Where I stand on Prop 8

I am not a person who believes that I have any right to impose my religious or personal standards on any other person. I don't believe in making civil rights deferential per my own subjective opinions. So on big-ticket morality-based issues, like the marriage debate, I usually just sneak into my own corner and abstain from voting.

But Prop 8 is a little different and not because it's about "gay marriage" because that's a big, complicated issue that has way too much bigotry involved. I don't think anyone should be denied their basic civil rights. If you're raising a child with someone or have been that person's life partner - who am I to decide whether or not you get a tax credit or access to that person at end of life? We all deserve human dignity, love, and connection to our social networks...and Americans love a good tax break!

So, the reason I'm voting 'yes' on Prop 8 has nothing to do with who gets to get married and who doesn't. I'm voting 'yes' on Prop 8 because I don't think that government should get to define religious creed. I believe firmly that separation of church & state is a vital and valuable part of our constitution. Religions ought not determine politics and politics ought not inform religion.

Whether certain groups agree or not, 'marriage' is a religious concept. Marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition is a formal union between man and woman to "multiply and replenish the earth." It refers to the union of a man and a woman for procreative purposes under the power of God. I am aware that's no longer the cultural definition of marriage - which is more like a club that two people agree to enter so long as they are amused by it. However, marriage in a religious sense is a binding contract for specific purposes.

Under the new laws, the government has the right to evoke certain rights of religions to prepare and administer their own religious tenets. Churches can be required to accept marriage as defined by the state rather than it own creed. In Massachusetts, one church had its tax-exempt status revoked because they did not want to perform marriages between homosexual couples. This is wrong. This is dangerous. This is anti-constitutional. Whether you believe that homosexuality is this, that or the other, separation of church and state is a part of the constitution and should be respected as highly as modern civil rights. We may one day want churches to have some inherent power - have we really all forgotten the many eras in history where refuge within a church gave oppressed people safety during times of persecution? Do we really want no place safe from government power?

As a religious person, I am more than willing to give up my "marriage" tax rights in order to support stronger civil union laws, but I have to insist that marriage be left as the sacredly defined union I believe it to be - not because I "hate gays" or want anyone to feel persecuted but because I want my religion to have its own level of civil rights, its freedom to define itself. I have a right to worship God in the way I see fit as does any other person. I don't think the government should be allowed to slap labels and force actions. I believe it's a violation of fundamental rights and should be stopped...even if the issue of civil rights that is currently in question most certainly deserves attention.

So, I hope that people vote for Prop 8 and maintain the definition of marriage that Californians already agreed upon. Then I hope that some forward-thinking person of power gets mad and abolishes all rights of law inherent with "marriage" so that we talk about "civil union tax benefits" and everyone can enjoy all the same rights. But I want that done without the feeling that I've lost my freedom to worship and weakened the Constitution.