Sinatra gets me dapper, Hank gets me rowdy
Richard Lugo archives
Prop. 8 threatens equality
Jaclyn Mittman archives
Proposition 4 protects rape victims
Jennifer Kitzmann archives
Respect the sanctity of the left lane
Lesley Michaels archives
Prop. 8 protects family values
Posted Oct. 22, 2008
Black and white, right and wrong, good and bad. All of these are absolutes. A majority of voters appear to view Proposition 8 from positions of absolutism.
For some who support this proposition, they view marriage as it is traditionally accepted and commonly understood by many members of society as being between a man and a woman. Some even approach their stand with the fervor of a position of spiritual and religious absolutism. However, for some of those who are opposed to Proposition 8, they view marriage as a union of free choice of two people regardless of their sexual orientation.
Those voters opposed to Proposition 8 believe that it is “wrong” to tell someone whom they should “marry.” It is “wrong” to change the state constitution. And it is “wrong” to force others to conform to something a select group of people believe. This is an example of strong political and free will absolutism.
At the end of the day, marriage, the issue of Proposition 8, is an absolute issue. Marriage is an institution that is between a man and a woman. It is wrong to redefine something that is clearly defined.
This is my absolutism influenced by spiritual and political party influences.
If Proposition 8 passes, gay couples will not be allowed to marry. That does not prohibit someone loving another person, and it does not prohibit them entering into a romantic relationship. What it does do is keep marriage intact as it is meant to be from many traditionally defined religious standpoints, for a man and a woman.
“No On Prop 8” is pushing for “equality” but why do gay couples want to enter into something that was created for a man and a woman and not for gay couples?
Those who do not support Proposition 8, and specifically those who hope to gain all of the benefits associated with the traditional definition of marriage—such as taxes, property ownership and healthcare benefits—might keep in mind that for many people the spiritual aspect of this discussion holds a great degree of importance.
If gay couples want a title for their relationships, then call it something else. Consider the use of other titles such as “committed partners.” Do not take something that many hold in such high regard as something just legal. It is something that is spiritual. Please do not manipulate and redefine it to meet an end.
As a Republican, I have mixed feelings about Proposition 8. I do not want more government. And, yes, that too is a “black and white” situation. This is one exception to my beliefs as a Republican in having less government involvement and intrusion in our lives. I feel so absolutely strong about this issue that I am willing to make a singular compromise of my core position and tenants.
As a Christian, I feel obligated to support this proposition. According to many in the Christian faith, choosing a marriage partner is the second most important decision made in this life. The first is making the decision to accept Christ. Christianity does not permit or condone homosexuality, and as a Christian, neither do I. That does not mean that I dislike gay people, I just do not agree with their choices and positions.
The subject of this proposition in my estimation is a clear example of absolutism in opposing beliefs.
Susan Acker, a senior journalism major, is managing editor of the Campus Times. She can be reached by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.