Same sex marriage involves the matrimonial union of persons belonging to the same gender. It is characterized in man to man marriage or woman to woman marriages. Los Angeles-California voters have adopted a constitutional amendment that bans same sex marriage. This has been a popular and critical issue in California (Baker 24). The voters of California have been backed up by other voters from two other states in the mission of overturning the union of the same sex persons. The same sex marriage ban initiative in California is denoted by Proposition eight. It has been reported that the latest election returns on the proposition eight indicated that the fifty two percent of the voters were against the same sex marriage while forty eight percent were for the same sex marriage (Topics.nytimes.com). This indicates that the two rivals sides has almost a similar mix of supporters in that the win-lose difference is extremely minimal (Huffingtonpost.com Para 3).
Same sex marriage in California is a new lifestyle which many nations are following up the matter in a serious way. There were some absentee and provisional votes that were not counted. The main bill that supports same sex marriage in New York involved making of the marriage law gender-neutral (Lovehonorcherish.org Para 5). The neutral positions in the marriage mean that the government does not support any of the sides. This government approach will influence the constitutional bans of the same sex marriages in the states of California and Oregon. This may increase the support of the gay marriage jeopardizing the efforts of the proposition eight which is against the same sex marriages (Baker 32).
It is believed that proposition eight would eliminate the fundamental rights in California for the group of people (Schwarzenegger Para 6). It is argued that the elimination of the group of people is unfair and illegal. This has to be proved in that proposition eight is against the same sex marriages. This translates that once it comes to power; it will certainly discriminate against the gay marriages and will advance to the elimination of the group of people practicing same sex marriages in California (Huffingtonpost.com Para 4). The members of the proposition eight argue that the movement does not discriminate against the gay people.
Proportion eight is argued to be comprehensible and eliminates the rights for same sex marriages. It is believed that proposition eight will deny equal protections to marriages. This is because it is against the same sex marriages. The gay marriages supporters argue that they will be discriminated and not protected by the constitution of California (Rankin Para 2). The gay and lesbian people want their marriages unions to be recognized like any other marriage. They argue that they have the ability to make up their own choices without any interference (Schwarzenegger para 7).
Preposition eight has the approach that the teaching of the children in sex issues will not be jeopardized by the same sex marriages. The supporters of the preposition eight argue that they do not mention anything to do with education. They continue to insist that no one child can be forced against the will of the parents. Proposition eight argues that children has the right to be taught by the teachers what their parents wish. Health and family issues taught at school will not be influenced by the preposition eight (Topics.nytimes.com Para 3). The supporters of the preposition eight argue that they are laws abiding citizens. The supporters of the preposition eight argue that they have nothing to do with the education system. This has been emphasized by California’s leading educators including the Superintendent of the California schools Jack O’Connell and teachers of the California schools (Schwarzenegger Para 8).
The same sex marriages supporters argue that the preposition eight will change the position of the churches on the issue of tax exemptions. The courts have clarified on these issues and stated that same sex marriage supporters and the preposition supporters have the right to change the operations of the churches. The courts asserted that no religion has the right to change the policies and practices of the church. Every person has the right of choice in religious matters no matter the stand on the same sex marriage or prepositions eight (Schwarzenegger Para 9).
The same sex marriage supporters argue that the Massachusetts case on the objection of parents to the school curriculum will happen after the changes. This is a fact that the constitution of California supports; that the parents have unrestricted rights in getting their children out of schools teaching on health and family issues they do not agree. The California law covers this and the preposition eight will not have any influence on the law. The supporters of the proposition eight argue that the case of Massachusetts is an irreverent case.
The supporters of the same sex marriages argue that the proposition eight has four activist judges in San Francisco. They continue to argue that proposition eight is still in the old age of arguments. This is seen on the issue of judges protecting the rights and freedoms of a group of people. Judges are not supposed to take a side in any court case. They are expected to remain neutral until a verdict is made. Proposition eight argues that its main agenda is based on the elimination of the same sex marriages. The systems proposition eight is using to achieve its goal is discourteous to mention in the case. It’s about elimination of the fundamental right for one group of citizens practicing the same sex marriages (Lovehonorcherish.org Para 4).
The supporters of proposition eight argue that if the proposition eight is not passed. This may result to people being sued for their personal beliefs. This is false in that; the constitution of California prohibit discrimination on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation (Huffingtonpost.com Para 5). The constitution has established that preposition eight; or the support of the same sex marriages has nothing to do with people being sued over personal beliefs. Personal beliefs have nothing to do with marriage.
It is a fiction being rumored by the supporters of the preposition eight stating that Pepperdine University supports the preposition eight campaigns. The University publicly disassociated with the support of any side (Rankin 34). The university asserted that; it supports the ruling made by the courts. The stand of Professor Richard Peterson of Peterdine University is a personal stand that does not reflect the viewpoint of the University. The University served students and the community comprising the supporters of the preposition eight and supporters of the same sex marriage. This means that the University has to remain neutral on the issue.
The supporters of the preposition eight argue that the preposition eight passing will enhance California parents with in choosing what their children are taught in the schools (Schwarzenegger Para 4). This is a false statement. The California laws give parents and guardians authority to relocate children from one school to another depending on their religious beliefs and moral convictions (Rankin 36).
Preposition argues that the recognition of the same sex marriages will lead to schools being talk that gay marriages is right and that gays do not have the right to prescribe marriage for everyone else (Johnson 12). The supporters of the gay marriages argued that freedom to marry is essential to the society and should never be interfered with. These arguments are right and reflect the issues of moral standing in the society. The gay and lesbian support will lead to further moral decay.
Preposition eight argues that there should be one set of rules for the gay and lesbians and another set of rule for the ordinary person in California. This brings about discrimination. The gays and the lesbians argue that the California constitution has the right to protect and promote equality under the law. Nobody should be discriminated against. The spending on the campaign was marked with high budgets. This resulted in demonstrations and protests across the state and the American nation. This led to same sex couples; and government entities file numerous lawsuits challenging the validity of the propositions stand. People argued that preposition eight discriminated against equal rights and protection in line to the constitution of the United States of America. Preposition eight won against the supporters of the same sex marriages. The issue is still under debate and challenge on the same sex marriages is still debatable (Baker 54). Time will determine the final results on the California marriage laws (Huffingtonpost.com Para 6).
There has been lots of facts and propaganda being distributed by the supporters of the same sex marriages and supporters of the preposition eight. Preposition eight eliminates those rights of the same sex couples to marry. This is a strategy for the constitutional amendment called the California marriage protection act. There have been numerous debates on the marriage stand leading to elections to determine which side carries the day. Preposition eight is protecting the section in the California constitution that sates that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized. This indicates that the current California constitution is against the marriage of the same sex couples (Williams Para 3). This has seen the need for the supporters of the same sex marriages change the constitution to recognize same sex marriages.