Prop 8: Aftermath

Last night a friend of mine from High School updated her status to say:
"R is depressed that 52% of people in her state are evil."

Which prompted me to write the following:

Hey R,

I know we don't talk often, but I just wanted to respond to your status. I hope you don't really look upon all people who voted Yes on prop 8 as "evil." Clearly we all see this as a very difficult and emotional issue, but I do promise you that at least SOME of the people who voted yes on that issue care very much about their friends and their happiness, but simply feel a moral obligation to vote for things they see as true - not out of a desire to impose a "religious will" on anyone.

I hope this isn't offensive to you, I just wanted to give you insight from someone on the other side of the issue.

respectfully,
kt

R's Response:
Hi kt,
Thanks for the message, I appreciate it. I shouldn't have used the word "evil"... the emotions are just very strong still. While I feel like I understand that you feel that being gay is wrong/sinful/etc, I don't think I'll ever understand why a "moral obligation," as you put it, would drive people to fight to take civil rights away from others.

It parallels interracial marriage in every way. 50 years ago, it would be illegal for me to marry my now-husband. It would also mean I would not exist since my own parents wouldn't be allowed to marry either. So, this is a highly personal issue to me.

Even if someone thinks homosexuality is sinful, I don't understand the need to go out of your way to take rights away from them. This is the first time in our state's history that there will be an amendment to the constitution to REMOVE civil rights. Isn't that saying something? You can disagree w/someone's "lifestyle" yet recognize that it has no bearing on your own life/happiness/well-being. And also, aren't your morals tied to your religion? So if enforcing your morals on others isn't enforcing religious will, then what is it?

Had justices in the Loving v Virginia case not stood up for interracial marriage, who knows if I would have the same rights as you today. At the time, I'm guessing popular vote would have voted against allowing it, but with hindsight, I hope you'd agree that the right decision was made.

Happy to keep the conversation going... I respect you but just haven't heard a single convincing argument yet...

R

And my response:

R,

Thanks for your great response. I know there has been some ridiculous rhetoric thrown around, some of which L. corrected for me (in terms of how state laws differ, etc.). And, yes, you are correct that my morals are founded on my religion, but it is not a desire to force my religious "code" that drives this issue for me. I'll try to explain as best I can. Please feel free to pick this apart.

The best way to explain this is that I believe in a society with genders. I know that seems like an odd way to put it, but I believe that in the way the genders interact physically, emotionally, psychologically, etc. they are designed to be different (Even though, of course, like all populations, there are statistical variances to any generalized characteristics), and that these differences are desireable.

I do not see this as the same as interracial marriage, because this is an issue of gender to me. Whereas a white man and a black man are the same (with some genetic differences, obviously), a woman and a man are not (obviously, as mentioned before, there are some outlying variances statistically - but those are, statistically, exceptions). I read an article in the NYT this summer that seemed shocked that although women are just as capable as men in science, they are "just not interested" - further evidence to me that the brain, the body, and, I would contend, the spirit of the genders have fundamental differences. Again, I believe those differences have value. This is the foundation for why I believe marriage is only between a man and a woman.

I believe that the sexual relationship is a metaphor for the emotional relationship - that just as the two genders are designed to procreate physically in different, but complementary ways, they are designed to parent emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually in different, but complementary ways.

This does not mean that I don't think other individuals (single, in committed homosexual relationships, etc.) wouldn't make great parents. It also doesn't mean that the worst heterosexual relationship is better than the best homosexual relationship. Clearly that is not true. Even though I do not personally relate to homosexuality, I readily believe that the love these couples have is sincere and lasting. I absolutely trust that these couples sincerely love and desire each other.

I simply believe that God designed two genders to teach each other - in ways that are harder, sometimes, than it would be with someone of the same gender - and that there is truth, beauty, and importance in that design. That it is something physically, socially, psychologically, and spiritually worth promoting above all other relationships.

Because I believe this is true, I feel a moral obligation to support what I see as true in the laws that I support. It does not affect my respect for others' choices, nor does it affect my wishes for others' happiness.

I really appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue with me. I hope this makes sense, even though you may disagree.

Best
kt

ps - the article I mentioned is here:
and obviously it's a generalization that women "just aren't as interested" - because I have many girlfriends who are very talented and interested in the sciences, although most of them are just as interested (and talented) in the liberal arts as well.