Proposition 8: Let's set the record straight once and for all...

And I'll do it leaving morality and religion to the side. I support proposition 8. I endorse and have campaigned for proposition 8. I respect the views of those who oppose proposition 8. I do not and have not personally attacked them with insults, degradation, or other foul or obscene language. My interest solely lies in discussing the issues intelligently. Is it possible for two opposing parties to discuss proposition 8 amicably? For voicing my opinion on the matter, people in return, who do not know anything about me, have labeled me (among other things that I cannot write here), a bigot, a person filled with hate, a discriminator.

A bigot - The dictionary defines it as someone who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. Note that the definition implies not just intolerance, but UTTER (i.e. complete, total, absolute, unconditional, unqualified) intolerance. From a political and social perspective, I can accept civil unions as a means of providing the same or similar benefits to homosexual couples that are offered to married heterosexual couples. Those same benefits can also be applied to other domestic partners (i.e. unmarried couples). However, I choose to support, defend and maintain the traditional definition of marriage, regardless of how ANY GROUP may identify themselves. I do not believe this position on the issue meets the definition of a bigot. Now, let's take it one step further. Given the way I have been treated by many "No on 8-ers," I could make a strong argument to the fact that they themselves are, indeed, the bigots, as they are utterly intolerant of my opinion as they threaten, lash out, and personally attack me as I raise my voice on the issue in a respectful and sincere manner (the same holds true for anyone in favor of proposition 8 who makes personal attacks on those opposed to the proposition). I believe the previous point is also a good example of hypocrisy.

Hate - to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; to detest. I don't think this even comes close to my feelings toward those individuals engaging in homosexual behavior, as has been implied by some Prop 8 opponents. I personally know friends and colleagues who engage or struggle with a homosexual lifestyle or homosexual tendencies. They are extremely intelligent, honest, good people who are loving, compassionate, friendly, and loyal (one of whom is actually in favor of Proposition 8). However, I take a stand against the practice of homosexuality from both a moral and social perspective. And yet, I have a profound respect for the challenge homosexuality places on the lives of those who struggle with it. It creates complexities in every facet of their lives, many of which I do not pretend to understand completely. The depth of the challenges they face are staggering. No, I can say with complete resolution that I do not hate those who engage in a homosexual lifestyle. What of those people who have personally attacked and lashed out at me as I have made phone calls and passed out fliers in my community. Do they feel extreme aversion or hostility towards me? Do they detest me? That's something they will have to answer for.

Discriminate - To make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality. Let's take a look at this argument from two sides:

On the one side, I would argue that I do not discriminate against those engaging in homosexual behavior because it is exactly that -- A BEHAVIOR. I do not believe in labeling or identifying anyone as "gay" or "homosexual," because that is not who they are. In my view, homosexuality never becomes a noun. People who engage in homosexual behavior are just that -- a human being who struggles with and has an inclination or weakness towards same-gender attraction. For me, the argument goes something like this: Prohibiting people that engage in homosexuality from getting a marriage license is as discriminatory as prohibiting a drunk driver from having a drivers license. If I must accept that "homosexuals" are indeed a group, class, or category, then I must also accept that alcoholics are also a group, class, or category. Are we discriminating against drunk drivers? No, they are people who struggle with alcoholism and, for the better of society, we suspend or revoke their license privileges when they choose to give into their inclinations. By the same token, for the better of society (the points of which I have outlined below), we can prohibt the grant of marriage licenses to those engaging in homosexual behavior.

On the other hand, let us assume for the sake of argument that it is discriminatory. Should it exist for the better of society? Are "No on 8-ers" against all discrimination? Could they accept the idea that some discrimination in our society may be acceptable and even necessary? Could they? Article II, Section I of our nation's constitution states the following:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

By the same definition, that sounds discriminatory to me based on age AND nationality. But I support this 100% because I feel it is for the better of our society. And we haven't even analyzed data to support this type of discrimination because none is available. We just THINK and BELIEVE it to be necessary. If "No on 8-ers" agree with this, then they MUST accept the fact that some discrimination may be necessary for the better of our society. But is defining marriage between a man and a woman really for the better of society? Let's investigate this using actual, factual data that does exist to support our conclusion:

According to Jeffrey Satinover, M. D., a psychiatrist and member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, there is no more important reason to prohibit same-sex marriage than the effects it would have on children. "In every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social, developmental ... at every phase of the life cycle ... social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father. ... The evidence is overwhelming. Mountains of evidence, collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers."

This statement was made by Greg Quinlan, a former member of the homosexual community, who testified before the Ohio Defense of Marriage Act in November, 2003. Quinlan claimed that the physical and mental devastation caused by homosexual behavior, and the cumulative effect of that behavior "is incalculable."

Two extensive studies published in the October 1999 issue of American Medical Association Archives of General Psychiatry confirmed the existence of a strong link between homosexuality and suicide, as well as other mental and emotional problems. Youth who identify themselves as homosexual, lesbian and bisexual are four times more likely than their peers to suffer from major depression; three times more likely to suffer anxiety disorders, four times more likely to suffer conduct disorders, six times more likely to suffer from multiple disorders and more than six times more likely to have attempted suicide.

A study by Susan Turrell entitled "A descriptive analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample," and published in the Journal of Family Violence (vol 13, pp 281-293), found that relationship violence was a significant problem for homosexuals. Forty-four percent of gay men reported having experienced violence in their relationship; 13 percent reported sexual violence and 83 percent reported emotional abuse.

According to science, there are hundreds of nuances about men and women that even newborn infants can readily distinguish and that make a difference in the way the child develops. Yet their voice isn't considered in this great debate.

Society's compelling interest is to ensure not only the mere propagation of the species but humankind's well-being too, which is the whole purpose of heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is a societal structure and without it, society crumbles. The easiest way to destroy a nation, even a civilization, is to destroy the family unit. And yet this is precisely what the courts have done. And they're doing it without any impact studies, and have ignored the voice of the people. And I haven't even started arguing the points from a religious or even moral perspective, nor have I even scratched the surface here. Yes on 8!