I hold these truths to be self-evident...

Reflections.

On Proposition 4

As put forth on the ballot, this measure would change California's Constitution to prohibit 'abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent, legal guardian, or, in limited cases, substitute adult relative.'  Although the measure provides an exception in case of emergency or pre-dating parental waiver, it does not take into consideration one possible end to this situation:  that a parent may not provide a consent for abortion and the resulting scenario would still leave the girl in question carrying that child for the duration of a pregnancy.  Nine months is a long time.  It's about the length of an academic year.  But this is not so much a question of time and inconvenience as it is a question of the invasion of a girl's body for a period of nine months without any consideration for her rights as an individual, albeit a minor.

I do indeed recognise that she would be a minor and legally under the parents'/guardians' tutelage, but I also cannot help but think of the consequences that such a pregnancy would have on her on a physical, social, and psychological level.  I concede that it is a delicate issue when the maturity of a girl is in question, especially in today's well-nourished world (at least in the U.S.) where girls are reaching puberty as early as the age of nine or ten.  But being fertile does not mean being ready to carry a child.  No one will question that at such a young age the girl is still growing herself, and a pregnancy and the hormonal and physical aspects that accompany it will inflict irreversible damage on her growth, bone structure, and perhaps internal organs.  Tantamount to this is her emotional and psychological welfare and it ought to be considered just as carefully.

With parents guided by religious convictions or deeply entrenched moral dictates, it is obvious that these consequences would not cross their minds quite easily.  The result would be devastating for the girl carrying the child.  I do recognise the adverse effects of abortion as well.  That is why I consider it an evil, but a necessary evil; and I do realise that this right has been and is being abused by certain women when it is used as the only means of contraception, but this is no excuse for punishing those other girls who unwittingly find themselves in the difficult position of being pregnant during their teenage years.  Moreover, it is in no way justified when one considers that by preventing abortion one invades another woman's body, her days, her emotions, her person.  Consider the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure of the person, not only of property.

Instead of passing such laws (in a Constitution of all places!) the state should do a better job in educating young people about sex and its consequences.  We are living at a time where 'abstinence only' is not a viable option of contraception, despite what many may think, and abortion still remains necessary, more often because of ignorance and myths that still surround the sexual act as means of reproduction.  At the same time, sexually active individuals, including males but especially females, ought not to rely on abortion as a contraceptive, but only as a last resort.  I have always taken this stance and will continue to do so.

On Proposition 8

This Proposition, if passed, would amend the Constitution in the state of California to prevent the right of individuals to be bound in same-sex marriages, in other words, it would define 'marriage' as a union between a man and a woman.  Where do I start with this one...?

First, let me state that same-sex marriage, as it currently exists in California and Massachusetts, does not in any way obligate religious groups and authorities to recognise it as such.  Consequently, those who purport that such marriages go against the will of god or any other religious canon should sit still in their places and stop fulminating such nonsense—it is inapposite.  Marriage, as it is being sought by same-sex couples, demands no religious connotation, legitimation, or validation.  It is merely a union of two citizens in the eyes of the law for fiscal, guardianship, hereditary, visitation, and other similar civic rights.  This is the only way to provide the equality that the Constitution guarantees to all individuals.  To prohibit it is unconstitutional.  That those two citizens of legal age willing to commit to one another happen to be of the same sex is and should be immaterial.  That the government of the United States or any state therein should recognise and respect such a union and consider it as marriage in equal rights to heterosexual couples, therefore, goes without saying.

Secondly, I feel I should address the question of love.  Few individuals would seriously commit to one another in a covenant (since I'm reading Hobbes) in the eyes of the law if they had no love between them.  To deny such union is to attack the existence of love between those persons.  I realise that many still consider homosexuality a choice and would quickly remind everybody that 'homosexuals' can choose to love and have a marriage with someone of the opposite sex, but should this matter when genuine love is concerned?  Who are you to question the sincerity of someone's love when it is thusly declared by them, be it for the same or for the opposite sex?  And what are you saying about marriage as you presently view it when you disregard these elements of love, commitment, lifelong loyalty in what others seek to call marriage?  And do you also consider heterosexual marriage to be so weak as not to be able to survive in a world where homosexual marriage also exists?  Rethink your arguments.

Thirdly, the argument of procreation as the paramount reason for marriage becomes obsolete when one considers infertile couples, including those who, by nature, cannot have children, as well as individuals beyond a reproductive age.  Should we, then, take away these individuals' right to marry because their marriage will not produce children?

Fourthly, and more importantly, people need to get over themselves.  They are not the guardians of tradition and no one requires them to be.  Times are changing.  The World and the United States are not as they were two, five, or 232 years ago.  And yet it is 232 years ago that I find body and strength for these arguments for equality.  232 years ago, a Declaration of Independence written by a group of enlightened Americans stated the following:  

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Except for the fancy first S in 'Happiness,' this declaration remains perennial and ought to be upheld as an enlightened ideal, as an American ideal that we can always faithfully follow.

So when you go out and vote tomorrow, Californians, please vote NO on Proposition 4 and NO on Proposition 8.  Posterity will thank you.  I thank you.