Why Prop 8 irks me

~
Or, in other words, why Proposition 8 shouldn't be on our ballots.

The reason that Prop 8 is on my ballot next week is because a handful of judges decided that they knew what was better for the people of California than the people of California did. Only 8 years ago, the majority of California citizens voted to decide that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. But in March of this year, judges ruled that this definition was unconstitutional.

Deciding what marriage means in California should not be left to the hands of an elite few. This is a decision that the people of California as a whole should get to decide. And they will get to - now. But it happened in the opposite way that it should have. That's how democracy works - the people decide when things change (even if they're wrong). If just the elite few get to decide what is good for society, it is usually considered a dictatorship.

The judicial elite do not have an especially great track record of predicting the societal impact of implementing their top-down changes to the traditional fabric of society. But with the benefit of hindsight, we can plainly see how the availability (and subsequent acceptability) of abortion (as birth control) has helped create a highly sexualized culture in which pre-marital sex is expected and accepted. Looking back over the past 30 years since the advent of no-fault divorce the lasting and harm and damage to the emotional, mental, and physical well-being of many children of those divorces (and their future relationships) is apparent. This is not to say that NO good has come of these "societal innovations," but that the NET results on society have been decidedly negative.

No one can say how changing the traditional definition of marriage will impact our society, but it would be naive to say that there would be NO impact. You cannot change a definition so fundamental that no need of a "definition" was even necessary (until recently) without fundamental changes to society. Not immediately perhaps, but they will happen.

To consider a few: If the new definition of marriage is "a relationship in which people love each other and are committed to each other," why limit it to just 2 people? Some experts think it would be better for the children for the parents to stay married and just bring in other partners as they come along instead of getting divorced each time they find someone new. After all, many religions provide for polygamy in their doctrines, and it is mostly only in the Western nations that polygamy is not recognized as a legitimate form of marriage.

Why couldn't consenting adults (be they first cousins, brother and sister, father and daughter, or grandfather and grandson) be allowed the "right" of marriage?

Yes, some of those examples may seem extreme, but once you change the definition of marriage to accommodate the feelings of some, what basis do you have for not changing it further?
~