Prop. 22 on Marriage

* On a recent Saturday morning my doorbell was rung by a man and a woman. The man gave me a handout on Prop. 22 and asked that I vote yes on it. I thanked him, then added, “But I think all people should be able to marry.” Before I could say anything further, he smiled dismissively, said that I was entitled to my view and turned away. The woman standing behind him chuckled as if to say that any opinion contrary to this initiative was laughable.

I will be getting married this year, and preparing for our wedding with family and friends is a source of great joy to my fiancee and me. I am not inclined to deny this joy to a person just because he or she wants to marry someone of the same gender. Can permitting people to commit their lives, love and treasure to each other for the rest of their lives truly be harmful to our society? Marriage is such a profound state. I suspect that the substitution of other, lesser commitments would not be satisfactory. This March, I plan to vote for inclusion and tolerance and for recognizing the right of all people to engage in the full richness of life.

SHERYL HAYASHI

Lake Forest

*

It should be brought to the attention of someone that Prop. 22 isn’t a legal initiative so much as it is a statement of religious belief. Laws are supposed to change the status quo, like: “Left-handed people are now prohibited from filing for marriage in California” or, “Additional spouses may be registered with the state for a $250 filing fee.” Prop. 22 only reiterates the status quo. It is a statement without consequences, as legally meaningless as having a law stating, “The moon is round.”

This initiative should be disqualified outright on the basis of it violating the constitutional separation of state and church. And perhaps the best thing that might come out of this initiative is the common realization that marriage itself is really a religious institution that has no business being regulated by the state in any way.

STUART BECHMAN

Simi Valley