Thoughts on Proposition 102
Sorry, folks, this is too important not to post.
Denying the right to civil marriage to any class of people based on any particular characteristic is a clear sign that those people are considered second-class citizens.
It wasn't until 1962 that anti-miscegenation laws were repealed in Arizona. For those of you unaware, these were laws which specifically stated that non-Whites weren't allowed to marry Whites (note that this did not in fact include Hispanics). Blacks, Asians (in this case Chinese and Japanese), "Malays", and "Hindus" were singled out as not being legally allowed to marry White people. These laws have been repealed in every state of the Union as discriminatory and exclusive, and rightfully so -- after all, it's not as if people have a choice in their race of origin. While race relations still have a ways to go, it is fairly clear that, at least governmentally, denying this right to people on the basis of racial or ethnic origin is unlawful, and indeed, flat wrong.
So why is it "okay" to go after people based on sexual orientation? The sad truth is this: a large swath of our population is being convinced by various organizations that homosexuality is somehow a communicable social "disease", that there is a "homosexual agenda" at work.
I am fairly obviously not gay. I'm in ASU Men's Chorus, and several of its members are very flamboyantly gay, so if it were communicable, I'd have it by now. There is no proof whatsoever that you can "catch the gay". For that matter, if one takes the idea that homosexuals shouldn't marry because they do not have children, well, then, neither do people who have reproductive issues, and you don't see us trying to roust them out and ban *them* from getting married. And there's even in-vitro fertilization and surrogate parents, which renders this entire argument moot anyway. The idea of banning someone from getting married because they can't have children simply doesn't belong in modern society, especially as we are nearing the seven billion mark on this planet. Still, to look at all the arguments against 102, it's clear that they are rooted in the concept of homosexuality as "sin" or "disease", when it is, flatly, neither, in the eyes of secular law?
This is the great fear of the proponents of Proposition 102, that their families are somehow "under fire" from the idea of homosexuals getting married and being *gasp* an accepted, intrinsic part of American society. What happened to the idea of "love thy neighbor"? Why fear your children being gay, when you're supposed to love your children unconditionally?
For all that people claim that the United States is a Christian nation, "One Nation Under God," it is also a nation built on the philosophy of freedom of belief. That freedom of belief is limited by two things: first, that it is separate from the reins of government, and second, that it does not impinge on the beliefs of others. And Christianity has thousands of faces: you can not say that the United States is a Baptist nation, or a Presbyterian nation, it is not Methodist, Catholic, Lutheran, or Mormon. For that matter, what of the Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, Asatru, and other innumerable non-Christian beliefs? They, too, have the same responsibility to vote as any other citizen. We can't deny them any rights based on religion either. Therefore, we can not go basing our laws on any single creed or even group of creeds; religious belief can not be the basis of secular law.
It is not the government's duty to define "family" in the first place, it is our own as citizens and family members. Families, by and large, do not succumb from external pressure, but rather, from internal pressure. This is no place for the government to intervene, and honestly, do you want the government telling you how to run your family? This law doesn't have anything to do with defending existing families at all whatsoever; it may prevent perfectly qualified people from legal marriage, but does not prevent civil unions / domestic partnerships, and indeed, they can still form family units by the adoption of children. So the idea that "defining marriage as only being between a man and a woman" somehow "defends" the traditional family is not only illogical, but also highly insulting to those of us who come from non-traditional families. (I'm adopted, and I'm fine, thank you very much.)
Finally, there is this simple, important fact: civil marriage is a secular economic contract between two people. It has nothing to do with race or creed at all whatsoever. So why should gender matter either?
The very first argument for Proposition 102 states this: "Marriage brings happiness, love, and hope for the future." It wasn't so long ago that we denied this to people based on the color of their skin; ceasing that "tradition" has not caused our civilization to disappear or our families to break apart. So how is it morally justifiable to deny this to any set of consenting adults in love?
It simply isn't.
Proposition 102 does not belong in the Arizona Constitution or any other constitution. This is not an expression of Christian unconditional love, or sensible secular doctrine, but rather a deep-seated bigotry that we need to transcend, as a state, as a society, and as fellow human beings.
