Prop 8

I don't live in California and I never once set foot in that state during the entire election cycle, so this post may be filled with inaccuracies. But it's based on what I consider to be reliable sources.

One of the things that pisses me off about Proposition 8, beside the fact that it was introduced in the first place, is how it was presented to the voters in ads sponsored by religious organizations. I can understand their opposition to it, which is based on a deep-rooted belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman, and that's what they should have said in the ads. But that isn't what they said in the ads. Why? Because it wouldn't have worked. What they said in the ads was that churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages against their beliefs, or lose their tax-exempt status.

In other words, what they were saying in the ads was a total lie. Isn't there a commandment against that? Or is it an end-justifies-the-means kind of thing?

What I believe is that if this is true, these churches should lose their tax-exempt status for sponsoring the ads. But they won't.

Approximately 52% of the voters voted in favor of Prop 8. True story: I saw more than one livejournal post in which the writer claimed to have no problem with same-sex marriage, but planned to vote for Prop 8 because they didn't want churches to lose their exempt status. One even said he didn't believe it would really happen, but he couldn't take that chance.

The ads were effective, it seems. Effective enough, I'll bet, to sway more than 2% of the voters to vote their way. Legal considerations aside, that's why I think it should be overturned.

"The voters have spoken." Not really.

...