Proposition 8 and Same-Sex Marriages

Introduction

Some years back, judges in the federal courts of California declared Proposition 8 to be a null and void proposal. For decades now, there has been a raging debate on the matter due to different stances exhibited by different factions. Nevertheless, what is proposition 8 in reality? Primarily, proposition 8 was a ballot proposal conducted within the state of California to determine modalities of eliminating same-sex marriages. It is true the process, which commenced in 1998, had taken place in other states. However, just like in California, many courts in the United States had stopped such propositions. The paper examines proposition 8 in California and provides reasons why California should deprecate this proposition.

Many Americans believe that same-sex marriages are unethical and unfounded. Thus, convincing American society that gay persons have constitutional rights is not only difficult but also baseless. They base their opposition arguments on tradition, religion, and procreation points of view. On the other hand, the proponents of gay marriages believe that the world has undergone civilization enough to warrant every individual freedom to enjoy fundamental human rights. The recent passing of proposition 8 in California contravened the rights of gay persons significantly. I say this because legalizing same-sex marriages gives every citizen the freedom of enjoying fundamental human rights. Additionally, the legalization of gay marriages gives those who practice gay the chance of adopting children without involving themselves inconspicuous legal processes. In a way, this is advantageous to many orphans and other children without proper parental care. From these and many more examples, the state of California must denounce Proposition 8 with immediate effect. The main reason why I condemn this proposition is that it discriminates a section of people and creates rivalry amongst societal groups.

Why California should deprecate proposition 8

The world has undergone cycles of civilization to reach its current state. Perhaps this is the reason why everything in our society is subject to debate. When the court blocked the execution of proposition 8 in California, it meant that gay marriages should never exist. Nevertheless, considering the numerous strides that the current society has made, it is wrong to deny gay persons their marital rights. Those who oppose gay marriages have the perception that it does not conform to certain cultural and religious beliefs. They forget that opposite-sex marriages are a stifling way of cohabitation and a legend cuddled by a segment of society. The truth of the matter is the court is exercising authority over individual lives by forcing people to follow some punitive practices. After all, marriage is a social contract between two people who have agreed to embrace each other mutually. Thus, the court should have given these people a chance to redefine their status, because their social union does not endanger the passive coexistence of human societies (Traditional Values Coalition Education and Legal Institute, 2003, pp.1-3).

Many people who voted in favor of the proposition did not take their time to consider the penalties of the proposition in terms of accessibility to incentives both from within and without the government such as social security benefits and many more. For instance, married couples in the United States enjoy several government incentives, which are not available to individuals who cannot participate in civil marriages including different sexes. Nevertheless, depending on one’s social status, the laws can deny some federal rights. Take for example a situation where one ailing gay partner cannot make health care decisions without written notice. This not only denies the person fundamental human rights, but also the person may die. Worse still, even if the person dies, the remaining partner will not organize the funeral as the law prohibits them from doing so. Thus, to ensure every citizen accesses medical services whenever ill, the state must remove or amend this proposal in totality (Daniels, 2010, p.1).

Currently, many gay couples have limited access to social security incentives, for example, disability and survivor, veteran’s, and pension benefits. This discriminatory practice denies most gay couples access to life-enhancing incentives; hence exposing their lives to danger. Primarily, it is quite unfair to show favoritism to a group of people either by denying them access to social amenities or incentives just because they have a divergent view contrary to what many embrace (Daniels, 2010, p.1).

The world well understands that the United States of America is a democratic nation, where every individual has a fundamental right of expressing and implementing their individualized ideologies, so long as they do not infringe anybody’s rights. This is democracy in the offing. Therefore, the proposition of Proposition 8 is unlawful, because it denies gays their fundamental right of equal protection just as envisaged in the constitution of the United States. We all come from different religious and social backgrounds and therefore, the federal government has no jurisdiction to deny gays their fundamental rights on grounds that they are unscrupulous. The provisions of Proposition 8 segregate some gay persons leaving them with so many problems (Bloom, 2010, pp.1-4).

Gay persons are also human beings who live amongst us. Thus, we should accord them their fundamental rights and listen to them no matter how few they are. Some people query the ability of gay couples to raise children morally knowing very well that their actions are morally wanting. They should understand that just like in normal traditional families, gay couples do not have any problem raising children; a duty they are prepared to take. Thus, the state should deprecate the provisions of proposition 8 to give homeless children a chance of enjoying parental love, and those children from poor families a chance to stay focused even if these persons are not their real parents. The opponents of gay marriage should also delete their appalling notions that many children brought up in gay families are prone to abuse. This misconception is baseless. Even in opposite-sex marriages, parents bully and mistreat their children. Thus, society must grant gay persons their fundamental rights to ensure equity and justice. Thus, various stakeholders in the state of California should go back to the drawing board to remove the rebuke of the provisions of proposition 8 to alter the negative societal perceptions of same-sex marriages (Saletan, 2002, p.1).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is quite elusive that the provisions of proposition 8 go contrary to the fundamental rights of gay persons. Thus, it is imperative that to discard this proposition to grant every American the basic human rights just as envisaged in the American constitution. The United States federal government should be at the forefront to ensure the state of California denounces such propositions. This is because it is iniquitous to deny a section of people some fundamental rights just because their rights social and religious beliefs appear contrary to what others believe. In the wake of civilization, every individual should choose what fits most including choosing their marriage partners freely, as long as the actions do not infringe the rights of others.

Reference List

Bloom, L. (2010). Prop is simply unconstitutional. Cable News Network. Web.

Daniels, M. (2010). Federal Judge: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Unconstitutional. Secular News Daily. Web.

Traditional Values Coalition Education and Legal Institute. (2003). Same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships: are they good for families and society? Web.

Saletan, W. (2002). Adopting premises: the sneaky debate over legalizing adoptions by gay couples. The Washington Post.