Prop 8: A national epidemic

The Battle Against Proposition 8: The Prosecution Rests

The fight against gay marriage by the conservative right of this country has angered me beyond belief. What’s more, it frustrates me, as ignorance always does. It was within the last 100 years, women were finally given a voice in democracy which brought the entirety of the female gender from housewife and homemaker to breadwinner. In the time line that is our nation’s history, the evolution of the female identity will be clocked with an egg timer, not a calendar.

Even more recently was the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s which declared that ALL Americans, regardless of race, religion, gender or economic standing, could vote, ride a bus, and use a public washroom as well as a multitude of rights that were denied an entire race of tax-paying citizens all because they were different.

Fast forward a mere 50 years into the future and those same people who fought for freedom for themselves are now on the bandwagon to deny it to others. For those who have not read the United States Constitution, allow me to introduce you to my good friend, Mr. 14th Amendment. I have taken the liberty of BOLDING that which I find to be most relevant in this circumstance:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Interesting isn’t it? The United State Constitution says that no person can be denied property or immunities of citizens, and yet, that is exactly what is on trial here today. When you enter into a marriage, you enter into an estate. You are entitled to ownership of joint property and immunity from testifying in a court of law against your spouse. Why then, should these rights be denied because the conservative RIGHT thinks this might, possibly, one day, maybe in the distant future, potentially lead to polygamy. NOTE: No scientific research has been done to prove this; it’s all speculation. But then again, this is a group of folks who, for one reason or another are always immune to FACT CHECKING – Glenn Beck, anyone?

Marriage is not just about taking a last name and inheriting each other’s debt. Marriage is about the commitment one person makes to another person, regardless of sexual preference. Marriage is a promise, marriage is a partnership. And by denying recognition of a legal partnership in this country is flat out discriminatory. In the fine country that is the United States of America, you are not allowed to say, “You have a right to marry because you are heterosexual,” anymore than you are allowed to say “you have a right to vote because you’re white”. In this country, you are allowed to vote because you are American, and as an American, you should be entitled to enter a marital union and have that union recognized by your State.
California: I understand the voters of your fine state had their say, and you have done nothing but uphold the law of the people. But what you have to now determine is whether or not that law is unconstitutional. Read the 14th Amendment.

Then you can decide.