Be honest; seeing our values codified in law feels like validation of what we already think – that we’re rational, intelligent and ethical. However, smugness vanishes when we consider the messy business of legislating what people are prohibited from doing in their personal lives using rationales that are easily turned against their original proponents.
In the next election, voters will decide if the state can veto your choice of spouse on the basis of gender. Or perhaps it is on the basis of sinfulness. Inability to procreate, maybe? Due to minority status? On the basis that someone else feels threatened by your relationship?
In this era of “don’t tell me what to do” attitudes, I ask others to consider these issues as they vote their consciences on Referendum 74:
• If you are a person of religious faith, would you want to live by another religion’s marital practices?
• Is a marriage valid with or without children?
• For anyone who has been a member of a minority group in the midst of an adversarial dominant culture, do you really want the law of the land to reach into the personal decisions of your family any more than absolutely necessary?