal" laws posed by the Plessey Vs. Ferguson case, which was overturned due to their violation of the 14th amendment. The amendment states that: "States are to provide equal protection under the law to all persons within their jurisdictions". Homosexuals are considered people, and homosexuals living in California fall under the states jurisdiction, therefore the state is required to protect homosexual rights to marriage under the 14th amendment. Changing the name from "marriage" to something such as "civil union", even if the two doctrines are identical except for the name is unconstitutional if it repeals the right of homosexuals to marry.

So these are the points that I heard at the rally, and while I don't agree with them, I respect your right to your beliefs. This isn't a note bashing proponents of prop 8, but merely my insight on the issue, and my attempts to bring attention to why the proposition is an infraction upon all of our civil rights. Regardless of whether or not we're homosexual, heterosexual, a sexual, or pansexual if this proposition passes, it will impose restrictions on our civil right to be entitled the same opportunities, and advantages of heterosexual marriage. Essentially proposition 8 is unconstitutional therefore 
should not be passed