Down with Absolutes!

My neighbors are two gay men that have been together for over forty years and they love each other like I care for my wife, they are extremely close. On May 15, 2008 the Califo rnia Supreme Court Ruled 4-3 that the statutes that place limits on marriage to opposite genders violated the equal rights clause of the California Constitution, and this brought immense joy to my neighbors. A dream came true, a vision they shared that perhaps they could feel united and not ashamed of their relationship, and the privileges allowed married couples enjoyed in their special affiliation.

They found that in certain states they were not allowed visitation rights to each other in a hospital not to mention the tax breaks and other social benefits a union creates. With this announcement the gay community celebrated and thousands of gay couples got a license and married.

My neighbors planed a wedding and asked my wife and I if we would witness for them and we gladly said yes.

Today the act of matrimony is a civil and social advantage as much as a love affair. Married couples can file joint tax returns and save money. Marriage gives the partners legal rights to worldly possessions and visitation rights to hospitals and other facilities that require family only. Society has evolved a pro union paradigm that is basically a legal advantage in many realms of judicial oversights and social privileges.

America a land of equal opportunity and fair play we prides ourselves on egalitarian principles and a level playing field for all citizens. Our Constitution is a bulwark of liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness, and eve ry amendment was aimed at explaining, clarifying and enforcing equal rights among citizens of the USA.

Moral issues as a platform was dealt with by separation of church and state, and the right to not be discriminated against was legislated into the instrument called the Constitution. This great instrument prevented acts that are arbitrary and discriminatory and discouraged any attempt to isolate certain race or creeds into lesser status citizens.

In 1850 California decided that marriages of Caucasian persons with Negroes or mulattoes were declared to be illegal and void. However in 1948, the California Supreme Ct became the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage, recognizing marriage as a fundamental right, no matter what creed or race. Therefore we have a precedent in Cal ifornia for the openness of marriage as a social institution.

Enter the proponents of Proposition 8 and the heterosexual only union’s amendment to the California Constitution. An issue decided on November 4 8 by vote in California and similar measures were put to the vote in other states.

Here is a piece of legislation of repression and prejudice not based on the principles of fair play established by our founders, but a need to punish those that lead homosexual lifestyles.

The base of the anti unions is a position of odd discernment, it is a position that concedes that these folks choos e this lifestyle and or can choose to be homos exual. That line of thinking is congruous with a conscious social choice and that positio n infers one can abandon and change this behavior and does not recognize a genetic base or natural predisposition for the behaviors of homosexual people.

This is not the first time this issue has arisen and become controversy, yet it is the modern version of discrimination. The truth is most science today points to a genetic propensity for this behavior and as such homosexuality is nature far more than nurture.  Hence it is not a lifestyle that can be ignored or altered at the whim of participants but a sexual and cultural force that is in opposition to Judaic Christian principles and therefore disdained.

This socio-stereotypical belief of an ability to change into heterosexual or asexual people is a farce, a canard or an imaginary magical spell brought on by too many hours in the company of ancients and their ethnocentric writings such as the Bible.

The Mormon church in LA and the Mormons of Utah mounted a campaign that started a landfall of illusions about gay marriage. Ministers and children blaring an anti gay message on television asking: “Why should we be exposed to such vile arrangements and morals.”

This all occurred the last three weeks before the election in full charge, before that onslaught of commercials the amendment was dead in the water.

The statistics for passing this anti freedom amendment were more terrifying=2 0then the results. The Africa Americas voted 79% in favor of the heterosexual only marriage the Latin community voted 59% in favor of this and the Caucasian vote was about 48% for it and 52% against. This fact struck me hardest as those two minorities ought to be able to understand the plight of another group treated unjustly.

California recognized the need for some kind of domestic partnership to be established, as the rights of these people were not equal to the rights of heterosexual unions. In 1999, California Assembly Bill 26 passed and marked the initial point a state legislature created a statute of domestic partnership without the intervention of the courts.

In 2003 with the passage of The California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act (AB 205) the legislature shifted its approach to domestic partnerships.  Earlier the California legislature afforded domestic partners certain enumerated rights, which the legislature expanded in piecemeal fashion. This bill created the “presumption” that domestic partners were to enjoy all of the privileges and responsibilities afforded spouses under state law. Yet unions recognized as legal in some terms are not always viewed as lawful federally or even in certain colloquial districts. Questions remained and civil union provided the answer.

Needless to say my neighbors canceled their wedding plans and the disappointment was easily seen on their visages. They felt cheated let down and less of a citizen, they were no w back to square one and isolated further from the country they live in. Years of dedication to one partner are to be admired, and encouraged no matter what the sexual agenda. When did America put limits on fair play, and are we all victims of the theocratic state we have evolved into or am I way outside the norm and blowing kisses in the wind.

My wife and I fee l terrible for the fellows and comprehend their frustrations. Those tow are good taxpaying Americans and deserve every benefit we all enjoy, but the Mormons and evangelicals deny that right.

To me this is no different than the marches in Selma or DC concerning civil rights. Once again the puritan morals of a certain group have caused pain and anguish in our midst, and demeaned the smaller less traditional segment. A minority of sexual persuasion belittled, marginalized and drowned out by the so called moral majority. This by the way is neither moral nor a majority, just the loudest voice in a land of apathy.

Now the animosity of the gay community is growing, and the creation of militants and social unrest looms for us all. And one cannot blame them for their radical or subversive stand as the element of fair play is ignored in their eyes. Worst of all is the disappointment and joy snuffed out by little minds that cannot comprehend the world we live in and draw on fear to get their way. God bless America for her choice of Obama and the message that sends to the worl d, but beneath it all lies the ugly side in legislation like Prop 8.