Proposition 8, as I’m sure you are all aware of, is an initiative to change the California Constitution. It would add the following fourteen words into the document: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” In fact, that is the entirety of the proposition’s text verbatim, unabridged. Now these words may seem familiar to some of you that are reading this; this would hold true if you were able to vote eight years ago. Proposition 22 eight years ago was an initiative that won the votes of many Californians with the same text as our modern Proposition 8. Proposition 8 has passed and according to California law, the amendment to the Constitution takes effect the day following the election. Proposition 8 was successful in overturning judicial activism and reinstating popular sovereignty. Proposition 8 showed what its counter-part Proposition 22 showed eight years ago: Californians agree with the traditional definition and custom of marriage — that is, marriage between a man and a woman.

To avoid beating a dead horse any further, I simply bring this up to address some issues from the opposition that have been arisen in this close and hotly debated initiative, which continues to this day forty-eight hours after it has passed and come into effect as the supreme law of the State of California. I will not argue the semantics of marriage already being regulated by the government or any other arguments in the same vein given that it would be pointless. Proposition 8 is already in effect as law as of now. Still, I simply cannot get over the following:

As you have most undoubtedly heard from teenagers and adults alike, “Proposition 8 is really Proposition H8!” or perhaps you’ve heard “Discrimination is hate! Vote no on 8!” I cannot get over the fact that that is not true one bit. Sure, I cannot dispute that some forms of discrimination are motivated by a hatred to one group or another but it does not necessarily mean that proponents of the proposition are hateful or bigots. It does not mean that discrimination is hate. For instance, many of us ride public transit or watch movies at the theater. Both public transit firms and the movie theaters regularly discriminate amongst their customers. Do they hate the young, students, or the elderly? On the other hand, do they hate the middle-aged populace or adults? Proposition 8 does not wish to discriminate a group of the population; it merely wishes to maintain the definition and tradition of marriage that has lasted for decades and centuries.

By ending on that note, I’m sure many of you will also be quick to point out that at one point interracial marriage was disallowed and that I am contradicting myself by wishing to maintain the tradition of marriage from “yesteryear.” It’s clear that I cannot dispute that and I will not try either, as I’m sure you know it’s futile for me to do so. I can admit that. However, I must say this: the definition of marriage was not changed with the abolition of that custom nor was it changed with the practice of such a ban. Whether or not people of different races could or could not marry did not dramatically change the definition or practice of marriage as an institution bonding a male and a female together in union recognized by the state.

I’ve also heard the following: “Proposition 8 is unfair! It was funded a great deal by those that are illegible to vote in California! Mormons from Utah were funding the proponent’s side. California truly does not support this amendment!” I cannot dispute nor will I try to argue that our side did not receive donations from those out of state; it’s a fact that we did receive support from non-Californians, yet, it would be ridiculous to say that the No on 8 Campaign did not either. Both sides received funding and support from non-Californians; we essentially have a case of the pot calling the kettle black on both sides. Furthermore, Californians do support this amendment. In fact, over five million Californians that are eligible to vote and have done so, came out on Tuesday to show their support for traditional marriage and the overturning of legislation on the bench contrary to the voice of the people.

Lastly, I have to address the argument that Proposition 8 takes rights away. The truth is Proposition 8 lives up to their campaign: it won’t be taking the rights away from anyone. This new amendment adds fourteen words to the Constitution to maintain the definition and tradition of marriage that we have all known and come to understand. It seeks to prohibit the overriding of the will of the people. It seeks to prohibit redefinitions of marriage, as it is an institution that is fundamental to the functioning of any society. Yes, divorces and separations do occur but it does not change the fact that marriage as an institution is fundamental to society. Had Proposition 8 not passed, you would still see divorces and separations amongst homosexuals, bisexuals, or other groups that are affected. Furthermore, Proposition 8 takes no rights away from any group; please show me where in the text that it does so. I’ve typed out every single word of the new addition to the California Constitution.

I’m sure proponents will now argue that I’m advocating for a practice of separate but equal, which has been rendered unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. The precedent in which they refer to is undisputable, as not one side affected could in good conscience argue that the decision was poor. It was quite blatant and obvious then that the doctrine of separate but equal was in fact separate but unequal at that moment in time and history. Nonetheless, this is not the “Aha!” argument that you were expecting. The California Constitution guarantees homosexuals, bisexuals, and other affected groups the same rights that heterosexuals do; it guarantees it to all Californians. Proposition 8 had not effect on those rights that you already have! In this case, the doctrine of separate but equal actually does apply. Heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, and other affected groups can look at this same document at the same time and agree that they have the same rights, as the same words and document applies to all of them in the same manner!