Views on Proposition 22
Things are not always what they appear to be.
Proposition 22 seems to be a simple affirmation of what many people hold as a universal truth: Marriage is defined as the relationship between a man and woman. The fact is that this proposition negates the positive potential in same-gender relationships, which could result in the kind of legal limitations that we would never accept in heterosexual marriages.
Many of the strongest supporters of this proposition come from parts of the religious community. They have expressed their fear that if this measure does not pass, it will threaten the very existence of the family unit. Their understanding is that the Bible presents marriage in only one way, as being between one man and one woman. But there are many of us, also from the religious community, who see a broader Bible-based definition of “marriage” and who are opposed to the idea of legislating loving relationships.
The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) has references to people living together without benefit of a wedding ceremony (Adam and Eve), polygamy (Jacob, his wives, Leah and Rachel, and their handmaidens, Zilpah and Bilhah) and at least one gay relationship (David and Jonathan). The latter relationship is presented in warm and loving terms in I Samuel 18: 1-3.
As the religious traditions evolved from this Bible in three world religions, it is clear that the “norm” in regards to marriage became that between a man and a woman. But, as I illustrated, that was not always the case. And if socio-religious norms can change once within a community, they can certainly change again. That is what a living, dynamic tradition is all about.
In regard to gay and lesbian life choices, the growing body of evidence suggests the probability that one’s feelings of attraction to others is, at least in part, defined genetically. In this regard, we are what God creates us to be--part of the amazing human diversity that God seems to have for us.
In the New Testament the reflections and teachings on committed relationships--whether they be family, friendships or intimate love relationships--underscore the ancient value of mutual respect, of loving our neighbors as ourselves. Central to the life and teaching of Jesus is the command to live with our neighbors with respect, with justice, with humility rather than arrogance or derision.
Proposition 22 militates against our ability to love our neighbor and encourages the justification of a second-class citizenry based on sexual orientation. As a nation we are desperately trying to get past such an attitude where people are of a variety of races and skin colors. Sexual orientation is no more a justifiable category for oppression.
With this as a backdrop, there is a social reality that exists: Along with men and women falling in love, so too do men with other men and women with other women. And there are those couples who choose to devote their lives to one another in a mature and responsible way. This too is a marriage--though it may not be consistent with the image of “marriage” in everybody’s mind.
Proposition 22 would negate the sanctity of two people of the same gender who “make a covenant” with one another. It would become the precedent to withhold from each other the kind of societal protections that are needed by all caring, committed couples: hospital visitation rights, medical decision making, insurance inclusion, end of life decision-making capacities. To choose to withhold these kinds of protections and deny some of the most basic forms of respect in society only serves to underscore the kind of negative depiction of gay and lesbian people that has all too often resulted in violence, even deadly violence.
For these reasons, many of us in the religious community must work to defeat Proposition 22 and continue to uphold the vision of God for a community that rejects easy answers to difficult changes in human society.
All creation speaks to the great diversity of God’s handiwork; we dare not succumb to the temptation to confuse uniformity and unity. Heterosexual marriage as an institution has survived literally centuries through all the historical, political and cultural shifts along with the winds of change. Surely God does not need us to protect it now. However, God may in fact need our hearts of compassion to find ways to honor and protect the possibility of a loving covenant of marriage, for all people.
Rabbi ALAN GREENBAUM
The Rev. LYNNE AUSTIN
The Rev. STEPHEN HANSTEAD
MEADORS
The Rev. JANET HANSTEAD
MEADORS
The Rev. BETTY STAPLEFORD
PAM BRUBAKER
The Rev. JAMES A. OINES
Rabbi REBECCA DUBOWE
The Rev. JARVIS STREETER
*
* Re “Resist What Divides Us: No on 22,” Times editorial, Feb. 25.
I support a yes vote on Proposition 22. The Times used the most common argument against it: that somehow defining marriage between a man and a woman discriminates against gays or would cause discrimination against gays. It then admits that the current law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Consequently, this proposition would not impact discrimination against gays in any way because it would not substantially change the law now in effect.
The loophole is that some states have allowed gay marriages. The next step is that those marriages will move to California, where the state may be forced to recognize them. This proposition makes it clear that California law will apply in all cases.
GARY WAELDIN
Simi Valley
*
* Voting yes on Proposition 22 means that you are voting not to allow other states to void the laws that are on the books in California. Period.
Proposition 22 would prevent people from going to another state that has a law of their liking and then returning to California and forcing it upon us. If the people against Proposition 22 think the definition of marriage should be changed, then convince the people of California to have the law of our state changed.
You should vote yes, if for no other reason than for California laws to be decided on by Californians, not other states.
DAVID GLIENKE
Thousand Oaks
*
* Let us define Proposition 22 as protection of a marriage institution that has bonded our society since the beginning of our great country.
Keeping a basic element of solidification does not mean we are intolerant. We admonish people to choose the lifestyle they deem responsible.
A yes vote would teach our children about the elements that have bonded societies for years. We have been crying for some time that the breakdown of our society starts with the breakdown of marriage. If marriage is the key to an organized and upward path toward solidarity and unity, then let us spend our time and resources to strengthen this institution. Changing this basic element of existence takes our attention away from that which we need to maintain.
ANTHONY GILES
Moorpark
*
* Shall I tell you what really scares me about Proposition 22?
