prop 8.

i realize i'm treading dangerous ground as i step into the political arena. but since i consider this blog as a place to publicly work through my thoughts, i see no reason to restrain myself in this territory.

politically, i am an open journal. i have no loyalties...no bias. i am simply and earnestly trying to figure out what is best and most integrous* for our country. i do surrender all of my decisions in prayer, but am deeply impressed that my God is not a Republican nor a Democrat and is much more concerned with the condition of my heart (and yours). i would love for this world to know Him and His grace...and i would love for that grace to be a representation of our country. but it is not, and i will not pretend that it is. with that in mind, my decisions reflected on my ballot will be made, first, by what i believe will protect the safety and freedom of each person in our country, and second, by what i believe best represents all the amazing varieties of people in this confused but amazing nation (not just my faith and demographic).

so i'm inspecting each decision thoroughly through these priorities and i'm making my decisions one at a time. today i studied prop 8.

prop 8, titled "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry", is a very concise amendment to the california constitution that simply states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." to clarify, voting 'yes' to an amendment means changing the state's or country's constitution. voting 'no' to an amendment leaves the constitution as it is. (this is a very important concept to realize as we approach this proposition.)

those in support of prop 8 are compelled to amend our state's constitution in this matter to 1) keep kids from being taught that same-sex marriage is moral, 2) keep churches from losing their tax status if they choose to refuse to perform same-sex marriages. these are the two major motivations behind creating this proposition.

its proponents are overwhelmingly faith-based organizations and members, and i can understand what they see as an urgency they are feeling in their position to reclaim the definition of the word "marriage." however, after studying both sides, i have decided that i do not (and i say this vehemently), i DO NOT believe we have any right (or need) to inject our definition of the word "marriage" into the constitution any more than we have the right (or need) to inject our definition of the word "worship" or the word "righteous."

i believe in the power of faith and the power of grace. i believe they are the only thing that can reach into the mess we have made of our lives. i believe in absolute truth, and i believe the Word of God is absolute truth (though the working out of it is always intimate rather than general). but i will never require my government to do my job for me in setting the standard i believe. i will never ask my government to restrict human rights to anyone who shares my constitution. i cannot see anything but irrationality in anyone thinking they have the wisdom, power, or right to decide who does or doesn't make a mockery of marriage. heteros have been making a mockery of it for centuries. to create an amendment about marriage based on what you believe is sin would require a much deeper inspection of every marriage we recognize today. i'm afraid most all of them would fail the test. and i have no desire to tell a woman whose life-partner for 20 years is on her deathbed that she has less rights in her partner's life than a man would have who had cheated on and left his wife of 20 years.

before deciding this, i made sure these things were true: voting 'no' on prop 8 is not the same things as voting 'yes' on restructuring tax exemptions for churches, and it is not the same thing as requiring our children to learn about gay marriage (to which i might add, "parents, why are you depending on the public school system to clarify your beliefs anyway, huh? IT'S OUT THERE. they're gonna learn about it. stop sheltering and start talking about things, for heaven's sake.").

again, voting "no" on this prop is saying, "i don't want to ADD this to the constitution i already live under." voting "yes" on this prop is saying, "this is the best way to word this, so i want this to be permanently added to the constitution i live under."

if i could create my own prop it would read something like this:
"California recognizes legal union as a commitment between any two people dissolvable only by law."

and the word "marriage" would not be defined in legal terms, but would be defined within individual religion and/or moral code.





*i know...integrous is not officially a word, but it is perfectly acceptable and will be added to the dictionary in the next few years.