Disclaimer: please, for a second, remove from your mind temporarily the cliches forcefed into you these last few weeks. You can go back and tout the "it's wrong, it's unfair", "separate but equal", and the "it'll be taught in schools!!!" argument afterwards.

The first thing that really irks me is the argument that marriage is a fundamental right. It is not. I don't know when Locke's social contract and the concept of inalienable rights included marriage, and perhaps it can be placed under the umbrella of "the pursuit of happiness", but marriage is too deeply connected with religion to be under the jurisdiction of law and the social contract. Instead, marriage should viewed as an extension of religious faith and be granted religious freedom in gay marriage. If their church approves gay marriage, it should be allowed. If their church disapproves of gay marriage, it should not be allowed. Therefore, though marriage itself is not a specific "fundamental right", it is an expression of faith, and so an interpretation of marriage should not be forced by law.

The ironic thing is that any church in good standing with God should wholeheartedly reject the premise of gay marriage. The Bible is very clear as to the gender orientation of marriage. Thus, one would think that even if the government is impartial in its view on marriage, no Christian church would allow gay marriages to transpire. But they are happening. Is the government forcing the church's hand? Or are churches independently taking the wrong path?

If it is the latter, there is no basis for a proposition to redefine marriage. However, if it is the former, then the existence of prop 8 makes sense. Unfortunately, I think it will be very difficult to prove that the government is coercing the church to accept gay marriage, especially since many gay marriages are done without a church's backing.

Thus, if marriage is seen as an extension of "freedom of religion", then I don't think the church has any right to vote Yes on 8. I say this even though I am Christian and am wholeheartedly against gay marriage. We should not be using the government to support our beliefs. We should understand that government is imperfect and that it is our duty to God to maintain the integrity of marriage through our own independent decisions. However, if conclusive evidence can be shown that the church can be coerced into allowing gay marriage, then perhaps a proposition makes more sense. As of now, there is no proof, just hypothetical scenarios.

K that's it for now. to summarize my position, I believe gay marriage is wrong but I do not believe the government can condone/endorse a religious position, and marriage is very much a religious institution. If the government or individuals misconstrue the acceptance of gay marriage as a basis to attack the church, then we're going to have drama. But as of now, I can't vote yes on prop 8.


--------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional notes:

- The idea of gay marriage being taught in schools is not a relevant argument to the support of prop 8. Gay marriage is allowable right now in California. Gay marriage has not been taught in schools ( a few random cases can be seen as anomalies, not proof). Now, if gay marriage is forcibly taught in schools, then the church has a right to fight against it through some sort of amendment, once again upon the premise that marriage is an extension of religious belief and the government cannot force anyone to choose a religion.
But as of now, there is no proof beyond hyperbolic predictions and the education system of Massachusetts: but what happens is one state does not equate to that exact same scenario happening here.

If gay marriage is taught in schools, let's fight it to hell and back. But as of now, schools should perhaps take a neutral position in references to marriage, using the statistical majority of heterosexual marriage as a "normal" position but realizing that homosexual marriage is plausible depending on the interpretation of the respective church. However, even this neutral stance should be altogether avoided until a student is "of age" -- an ambiguous term, yes, but one that needs to be defined asap.

- The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible.

- Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.

- Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights.

- The idea of "equality for all" is another argument that needs to be clearly defined before anyone starts popping off about it. Same with "separate but equal" denouncements used by the "No" crowd. The only reason prop 8 should not be passed is because of marriage's position as a religious institution and the government should not be allowed to force a religion onto someone. "Equality" is overrated. If you want equality, take your income and subtract it by mine, then split the difference with me. K stfu.

- the "it's wrong, and it's unfair" is another brainless argument employed. First off, it's redundant. Second, you're not explaining why. Third, if your argument for it is that marriage is an unalienable right, you're wrong. Finally, if you think a church is discriminating by not allowing gay marriage, you're even wronger. A church has every right to follow its belief, and homosexual acts fall under our definition of sodomy.

edit: made things clearer

If this thread isn't appropriate for this blog, please remove it as you see fit mods. I understand this is a basketball blog; I just think this will be an interesting discussion to have regarding one of the more controversial current issues.