On California’s Prop. 8

There is still lots of talk about this propo­si­tion. But if it comes down to what is right, I think it’s rather sim­ple. It can be seen in a piece of doc­u­ment writ­ten over 200 years ago which states the fol­low­ing:

We hold these truths to be self-evi­dent, that all men are cre­at­ed equal, that they are endowed by their Cre­ator with cer­tain unalien­able Rights, that among these are Life, Lib­er­ty and the pur­suit of Hap­pi­ness.1

Though one might find them­selves hav­ing mixed feel­ings of what the above should be or should not be inter­pret­ed as, they fall back on reli­gious views2. But to believe that this has arguable weight, and is enough to amend the State Con­sti­tu­tion (or The Con­sti­tion “peri­od”) is in itself an erred way of thought and process.

That is, it con­tra­dicts the “legal and polit­i­cal prin­ci­ple” of the sep­a­ra­tion of Church and State:

Con­gress shall make no law respect­ing an estab­lish­ment of reli­gion…

And if that is not enough, amend­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion with Propo­si­tion 8 makes us ques­tion if those self-evi­dent “truths” (that the Unit­ed States were found­ed and built upon) are still real or not. Per­son­al­ly, I know they are. Hence, my belief and faith in those “unalien­able Rights” led me to find that Propo­si­tion 8 is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al and there­fore, deserved my vote against it (“No on 8”).

  1. The Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence. July 4, 1776. []
  2. I hap­pen to find an inter­est­ing read while research­ing. Here’s an arti­cle writ­ten by Cog­i­to!, enti­tled “Propo­si­tion 8, Homo­sex­u­al­i­ty, and the Bible: An Excur­sus”. []

Leave a Comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>