So this is my argument…

As a citizen of California, I am legally entitled to equal protection under the law. Period.

As a citizen of the United States, I am entitled to hold my personal religious beliefs steadfastly and to express them freely as long as they do not interfere with my fellow citizens’ Constitutionally-given right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. I am as free to practice my faith as my christian neighbors who voted in favor of Prop 8.

I am a spiritual person and I believe in a God force (which may or may not resembled a robed, bearded man on a throne of clouds). My personal, Christ-based religion dictates that the love between two people is holy: “The greatest among these is love..” However, I do not believe that the Old Testament—neither the ‘original’ (of which there is none) nor the countless translations and re-interpretations thereof—define the moral law by which I am bound to life on this earth. That is my belief.

In the United States we have a constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. If a social group opposes the notion of me being equally permitted to pursue a life of love and commitment on the basis of their religious beliefs, then they are de facto imposing their religious doctrine through the machinations of law to suppress my constitutional right to equal protection and the equal pursuit of happiness and religious freedom.

In a land where the church is separate from the state, the laws that govern the state, NOT the laws that govern SOME of the churches within the state, must prevail.

Wait, I’m confused.. Aren’t all sides pushing their religious beliefs through the governmental system? Indeed. So then..?

When love takes hold of this nation instead of fear—if we can ever get there—and when the true essence of our Constitution trumps the failures of human decency, then we who believe that love is superior to dogma will prevail. And it will be a better day for everyone.

But then, wait another minute…
Wouldn’t my reasoning equally apply to religious groups who wanted to be allowed to legally marry multiple partners? Isn’t the Mormon faith being discriminated against as equally as gay couples because an individual is only lawfully allowed to be married to one person at a time?

Just a thought.

Left Coast Responses to Prop 8 passage

LA marches against Prop 8
In a city where people drive to the corner market, social protest marches are becoming de rigeur.

SF responds with light
Ever since the White Night riots 30 years ago, candlelight vigils have been the standard non-violent response in SF.

The passage of Proposition 8 in California will rewrite the state Constitution with a bitter pen of fear and loathing. What it will not do is change what is true.1) Arvin and I were legally married on Oct 25. Period. 2) The law cannot suppress forever what the heart knows is true.

Prop 8 will create a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage in California is between a man and woman only. We have already proven that to be false: our unification ceremony in Palm Springs was entirely legal. Arvin and I are legally married. Can the will of a certain sect of people nullify something that already exists? (The infinite powers of the Vatican notwithstanding.)

If necessary, I say let that 50-odd% of the people keep their term marriage. Do I really want to take part in an institution that has a 50% failure rate and comes with it the baggage of constantly fearing for its permanence because of invisible outside threats?Those 50+% can keep their sanctimony. I, on the other hand, will preserve the true sanctity of my commitment.