Signed,
Carlos Ross
Arizona State University
LGBT Ally
Denying the right to civil marriage to any class of people based on any particular characteristic is a clear sign that those people are considered second-class citizens.
It wasn't until 1962 that anti-miscegenation laws were repealed in Arizona. For those of you unaware, these were laws which specifically stated that non-Whites weren't allowed to marry Whites (note that this did not in fact include Hispanics). Blacks, Asians (in this case Chinese and Japanese), "Malays", and "Hindus" were singled out as not being legally allowed to marry White people. These laws have been repealed in every state of the Union as discriminatory and exclusive, and rightfully so -- after all, it's not as if people have a choice in their race of origin. While race relations still have a ways to go, it is fairly clear that, at least governmentally, denying this right to people on the basis of racial or ethnic origin is unlawful, and indeed, flat wrong.
So why is it "okay" to go after people based on sexual orientation? The sad truth is this: a large swath of our population is being convinced by various organizations that homosexuality is somehow a communicable social "disease", that there is a "homosexual agenda" at work.
I am fairly obviously not gay. I'm in ASU Men's Chorus, and several of its members are very flamboyantly gay, so if it were communicable, I'd have it by now. There is no proof whatsoever that you can "catch the gay". For that matter, if one takes the idea that homosexuals shouldn't marry because they do not have children, well, then, neither do people who have reproductive issues, and you don't see us trying to roust them out and ban *them* from getting married. And there's even in-vitro fertilization and surrogate parents, which renders this entire argument moot anyway. The idea of banning someone from getting married because they can't have children simply doesn't belong in modern society, especially as we are nearing the seven billion mark on this planet. Still, to look at all the arguments against 102, it's clear that they are rooted in the concept of homosexuality as "sin" or "disease", when it is, flatly, neither, in the eyes of secular law?
This is the great fear of the proponents of Proposition 102, that their families are somehow "under fire" from the idea of homosexuals getting married and being *gasp* an accepted, intrinsic part of American society. What happened to the idea of "love thy neighbor"? Why fear your children being gay, when you're supposed to love your children unconditionally?
For all that people claim that the United States is a Christian nation, "One Nation Under God," it is also a nation built on the philosophy of freedom of belief. That freedom of belief is limited by two things: first, that it is separate from the reins of government, and second, that it does not impinge on the beliefs of others. And Christianity has thousands of faces: you can not say that the United States is a Baptist nation, or a Presbyterian nation, it is not Methodist, Catholic, Lutheran, or Mormon. For that matter, what of the Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, Asatru, and other innumerable non-Christian beliefs? They, too, have the same responsibility to vote as any other citizen. We can't deny them any rights based on religion either. Therefore, we can not go basing our laws on any single creed or even group of creeds; religious belief can not be the basis of secular law.
It is not the government's duty to define "family" in the first place, it is our own as citizens and family members. Families, by and large, do not succumb from external pressure, but rather, from internal pressure. This is no place for the government to intervene, and honestly, do you want the government telling you how to run your family? This law doesn't have anything to do with defending existing families at all whatsoever; it may prevent perfectly qualified people from legal marriage, but does not prevent civil unions / domestic partnerships, and indeed, they can still form family units by the adoption of children. So the idea that "defining marriage as only being between a man and a woman" somehow "defends" the traditional family is not only illogical, but also highly insulting to those of us who come from non-traditional families. (I'm adopted, and I'm fine, thank you very much.)
Finally, there is this simple, important fact: civil marriage is a secular economic contract between two people. It has nothing to do with race or creed at all whatsoever. So why should gender matter either?
The very first argument for Proposition 102 states this: "Marriage brings happiness, love, and hope for the future." It wasn't so long ago that we denied this to people based on the color of their skin; ceasing that "tradition" has not caused our civilization to disappear or our families to break apart. So how is it morally justifiable to deny this to any set of consenting adults in love?
It simply isn't.
Proposition 102 does not belong in the Arizona Constitution or any other constitution. This is not an expression of Christian unconditional love, or sensible secular doctrine, but rather a deep-seated bigotry that we need to transcend, as a state, as a society, and as fellow human beings.
Signed,
Carlos Ross
Arizona State University
LGBT Ally