Proposition 8 Made Simple Essay

Max Rosner
Professor Pellegrini
3 April 2023
Midterm Paper #1

“Proposition 8 – made simple” is an informational political advertisement in support of Proposition 8, a 2008 California ballot measure which attempted to overturn the legalization of same-sex marriage. “Proposition 8 – made simple” utilizes the example of two couples, Jan and Tom, and Dan and Michael, to center its argument. Although the two couples are friends, Jan and Tom still believe in traditional family values which they worry will be compromised in the wake of same-sex marriage legalization. We can see three concepts at play in this example: tolerance, the public, and religious moralism. Jan and Tom both embody and exhibit these concepts. Namely, they act as the video’s

Through this silencing, “Proposition 8 – made simple” once again creates a delineation between the public – nuclear heterosexual families with traditional values – and the non-public – homosexuals and their allies. We can thusly see that the public is a status that can only apply to a select group of people – namely, that of the majority in power. Because the public influences both media and government, it holds a special power in our society (Petersen 154). In this way, defining who belongs to the public can disproportionally promote the ideas of one group while silencing and diminishing the ideas of another, usually those of minority groups. “Proposition 8 – made simple” exemplifies this effect, promoting the concerns of Jan and Tom – the archetypal American couple – while choosing to ignore the possible concerns or beliefs of Dan and Michael – occupying the role of

It posits that although homosexuality may be wrong, homosexual “lifestyles” can be accepted to some degree; that is, not outright condemned but merely censored from public life. “Proposition 8 – made simple” argues that in allowing same-sex marriage, homosexuality will be forced onto the public and notably children – a commonplace victim used in anti-homosexual arguments (Castelli 159). However, the existence and necessity of tolerance, at worst, implies a right versus wrong, and at best, an us versus them (Jakobsen and Pellegrini 50). In creating this relationship – typically between majority and minority groups – it reaffirms the power, correctness, and normalness of one side over the other. Although calls to tolerance are usually considered positive messaging, they covertly maintain and further power imbalances between