Should California remove the word 'marriage' from it's state laws?

Nicole Heinzinger Hornet Editor-in-Chief

Instead of highlighting the idea that marriage is a union of two souls who deeply love each other, who are committed to one another, it has been bogged down with discussions about religion and legalities. And although the United State's constitution promised to bring a separation of church and state, as well as equal rights to all, there has sprouted a massive debate regarding whether or not these ambitions hold true.

Ali Shamsand and Kaelan Housewright, heterosexual San Diego State University students, have made it their mission to achieve equality for all couples, including those who are comprised of the same-sex.

They have created a petition that, assuming it reaches the 700,000 signatures needed, would appear on the ballot, for public voting.

The mission: replace the word 'marriage' in California's constitution with 'domestic partnership.'

Proposition 8, passed last November, eliminated the right for same-sex couple to marry. Since then, protestors have stressed the importance of equality for all, not limiting rights to the religious followers, holding 'true' to the Bible.

Our country is hypocritical. The core values on which it was based on have been watered down to fit current lifestyles. The word marriage does not hold the same value, people marry and divorce for reasons including the seven deadly sins, especially greed, lust and adultery.

Loving someone with the same genitalia is not a crime and whether or not one has the right to be married should not be decided upon by extremist individuals who cannot differentiate between ecclesiastical beliefs and sanctioned practices.

California's constitution needs to amend itself to better suit all its occupants, including those who engage in practices that differ from most. We have no right to condemn people for wanting a domestic partnership, or even a marriage.

We should be practicing 'love thy neighbor' not 'love thy neighbor, but only if they are like you.'

John Ayers Hornet Managing Editor

Proposition 8 passed by a narrow margin in November.

The entire campaign, and corresponding conversations, was marred with heated debate.

After its passing, the legality of the proposition was called into question and is now being debated by the California Supreme Court.

This discussion is about a petition being circulated to get a vote put on the next ballot that would eliminate the word 'marriage' from the state's constitution and replace it with 'domestic partnership', not whether gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to get married.

That being said, this new ballot measure is a simple case of sour grapes. Ali Shams and Kaelan Housewright, heterosexual San Diego State University students, are unhappy with the outcome of the Proposition 8 vote and figured out a way to bring the issue back to a vote.

I personally have no problem with this, except when their agenda is attacking an institution I believe in fervently.

Some argue that marriage is a religious institution and that there should be a separation of church and state. But marriage has become an institution that transcends religion.

Anti-Proposition 8 activists argued that the "religious right" was forcing their beliefs on them, but this initiative would force homosexuals' bitterness on the rest of us.

Sham says that their initiative is a compromise; how so? How is eliminating the institution of marriage for those who believe strongly in it a compromise?

The vote on Proposition 8 was close enough to show that gay marriage will be made legal easily, let's not do anything to leave a bitter taste in the mouths of future voters.

An ignorant idea that was floated around during the last election was that allowing homosexuals to marry would destroy the institution of marriage, I urge Sham and Housewright not to make it come true.