Equality for all?

Image by Bob Warnick.

We've recently witnessed the brazen theft of "Yes on 8" signs in California. This petty behavior has prompted me to write. It strikes at the very heart of free speech in this country, where opponents are attempting to silence supporters of Proposition 8.

I've written previously about the issue of projection—where an accuser sees in others the faults they possess themselves—and how it applies to the battle for voters in California over Proposition 8. Many opponents of Proposition 8 shriek that the issue at hand has something to do with hatred. Perhaps in their view it does, since it appears that hatred consumes some significant portion of their lives. Specifically, opponents' anger and hatred have clearly manifested themselves in the theft and destruction of "Yes" signs (which I have personally witnessed), verbal assaults, and even physical attacks on voters, such as the October 13 story of Jose Nunez in Modesto. They accuse others of hatred and anger yet spare no effort to use it at every opportunity themselves, further making my case that opponents are projecting their anger unjustly onto others where it does not in reality exist. This should greatly disturb any rational citizen.

If the opposition is so willing and ready to deny others equality of speech, then there is good reason to suppose that other freedoms—religion, for example—are next.

Any cause which leads its supporters to commit theft and violence should be strongly and uniformly denounced by any decent human being. The pretense of "equality for all" being pitched by the opposition is clearly self-serving and one-sided, and by extension, it makes opponents of Proposition 8 bald-faced liars. I invite opponents of Proposition 8 to prove me wrong by issuing an unqualified statement denouncing the brazen theft, destruction, and violence seen thus far. If you sincerely believe Proposition 8 supporters are angry and hateful, then take the high road and show us your good example. For my part, if any supporter of Proposition 8 were engaged in similar activities, they should be treated as criminals. Supporters have no reason to trade away basic values such as honesty, tolerance, and respect for freedom of speech.

The unfortunately reality is that some of the most vocal opponents of Proposition 8 are guilty of the anger and hatred they see in others. They cannot tolerate the freedom of speech—perhaps the most basic form of equality for all—by those who support Proposition 8; their tolerance is one-sided and therefore false. There is no other way to explain their exceptionally poor behavior, and relying simply on how they "feel" is no excuse for their actions.

Tolerance

In just a few weeks there are going to be 13 different Propositions for your consideration on the ballot along with various local and federal races. That's overwhelming for most people. There is one Proposition that I believe deserves your attention and "yes" vote more than anything else: Proposition 8. Proposition 8 restores the traditional definition of marriage in California. The bottom line question you're asking yourself is, "Why should I vote for this?"

We Californians pride ourselves in the diversity and tolerance in our state. We respect the freedom of others to make their own choices and we expect them to do the same for us. Tolerance and respect go both ways. We're willing to listen to others' viewpoints and consider them, but we don't want their ideas forced upon us. We expect to be able to make our voices duly heard through the political process. If you are one of the millions of Californians who identify with this description, then you will be stunned by recent events.

In May of this year, the California Supreme Court ruled1 that domestic partnerships in California—available since 2003— have "virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple." The high court's finding means that Voting Yes on Proposition 8 in no way affects the legal status of same-sex couples in California.We Californians' tolerate and respect our fellow citizens, and we expect them to do the same for us.

However, this last Friday, October 10, the San Francisco Chronicle reported2 that a first grade class—5 and 6 year old children—took a field trip, on school time, to witness a same-sex marriage performed by the San Francisco city mayor. When asked by the paper, the school staff noted that "they didn't see the big deal. Same-sex marriage is legal." As adults, we can tolerate others' choices even though we disagree, but the manipulation of our school children in an effort to force on us a contrary viewpoint is intolerant, un-Californian, and unacceptable. Children should not be exposed to adults' controversial decisions in this way: parents should be the ones to decide if and when to expose their children to these controversies. The school trip is just one of the many events that are happening and will continue to happen in California unless we pass Proposition 8.

I hope you find this as enlightening as I do, and more importantly, I hope you now see that tolerance and respect demand that we vote Yes on Proposition 8.

References
1. California Supreme Court, case S147999, dated 15 May 2008
2. "Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day," San Francisco Chronicle, October 11, 2008
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL

21st Century Slavery

I was struck with the parallel made by Patrick Lee in an article recently. In it, he adroitly points out that we don't seem to have learned how to apply to modern life the lessons from our own history regarding slavery:

"If a politician in the 19th century took a position on slavery analogous to that of Obama and Biden on abortion, his claim would go something like this: “I do not endorse slavery. I wouldn’t own slaves. I think people should be free not to own slaves, if they wish. But I am pro-choice. I have been a consistent champion of the right to own slaves for the last ten years. And I will make defense of that right a priority in my presidency. Of course, I hope fewer people will feel the need to resort to that choice, and so as president I will put into place economic policies that will reduce the need for slave labor in agriculture and in factories. But, to ensure that slavery remains an option for white men who should, after all, be free to decide how to manage their own affairs, I am in favor of providing subsidies for the purchase of slaves by whites whose farms and factories are at risk because of the high cost of wage labor.”

The central principle of our civilization is that all human beings possess an equal fundamental dignity, and no class of human beings can with justice enslave, use, experiment on, or deliberately kill other innocent human beings for their own purposes. Obama and Biden have rejected that basic principle. McCain and Palin embrace and uphold it."

Reference:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTI3Njc4OTUzMzQxZTQ2NWRkODEyOWZmNDliMTQyMTk=