Gay Marriage IT\'S Nothing Personal

Gay Marriage

IT'S NOTHING PERSONAL JUST GOVERNMENTAL Business

GAY MARRIAGE

The objective of this work is to take the position supporting the passing of proposition 8 or the gay marriage ban in the state of California. This work will discuss the issue and the idea of a constitutional amendment which is discriminatory against a part of the population. This work will consider the extremely active role played by individuals who while not living in the state of California greatly participated in this campaign. This work will consider the institutional role of government in marriage and in reinforcing family life. Finally, this work will discuss how marriage affects and influences other social institutions in our society.

GOVERNMENT vs. PERSONAL

Controversial and contentious issues such as gay marriage often inflame and incite people to extreme response because feelings and emotions, beliefs and even principles are involved. However, in issues that are governmental and institutional the concerns are in reality a matter of rationale instead of foundational personal and perhaps even spiritual beliefs. This work intends to examine gay marriage from the governmental perspective from a purely rational view and one that is devoid of emotion, religion, or personal beliefs or principles.

In reality, this is precisely what occurred in the state of California as reported November 5, 2008 in the work entitled: "California Gay Marriage Banned as Proposition 8 Passes." Stated is that the election "otherwise full of liberal triumphs..." also witnessed the defeat as California voters "approved a ban on same-sex marriages that overrides a recent court decision legalizing them." (the Huffington Post, 2009) the report goes on to state: "In California, with 95% of precincts reporting Wednesday, the ban had 5,125,752 votes, or 52%, while there were 4,725,313 votes, or 48%, opposed." (the Huffington Post, 2009)

II. PRIMARY ISSUES in the DEBATE

The primary issues that come into play in this debate is firstly that relating to governmental demographical data as compared to the opposing primary issue of personal wants, desires and beliefs. Demographical data including gender and race as recorded and stored by government officials and representatives at all levels would necessarily require restructuring if the concept of marriage, as between a man and a woman were altered allowing marriage to also mean the union between a man and another man or a woman and another woman. This is because the term 'husband' or 'groom' has always inherently meant 'man' or 'male' and the term "wife" has always inherently meant 'woman' or 'female'.

III. WASTE of TIME, LABOR, and RESOURCES

One can imagine that in the case of a gay couple whether that couple be a female union or a male union that there would be some question as to whose name should be listed as the husband or groom and who would be the assigned wife or bride for the purpose of the government's concern. The result in a contentious issue which is not easily resolved even in the case that one individual of the couple presenting claims they are the husband or alternatively, the wife because there is no system implemented at the governmental level to deal with this issue. Therefore, the creation of a completely different category in the governmental database, or system, or computerized record-keeping method is easier than to attempt to somehow integrate the same-sex union which has historically and traditionally not been an issue in the contemporary society.

IV. DECISION: VOTER RATIONALE

It is not so much that gay marriage in California has been banned as the citizens along with many government officials in the state understand that to make the changes to the systems and processes of government that would be required at the level of administrative and record-keeping that much time would be consumed thereby consuming resources and labor hours that could be more effectively used solving some of the larger problems that loom before the state of California and its government and citizens which need to be addressed.

V. it'S NOTHING PERSONAL

The report entitled: "Final Statement from No on Prop 8 Campaign" bemoans the ban and states: "Sadly, fueled by misinformation, distortions and lies, millions of voters went to the polls yesterday and said YES to bigotry, YES to discrimination, YES to second-class status for same-sex couples." (www.votenoonprop8.com,2009) However, the question left unanswered is how indeed are gay couples discriminated against because one member of the couple is not referred to in the manner of a gender that is opposite of the gender they actually are? Where in this is bigotry? Where in this is second-class status?

VI. CASELAW/COMMON LAW