As election day nears (thankfully) several issues have been weighing heavily on my mind. One of them is California's proposition 8.
I am not a resident of California. Some people say Prop 8 - a proposal to amend California's constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman - does not affect me. I believe it does. Deeply.
Unfortunately we live in a world where some claim that if you stand up for any belief - if you assert that there is such a thing as right and wrong - you must be intolerant and hateful. For some, there is no tolerance for morals. There is no tolerance for religious beliefs. There is no tolerance for those who believe there are still some sacred things in this world. I have found that those most loudly shouting for tolerance have very little of it to give.
Tolerance is not the acceptance of another persons beliefs or conduct. Tolerance does not condone or support another persons actions. Rather, tolerance is a love for the individual, despite differences. I have friends whose beliefs differ greatly from my own, and yet we remain friends because of our love for one another. I do not compromise my views and they do not compromise theirs, but we are still friends. That is tolerance. That is love.
On the issue of Prop 8, those opposed to it suggest that anyone who seeks to protect that which they hold sacred, those who won't compromise on what they see to be a fundamental institution of our society, must be hateful, intolerant, homophobics. The labels are ugly and untrue. I do not wish to deny civil liberties to anyone. In the state of California homosexual couples are granted the same civil rights and privileges as married couples. Then Prop 8 is not about rights, it is about redefining marriage. It is not about being "homophobic". It is about protecting a time-honored institution.
I have often thought that it is like a group insisting that they have the "right" to paint on the Mona Lisa. "No!" others insist, "It is beautiful, one of a kind, irreplaceable. There are many other canvases on which to paint. We would never deny you your right to paint. But please not on this canvas that we hold sacred!" "Ah-ha!", the opposition screams, "You want to deny us our right to do as we please. Da Vinci had the right to paint on
that canvas. Why not us? You must hate us. You must be afraid of us. You are intolerant of us!" And so the arguments go until they are granted them the right to paint on the Mona Lisa and
that masterpiece is changed forever.
Prop 8 is not about denying homosexual couples their rights. But to say that one group has a right to
redefine an institution that has existed since the beginning of recorded history is to suggest that any group has the right to redefine the definition of any institution if it does not meet their desired specifications.
Furthermore, in the state of Massachusetts where same-sex marriage has been legislated as legal, students are now taught this concept in schools - and it is deemed mandatory curriculum that parents do not need to be informed of prior to their children's instruction and that the children may not be exempt from. That state government has seen fit to regulate the moral education of its students with complete disregard to parental consent is both infuriating and frightening. Often when we speak of separation of church and state it is in reference to churches not being involved with state affairs. But as we have seen in Massachusetts with the closing of Catholic adoptions since they would not support same-sex couples, the state has decided that it has the right to regulate the churches.
Where do we cross the line? How far will this go?
What are the rights for those who wish to protect marriage? Must we watch everything we hold dear be changed in the name of tolerance?