Thursday, October 30, 2008

No on Prop. 8, Part 2

With five days until the election, I will be posting more reasons why I am voting no on 8. I welcome objections to what I write as well as agreements.

I have been really looking into the Yes on 8 website, because I am trying to understand the other side, but I find inaccurate information.

Here is what they write as the “issue” under why people should vote yes on Prop. 8:
“California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman. Earlier this year, four activist judges based in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, legalizing same-sex marriage.”

Those “four activist judges” are Supreme Court Justices, and three of them were appointed by Republican governors.

The majority opinion that found Proposition 22 as unconstitutional was written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George (appointed by a Republican governor), who felt like this was a civil rights case that should be compared to those that ended laws banning interracial marriage. California was the first state to ban those laws, even though people in the public opposed it.

Chief Justice George said that he was not ignoring voters, but “what you are doing is applying the Constitution, the ultimate expression of the people’s will.”

It is and has been the responsibility of judges to interpret the constitution to protect the rights of people.

Think of times beyond marriage where this has happened in the past.

In Brown vs. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court outlawed segregation in schools. The people in the south clearly did not want that and would have voted against it, but the constitution is in place to protect the rights of those who are denied them.

Voting No on Prop. 8 changes nothing. It keeps our constitution how it is and how it has been. Voting Yes on Prop. 8 adds an amendment that clearly discriminates against a minority group of people by denying them rights.