creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager
14 Oct 2014
Don't 'Vote for the Candidate'

There is a noble-sounding attitude that many Americans hold regarding whom they vote for. "I vote for the candidate,"… Read More.

7 Oct 2014
Bill Maher, Ben Affleck and Islam

Last Friday night a rare dialogue/debate took place on American television. It was rare because it involved … Read More.

30 Sep 2014
What the Arab World Produces

At least since the early part of the 20th century, aside from oil, the Arab world has produced and exported … Read More.

Opposition to California Proposition 8: Hate in the Name of Love

Comment

Next to the presidential election, California Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America.

It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.

In 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had — the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses). But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.

As a result of this judicial act, the only way to ensure that we continue to define marriage the way every religious and secular society in recorded history has defined marriage — as between men and women — is to amend the California Constitution. It is the only way to prevent the vote of one judge from redefining marriage, as was also done in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Which is why Proposition 8 exists.

But even though California voters decided by a large margin to retain the man-woman definition of marriage, passing Proposition 8 will be a challenge.

First, the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition's wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."

The reason for this change is obvious — to make the proposition appear as a denial of a basic human and civil right.

Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses. And even those who believe that any two unmarried people who want to get married should be given a marriage license should regard as wrong an attorney general changing a ballot proposition's language to favor his own social views. What Brown did was attempt to manipulate people who lean toward preserving the definition of the most important social institution in society — people who have no desire whatsoever to hurt gays — to now think of themselves as bigots.

According to Sacramento Bee columnist Margaret A.

Bengs, "a recent Field Poll analysis found" that the new wording by Brown "had a 'striking' impact on those newly familiar with the measure, with a 23-point swing against it."

What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create.

And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society.

The second hurdle for Proposition 8 is even greater: the multimillion dollar campaign to label proponents of Proposition 8 "haters" and to label the man-woman definition of marriage as "hate." Or as they put it: "Prop 8 = Prop Hate."

It is apparently inconceivable to many of those who wish to change the definition of marriage that a decent person can want to retain the man-woman definition. From newspaper editorials to gay and other activist groups, the theme is universal — proponents of traditional marriage are haters, the moral equivalents of those who opposed racial equality. As The New York Times editorial on the subject put it, Proposition 8 is "mean-spirited."

But it is the charge of hate (along with bigotry, homophobia and intolerance) that is the primary charge leveled against supporters of Proposition 8. That's why one major anti-Proposition 8 group is "Californians Against Hate."

Any honest outsider would see that virtually all the hate expressed concerning Proposition 8 comes from opponents of the proposition. While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show.

It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate — because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree. Why should our generation be different?

These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.

Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?

Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness Is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is www.pragerradio.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.



Comments

6 Comments | Post Comment
Mr. Prager,

I'm not sure which planet you are living on, but the adds in favor of Proposition 8 have been nothing but blatant homophobia and outright lies.

The charge that tax exempt status will be taken away from churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages if false. The only thing that has changed is that the state of California recognizes same-sex marriages and will issue licenses for same. There is no requirement for any religious groups to perform these ceremonies.

It is not anyone's intent to 'teach our children' about gay marriage. Of course, the children are going to find out about is eventually whether they learn this in school of from their parents is the only question.

But all that is not the issue. The simple question is this: How does same-sex marriage affect my marriage? I have been married happily for 7 years and I know a number of GBL couples who eventually want to be able to formalize their relationships. I do not feel threatened by this at all. People who are homosexuals are just that: PEOPLE. All they want is to be able to live their lives free from discrimination.

Of course, you feel that Domestic Partnerships are the same thing. Well, they are not. It is just the old concept of Separate But Equal revisited. It wasn't right in the South back in the day, it is not right for us here in California.

