Prop 8 is Not a "Civil Rights" Issue! “Domestic partnerships" and civil unions were created in states where gay marriage was not an option. However, they offer the same rights and responsibilities as marriage at the state level.

Garber and Mancino before TV cameras

For centuries Marriage has been a legal spousal kinship between man and his female bride -- a relationship that’s recognized across cultures, countries and religions. It wasn’t challenged until the 1964 civil rights act and subsequent "homosexual revolution". Prop. 22 the "California Defense of Marriage Act initiative was approved in 2000 by 61.4% of our voters, preventing same sex-marriages in our state. It was law until May 2008 when our California Supreme Court struck it down in a 4-3 decision, giving same-sex couples the right to marry. It's again being challenged via Prop 8. Anti-Prop "gay rights" groups have spent many millions to defeat Prop 8 using civil rights, morality, or religion to advance their arguments.

Homosexuality and "same-sex unions are not "civil rights concerns", nor are they primarily morality or religious issues. Whether homosexuality is physiological, psychological, or genetic, it's not a "normal condition" -- nor are "gay and lesbian civil unions". (Today, they’re being taught as “normal, but different. life styles".) On the other hand, traditional "marriage" between heterosexual couples has always been, and should remain, that normal, beneficial, exclusive relationship, essential for the continuation of human life. As for related "civil rights" arguments, consider other marriage license restrictions as in cases of minors, incompetents, incest etc. Beyond that, all states outlaw relationships such as bigamy, polygamy, pedophilia, etc. Most in the social sciences believe children benefit in traditional mother and father families. As victims’ rights advocate, I submit that skyrocketing juvenile delinquency and crime nationally correlates with “non-traditional families” and "broken homes" in this age of X-rated entertainment, Internet pornography, and today’s declining morality.

Update by John Mancino, January 2010: An appellate court in San Francisco is presently hearing arguments and will ultimately rule on the constitutionality of Prop. 8, even though voters have already amended the state constitution in California to read that marriage shall be between one man and one woman - an amendment that the California Supreme Court ruled was, in fact, constitutional. U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker has already shown his bias against Prop. 8 by ruling that cameras be allowed during the proceedings, thereby subjecting Prop. 8 supporters to additional threats from the far left. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court majority overruled Judge Walker.

If Walker overturns Prop. 8, the next step will unfortunately be the infamous 9th Circuit Court, the most liberal in the nation. ACRU will watch this case closely, and if the court overturns Prop. 8, may file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.

May 1, 2010 Update: Chief Judge Walker has set closing arguments in the Prop. 8 trial for June. Supporters of gay marriage have claimed that Prop. 8, passed by voters to amend the state constitution, 1) does irreparable harm to Americans, 2) violates the Due Process Clause by depriving Americans of fundamental rights, 3) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 4) singles out gays and lesbians for disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of "second-class citizens", 5) discriminates on the basis of gender, and 6) discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. We at ACRU find this absurd. It is unimaginable that such a court case would be taking place in past decades. We will keep you posted.

Dr Howard Garber is Founder and President of the American Civil Responsibilities Union, Inc. (a 501-C3 educational organization.) PO Box 17099, Anaheim, CA, 92817 714-998-6007 PS: (I was So. Calif. Director of the first "Rose Bird Recall effort which ultimately succeeded in ousting Chief Justice Bird and two other “abolitionist justices”.)