My Election Day Debate

If you know me very well, you know I almost never talk about politics. I do of course have my opinions, which is one of the reasons I started this blog. Yesterday a friend of ours sent out an e-mail urging us to vote against Proposition 8 and well, the rest is what you read below. (Please keep in mind I am not posting every e-mail in the exchange, but am posting many. Since I was at work and didn't want my opinions to run the risk of being passed off as my company's view, I was having Traci forward them for me, except for the last one which I sent from home after voting last night.) I don't think I usually ask for feedback on blogs, but this a definite exception. Please let me know what you think about this discussion, and more specifically, my arguments/defense. Am I off base? Is my argument weak? Am I wrong or a bad human being for thinking the way I do? I like to think not, but am very interested in what you think. Please be honest, whether it's for or against me. Hopefully you can follow the flow of what was said. Be warned, this is an extremely long post!

Original e-mail from Alli:
Dear friends and family,

While my academic background previous to this year focused primarily on Asian history, this past semester I have enjoyed my first opportunity to teach American history. It has been both an honor and an eye-opening experience. In learning more about US history in the course of preparing to teach it, I have gained a deeper appreciation for the values of liberty and freedom our country was founded upon.

Tonight I am writing to share some of the things I have learned and urge you to vote to uphold American values. I am of the opinion that Proposition 8 is distinctly un-American and I would like to explain why I think so based on the history of our great country.

People often toss around notions of the Constitution and the values of our Founding Fathers. It is important to recall what those Fathers actually believed and fought for because I think that State Propositions in general are a potential threat to those values. Many Americans seem to think that this country is fundamentally a democracy. It is not. We are a republic based on indirect democracy. Why? What the Founding Fathers most feared was the "tyranny" of majority rule. They were very concerned about the ability of the majority to restrict the liberties of the minority, in other words, themselves. (They were elite members of an economic minority.) They realized that given direct popular vote on legislation, it would be all too easy for majority rule to reduce or restrict the freedoms of others. This is why they created a system in which we vote not directly for laws, but for representatives who will create legislation. They also created a system of checks and balances which gave the judicial branch oversight on protecting the constitution and individual liberties from the tyranny of the majority. In other words, when judges strike down laws which restrict the rights of a small group, even when that is what the majority has voted on, they are doing their job as foreseen by the Founding Fathers in upholding the American political system. Imagine the precedent that could be set by a new system of majority rule in California. Imagine how this could potentially effect the restriction of other types of liberties, such as religious expression, or freedom of association. Majority rule would mean that the liberties of smaller groups of voters could be restricted and this could potentially effect your liberties too. Our country is most definitely not based on the idea that the personal beliefs of the majority should be reflected in new legislation. This is a dangerous notion indeed.

Liberties have often been endangered throughout US history and for this reason we must be vigilant in upholding freedom and equality even when it doesn't conform to our own personal beliefs and moral standards. For example, though freedom of speech has been on the Bill of Rights since our country's inception, this right has been totally unprotected for much of our history. Up until the early 1900s there was little to no recognition of this basic freedom. In most cities in California during this period, citizens would have to approve any speeches they wished to make in public with the local mayor. This is just one example of a freedom we tend to take for granted as part of the basis of our country, without recognizing the constant struggle entailed in protecting such freedoms. Civil liberties of others have often been restricted by the beliefs of the majority only to be struck down by Superior Court judges whose duty compels them to protect all citizens equally rather than allow the tyranny of the majority.

Today it is the 14th Amendment to the US constitution that is imperiled by attempts at legislation like Prop 8. The 14th Amendment specifically requires states to provide equal protections of civil liberties under the law to all citizens of the United States. The year 1948 saw a case on marriage in which the judge ruled against the constitutionality of another law supported by the majority of the California voting population: Section 69 of the California Civil Code stated that marriage between different races was not recognized by the state. This landmark case, "Perez v. Sharp" began the process of overturning marriage restrictions on the basis of race. The court held that marriage is a fundamental right of citizens of the United States and that laws restricting that right must not be based solely on personal belief. "Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men." (Perez v. Sharp 32 Cal.2d 711, 714-715)

"Eliminating rights," the title of Proposition 8, is simply un-American. I urge you to vote not on what you believe to be right or wrong regarding marriage or sexual morality, but to uphold the basis of our nation: the equal protection of personal, civil liberties under the law and the same freedoms for all citizens. This is nothing short of what Americans have been fighting for since the birth of our country.

My response:
She has a good, very educated stance, but I would not feel right voting no on 8. I know that faith played a big role in the lives of our country's founding fathers and played a role in the formation of our country. Thus the words "In God We Trust" on all pieces of money. If we trust God but vote for something that contradicts His word, we are hypocrites. That's my 2-cent rebuttal.

Since I follow God and try to make Him the center of my life and actions, I cannot in good conscience vote to recognize gay marriage when that is not an acceptable lifestyle to God.

Josh's (I don't know who he is) response:
I'm sure that when blacks were asking for equal rights, people also cited faith as a reason to withhold them. Sure, many blacks at the turn of the century were not christians, so I guess they didn't deserve equal rights. By that account, perhaps white jews didn't deserve them either.

There is a reason why the founding fathers, all of whom were very religious, put into the constitution a separation of church and state. Keep religion where it belongs, out of politics. Every man, woman, and child in this country deserves, nay, demands equal rights and recognition under the law. There is no difference between this discrimination and any other. If you insist that you must vote yes on something like proposition 8, then you should also happily accept the label of Bigot.