And let's be fair, sir. If you wanted to really protect marriage, then you'd back a plan to outlaw divorce. That is something that truly harms marriage.
Comment: #1
Posted by: James Bell
Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:25 AM
While I have no objection to same-sex marriage, I have to disagree with those who are promoting it as a matter of "rights," e.g., comparing "civil unions" to "separate but equal." Civil marriage is not a right; it is a privilege granted by the state, much like a driver's license, and the state may define civil marriage however it sees fit. Having said that, however, I'll vote no on Proposition 8 simply because it's a non-issue. As has been repeatedly pointed out, extending civil marriage to include same-sex couples won't affect anyone else's marriage. Religious institutions are still free to define marriage however they choose. And forty or fifty years from now, when gay marriage is fully accepted as normal, we'll all look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Scot Penslar
Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:50 AM
Until it is admitted that homosexuals are not a race of people, but rather a people of a particular sexual preference, there can never be a logical discussion about this or any other related issues. If anyone chooses to defend their "rights" then you must logically also do so for anyone else of ANY sexual persuasion. Hey pedophiles are "just born that way", why can't they marry children? And don't give me the garbage about protecting kids. Who made that convenient rule? As usual with the gay agenda crowd, rules of engagement are changed as needed until the agenda is passed. Pure hyopocrisy and intolerance toward Christians under the guise of what? Doing what is socially right and acceptable?! If society is the ultimate source of right and wrong, why are homosexuals fighting against society's decision? If society is not the source of right and wrong what is? Bottomline, homosexuals are NOT a race of people who have been denied anything. They are people who prefer a certain sexual lifestyle...that is NOT a part of the definition of race anymore than being a pedophile is.
Comment: #3
Posted by: ken wheeler
Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:27 PM
Would it be better to define one that is Bible based as Holy matrimony and the other as the marriage of partner A and B?
Two men and two women in a relationship are different from a man and woman in a relationship. To say failed heterosexual marriages is a ding on heterosexuals point of view toward support marriage being between a man and woman is just as ridiculous as saying that a high percentage of homosexuals have been molested as children of the same sex therefore................
Homosexuals come in different races although, it was not apparent when gay blacks were call the "N" word as they held "No" On 8 sign along side of those calling them the "N" word. Now who was crossing the civiil rights line?
The same book that says-not to lie, steal, covet, kill, commit adultery, husband love your wives, wives love your husband ect. is the same God that for what ever reason made woman formthe rib of the man and their twain became one flesh.
Each time that I have sinned, do I say that it is Gods fault that I have sinned or do I recognize the sin based on the word of God that identifies it as sin? Do I as a heterosexual condemn homosexuals as hetrophobic if they do not celebrate or promote my cause involved in heterosexuality.
To hear of an old lady having a cross knowcked out of her hand because she is opposing Prop 8 is pretty bad.
Homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexaul relationships as the very deifinition difines them as different.
Coital and noncoital sexual acts are not the same by definition.
Does anyone really think that someone would not sue a church or a pastor for not marrying them because of a religious belief versus gay rights?
How about this-the two not agreeing,but not fighting each other but geting thier points across in peace and respect of each other?
Funny how I do not remember the signs back in the days of segreagation being of Colored, Whites and Gays? Divorce does not harm marriages, people do as they make the rules and regulations according to how they feel instead of obedience to Gods word.
If someone does not belive in the Bible anyway, why would they want to have a definition derived from its(Bible) principles define their relationship-equality or words?
Comment: #4
Posted by: Arene
Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:03 PM
THE LAWS OF NATURE AND OF NATURE'S GOD


In his drafting of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson used the phrase “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.” He took this phrase—a phrase upon which he would argue for our right to become a sovereign nation—from the writings of British philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) and English jurist William Blackstone (1723-1780) best known for his historical and analytic treatise on English common law (Commen-taries on the Laws of England ). Both Locke and Blackstone were convinced that man's laws must not violate the laws of nature instituted by nature's God.

