Prop 8 Supporters: Smoking Crack, or What?

I’m not totally unsympathetic to the proponents of Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that would rewrite the California State Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. I understand that my position (which amounts to a «why the hell should I care if gay people want to get married» attitude) is not the only legitimate opinion. Some folks just don’t think that’s the way it oughtta be, and they are entitled to their opinion. I probably should have just left it at that, because after reading up on Prop 8, I still don’t get it and I don’t even think I’ve been offered any reasons.

Seriously, I don’t understand why it’s any of my business and I don’t really get why it’s any big deal to those that oppose same-sex marriage. I have friends in same-sex partnerships, and I can see why it’s a big deal to them, so looking at the question, I’m inclined to vote to let my friends do what they want to do so long as it doesn’t hurt me or anyone else. This might sound like I’m just another San Francisco liberal, but from my point of view, this is a conservative point of view. I’d like to keep the government out of the business of telling consenting adults what they cannot do.

I went looking at some of the websites supporting Prop 8 to get some idea what the arguments for it are. What I found are slickly-produced websites and videos full of cheerful colors, logos, and pictures of smiling families. We’re talking about millions of dollars that went into this propaganda campaign (and they’re asking for more donations).

What are they saying? Nothing specific, but the tone is grim. We’re supposed to take very seriously the fact that there are «profound consequences» and that America’s children are now at risk.

The video interview with Robb and Robin Wirthlin starts out with Robb Wirthlin explaining that the Massachusetts State Supreme Court decision in 2003 caused concerns that people’s rights would be infringed. What rights? It’s not clear, but he claims that it would infringe on the rights of those who disagree with gay marriage.

This makes me wonder: what rights are we talking about? Will same-sex marriage kill? Prevent heterosexual couples from marrying? Will gays marrying interfere with my right to bear arms, practice a religion of my choosing, assemble freely, violate my privacy or quarter troops in my home? I can see that no one’s right to free speech is being violated: these people have a website much more complicated and media-rich than my own. Putting up with listening to them may seem like cruel and unusual punishment, but I chose to click on the link, which makes it self-inflicted.

The question of what rights are infringed by gay marriage hasn’t been resolved for me. The Wirthlins’ story is about their second-grader coming home having had a storybook read to him wherein a prince married another prince and became «King and King.» Their concern seems to be that their child was somehow damaged by exposure to what he could have seen on the street.

This book, according to Robb Wirthlin, was not a part of the curriculum, but it was something that the school «had to do.» I don’t know what that means. They took their complaint to court and lost. Robb Wirthlin says, «it’s no longer okay to disagree.» His own story suggests to me that it absolutely is okay to disagree. He continues, «if you disagree with a particular lifestyle, you are now wrong, you are now bigoted.»

Does this make sense to anyone else? The argument against gay marriage is that if you say that it’s okay, that the people who say it’s not okay are being told that they are wrong? Are we worried about hurting someone’s feelings because the government might not agree with them? Moreover, this is entirely circular logic: the Wirthlins oppose gay marriage and the court disagrees with them, so I should oppose it too because… wait, I haven’t heard an actual reason here. It’s just about opposing gay marriage because they oppose gay marriage.

Robin Wirthlin continues on with a claim that homosexuality will be «promoted» in all areas of their son’s curriculum: in math, and in spelling. I’m actually interested to see how it will fit in to math. Are they going to remove the word «multiply?» I wonder.

The words come across the screen: «protect your children.» Robin Wirthlin says she wanted to keep adult issues away from her child. Maybe second-grade is too early to have a discussion of same-sex marriage and maybe it’s not, but I wonder whether Robin Wirthlin thinks second grade is too early to mention that mommies and daddies are (frequently anyhow) married? And I have to wonder how she proposes to «protect» her child from learning that one of his classmates has two mommies or two daddies. Oh right, by keeping them from getting married in the first place.

Sorry, this seems like the weakest possible argument. Even if everything the Wirthlins say is true, even if their freedom of expression has been squelched, is the solution really to change the thing that they were trying to talk about, rather than address whether they had a venue in which to express themselves? Hinging the question of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry on whether children might find out about it is positively absurd.

I continue to look for any hint of a reason why anyone should vote for Proposition 8. The protectmarriage.com website says that gays do not have the right to «change the definition of marriage for everyone else.» I’m going to have to start asking my straight married friends and relatives if the court rulings about this have stopped them from loving their spouses or feeling that their marriage is special.

From my point of view, legal same-sex marriage makes it more likely that I will have a legal heterosexual marriage at some point. The one time I seriously considered marriage, I was troubled by the fact that I would be taking advantage of legal rights and privileges that my gay neighbors could not. Instead, we went to City Hall and got a legal heterosexual domestic partnership. We talked about continuing on and getting married, but that didn’t pan out. The point is just this: gay marriage devalues marriage only to those who don’t value an egalitarian society. It envalues the idea of marriage for those of us who are committed to living in a community which guarantees rights and protections without regard to what people do in their bedrooms and with whom.

As a side note, one of the reasons the Yes on 8 people give is because the judges in California «ignored the will of the people» when overturning Proposition 22. Isn’t that their job? Whether you agree or disagree with this decision, if we believed in pure moment-by-moment democracy, neither the states nor the Nation would have a Constitution or courts whose job it is to decide on cases in light of the rights guaranteed by the U.S. and State Constitutions. Seems like a weak argument, and doesn’t add anything to the discussion of whether it was the right decision.