Anyone who considers Proposition 8 discriminatory either misunderstands or manipulates the law

I keep seeing the argument in opposition to Proposition 8 that the Proposition is “discriminatory.” The claimed reasoning follows that denying persons the ability to marry persons of the same sex somehow violates their Constitution and unalienable rights. These arguments are bogus.

First, consider a very intriguing argument from my stake president, Ahmed Corbitt, which he explained in stake conference on Sunday. It comes from the Declaration of Independence. "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." Has God endowed men and women with the right to marry those of the same sex? Can anyone legitimately make that argument? I think not.

Second, "marriage" under the law is a legal contract entered into between one man and one woman. That is how American society has traditionally defined such contracts. Proposition 8 opponents are not really asking for the same contract enjoyed by one man and one woman. Nothing prohibits a homosexual person from entering into the same legal contract that has traditionally existed in America and elsewhere. They are instead asking for a new and different contract—a contract with a new definition. The essence of what they are asking for can be boiled down to either: (1) a request for additional privileges or (2) a request for an alteration of an existing privilege. Traditional marriage and the “marriage” sought by opponents to Proposition 8 cannot coexist, as they are mutually exclusive.

Third, the argument propounded by opponents to Proposition 8 creates a slippery slope. I don’t usually ascribe the “slippery slope” philosophy, but I make an exception here because it is so apropos. I also note that this is not really a legal argument against same-sex marriage as much as it is a likely consequence of such. The slippery slope—a slippery slope of morality—applicable here is that the same arguments that support allowing same-sex marriage also support allowing polygamy, polyandry, human-animal marriage, marriage in incest, and marriage to trees (for the tree huggers). Surely, we don’t want that.