Religious doctrine has been changed and manipulated over time. You can not deny this, as none of you have been stoned to death for dishonoring your parents, nor have you gone around stoning others. If you have no beard, then you are breaking religious doctrine. Don't use something so antiquated to try and make yourself look like less of a bigot. If you are going to vote yes on Proposition 8, then just admit that you have a problem accepting your other humans for what they are. I have a funny feeling you would feel differently if someone else was in charge (by someone else, I mean not white and christian) and you were suddently wanting more rights.


My response ("my husband") and Traci's ("me") response:
This is from my husband:
No kidding. And we wonder why our country is in the shape it is in? He makes it sounds like I can't accept gays or may even be a homophobe. He also makes me sounds like a racist. I'm not saying I'm the most educated person, but perhaps he should get to know someone before making personal attacks. I gave my opinion on something and expect others to have their own opinion. That's what this country is about and why we vote in the first place. Debates are fine and healthy, disrespect is not.

To directly go against one of his points, I can accept people for who they are. I may not agree with choices they make, but that is a huge difference from not accepting them. I have friends that do things I don't agree with, but I accept them as they are. For example, Matt responded to my comments and we don't agree with each other, but we respect each other. It just bothers me that someone I don't know would personally attack me without knowing me. If someone wants to hate me after getting to know me, fine. Hating me (and especially degrading me) without knowing me, that's where I have the problem.

This is from me:
You just made my own case for me. I am tollerant of their opinions, lifestyles, and identities. This just shows how little you know of me. I am tollerant of it, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it or agree with it. Of course we should accept people as they are and the lifestyle they chose to lead.

If this prop doesn't pass than those churches you speak of will hear about it. There will be problems when gays show up at their doors and they refuse to marry them. So it does/will become a "civil rights" issue. After all, they are claiming that marriage is a fundamental right. So, if it is a fundamental right, then those churches who do not agree with or believe in it will surely see the outcomes of this. Don't try to pretend it won't happen just because you don't have a problem with any specific church or person not allowing it.

And regarding the New Testament. Seriously, maybe you should read it. Because he says that we are to do away with the old laws. Like abbiding by the Sabbath and all of those rules. Galations chapter 2 and 3 has a lot to say about this. If you do not have a bible, I would be glad to quote it all for you.

Josh's response:
To your husband:
I am not here to insult you. Nor am I here to insult your wife. But I am here to call a spade a spade. If you vote yes on a proposition that limits one groups rights simply because you can not agree with their lifestyle, then you are not very tolerant of them. That is not an insult, but a fact. Tolerance (and justice for that matter) implies that you are blind to their life choices, as long as they are not infringing on your personal rights. You have the right to despise homosexuality and gay marriage, and you have the right to speak out about it, and I would never dream of taking away your rights because I think that would be bad for society.

I respect you and your wife as people, even though I disagree with your politics. I have married into a family where many of the family members have different political views than I do, and yet I love all of them without question and respect their right to have an opinion. I don't hate nor do I degrade you, but I think you should realize that your stance is a stance of bigotry.

To your wife:
If, as you say, you are tolerant of other people, then why not allow them the right to marry? Why would you take that away from them? Do you really think that gay men and women will want to get married in churches where they are not welcome, or that they will start showing up randomly at your doors asking for nuptials? If you are truly tolerant, as you claim, then you would tolerate their desires to get married and let them do their thing while you do your. A vote for Proposition 8 is a vote against tolerance.

I appreciate your offer to read me the new testament. I have read it before, and it is a wonderful text. I'm sure you are more knowledgeable about it than I am, so I will trust that you have the readings correct.

And, finally, I would hope that, if I was being a bigot, that someone would stand up to me and call me one. It is important that we not stand by when we feel that anyone is infringing upon anothers rights. So, if you feel offended by the fact that I am calling intolerance bigotry, that is your right. But I will not apologize for standing up for those who are underrepresented and for calling out those who wish to take away their rights.

My response:
Well, Josh, one last comment from me for the night. The bottom line here is that we have two differing opinions, partly based on two different definitions of the word tolerance, and that we are going to have to agree to disagree. Here is the definition I have been presented with: Tolerance (and justice for that matter) implies that you are blind to their life choices, as long as they are not infringing on your personal rights. My definition of tolerance is acknowledging and accepting differences. Tolerating does not mean I have to agree. I can disagree with something or someone and still tolerate it or them. To me, being blind to something qualifies as being ignorant. (And don't even try to convince me that tolerance = justice.) If Prop 8 fails, which it appears it will based on pre-election polls, then I will be tolerant of gay marriage. I still won't agree with it, but I will tolerate it. Also, I don't despise homosexuality or gay marriage, I just don't agree with it. Again, difference between despise and not agreeing with something.

Also, passing off opinions as fact is probably not the right approach in a debate, as it undermines the whole argument. You can call me a bigot, that's fine, but it's not a fact which you make it come across as. It's your opinion based on your definitions as I discussed above. There is a huge difference between fact and opinion. You can say you didn't degrade me, but you did. What you said about me was offensive, mainly because you have no idea who I am outside of today's expressed opinions, and that's how I feel. (I wonder if we have different opinions on definitions or interpretations on the word degrade as well.)

At this point I'm really just poking holes in your argument from my point of view. You're not going to change my point of view and I'm not going to change yours. I have no problem with that. I placed my vote and I hope you placed yours. I rarely get involved with political debates, but it has been interesting to do this today. At least we live in a country where we can have these discussion and vote to express our opinions.

And Matt, thanks for sticking up for me. You know who we really are and I know that despite our differing opinions, we can still hang out, respect each other and have fun. You also made a good point about making implications about polygamy and pedophilia as a result of Prop 8 passing. I also thought that was a weak argument for Prop 8, despite supporting the same point of view. It just goes to show you that even people with similar views and supporting the same things can have different thoughts and opinions.

Until next election,
Scott