By Mollie Shepardson
City Times

Advocates for overturning Proposition 8 have begun to rejoice a victory in their fight against bigotry, sexist beliefs, and stereotypes. But they’ve got it all wrong. None of these are the primary reason that the voters of California passed Prop. 8 in the fall of 2008. The main opposition to same-sex marriage is morality.

According to letcaliforniaring.org,”more than 70 percent of voters who were Republican, identified themselves as conservative, or who attended religious services at least weekly supported Prop. 8.” The analysis also shows us that 67 percent of the voters who are 65 years or older also supported Prop. 8.

These findings make it apparent that morals are the driving force behind Prop. 8 and based upon its passage, the majority of voters in California view same-sex marriage as unacceptable.

However, Judge Vaughn Walker has given voters a slap in the face by overturning Prop. 8, claiming that “individuals’ moral views are an insufficient basis upon which to enact a legislative classification.”

Although we pride ourselves on being a country where the citizens have the power, Walker has taken that notion and thrown it out the window in his 136-page decision in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case which overturned Prop. 8.

As long as these social values exist, it is necessary to uphold the wishes of the majority. Furthermore, Prop. 8 places no harm on gay or lesbian couples because society as a majority does not approve of marriage not being between a man and a woman.

The laws of nature lay down the lines that men and women are biologically meant to procreate and mate. As a society, we prefer that the mating take place in the safeguard of a marriage in order to provide stability.

Voters are not unaware of the fact that most gay and lesbian couples will have sex regardless of being in the confines of a marriage; however, it is not something that I as a voter could instate a law to prohibit. Judge Walker’s ruling overturned the majority vote and deemed its morals as “insufficient.”

Hope lies with the hold the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals put on Judge Walker’s ruling.

In order to uphold moral interests, it is now time for proponents to hold rallies in support of Prop. 8 as well as post blogs, write to friends and family and join support groups for the preservation of marriage between a man and a woman. The goal that we now strive for is the reinstatement of Prop. 8.

(Mollie Shepardson is a City Times staff writer)