Overturn the judges, vote yes on 8

By Kim Crowe
Napa

This letter is in reference to an editorial that was published in the Napa Valley Register on Sept. 17, cleverly titled “Vote no on Proposition 8.”

Proposition 8, which will be on the ballot in November, places into the California Constitution the same language that voters already passed by 61 percent of the vote in 2000. This is necessary to overturn a California Supreme Court decision that overturned Proposition 22.

For those of you who may have forgotten, the responsibility of any judicial branch of the United States of America is to interpret the Constitution, not overturn clear and voted-on decisions by the citizens of this country. It is an affront to every voting member of our republic for four activist judges in San Francisco to strike against the very fabric of our freedom.

The Sept. 17 article states: “We understand that many people are opposed to homosexuality and want to raise their children accordingly. That is a choice to be respected, and a choice that would be undisturbed by the outcome of Proposition 8, whatever it may be.” This is a tragic lie. For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergartners. By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.”

In a New York Times op-ed piece on Sept. 19, David Blankenhorn, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat from the Institute for American Values, clearly lays out why he does not favor same-sex marriage: “Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing — the gift, the birthright — that is marriage’s most distinctive contribution to human society. That’s a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.”

In a society where logic escapes most of our decision-making on a daily basis, we must appeal to our individual common sense concerning Proposition 8. Why should we be forced to vote on the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61 percent of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”? How comfortable are you with having Nick being given away by Jack and Gary to David in your church? How comfortable are you with your impressionable 5-year-old coming home from school to ask you about homosexuality?

This is an aggressive assault by an agenda-driven special interest group parading under the guise of tolerance and equality. The tolerance that is desired has already been demonstrated in our state by the emergence of domestic partnerships and written non-discrimination policies that cover sexual orientation and gender identity, the majority of American companies offering health insurance to the partners of employees. This is simply an assault on the institution of marriage. Thus, just as you did in 2000, exercise your political freedom and vote yes on Proposition 8 in November to define marriage in California to be between a man and a woman. At least, until more judges overturn our decision again.

(Crowe lives in Napa.)

Napa Valley Register Copyright © 2009