Did We Really Want A Part II?

Like I said...Thank goodness this is all over tomorrow. At least for a few years.
My post obviously sparked some discussion, and questions. Let me respond with my own thoughts, in my own words. I consider them uniquely mine. Also, they are not meant to convince anyone. I state them as observations and personal conclusions.

Concerning Prop 8 as I see it; it's a reaction to a tangled confusing mess of poor law making.
There is a hard-core game of political volley going on in California. Both sides have taken extreme positions, and none of us get to vote for the grey. Here is my basis for choosing Yes on Prop 8:

Ideologically/Religiously

I believe in saving sex for the marriage relationship. Baring other social or spiritual explanations of this concept, the main purpose for sex (but not the only), naturally and spiritually, is to create children. As a result, I believe that the foundational purpose for marriage is the creation of children. I married with the intent of creating a family of my own. This can only be done by a heterosexual couple. That's fact. With the creation of a child come inherent obligations and duties to that child and spouse. Inherent rights of protection also belong to that union and unique natural bond. These duties, rights, and obligations, because they pertain specifically to the creation of children, pertain specifically to heterosexual unions, legally and religiously. This makes sense to me and I can't deny it. Feeling that way leads me to defend the traditional definition of marriage. And that changing that simple and natural definition dilutes the rights, privileges, and protections that are an inherent part of it.

Politically

This is not a simple matter at all. I wish I wasn't a part of this political mess, and it is a big sloppy mess. I think that all sane people on both sides of the fence wish they weren't part of it, but if you are a current California resident there is no way for you not to be involved. The foundation of the court's logic is that the legal grounds for their whole decision are based on their opinion that the people have either created laws pointing to an end result similar to the court's decision by granting equal contractual rights to same-sex couples (so they are simply speeding up the process for them without consent), or, that by not speaking the people have decided that they don't care about the issue one way or another (so the court has decided for them). This is not at all the court's right or function. Additionally, the people did speak, and the court over-ruled it. And the law was designed to create boundaries for the protection of both types of unions, and the court erased them. Regardless of how their decision affects anyone in my life, I can't support the court's decision in any way. It is obviously creating law, not interpreting it. In fact, it ruins the political system. Based on the language of the decision, it seems personal to me. I don't want to allow the court's actions to go unchecked because the language of the decision implies that the court feels it has the right to make whatever laws it wants to. The dissenting judges very clearly stated these same concerns. Prop 8 is the only option available to the people for saying anything about this matter of judiciary abuse and privilege.

Problem

At the risk of being too frank, and misunderstood, what makes this issue difficult to navigate is that homosexuality is more than a character trait. If it were simply a character trait, like race, which is how it is being treated by the court, then it absolutely deserves the civil rights attention that it gets. But it is also a behavior, which race is not. This is where the matter gets tricky. The behavior of homosexuality is not the same as the behavior of heterosexuality, and the two produce very different, even opposite, results in regards to the creation of life. Calling them the same would be ignoring reality. Calling them the same on paper would dissolve the understanding and definition of what each is. They are different from each other. Calling their unions the same doesn't seem correct. Not as a matter of sentiment or love, but as a matter of identification. If a definition is incorrect, laws addressing it can never be anything but incorrect. The court also speaks of equal dignity and respect and claims that is what it is creating. But by trying to call the two unions the same the court avoids the issue with a sophomoric quick fix and in my mind sweeps homosexuality under the carpet. There is no dignity or respect in that.

Aftermath

I don't know what would happen if the decision was allowed to stand. But I do know that it would dilute the power of the people and it would complicate the issue at hand.

Conclusion

Making these thoughts public is difficult for me because I prefer my privacy and I respect the privacy of others. I've tried my best not to say anything upsetting to anyone, but isn't that hard to do? I would hope that anyone who knows me really believes that I genuinely love the people in my life. I don't intend any of this to be taken as hostile in any way. I don't see why any of it would be. I am sorry to post it here, it doesn't match the rest of the blog. A political blog would have been better.

Now let's talk about something else. I'm done talking about this.