Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Prop 8

Proposition 8 - a November 2008 CA general election ballot proposition that eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry in the state of California - was upheld today.

I try not to take a stand on controversial politics on this blog.  I don't want to upset/hurt/offend/annoy anyone and make them not want to read it anymore.  But I need to say this ... 

When it comes to marriage, the line between church and state is dangerously gray.  I worry when state ballot propositions start to enlist the support of churches and other religious organizations in their campaigns.  The Roman Catholic Church was one of the biggest supporters of Prop 8 - for reasons of biblical authority.  The state shouldn't rest its understanding of marriage on biblical authority.  The state should rest its understanding of marriage on basic civil rights.  From there the church can decide whether or not it wants to sanction said marriage.  And individual churches can rest their understanding of marriage on their own understandings of biblical authority.  I'm not going to ostracize or judge a church or Christian for refusing to religiously sanction a legal marriage.  That is their choice and I will respect their biblical understanding even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

We need to take a step back from the "gay marriage" debate and start picking apart what, exactly, "marriage" is.  What it means to talk about marriage on a state level and what it means for it to be sanctioned by the church.  Why clergy are ordained but the church, but can act as an officiant of the state when it comes to legal marriage.  It's murky and gray and marginalizing a group of people who are just trying to live their lives in love and learning.

Perez Hilton posted this video on his blog today.  It breaks my heart and gives me hope all at the same time.

With hope,


  1. Fantastic video! It brought tears to my eyes!

  2. I also think Prop 8 should have been repealed. I'm still not sure how I feel about gay marriage, despite thinking hard about it almost every day for a year or two now. However, I DO know that state constitutions should not be amended to DENY rights to citizens. That's just a cheap way to attempt to circumvent future public opinions from being heard. I was also amazed after the election to learn that young people and african americans were the most responsible for its passage, while older people voted against it.

  3. Brian said:
    'I was also amazed after the election to learn that young people and african americans were the most responsible for its passage, while older people voted against it.'

    While on the surface it may seem so, that isn't really very factually accurate. Check this out: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/press_center/prop_8_study_debunks_myths.php

  4. Hmm ... Kristi thanks for sharing that. I hadn't seen those stats.

    Brian - I think you hit the nail on its head when you said that state constitutions shouldn't be amended to deny rights to citizens. What "God" says about marriage shouldn't be for the states to decide. They should, however, give rights (insurance, hospital visitation, last rights, filing joint taxes, etc.) to all their citizens. It baffles me that we're trying to define marriage by the state with religious connotations. It should be able basic human rights, right?


Hello and thanks for commenting! Unless I have your email address, I respond to all questions directly in the comment form. Check back if you've asked one! xo, Sarah

Related Posts with Thumbnails