Opponents Believe Power and Money are Enough to Redefine Marriage

There is a David and Goliath story in the support for and against Proposition 8—the California ballot initiative that would define marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman.  

With more than $46 million, Prop. 8 is already shattering records for the most amount of money spent on a social issue. Currently, supporters of Prop. 8 have donated more, but it is expected by many that the proposition’s opponents will have spent the most by Election Day.  This has been typical in previous marriage amendment battles.

But the identities of various high-profile contributors remain more interesting than such record-setting figures.

The names of those giving large donations to oppose Proposition 8 reads like a red carpet list of Hollywood’s most famous.  Both Brad Pitt and Steven Spielberg have each given $100,000.  According to the Politics blog on SFgate.com, Dreamworks CEO David Geffen has also given $100,000, and T.R. Knight, the “Grey’s Anatomy” actor who recently announced his homosexuality, has given $50,000.  

The list does not end with such famous individuals.  The leaders of well-known organizations like Google and Pacific Gas & Electric Company — the dominant power and electric company in California, haven’t just given personally to oppose the amendment—they’ve used the weight of the company name to discourage California voters from supporting marriage.  Gay activist organizations like Tim Gill’s Action Fund, and the Human Rights Campaign have also given extensively to oppose the amendment.  Even Governor Schwarzenegger opposes the amendment, which would constitutionally define traditional marriage.

In contrast, most of the 62,000 supporters of Proposition 8--more than twice the number of opponents--tend to be unknown.  Large donations have been given in support of the marriage amendment (Focus on the Family Action has given $350,000, while the Catholic Knights of Columbus has given $1.25 million). However, according to those tracking donations, 47 percent of the donations supporting Proposition 8 are less than $1000.  In fact, when the Protect Marriage coalition attempted to download the Secretary of State files listing donors in support of Prop. 8, the more than 5,000 pages of information overloaded and froze their servers.

What remains beautiful about a democratic republic is that the wealthy and famous cannot simply bulldoze away the will and voting rights of United States citizens.  

Most Americans believe in defining marriage in traditional terms because — even if we haven’t exercised it perfectly — it is self-evident to most that marriage has specific purposes.  These origins are rooted in both biology and practicality, which marvelously and profoundly serve the needs of women, men and children alike.  

When we as individuals don’t function well in marriages, our children are the ones who most feel the detrimental effects.  They are more likely to grow up in poverty and suffer emotionally, scholastically and relationally when parents divorce or never marry in the first place.  And unlike the wealthy elite of Hollywood, we as common citizens don’t possess the financial affluence to clean up the mess of a failed relationship.

The prevalent idea in our culture is that redefining marriage is a “civil rights” issue necessary to accommodate and affirm a minority group of citizens within our society.  But American civil rights movements have championed the weak and vulnerable.  If anyone’s rights are at stake, it is the right of children to have both a mother and father.  Too many will be deprived of this much-needed right if marriage is redefined as the minority sees fit.  

Modern day ‘Goliaths’ may oppose Prop. 8 with their sweeping power, extensive fame, and expansive wealth, but anonymous ‘Davids’ have emerged victorious before.