If you’re a fair-minded person who’s also a churchgoer, odds are you’re finding yourself in a bind this November. This election includes statewide ballot initiative Proposition 8, which proposes an amendment to the constitution of California officially titled “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry,” or, as those who proposed the measure want you to call it, the “California Marriage Protection Act.” The text of the proposal reads simply, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Most traditional religious organizations are calling for their constituents to vote yes, which puts a painful decision before those members who believe that all citizens should have civil rights regardless of sexual orientation or the gender ratio of their relationship. They are being asked to choose to enshrine what they’ve been told God believes in law, and in so doing they often are being asked to violate their conscience promptings about right and wrong.

No one wants to disregard their pastor’s interpretation of God’s word, but when confronted with the idea of revoking a same-sex couple’s right to get married 8212; a right which they already have in California, since a state Supreme Court ruling overturned Proposition 22’s marriage ban in May 8212; people understandably get uneasy. A “yes” vote on Proposition 8 doesn’t “protect” marriage, it destroys it 8212; specifically, the marriages sought by same-sex couples.

No matter how you feel about homosexuality and gay marriage, passing this constitutional amendment will prevent some couples from being able to take those formal vows of eternal commitment and will possibly destroy the legality of the marriages of those couples that have taken these vows already. Most people understand that this is not right, fair or just.

What’s interesting to me is the way Proposition 8 proponents are trying to reframe the debate. I’ve heard some say, “Gay marriage is not a gay rights or civil rights issue, it’s a religious freedom issue.” But when this reasoning is put in the spotlight, it’s clear how wrong it is.

The Constitution of the United States’ first order of business is to clarify that we “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is subject to interpretation of course, but most scholars boil it down to preventing the establishment of an “official” religion, because the government applies to everyone, therefore, it’s not fair to pick one religion over the other or show favoritism toward a particular sect.

Taken further, we can see that creating any law that favors one religious interpretation over the other is unconstitutional. And the man/woman-only version of marriage is not something everyone shares as part of his or her interpretation of religion. This means enshrining it into law goes against our own founding document. This was the logic behind the California State Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Proposition 22 in the first place.

For another thing 8212; and this is both more important and obvious 8212; allowing same-sex couples to be legally recognized as married by the government does not impinge on anyone’s religious freedom. Churches that don’t approve of same-sex couples will not suddenly be forced to perform marriage ceremonies in full, colorful splendor. Some religious organizations require members to convert or change their denomination before performing the ceremony, and you don’t see them forced to change their doctrine or marry couples that don’t follow their prescriptions.

There are churches out there that accept same-sex couples with open arms and happily perform their ceremonies, so it’s not like same-sex couples that desire religious ceremonies have nowhere to go. Besides, there’s not a whole lot of motivation for anyone to force a church that doesn’t approve of them to perform their marriage ceremony, whether it be same-sex marriage, interracial marriage or marriage between members of different religions. Marriage is something special that people celebrate and enjoy, and no one enjoys your preacher glowering at you while you say your vows.

The “religious freedom” argument is a misrepresentation of the issue. What Proposition 8 is proposing is simple: eliminating the rights of some Californians to marry, rights they should have as full citizens of the United States. If you’re comfortable with that, vote yes.
If not, then ask yourself not what religious leaders are telling you God wants, but what you truly think is right.

8212;Ruthie Kelly is a journalism and women’s studies senior.

8212;This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Daily Aztec. Send e-mail to letters@thedailyaztec.com. Anonymous letters will not be printed 8212; include your full name, major and year in school.