Sarah's Law: YES on proposition 4

image

Once again, California voters will be given the opportunity to vote on an initiative -- Proposition 4 -- that would require family involvement when a girl under the age of 18 is facing a decision about abortion. And once again, opponents are using scare tactics to prevent Californians from protecting our daughters.

The problem

In California, a girl under age 18 can’t get a tan at a tanning salon, a cavity filled, or an aspirin dispensed by the school nurse without a parent knowing. But a doctor can perform a surgical or chemical abortion on a young girl without informing a parent.

The answer

Proposition 4 will require a doctor to notify at least one adult family member before performing an abortion on an under-18-year-old girl.

Facts

Medical professionals know that a young person is safer when a parent or family member is informed of her medical situation. Someone who knows the girl and cares about her future can help her understand all her options, obtain competent care, and work through the problems that led her into the situation to begin with.

On a daily basis, older men exploit young girls and use secret abortions to cover up their crimes. More than thirty states currently have parental/family involvement laws like Proposition 4 in effect. States which have laws like Proposition 4 have experienced real reductions in pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases among young girls.

This year's measure is a refinement of earlier attempts that sought the same thing -- that girls not face such a difficult decision alone. The coalition of doctors, nurses, educators and law enforcement behind Proposition 4 have made several changes to answer criticisms, most notably that a physician may notify another family member if parental abuse is suspected. That, after all, was the rallying cry of opponents to the last parental involvement initiative -- that a child would be in danger if an abusive parent were notified.

Vote YES on proposition 8

The Joint Legislative Hearing on Prop. 8, held in downtown Los Angeles, included about 75 Yes on 8 supporters who took to the curb to voice their support for Prop. 8.  Supporters of all backgrounds came to listen to debates on marriage and to speak to California Senators and Assembly Representatives about the importance of passing Proposition 8.

image
Steve Marshall, 20, made his pro-Proposition 8 video, "Four Men In Black,” as a college project. "I go to a Catholic film school in San Diego," he said in explaining why he focused his film on the "activist judges" who legalized same-sex marriage in California in spring. "It's an issue we really feel passionate about, and we had the resources available to take some action."


Other students at John Paul the Great Catholic University also made videos in support of the proposition. One of them, "Marriage Rights,” features a man haplessly trying to fit two electrical plugs together instead of into a socket. Finally, he looks into the camera and declares, "It doesn't work." Then a signs says: "Keep marriage real."

Grant Johnson, a 49-year-old traffic engineer who lives in the Sierra foothill town of Coarsegold, passionately supports Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriage.
In past elections, Johnson might have written a letter to the editor about his views. This year, he had a better idea. He made a video and put it up on YouTube.

The spot Johnson made, "Garriage," is one of dozens of homemade advertisements for and against Proposition 8 that are dueling it out in cyberspace. It begins with images of gay weddings and then moves on to dramatic photos of lightning striking San Francisco and fires burning around California, leaving the viewer to infer that the state is being punished for allowing same-sex marriage. Johnson included the photos, he said, because he thought it was "interesting . . . an elephant in the room" that so many fires erupted in California the same week the state Supreme Court issued its ruling to legalize gay marriage.

Same-sex marriage: lessons from Canada

In May this year the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22, which affirmed opposite-sex marriage, was unconstitutional. To date, only Massachusetts in the United States allows same-sex marriage. So what are the Canadian lessons for California and other states that will, in time, face a debate about the redefinition of marriage?

Firstly, where gay rights triumph, new rights battlfrom New York Timeses begin. One example is over the rights of children. Another is over polygamy, which soon involves freedom of religion. A third battle is over freedom of speech -- the right to publicly advocate traditional marriage can be challenged as homophobic. Secondly, where marriage is not understood as an institution, it cannot be defended adequately in the public square. In short, if North Americans are not educated on what marriage is, they will not, in the long term, support an exclusive definition, one that will appear discriminatory even if this is not the case or the intention.

Marriage as an institution is meant to constrain human behaviour, not liberate or grant rights. Put differently, where individuals have both rights and responsibilities, marriage falls more in the latter category; it is a responsibility, not a right. In his book, The Future of Marriage, American family scholar David Blankenhorn says that "a social institution creates and maintains rules, including rules for who is, and is not, a part of the institution… [A] social institution creates public meaning… [Such institutions] exist to solve basic problems and meet core needs.”

Blankenhorn goes on to say this: “In nearly all human societies marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man, conceived both as a personal relationship and as an institution, primarily such that any children resulting from the union are—and are understood by the society to be—emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with both of the parents.”

On August 16, 2008, presidential hopeful Barack Obama told a California church audience that marriage was between one man and one woman. California is not a conservative state, yet polls there show support for traditional marriage. But the law also acts as a kind of teacher, which means that, in time, Californians could vote differently, given the recent Supreme Court ruling.

Since same-sex marriage became law, Canadians have been quiet. This is largely self-censoring, led by the real possibility that speaking out will result in public maligning, or worse. California is at a crossroads that Canada has already passed. But both north and south of the border, we need to begin to learn about marriage as an institution, and let those lessons lead public policy in the future.

Andrea Mrozek and Peter Jon Mitchell are staff members of the Institute of Marriage and the Family Canada, a social policy think thank based in Ottawa. This article first appeared in the IMFC's bulletin eReview.