So my mom was telling me about the different things she's found to share with people as she walks the precincts in CA promoting affirmative votes for Proposition 8. The following list was given by the Yes Coalition to those walking the precints.
1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage. The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. Therefore, unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage is between any two adults regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ask yourself whether your pastor, priest, miniter, bishop or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there.
4. Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.
5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees may not say: "traditional marriage", or "family values" because after the same-sex marriage case, it is "hate speech."
6. It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g. photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors cannot now refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors). Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today's activist judges), think of the money-your money-that will be spent on such legal battles.
And think of all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this time. Where will it end?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It's great that you are politically involved, but I think it's important that you know that most of these six "consequences" are, in fact, false.
Allow me address them point by point.
1) The only section of the California Education Code that mentions marriage reads thus, and concerns one point of the curriculum: “Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” There is nothing in the code about teaching anything about defining marriage.
What's more, California law also states that any parent may remove their child from any class if they disagree with the material being taught.
Plus, children SHOULD know the law of the land and why we don't discriminate against people. It should all, of course, be age-appropriate.
If you disagree with what is being taught at school, you are free to teach your children different.
2) This one is COMPLETELY false. If you read the May 15 Supreme Court decision, the justices say the EXACT OPPOSITE: "[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
On top of that, it's clear that churches have always had the right to discriminate against whoever they wish in terms of marriage. The LDS church doesn't allow anyone but those with temple recommends to be married in their temples (and until 1979, wouldn't allow black people to marry in their temples), and Catholics won't marry divorced people in their churches. Each church will be able to deny marriage to any couple they want.
3) That Massachusetts case with Catholic Charities had nothing to do with same-sex marriage. It was due to Catholic Charities unwillingness to obey Massachusetts's anti-discrimination laws.
What's more, Catholic Charities did not close its doors. They are still open and functioning, doing charitable work. Just not adoptions.
Besides, adoption agencies will always have the right to deny couples the right to adopt -- but only based on their fitness as parents, not their sexuality. Gay couples who do adopt often adopt the toughest cases, the kids no one else will adopt. You would rather the kids with special needs languish in orphanages or foster homes rather than be with two loving dads or moms?
4) This might be true. After all, Bob Jones University had to allow mixed-race couples in student housing if they wanted to maintain their tax-exempt status. However, they could have chosen to forfeit that status and continue to discriminate if they wished.
But if you want public money, you have to obey public laws. Remain fully private and you can discriminate all you like.
5) Ridiculous. First, the minister in Canada was not preaching against same-sex marriage, but fomenting hate in general toward gay people. Besides, we have the First Amendment here. Ever hear of Fred Phelps? The "God Hates Fags" guy? 'Nuff said.
6) Also ridiculous. Churches will be no more or less likely to be sued if Prop 8 passes.
You might also want to read a far better response to these six "consequences" by Morris Thurston, a law professor at BYU. Click here to find the text.
Here is an important quote from that article: "Most
Hopefully there will be enough wise people who are not fooled by fanciful arguments masquerading as 'educated'. Actions speak louder than words, so lets see how fair and equal our government's incursion into marriage will turn out to be, by looking at the past, in stead of platitudes.
Curious that we now have something called 'hate crimes', despite my generation learning that: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me". I knew discrimination well as a member of a despised religion (Mormon) in most areas I lived. In my current community, pastors often center their revivals around my faith, as they describe it with untrue and hateful words, and telling their congregation to stay away, because we were going to hell. And yes, it affected my livelihood (and earlier, my social opportunities).
I pray for them, and hope that they will learn from my actions that I am truly a follower of Christ. I don't think that hauling them into court for hating me or my beliefs would change them.
Not only was I teased in school for being a Mormon, but also for being uncircumcised. Mark Twain said: "whatever doesn't kill you will make you stronger". In my case, it also made me more sensitive and committed to the plight of other unique individuals. I am very loyal to my gay friends, even though some of our viewpoints don't match. I am sad that it is no longer acceptable to have differing opinions in special interest areas.
On the other hand, in spite of the foul things also said and printed about straights by activist gays, all the successful sexual orientation lawsuits or threats (including hate crimes) have been against straights. In addition, the majority of cases have been supported with my taxes, thus using the government (as set up by my forefathers), to further a personal cause. The constitution was established to protect certain personal liberties (making an even playing field), not as a vehicle to give select groups dominion over others.
