What Do Prop. 4 and Prop. 8 Have in Common?

Prop. 4 could easily be called the deja-vu proposition; we’ve seen this beastie before, as people whose ultimate agenda is to erode a woman’s sovereignty over her own body have previously put parental notification laws on the ballot. The arguments against requiring that parents or family be notified when a teenager seeks to get an abortion remain unchanged; increased trauma for teenagers who, unable to safely turn to parents or family, are forced to either deal with strangers in the court system or turn to other desperate, dangerous measures like back-alley abortions. Prop. 4, in other words, represents a threat to a teenager’s physical and mental well-being. In addition, Prop. 4 is not only an attempt to legislate abortion by indirect means, it’s a direct assault on the right and responsibility of people to be sovereigns over their own lives. In the bigger picture, the solution to the problem Prop. 4 is intended to address – teenagers seeking abortions – is actually very simple: It’s this DIY thing called parenting.

And Prop. 8, – the discriminating, anti-gay effort to deny same-sex couples the same right to marry as heterosexual couples? Supporters falsely claim that gay marriage is being forced on churches and religions (presumably by the government), when it’s actually Prop. 8 that’s doing all the forcing. It’s interesting how Prop. 8 is driven mostly by the Mormon Church, with support by the Catholic Knights of Columbus, but isn’t supported by other religious organizations like the Episcopalian Church (http://www.diocal.org/). This goes to show how gay marriage, as a civil right, isn’t an assault on religion. In fact, Prop. 8 is itself an assault launched by select religious groups on both the government and other religious traditions. When marriage is open to both straight and gay couples, that’s the government saying to people, “Hey, you figure out who you want to marry on your own.” It’s telling churches, “Hey, it’s up to you to decide who to marry and how.” With neither heterosexual marriage nor children “threatened” by gay marriage, this is a situation in which voters have to choose between their own sovereignty or allowing the government to intrude in their personal lives.

There are high stakes involved in both propositions, which explains in part why supporters of these propositions have relied on deceit and intimidation to bring people to their side. Prop. 4 supporters, for example, trot out a “Sarah” who gives the proposition it’s unofficial name. Yet, not only was the girl in question not named Sarah, she didn’t live in California. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pis5gEiVQOo&feature=related) The prize, however, goes to the “Yes on Prop. 8” folk, who have gone beyond distorting the facts (the opt-out law for school children is very much alive and well, recent “Yes on 8” ads notwithstanding) to outright intimidation and extortion. Thuggery and extortion are good descriptions of “Yes on 8” attempts to coerce business-supporting the “No on 8” campaign, as in this case (http://ap.google.com/article/) where businessman Jim Abbott received a threatening letter (http://www.noonprop8.com/downloads/Prop8ThreatLetter.pdf):

“Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error,” reads the letter. “Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. … The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.”

Like I said: thuggery.

The Link

So what is the link between Prop. 4 and Prop. 8? Answer: both measures are attempts to use the government to interfere in people’s private lives. So intent are Prop. 4 and Prop. 8 supporters of imposing their views on everyone else, they’ve exceeded the normal tendency to exaggerate in political campaigns and crossed the line into the outrageous. And in a strange turn of political semantics, we find an area of common interest between liberals and conservatives in the old-school, stereotypical sense of the words – liberals concerned with progressive social policies, and conservatives dedicated to small government and personal accountability. Different philosophical starting points, same destination – no on Propositions 4 and 8, on account that individual freedom is better than Big Daddy Guvmint. Yes, that sound you hear is the sound of dichotomies exploding.