While on blogging hiatus the California Supreme Court heard arguments to overturn Proposition 8. Personally, I believe this is a heinous and offensive Proposition approved by the California voters; it’s embarrassing, and it should be eliminated.

However, I don’t believe the California Supreme Court should overturn Prop 8. The people created this mess and the people are going to need to clean it up. I suspect another proposition will be required to do the trick. The court shouldn’t overturn the will of the voters, however misguided, that is antithetical to democracy.

What this does mean is that the people of California, particularly people who care about equality for all people, need to pull their heads out of their hind ends and get some propositions on the ballot that take care of this matter. For instance:

1. Protect Traditional Marriage – What this proposition does is extend the protection for traditional marriage by outlawing divorce. After all, “what god has joined together, let no man put asunder.” This proposition would eliminate legal divorce in California and help protect the traditional union between one man and one woman. It would also have the side effect of increasing the assault & battery, domestic violence, and murder rates in the state.
2. Even Further Protect Traditional Marriage – This proposition would define marriage as “a union between one man and one woman, where both parties are of the same race, religion, and class; where the bride agrees to subjugate herself to the will of her husband in all circumstances; where the parents of the bride have been asked for marriage by the groom -or- such a union was agreed in advance by both parents; a dowry has been provided to take on the woman in the marriage; and the children will be raised in a pre-approved religion and preferably will have their marriages arranged while still under the age of 18.” Effectively, coupled with the elimination of divorce, this proposition will end inter-racial, inter-faith, and inter-class mingling while outlawing the chance relationships initiated in places such as bars or dances, and returns us to the idyllic time when Ward and June raised the Beaver.
3. Really, Really, Really Protect Traditional Marriage – In addition to the protections provided by the propositions above, proposed couples would petition their church, their sheriff, their local elected representatives, and their Senator for approval of any such union in advance pledging to hold to the conditions prescribed by the state and signing a contract that would have negative consequences of a) eternal damnation b) $250,000 fine and c) up to 25 years in prison if breached by acts of infidelity, lying, drinking, dancing, smoking, or non-prescription drugs.

Yes, these propositions would take us all the way back from the brink of destruction of the traditional marriage and would help usher in a new age of commitment to serious man/woman relationships the way they were meant to be. The fact that the state would be overseeing them and enforcing the terms would only encourage more traditional marriage, after all, anyone seeking the validity of such a commitment wants the support of all their fellow citizens.

Or, we could take a completely different direction:

1. Eliminate Marriage – What this proposition would do is to get the state out of the marriage business altogether. All unions in the eyes of the state are civil unions and they could happen between a person and a tree if so desired. The term “marriage” would be retired and all citizens would be viewed equally under the law as they enter into civil unions.

In any case, I think all of these should be ballot measures on the next statewide election and that would truly bring this business to a head. Proposition 8 effectively starts the ball rolling for other kinds of modification to our state Constitution that people only object to when it direct affects them. I say the state has no place in the marriage business as marriage is practically a contract to the state. Let’s treat it that way and let’s ensure that any combination of committed couple has access to the exact same rights for hospital visitation, wills and survivor benefits, healthcare, citizenship, etc.

If we’re not willing to take that step, then we should follow the definition of traditional marriage to the most extreme point possible, so the bigots who voted for this so-called law, supported it with money, lobbied for it, will suffer the consequences of their own actions. It will be entertaining to see those birds come home to roost. People then disenfranchised by the majority could observe “Oh, you don’t like it when others legislate your rights? Hmm, well, that’s too bad. Guess you’ll have to work to change that sometime in the future.”