Actions speak louder than words.
In cases now well publicized and not urban legends, we find:
A physician is sued by a woman for refusing to artificially inseminate her, even though he provides an associate who does not have the same religious objection. Of course the woman had no intention on being treated by him in the first place, but, again, used the government to punish someone who respectfully disagreed. I assume that the judges who ruled for the deceitful woman were the same that judged in favor of the grandmother who was foolish enough to try to drive (with children) juggling a hot coffee between her legs.
A religious bookstore hired a person who interviewed as a clean-cut and 'wholesome' individual, then came to work dressed wildly inappropriate for the job, and in a way that would drive consumers away. The owner fired him, then lost in court for discrimination; despite the clear evidence that this was a planned deception to use the government to punish a small business because of differing beliefs.
Two California Boy Scout camps were forced (through government) to spend over $1 million for environmental upgrades that later were proven to have not applied to them (when investigated by real scientists). Of course it worked well as punishment to them for their current stand on child safety and openly gay individuals, since it shut one down, and almost the other (had it not been for the generosity of wiser folks who recognized the greater service Boy Scouting performs).
A number of years ago, California decided to have schools begin indoctrinating children in their new views that masturbation, homosexuality, and premarital sex were normal, healthy activities. [The word indoctrination is considered appropriate because it describes teaching concepts outside those naturally assumed in society] Fortunately, the schools were to have school site councils comprised of parents and teachers, who would decide on the best way to introduce these concepts at each grade level. They also stipulated that parents would be warned of the upcoming classes so they had the chance to prepare their child or remove the child from those classes. The principal had a different opinion than the law, and followed her own agenda for implementation, beginning in earlier grades and without the warnings. We found out when our child began asking unusual questions and describing inappropriate pictures and discussions.
The only reason CA education code doesn't discuss re-defining marriage is because the code hasn't been updated, yet!
It is technically outside of any State to rule on issues of marriage just as they should not be concerned with baptism or sacrament, or other religious ordinances. Years ago, people began to ask 'the state' for non-religious 'marriage', so the power to wed couples was granted to specified civil authorities. At that time, as now, the result of their 'wed-ding' couples with their civil (not ecclesiastic) authority, was a civil union. For lack of a better word, it was inappropriately called marriage. During Prop 22, the major proponents wanted to make sure that homosexual civil unions shared the same basic rights as heterosexual unions, so that the actual rights (except the label) would be equal, thus seeking to preserve the traditional religious sanctity of the ordinance of marriage for all types of people (despite its obvious challenges in the current decadent society).
The purpose of Prop 8 is simply to affirm that God's definition of marriage should not be altered by the whims of the state. It does not take anything away from a civil union.
Wise and intelligent homosexuals should be thrilled with this measure, as history has born out that in the societal growth-decay cycle, it is during the mature growth phase, where traditional families are unencumbered, that society has the abundance of resources to tolerate or allow social expression and experimentation. While it is true that there may be even more opportunity during the decadent period, that part of the cycle is often short, and followed by a period of extreme subjugation of rights, then by the early re-growth period that, of necessity, is intolerant.
We need to be very careful of what we as a society wish for. So far, despite our best efforts, we have been unable to prove that history doesn't repeat itself. "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
Dear Fellow Citizen,
I appreciate you sharing your opinion and being considerate about mine in the process. I assure you my heart is full of love for all mankind no matter the differences we all have. On that note, I wanted to share my personal testimony with you. I have always stood by the research that has shown to prove my long-standing religious doctrine that marriage between a man and a woman is the basic and fundamental unit of society. So many different studies have proven that many detrimental things happen to individuals and children who don't have the blessing of being within a functioning marriage/family. The Bible teaches over and over that marriage is between a man and a woman and the prophets and apostles of old as well as today share the same message with the world.
Another important message shared throughout all time is love toward all men (and women). No matter the actions or thoughts of anyone, we are commanded to love one another as God has first loved us. This includes those who practice life situations different than ours. I hold true to that. My love for all men is real. I try daily to see each individual as I think my Heavenly Father would see them and I find my love grows as I do.