The writings of Locke and Blackstone greatly influenced the American Revolutionaries and subsequently the framing of our United States Constitution. So with all the debate surrounding the passage of California's Proposition 8—a debate that all too often consists of shallow arguments driven by misguided passions rather than objective reason, resulting in more heat than light—I believe it would be both prudent and timely to consider the above eight words from our Declaration of Indepence that set the tone for the foundation of our constitutional law.

Any fair minded citizen must conclude that homosexual acts go against “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.” Same sex couples cannot naturally reproduce neither can they engage in sexual intercourse in the manner that nature's God has so designed the human body. Therefore, to inact a law that recognizes those unions that go against “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God,” would not only violate the higher law that was instituted by our Creator, but it would also do a great disservice to the framers of our Constitution by presuming that they got it wrong.

We must not imagine that we can weaken the very foundations of our constitutional law and not ultimately drift into the dangerous waters of anarchy. Do we deem ourselves wiser than those who have gone before—those who laid the foundations of the world's greatest democracy—a democracy that has grown and thrived for well over two centuries? If through our laws we should validate homosexual unions as a legitimate expression of marriage, then we would in fact go against the wisdom of our nation's founders.

On November 4th I believe that our state's citizens made the correct call when they passed proposition 8. They were not overturning some inalienable right granted by our Creator and embraced by our Founding Fathers. They were merely upholding “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.” And from their very writings we may also deduce that John Locke, William Blackstone and Thomas Jefferson would most assuredly agree that Californ ia voters got it right.
Comment: #5
Posted by: John McLaughlin
Mon Dec 1, 2008 4:18 PM
THE LAWS OF NATURE AND OF NATURE'S GOD
In his drafting of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson used the phrase “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.” He took this phrase—a phrase upon which he would argue for our right to become a sovereign nation—from the writings of British philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) and English jurist William Blackstone (1723-1780) best known for his historical and analytic treatise on English common law (Commen-taries on the Laws of England ). Both Locke and Blackstone were convinced that man's laws must not violate the laws of nature instituted by nature's God.
The writings of Locke and Blackstone greatly influenced the American Revolutionaries and subsequently the framing of our United States Constitution. So with all the debate surrounding the passage of California's Proposition 8—a debate that all too often consists of shallow arguments driven by misguided passions rather than objective reason, resulting in more heat than light—I believe it would be both prudent and timely to consider the above eight words from our Declaration of Indepence that set the tone for the foundation of our constitutional law.
Any fair minded citizen must conclude that homosexual acts go against “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.” Same sex couples cannot naturally reproduce neither can they engage in sexual intercourse in the manner that nature's God has so designed the human body. Therefore, to inact a law that recognizes those unions that go against “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God,” would not only violate the higher law that was instituted by our Creator, but it would also do a great disservice to the framers of our Constitution by presuming that they got it wrong.
We must not imagine that we can weaken the very foundations of our constitutional law and not ultimately drift into the dangerous waters of anarchy. Do we deem ourselves wiser than those who have gone before—those who laid the foundations of the world's greatest democracy—a democracy that has grown and thrived for well over two centuries? If through our laws we should validate homosexual unions as a legitimate expression of marriage, then we would in fact go against the wisdom of our nation's founders.
On November 4th I believe that our state's citizens made the correct call when they passed proposition 8. They were not overturning some inalienable right granted by our Creator and embraced by our Founding Fathers. They were merely upholding “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.” And from their very writings we may also deduce that John Locke, William Blackstone and Thomas Jefferson would most assuredly agree that Californ ia voters got it right.
Comment: #6
Posted by: John McLaughlin
Mon Dec 1, 2008 4:33 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Dennis Prager
Oct. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 22 Oct 2014
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 21 Oct 2014
Thomas Sowell
Thomas SowellUpdated 21 Oct 2014

3 Jan 2007 America Founded To Be Free, Not Secular

10 May 2011 How Leftism Poisoned a Psychiatrist's Mind

16 Sep 2014 Ted Cruz's Speech to Arab Christians