Prop 8

Well this is a rare moment—I’m glad I’m a Californian. Yes, I said it. And if you know me, that’s a big statement. But I’m proud I’m a Californian because this is a big election. And as party of the voting constituent in California, a belll-weather state, what I say will in part dictate what happens in the rest of the country.

What happens in California doesn’t stay in California… it’s coming to a state near you.

And even more uniquely, Californians have a Constitution that supports direct democracy. So we can write our own laws, apart from our legislature, as vote on them. It’s a freedom that carries much responsibility. This year, California voters will vote on 12 different propositions. Of those propositions, Prop 8 has received national attention, because it very likely will have national implications.

Prop 8 seeks to put into the California Constitution that only a marriage between a man and a woman is recognized by the State. In 2000, voters passed a law to define marriage between a man and a woman. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court said that the State Constitution gives same-sex couples the right to marry.

Some background, marriage has been defined by the State and society as a union that produces offspring. The government has provided tax benefits to those marriages that have produced offspring, because children are an asset to society. And, whether it is its place or not, the government had deemed homosexual marriages the most beneficial relationships for society—hence the gold star called marriage.

As of 2007, domestic partnerships—whether homosexual or heterosexual—give domestic partners the same state rights and benefits as married spouses. However, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 does limit some of the federal rights. Currently, marriage is a right for everyone, given that your marriage fits the definition. So technically, we all, gay or straight, have the same right. However, the current definition of marriage does not give validation to homosexual couples who have made lifelong commitments to each other.

Those arguing for Prop 8, state that this decision will restore the definition that voters approved by 60% in 2000. Because traditional marriage has been deemed the ideal by the State, there is a law that requires schools to encourage marriage. So by changing the definition of marriage, it will affect education. Depending on the individual that can be a positive or negative change for society.

The argument against Prop 8 is that the Court already made it decision. And, that domestic partnerships, or civil unions, are not the same as a marriage. They are just legal documents and do not provide the same dignity, respect and commitment that marriage does.

Again this is an issue of equality versus freedom. (See my previous blog.) And this proposition, in my opinion, is not as much about civil rights as it is about validation and social respect—two noble pursuits. But the question is, is it the government’s job to demand such respect? During the Civil Rights movement, the government changed our laws in order to give equal rights to all. However, they didn’t, or couldn’t, force everyone to change their attitude. Can you force some to accept and affirm another person? Should you?

Those are the questions I’ll be struggling through during the coming weeks.

Education for All

A lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of a California law which grants in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants is continuing forward in a state appellate court. Three year ago a group of out-of-state students filed a lawsuit against California’s public university and community college systems. Out-of-state students are angered that illegal immigrant students growing up in California are paying the discounted in-state rates.

Legally, states must provide K-12 education for undocumented children. For the last seven years, undocumented immigrants in California have also had access to in-state University tuition rates. The plaintiffs are arguing that federal law requires states that provide in-state tuition rates to undocumented students must offer the same for out-of-state students.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly states, “An alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit.”

While it’s easily understood to be unfair to provide public benefits to children whose parents are not contributing to the tax system, it’s also important to keep societal values in check. Most of these children crossed the board illegally not by choice, but by the will of their parents. It seems immoral to withhold an education from bright students because of their parents’ mistakes.

And beyond the moral duty of California, it is in the state’s economic best interest to provide more affordable higher education for these students. To ignore California’s brightest because of their parents’ actions, is an injustice that will cost our taxpayers. Recent studies have shown that providing education for immigrants keeps them out of the public welfare system and rather participating in the marketplace. The contributions such educated immigrants will make to the California economy far offsets the costs of subsidized college tuition. Immigrants will continue to come illegally into California. It only makes sense to educate and equip these new residents to be productive contributor to our society and economy.

Given the socioeconomic state of California, it’s in the state’s best interest to educate all California youth, illegal or not. Out-of-state students should think twice before complaining and instead seek out the deeper issues behind the break in tuition.