However, just because I love all men, does not mean that I can agree to all the actions each person does. I do not agree with the practice of homosexuality and other such relations. I don't want to participate in anything that will show my acceptance of it. On the same note, I will not go out of my way to try and take their rights away from them. I only ask the same for us. I have been following the constant changes that society has made on the definition of marriage and family and how it is accepted throughout the nation. I know for a fact that the continual decline in the values of society foreshadows the many negative effects of the outcome if Proposition 8 fails. Every partnership in California, whether heterosexual or otherwise, already has equal rights in probate court, medical assistance, and other. I know this proposition has NOTHING to do with the rights of the couples. It only is defining marriage as a sacred institution reserved, by God, for man and woman. The rights that would be changed would be those taken from individuals, businesses or churches who do not practice or support those couples. If same gender couples would like another formal title for their partnership I would be more than happy to help come up with one but I ask that my rights and my children's rights, along with countless others, are not taken away with them wanting a title.
Please understand; our love for all men does not mean we join in their practices or condone all they do. We allow all men to make decisions as long as it doesn't take away the rights of others. The consequences of each individual's decisions is for the individual to deal with. The rights taken from others for major decisions like the definition of marriage, is something that affects the whole nation.
Let us love all men and allow all mankind to have equal opportunity, regardless of their choices. Let me have my freedom of religion and denial of my services, as well as the same gender couples to have the rights they desire.
My sister in law has a law degree and has studied this subject. She recently emailed a carefully worded discussion of all the 6 points mentioned in this post. They are as follows:
1. Back in 2000, California voters passed the same exact language under Proposition 22 by 61%. So that shows that most (at least at that time) did not agree with it and likely wouldn't want their children taught the concept of same sex marriage in schools. Further, most school age children live in homes with a mom and a dad. So the number of students in a class room that come from families that would not want this taught may be higher than 61%. So could you imagine the number of children that would be missing from class or moved schools if every parent that disagreed with the material taught followed your advice to move their child. That could be disastrous for the California school system.
You continue that children should know why we don't discriminate against people. But, a title change from "domestic partnership" to "marriage" isn't discriminatory. Currently in California, laws do not discriminate against same sex couples. If a domestic partnership registers with the state by filling out a form (as is required for a heterosexual couple to be recognized as married) they are offered the same benefits as a married man and women.
For example, family laws in California recognize domestic partnerships. When a same sex couples separates, as a straight couple divorcing, they too are following the same rules and procedures as a straight couple. When one person in a same sex couple dies, the California probate laws treat that person's domestic partner the same way that a wife would be treated if her husband dies. In California, employment benefits, including family medical leave can be taken when a domestic partner is ill with cancer or other ailment, so that the other partner can care for her. This is the same for a wife caring for a husband with cancer.
The laws already treat same sex couples the same in California. With or without California allowing same sex couples to declare themselves as "married," they can still have a ceremony to show their commitment to one another, just like a wedding of a man and women.
So teaching our kids why we do not discriminate is a good thing. But it has nothing to do with Proposition 8. The laws of the land are already fair and equal to all.
2. You state that this "consequence" is completely false. However, you must remember that the California Supreme Court opinion has made a change that has never been addressed before. Because of this, there will be a flood of court cases that will demand clarification on how this one opinion changes other laws.
Discrimination has been highly litigated, whether it is racial, gender, or age. Only recently has sexual orientation become more main stream. There was a case, Bob Jones University v. United States where the Court held that the denial of tax exempt status to private schools that racially discriminated because of sincere religious beliefs did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. The opinion states that "[T]he Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education [which] substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs."
If Proposition 8 does not pass, it is likely their will be cases that challenge a religion or private institution because it refuses to marry a same sex couple. The above opinion shows that this can and may happen. A religion or private institution can lose its tax exempt status over exercising its religious beliefs. So this possible "consequence" is not "completely false" as you claim.
3. The Massachusetts case did have something to do with same sex marriages. Those anti-discrimination laws that you are referring to were not obeyed. The Catholic Charities refused to place adopted children with same sex couples. The state said that this was discriminatory and Catholic Charities must treat same sex couples the same as heterosexual couples. Thus, Catholic Charities shut down its adoption portion of its business in Massachusetts because it refused to place children in these homes.
If Proposition 8 does not pass in CA, it is likely to have the same affect on adoption agencies in California that will not place children in same sex couples' homes.