As a Jew, I shiver in fear at the similarities to Nazi Germany when they began to pass laws against specific members of their society. First they couldn’t do one thing, then another, and then another, until it became open season to kill those who were pointed out: Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals--those who were different.
Once we open that hideous door, once we begin to pass laws that say one group will be denied rights that are given to another (and that’s a contradiction because you can’t “give” a “right”), then you have opened the door and set a precedent for denying rights to any minority.
JAN RICHMAN
Oxnard
*
* What’s all the hubbub about Proposition 22?
It would add 14 words to the California Family Code: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” All that is being done here is to affirm the irreplaceable role of marriage between men and women in our society.
This would not change any law now in place. It would, though, stop any other state of the union from dictating what we should or shouldn’t recognize as a marriage.
This issue is not about denying gay rights. They are already guaranteed certain things by our government, such as inheritance rights, employment and housing rights, child custody rights, benefits rights and so forth. There is now a domestic registry where gay and lesbian couples can register their relationship. Proposition 22 wouldn’t change any of this.
Join me in protecting and preserving marriage the way it ought to be. Vote yes on Proposition 22.
KEVAN AUSTIN
Thousand Oaks
*
* As an educator I look down the line to potential effects if Proposition 22 should be defeated.
* It could result in a homosexual curriculum and promotion of homosexual “marriages,” including mandated sessions on homophobia to students in public schools, colleges and universities.
* Federal “hate crime” funds could be used to punish schools that resist the gay agenda.
* Private schools that do not comply could be banned from interscholastic sports leagues and prohibited from receiving state financial aid.
Everyone does not have the right to get married or marry whom they please. A father cannot marry his daughter nor can a mother marry her son; brothers and sisters cannot marry; people can legally have only one spouse.
California is not ready for same-sex marriage. Vote yes on Proposition 22.
CARL P. DOERFLER
Thousand Oaks
*
* While many belittle the Ozzie and Harriet families of the 1950s, the stability they provided has deteriorated with the alternative forms that have sought to replace it.
In 1996 President Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which declares that at the federal level only [heterosexual] marriage be recognized but allowed each state to determine its own laws on same-gender marriage. This is an opportunity for the people of California to make their position on marriage known.
With the Supreme Court of the state of Vermont ordering that traditional marriage be reexamined by that state’s Legislature, it should give Californians even more reason to affirm the standards that are in place for the protection of this institution.
Please show your support of marriage by voting for Proposition 22.
J. BARTHOLOMEU
Simi Valley
*
* Proposition 22 is a moral issue that warrants each voter’s serious and thoughtful consideration.
A yes vote would mean that people would continue to have the right to live as they choose, but not to redefine marriage for our entire society. Voting no, however, would have a profound and far-reaching moral, financial and cultural impact on future generations.
Each of us needs to determine what we believe and where we stand on these important issues--then vote accordingly.
KATHY AUSTEN
Thousand Oaks
*
* Re “Religious Leaders State Opposition to Prop. 22,” Feb. 29.
Citing the Bible as reason to pass Proposition 22 should give any man or woman with an understanding of the Constitution doubts about ratifying laws based on religious point of view. If laws were ratified based on literal interpretations of the scriptures, we’d still have such Christian practices as slavery and treating women as second-class citizens.
I also have to wonder what the Rev. Joe Woodruff is thinking when he mentions the hidden issue relating to the cost to taxpayers of extending insurance benefits to gay partners. He must be under the impression that gay people are exempt from paying any taxes at all. Never mind that the taxes we do pay that go for schools rarely benefit us directly.
Fact is, Prop. 22 singles out gay men and women for permanent second-class treatment.
Yeah, go ahead and pass it, Ventura County--it’s only someone else’s rights you’ll be trampling.
BILL GEIGER
Simi Valley
*
* We are the parents of three children (including two teenagers) and have attempted to teach them good values based upon certain fundamentals. The institution of marriage is one such fundamental.
On March 7 we have the opportunity to ensure that the institution of marriage remains unchanged. We urge you to vote yes on Proposition 22.
MICHAEL F. NESTOR
and SHERRI LYNN NESTOR
Moorpark
*
* A yes vote on Proposition 22 is an opportunity to strengthen the family by encouraging responsible government in a sometimes unstable society.
The safety and perpetuity of our government depends on the safety and permanence of the home. Herein we get a glimpse of one thing in which the people may be the saviors, in a way, of this great state and nation.
It would be a poor lighthouse that gave off a different signal to guide every ship entering the harbor.
H. LAWRENCE FICK
Simi Valley
*
* Proposition 22 was originally called the Definition of Marriage Act. But that was not really true. Now it is called the Limit of Marriage Act, to reflect its true effect. At the federal level, we also have the Defense of Marriage Act.
After more than 35 years married to the same woman (and seeing two great children become great adults), I know my marriage requires neither definition nor defense.
State Sen. Pete Knight (R-Palmdale), the sponsor of Proposition 22, has never reconciled himself to his own son’s homosexuality. Instead, he is using Proposition 22 as a form of verbal gay bashing. By this initiative, Knight attempts to legitimize homophobia, which will create an environment that fosters physical attacks against gays.
Knight can deny there is blood on his hands. But if passage of Proposition 22 encourages another tragedy such as the slaying of Matthew Shepard, Knight will be as morally guilty as those who actually commit the deed.
DAVID E. ROSS
Oak Park
