Written by Matthew B. Mack, Counselor at Law
It’s No Surprise that Some of Us Prefer Cats and Some Dogs . . . While Tolerating Both
While some of us prefer cats and some dogs, most of us agree they are both domesticated animals that are to be tolerated and protected in our society. However, we all understand that dogs and cats are different, and it is confusing and disingenuous to suddenly pretend that a cat is the same as a dog or that dogs have actually always been cats . . .
Similarly, while both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are to be tolerated and protected in our society, it is confusing and disingenuous to suddenly pretend that there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, or that same-sex relations have actually always been “marriages”.
While I happen to prefer dogs, it neither makes me prejudice toward or intolerant of cats, nor does it require that I must now pretend that dogs and cats are exactly the same. In our home we have room for both dogs and cats. People can and should support Proposition 8’s clarification of the definition of marriage and still love, respect and tolerate everyone!
1 Potato, 2 Potato, 3 Potato, 4 . . . Neither People nor Potatoes Are all the Same
Previously, human history has defined “marriage” as a protected civil–societal-spiritual relationship between a man and a woman.
Today, gays and lesbians assert that any loving, caring, intelligent, or reasonable person would agree that their sexual preference for homosexuality is a matter of genetic predisposition void of free choice, and therefore, society must redefine “marriage” to include any 2 same-gender people.
Tomorrow, bisexuals will assert that any loving, caring, intelligent, or reasonable person would agree that their simultaneous sexual preference for heterosexuality and homosexuality is a matter of genetic predisposition void of free choice, and therefore, society must redefine “marriage” to include 3 people, 2 of the same gender and 1 of the opposite gender.
Later, people will assert that any loving, caring, intelligent, or reasonable person would agree that their genetic predisposition for group relationships, whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, is simply validating what society has already accepted, and therefore, society must redefine “marriage” to include polygamy, polyandry, etc.
Ultimately, the term “marriage” will be “some relationship between some people”. Definitions, particularly legal definitions, are used to help society clearly understand and communicate what something is and what it’s not. Ultimately, allowing “marriage” to become anything results in it being nothing . . . and how does that help anyone?
As a society we currently acknowledge and protect the preferences defined by the terms “heterosexuality”, “homosexuality” and “bisexuality”, and everyone knows each term involves unique relationships. How does society benefit from suddenly ignoring those unique differences by using the same legal term, “marriage”, to define all human sexual relationships? We acknowledge and protect various defined races, ethnicities, etc., without ignoring their unique differences, why must it be different when we look to sexuality?
We are not a “one size fits all” society, and the courts should not be allowed to so broadly define “marriage”, that it means nothing and protects no one. I’m voting Yes on Proposition 8 to protect and preserve each of our rights to be uniquely different, and I am against government trying to make us all the same!!
Will the Passage or Defeat of Prop 8 Really Change what California's Schools Teach?
I simply want both sides to tell the truth. Opponents of Proposition argue that while “HIV/AIDS Prevention Education" is mandatory in California schools [Education Code Section 51931(d)], “Sex Education is not. Opponents of Proposition 8 admit that "Sex Education" includes teaching "healthy attitudes concerning adolescent growth and development, body image, gender roles, sexual orientation, dating, marriage, and family" [Education Code section 51933(a)], but argue that because “Sex Education” is not mandatory it will not affect students or families.
The truth is that 96 % of California schools teach Sex Education, and 93% of the 96% teach both “HIV/AIDS Prevention Education" [mandatory] and "Sex Education"[not mandatory] in the same class thereby depriving parents of advance Notice and the right to Opt-Out because the class contains mandatory education! [see report entitled “Sex Education in California Public Schools” dated August 2003 which was published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California - [link]
The result is that under California’s current law which legalizes both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage, schools will in fact teach over 90% of the time “the knowledge and skills necessary” to encourage and protect same-sex "gender roles, sexual orientation, dating, marriage, and family" [Education Code section 51930]. The effective teaching of skills in schools often involves role play in the class, and therefore it’s reasonable to conclude that students will role play asking another class member to participate in social interaction (dating, dancing, holding hands, kissing, sexual consent, etc.), which would mandate that boys and girls practice asking for such social interaction with those of the same-sex.
If Proposition 8 passes, schools will neither support nor oppose same-sex marriage, such concerns would be left to the parents, just where they belong . . . . Now that would certainly change what California's schools teach!