4. You agree that this is "might" be true and then site an example that backs it. Further, you state, "if you want public money, you have to obey public laws. Remain fully private and you can discriminate all you like." However, the above referenced case shows that the government can and will take benefits from a private institution. Further, pursuant to section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress may prohibit private racial discrimination. (Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.) In that case, the Court held that Congress could prohibit private discrimination in selling and leasing property. So it isn't "COMPLETELY" false. I think it could happen.
5. Unfortunately, I do not know the details of the Canadian minister and what occurred. But it seems like you are saying that no church official that opposes gay marriage will be sued because they have First Amendment rights. With the legalization of same sex marriage, lawsuits will surely come. And I would bet money that this one will be tested.
6. You dismiss this consequence as if there will be no lawsuits with the legalization of same sex marriage. There will and have already been lawsuits. We pay money for the state to defend and prosecute these cases. Thus, this consequence is true.
I realize that regardless of my reply, I will likely not persuade you to agree with my view. I too can say that regardless of your argument, I will not change my position mainly because of my testimony. I know, through personal confirmation that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Kirsten -
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
You say your sister studied law. I suggest you both follow this link and then follow the link inside THAT that will open up a PDF file. That file is a commentary on the "six consequences" written by a law professor at BYU. He states the case much more eloquently and clearly than I ever could.
Thanks so much.
As was mentioned twice, the prophets and apostles are the mouthpiece for the church. Other individuals are just giving personal opinion. This professor gives his personal opinion and says he "does not believe" it has been approved" and "suspects" the people have overzealous intentions. Had he thought more deeply about the changing of the laws, he'd see that changing the definition of marriage would allow discrimination suits to pop up everywhere. He is trying hard to be kind to the nation and have an optimistic outlook which is good, but it is not realistic. If you have more questions, please refer to Ruth's answer or my second for clarification. I think both give good evidence to show the truth. Thanks.
Tom has pointed out an article that a BYU Law professor wrote claiming the six consequences were false. Here is a reply to that article from William C. Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation.
Most people are rightfully leery of buying something just because the seller touts his or her personal religious activity. In California, right now, there are groups working to defeat Proposition 8, the proposed constitutional amendment that would protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Part of their sales pitch is their religious identity.
They feel the need to advertise this because their own church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has officially announced its support for the common-sense measure that would reverse the actions of a bare majority of the California Supreme Court that ruled in May that a hitherto unknown and still unwritten provision of that state's constitution required that marriage be redefined to include same-sex couples.
Most recently, an attorney and a group calling itself “Mormons for Marriage” have been attacking the idea that redefining marriage in California creates possible negative ramifications for religious liberty in this state. They have attempted to refute an anonymous document that lists some of these potential ramifications. They say the document misconstrues legal precedents and that, actually, there is no reason to worry that churches and religious believers will be harmed in any way if California redefines marriage.
Anyone can read the LDS Church's official statement on the issue, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” published on August 13, 2008 and available on the Church's website for a careful and persuasive examination of this question that concludes that the redefinition of marriage does bode ill for religious liberty. Interestingly, one of the attacks cites to the Church statement to argue that the debate over marriage should be civil (a point on which all hopefully agree) but does not note this section.
In addition, eminent religious liberty scholars who have a variety of opinions on the subject of same-sex marriage all agree that a conflict between the state and religious organizations and believers is an inevitable result of redefining marriage. A video presentation by some of these scholars is available here. How that conflict will work out may be a matter of debate but its existence is widely understood to be a given.
The California Supreme Court itself has made it abundantly clear that it does not think the Federal or State Constitutions provide a religious exemption to laws mandating identical treatment of same-sex couples or gay and lesbian individuals. In a recent, unanimous, opinion to this effect, the court said a doctor could not invoke his religious beliefs in a lawsuit brought against him because he did not provide an artificial insemination procedure to a woman in a same-sex couple. See North Coast Women's Care Medical Group v. San Diego Superior Court, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 708 (Cal. 2008). In its opinion, the court said that even under the legal standard most protective of religious liberty the doctor would lose because the state had a compelling interest in requiring identical treatment of homosexuals. One judge wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the result and identifying the court's same-sex marriage decision as the authority for the proposition that every law must treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples exactly the same. Ibid. at 722 (opinion of Justice Baxter).
