Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

Our latest headlines

Want more? Dive into the archives.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Books

Prop 8 is Illogical and Takes Rights Away

By Byron Williams

Martin Luther King once opined after a demonstration circa 1966, "I'm tired of marching for things that should already be mine." This was King's way of illustrating the absurdity of African Americans having to fight for rights that had been guaranteed to the dominant culture since the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

It is with King's frustration in mind that I hope this will be the last column I write on the absurdity of debating same-gender marriage.

I use absurdity as the word choice because the arguments in opposition to same-gender marriage are based on a brand of conjecture that is irrational, incongruous, and at times illogical.

Proposition 8 is on the California ballot for the sole purpose to take away rights already granted to same-gender couples.

The argument for Prop. 8 is based entirely on the straw man of assumption and propaganda.

If those in opposition were to take an honest inventory of the five most important issues to them as individuals and collectively for the state, where does the same-gender marriage rank? First? Second? Third?

One of the most irrational assumptions plaguing the same-gender marriage debate is its impact on the church. The theory being that churches will be forced to conduct same-gender wedding ceremonies against their will. This is a profoundly un-American hypothesis that is rooted in fear, encroaching on the long-standing Jeffersonian notion that there be a wall of separation between church and state.

Same-gender marriage is not a church issue. No church that I am aware would be forced to conduct same-gender marriages against its will. This debate is exclusive to civil marriage, which the last time I checked was supported by the tax dollars of all Americans.

The notion of taxation without representation is critical to the American experiment. In fact, the last time we had a serious debate about it, someone lost a bunch of tea and, eventually, a war.

The other illogical pro-Prop. 8 argument is that same-gender marriage threatens traditional, biblically based marriage. This may be the greatest red herring that is readily assumed as normative.

There is no such thing as traditional, biblically based marriage — at least in the Western Hemisphere. I know of no heterosexual couple living in the United States that has a marriage that is remotely similar to what is found within the Bible.

Biblical marriage viewed women as property; based almost exclusively on procreation.

Thus, those who wish to oppose same-gender marriage on a biblical basis must do so by advocating for their private view of morality as the best way for society, using a stagnant definition of marriage that never existed in a world that is constantly evolving.

Proponents also would argue Prop. 8 simply places into the California Constitution the same language that voters already passed by 61 percent of the vote in 2000. They believe the state Supreme Court overturned the will of the people through judicial activism.
But this is an incongruous argument that oversimplifies reality. The will of the people can never be solidified to the point that it can systematically deny equal protection under the law. It is for this reason court rulings that overturned Jim Crow laws and affirmed interracial marriage were controversial in the moment, but no longer.

Perhaps the strongest argument against Prop. 8 is what we already know. Since June 16, 2008, California has had same-gender marriage has there been a noticeable difference? Did the sun refuse to shine?

What would the eradication of same-gender marriage achieve? If Prop. 8 passes, which means same-gender marriage is defeated, no one benefits. All this initiative would do is deny certain couples the right to marry for no other reason than their perceived failure to fit into the dominant paradigm as defined by the dominant culture.

Prop. 8 is illogical because it is narrowly defined as being about marriage, but ultimately it is about equal rights — a concept that all Californians should endorse. And we should stand in staunch opposition when there is an initiative on the ballot, like Prop. 8, that seeks to take away one of our most fundamental privileges.

Byron Williams has served as pastor of the Resurrection Community Church in Oakland since 2002. As the only pastor/syndicated columnist in the country, Williams writes a column which appears in 10 publications and several progressive web sites across the country.

Posted on October 28, 2008

Comments

The title of your article is "Prop 8 is Illogical and Takes Rights Away", however you do not name any rights the proposition takes away. Under current California law (specifically family code section 297.5) domestic partners are granted the same right and obligations as spouses (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California).

I would argue instead that Prop 8 is a cultural debate and not a legal one. If prop 8 passes or fails the legal rights and obligations of same sex couples (whether under domestic partnership or marriage) will not change. Rather prop 8 is about the normalization and cultural acceptance of homosexuality in California.

Additionally I would argue that "marriage" is a sacred rite and that it means a variety of things to different people. Truly government should have nothing to say about "marriage" at all. Government is a civic institution and as such should confine it's reach to civil matters. If anything government should be responsible solely for granting and revoking "civil unions" which do not carry a religious or spiritual meaning, and leave marriage (which does carry a deeply spiritual meaning to most) to the clergy and other religious institutions.

Posted by: Darryl at October 30, 2008 09:05 AM

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker