Proposition 8: The Marriage Amendment

Alan Anderson Christopher

Description

The author's discourse and analysis of California's Proposition 8: The Marriage Amendment. In this article, the author suggests that marriage is actually a spiritual/metaphysical embodiment that both sides of this debate fail to understand. Author Bio: Christopher Alan Anderson (1950 - ) received the basis of his education from the University of Science and Philosophy, Swannanoa, Waynesboro, Virginia. He resides in the transcendental/romantic tradition, that vein of spiritual creativity of the philosopher and poet. His quest has been to define and express an eternal romantic reality from which a man and a woman could together stand in their difference and create a living universe of procreative love. Mr. Anderson began these writings in 1971. The first writings were published in 1985. On a personal note, when Mr. Anderson was asked to describe the writings and what he felt their message was he responded, "Spiritual procreation. Mankind has yet to distinguish the two sexes on the spiritual level. In this failure lies the root of our problems and why we cannot yet touch the eternal together. The message of man and woman balance brings each of us together in love with our eternal other half right now."

Informations

• Publié par: First Edition Design Publishing
• Date de parution: 29 août 2012
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781622871476
• Langue: English

Extrait

Proposition 8: The Marriage Amendment
Christopher Alan Anderson


First Edition Design Publishing
Proposition 8: The Marriage Amendment



Christopher Alan Anderson
Proposition 8: The Marriage Amendment
Copyright 2012 Christopher Alan Anderson
ISBN 978-1622871-47-6

Published and Distributed by
First Edition Design Publishing, Inc.
August 2012
www.firsteditiondesignpublishing.com



ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this book publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means ─ electronic, mechanical, photo-copy, recording, or any other ─ except brief quotation in reviews, without the prior permission of the author or publisher.
Foundation of Man and Woman Balance
www.manandwomanbalance.com
Only mar ri age bet w een a man and a woman is valid or r e cogni z ed in C ali f ornia

The above is the wording of P roposition 8, the Marriage A mendment to the Calif o rnia Constitution that was on the November 2, 2008, state ballo t .* The Amendment passed alt h ough at this writing i t is being challenged i n t h e Califor n i a Supreme Court. Since it was the Court that overturned t h e will of the people who vo t ed in favor of Pr o position 22 in 2 0 00, it is uncertain what the C o urt will do.

*The author was not registered to vote in the 2008 e l ection nor has he voted f o r many years.

The purpose of this a r ti cle is to look at the issue(s) that surround the Marriage Amendme n t, namely, is there a b a s i s for a d e finition of m arria g e and, if so, what would that definition b e?
The cen t ral argument o f those on the Pro Pro p osition 8 (Pro 8) side is that marriage is more than just a social contract but is tied i nto the fab r ic of life, i.e., man, woman, and child. There is a procreati v e a s pe c t included, that a child is a procrea t ion of one man and one woman and that t o gether they comprise what we call family. And so they claim marria g e h as a special place in the desi g n of t hings.
On the Against Proposition 8 (A g ainst 8) si d e, the argument re s ts on t he idea o f equal protection or eq u al rights. T h e basis of o ur constitu t io n al government and system of democracy is equal ri g hts for all . Should one group--in this case those of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender orient a ti on (LGBT)--be excluded from what another group gets to parta k e in? I unders ta nd that the Atto r ney General i n his bri e f Against 8 uses t h e words “inalienable or natural rights,” that Proposition 8 violates “ i nalienable or natural rights of certain people.”

If I may, let us narrow down the i s sues invol v ed here. P r o 8 people are basically sayi n g that there is a f u ndame n tal neces s i ty f or marriage to b e limited to one man and one woman, that of life and family. There is t h e i nf erence that marria g e is “Godly ordained” which means that ma r ria g e is pa r t and parcel of the de s i g n of t hings. They further point out that current domestic partners l a w in Califo r nia g ives to dome s tic partners t h e same right s , protecti o n, and benefits as m a rried couples (Family Code § 297 . 5) Against 8 p e ople reject that argu m ent r ather s ayi n g that u nder equal protecti o n they, too, should be able to marry. They say that they sh o uld n ot be placed in a “ s pecial category”- - domestic rights—but h ave the s ame rights. T hey furt h er point out that they are not denying man and w oman couples the r i ght to marry. They just want the sa m e right/choice too.

So, what we have here is a desi g n v e rsus choice argume n t. Is marriage, one man and one woman, somehow incorporated into the design or fa b ric of t h ings? Or does the basic order (or fairness) of things revolve around each person having a choice? If we go with design, certain people will be excluded from marrying. Marriag e , in this case will be limited to one man and one woman. If we go with choice, mar r ia g e will b e open to all. It will not just be LGBT types that might want to marry. Threesomes, foursomes, or more, of any sex or combination thereof, would (or should) have the right to marry under the same equal protecti o n argument. And he r e is where the Against 8 p eople fail in their a rgument. They haven't a ny justific a ti o n to li m it m arriage to t wo people and s o the Pandora's Box of anything g o e s is opened up. In an October 21, 2008 Letter to t h e Editor to the local newspaper (not printed) I wrote, “ If marriage is not a s pe cific thing, such as that union between o n e man and one woma n , then perh a ps it is eve r ything. T he gay lobby would have marria g e a l so be inclusive to two men or two women. How discri m inatory is that? How about the 'equal rights' of threes o mes? Why can't mar r i a ge be inclusive to them too? And let's get th o se laws off the books concerning p o lygamy. How dare w e discrimina t e ag a i nst those people for their c hoices. In fact, let's allow all people the right to marry and have/adopt children in any comb i nation thereof. After all, equ a l rights for all, rig h t?” But is there really anyway to su b stan t i a t e a d e si g n to things? Religion, philosophy, and science have been probing that issue for thousands of year s .