Escaping Religious Persecution
To some, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, as is done in Proposition 8, seems elementary, but to others proposing the above definition of marriage as a constitutional amendment greatly expands the complexity of the issues at stake in the 2008 California state-wide election.
CitizenNewscaster.com has now interviewed people on both sides of the Proposition 8 divide. Proponents of Prop 8 who were interviewed include Jeff Taylor, a candidate for congress in the 17th District, and Gloria de la Rosa, a City of Salinas Council member. People interviewed, who oppose Prop. 8 include Attorney Lisa Cisneros and others.
During our interviews, CitizenNewscaster.com found that those who oppose proposition 8 tend to offer multi-dimensional answers relating complex issues such as the separation of church and state, religious freedoms, discrimination, family values and civil rights. Conversely, supporters of Proposition 8 tended to rely on a belief system and offer responses typified by phrases such as "I believe," "biblically speaking," and a predominant unwillingness to discuss civil issues.
An exception to the unwillingness to discuss civil issues was Congressional Candidate and Proposition 8 supporter Jeff Taylor. Mr. Taylor spoke of civil rights in terms of genetics indicating that because some people are born black and are therefore unable to change their skin color, civil rights had needed to be written into the constitution. He went on to imply that the inability of black people to change skin color equates to a lack of civil rights for gay people. (Please reference the video above).
CitizenNewscaster.com doesn't have the space in the context of this article to address the reality that it wasn't because some people are born black that action on civil rights was needed, and that civil rights enhancements continue to be needed for people of all colors in the United States and beyond. Suffice it here to say that CitizenNewscaster.com finds Mr. Taylor's argument that genetics control civil rights to be extremely constrained in scope.
Other interviewees based their support of Prop 8 on a sense of entitlement due to the fact that their "forefathers had come to this country to escape religious persecution." These interviewees did not make the connection between the state-sponsored religious persecution experienced by their forefathers and the effect of Prop 8 which would be to impose the marriage doctrines of one religion on all religions by obligating the state in effect to impose a ban on same-sex marriages against churches that wish to perform them.
During the recent Proposition 8 interview, Congressional candidate Jeff Taylor signaled dissatisfaction with MTV and reality television. Is censorship of public media via constitutional amendments which are based on religious doctrines next? If belief systems such as those expressed during CitizenNewscaster.com interviews comprise the arguments for Proposition 8, we should ask ourselves: "If proposition 8 passes, then where does the erosion of the neutrality of the state toward religion stop?"
CitizenNewscaster.com urges everyone to fully consider the ramifications of Proposition 8 before casting their vote. |