Since many churches' religious beliefs do not allow them to provide employment, public accommodations, adoption services and other benefits to same-sex couples, it is not very hard to see that the court's ruling sets up a serious quandary for believers.
Those who are now arguing that “all is well” for religious liberty say that it is not the redefinition of marriage that has caused these changes. In one way they are right, but their argument is also very misleading. It is true that states which have not redefined marriage have significantly interfered with religious liberty in advancing the cause of gay rights. They have relied on state statutes enacted by legislatures. These statutes, though, could be amended to make exceptions for religious groups. When the court redefines marriage, however, it makes the issue a constitutional matter and the court interpretation will trump any statutory exemption and might, as the California Supreme Court ruled, even outweigh other constitutional rights like religious freedom.
This is what the U.S. Supreme Court held in a famous case brought to remove the tax exemption of a religious college, Bob Jones University , which at the time forbade interracial dating. The government argued successfully in that case that the university should have its tax exemption revoked because the government's policy of ending racial discrimination outweighed any other consideration. See Bob Jones University v. U.S. , 461 U.S. 574 (1983)
It is common sense to most of us that racial discrimination is wrong and that a belief in marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a different matter. When the California Supreme Court ruled that marriage had to be redefined, however, they turned the issue of marriage into a civil rights issue and gave official government endorsement to the idea that those who believe in husband/wife marriage are bigots. The Bob Jones case and many other laws teach us that the law does not tolerate those it considers to be bigots.
Proposition 8 would overrule the California Supreme Court's holding about marriage and allow those who believe in marriage to continue that belief without the official stigma of being considered bigots.
The marriage decision will have effects beyond religious liberty. One of the most obvious is that it requires schools to teach students of every age that there is no difference between marriage between a husband and wife and between same-sex couples. California law now requires that students in public schools from kindergarten on must be taught about “Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” California Education Code 51890 Now that marriage has been officially redefined, any discussion of marriage must include discussions of same-sex marriage. Another provision of the law forbids discrimination in any school program on the basis of “sexual orientation” which reinforces this policy. California Education Code 200
This is not a hypothetical concern. In Massachusetts , the only other state to redefine marriage, this exact situation has arisen. Parents who objected to pro-gay curriculum at their children's elementary school lost their lawsuit seeking an injunction to exempt their children from the material, in part because a federal court said the public schools “ have an interest in promoting tolerance, including for the children (and parents) of gay marriages.” See Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1 st Cir. 2008).
There are other religious liberty concerns as well. In Canada , where marriage has been redefined, a Knights of Columbus hall in British Columbia was fined for canceling a reception for a same-sex couple's wedding. See Chymyshyn v. Knights of Columbus, 2005 BCHRT 544 (2005). The list could go on.
These concerns do not exhaust the potential harms to which Proposition 8 would respond.
When the California Supreme Court redefined marriage, they did so not only for the small group who might benefit from the change but for every citizen of the State of California . This change means that the law of California now strongly endorses three ideas: men and women are essentially interchangeable, children do not need a mother and father and those who disagree are bigots.
In reality, every healthy human society, across time and cultures, has had some kind of marriage institution to encourage those who might create children to take responsibility for those children and for each other. Marriage is fundamentally about children's needs, not adult desires.
Our society owes children the opportunity, whenever possible, to know and develop a meaningful bond with their own mother and father. Marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to provide this opportunity.
California law now creates intentionally motherless or fatherless families where children will not experience the unique contributions of at least one of their parents.
Decades of social science research has effectively demonstrated that the best arrangement for children's well being is to be raised by their own mother and father who are married to each other. Even married couples that do not have children promote society's concern for children by providing an example to those that do and, by observing their marriage vows, preventing the creation of other motherless or fatherless homes.
Proposition 8 is not about taking people's rights away. It is a simple way to protect marriage. It is also the last chance California voters may have to get their say on this matter.
If you would like to click on the links in the article, go to:
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/familyleadernetwork/080925freedom.html
After all the debate, all the arguing, all the back and forth on the issue of marriage equality, today I want you to think about just one thing. I want you to imagine how it would feel if other people were allowed to vote on the validity of your relationship. How would you feel if millions of people were stepping into voting booths right now to decide whether YOUR marriage would be “valid or recognized”?
Post a Comment