No on Proposition 22

editorial cartoon by Natalie Fowle
editorial cartoon by Natalie Fowle

With the first election of the 21st century, one would hope that the government would promote issues and propositions that will push America into the future, not into the past. Yet with Proposition 22 people’s beliefs and lifestyles are threatened.

Proposition 22, which will be voted on Tuesday, states “Only marriages between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California.” The proposition is redundant because same-sex couples are currently unable to marry in California. The distinction of man and woman leaves out and limits the option of same sex marriages. No matter how one feels on the issue of same-sex marriages the initiative is in violation of one’s constitutional rights and bridges the gap between church and state.

Only 50 years ago, an interracial marriage was unlawful in America, and now this initiative is repeating history by singling out a specific group.

If the initiative passes and other states allow same-sex marriages in the future, a couple who married for love and companionship who happen to be of the same-sex will not have their marriage recognized under California law and will not be entitled the rights of married people. Yet marriages only four money and sex, like the “Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?” couple, will still be able to disgrace marriage.

Supporters of Proposition 22 believe that the initiative, if passed, will maintain the “traditional” definition of marriage. Divorce rates, adultery and spousal abuse are rapidly increasing. If the proposition’s supporters really want to maintain the definition of marriage, then why is there not an initiative providing government-funded counseling programs to help out all these current problems?

The proposition is intrusive and extremely unconstitutional. Living under a democracy, United States citizens have fought for the separation of church and state, yet with Proposition 22, moral views and beliefs are being forced upon people.

The prime issue of Proposition 22 is not whether same-sex marriage is considered “right” or “wrong.” The question really is how intrusive will the government become in people’s lives and how many people will allow it to happen? Why should the government decide who and how people love, and how they express that love?

If the proposition passes, what will be next? How many more civil rights will be violated? If more citizens allow the government to infringe on their lives and limit their rights, the fundamentals of the United States Constitution will end up being nothing but a joke.

Other Stories

Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Campus Times Editorial Board.

Natalie Fowle, Photography Editor
Natalie Fowle

Latest Stories

Related articles

Senate bill would ban AI therapists

The California Legislature has voted to implement Senate Bill 903, would ban artificial intelligence chatbots that provide mental health therapy services and will place regulations when AI is used in health spaces.

Students use fashion to promote political ideas and honor their cultures

Ahsha Jones, senior psychology major, gets up every morning ready to tackle her long list of daily activities. However, before she can step out of her dorm room, she puts together an outfit that not only allows her to be comfortable but also expresses where she comes from.

Commentary: Drag offers gateway to queer community

Seeing yourself represented in the media can be the difference between self-isolation and self-acceptance. 

Federal financial aid changes could hurt students

Starting July 1 college students and graduate students will see changes to their financial aid packages.