California’s Proposition 8: Same Sex Marriage
In May 2008, the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender:
“does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”
In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that
“responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”
“We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples,” Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.
Religious zealots on their knees
“Protect Marriage” is exactly what voting no to Proposition 8 will result in if passed. Yet, in a room on the top floor of an evangelical church in San Diego, dozens of Christian zealots are praying and fasting for 40 days. They are petitioning their God to uphold the continued discrimination against natural citizens - consenting same sex adults who want to be treated equally under the law.
Spurious advertising and outrageous claims
The Yes on 8 campaign has gone to extreme lengths to attempt to convince the electorate that Prop 8 is all about preserving marriage and protecting children when it isn’t. The expensive California media market has been saturated with TV ads and campaign ads focusing on children.
Despite the fact that none of their claims are true, some evangelicals have even gone so far as to suggest that if same sex marriage is allowed to stand, it would force churches to marry gays, force schools to teach gay marriage, setting off a snowball effect and opening the door to pedophilia and bestiality.
“A person could say, ‘I love my dog, why should we not be married?’” said Anna Good, a member of the Skyline Westlean Church.
What nonsense. Since when can dogs write, complete marriage application forms, and affix a signature to them?
The opposition rightly says these arguments are spurious.
“Let me be clear, there is nothing in California state law that would require the teaching of marriage and that will not change,” California State School Board President Ted Mitchell said. “These ads are ridiculous and they are an insult to California voters,” he added in a statement.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell said campaign ads focusing on kindergarten children “are alarming and irresponsible. Our public schools are not required to teach about marriage and using kids to lie about that is shameful.”
“Since they lack arguments to support their discriminatory proposal, they resort to fear using children and targeting Hispanics, in their campaign of lies,” said Monica Trasandes, spokeswoman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of pro-family religious and educational groups, said the ban would “protect our children from being taught in public schools that ’same-sex marriage’ is the same as traditional marriage.”
Once again this is untrue. Marriage is not taught in schools and parents in California are given a right to opt their children out of any teaching they find objectionable. Churches set their own policy when it comes to whom they choose to marry.
New record set for social policy initiative donations
Perhaps the most shocking revelation of this campaign has been the financial aspect. Supporters include Focus on the Family, the Knights of Columbus and members of the Mormon church. Campaign finance records show the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has given $200,000 to back a Nov. 4 ballot initiative that would change the California Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. According to outside estimates, the campaigns for and against have raised more than $60 million in donations. This has set a new record for a social policy initiative, trumping every other race in the country this year in spending except for the presidential contest.
It’s amazing how much money is being wasted to defend hatred and bigotry. Can you imagine how many starving and/or sick Americans $60 million could help?
IMO everyone should be treated fairly under the law. Proposition 8 discriminates against natural citizens and should not be voted for. What do you think?
References:
Same-Sex Marriage in California - Overview and Issues
TYPES OF MARRIAGE LICENSES IN CALIFORNIA
California Same-Sex Marriage Initiative Campaigns Shatter Spending Records
Proposition 8: Gay Marriage on California’s Ballot
Catholic bishops give $200K to ban gay marriage
California split over gay marriage referendum
Related post found in this blog: Gay Rights: Equality or Hypocrisy?
Oct 29th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
This Proposition 8 is so ridiculous.
Let’s look at it this way, we live under a secular government and the marriage-license is issued by this secular government, legally binding two people by a minister ordained under a secular law.
Any reference to religion there ? Nope !
And I do believe that every religion defines marriage differently.
In Islam, marriage legalises things that are considered taboo outside of marriage like sexual-intercourse for example.
Redefining the definition of marriage within a secular law - does not change my religion.
I think Stephen Harper should get that in his head too !
I’d vote no to Proposition 8.
Oct 29th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I think that Proposition 8 (and Florida’s Amendment 2, and Arizona’s Proposition 102, which are similar) is a big, ignorant pile of fail.
If they’re going to deny marriage rights for consenting, loving couples who are desperate to be married and enjoy the same rights, why not deny divorce for those who ARE allowed to get married and want out of it? Then they’ll see how much fun it is.
Oct 29th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
@Jaffer
I would also vote a resounding “no” to proposition 8. There are many different kinds of families. There have always been many different kinds of families and government’s only role ought to be providing services to all their citizens equally without any discrimination whatsoever.
Oct 29th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
@Omar
I’m with you on that. It grieves my heart that anyone could be so mean spirited on one hand and then claim that this has something to do with religion.
Poppycock! Marriages were not even conducted by the church until the 12th century. The incursion of religion into governance is absolutely unacceptable and it must be stopped.
Oct 29th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I’m happy to say that both my husband and I have already voted no on Prop 8 via absentee ballot.
Thanks for covering an important topic (as always!)
Oct 29th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Yeah, tell me about it.
There’s a Cardinal here who has certain influence on the government (as well as the people), and he continues to spew his homophobic/anti-choice nonsense, to which a lot of people here seem to agree. I cringe every time I make the bad decision to read a newspaper article about what he says (and even more when I read people’s comments in agreement).
We’re decades away from having a similar degree of freedom than, say, Canada, as long as the church’s influence prevails and religion is used as an excuse for allowing/forbidding things.
Oct 29th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
It’s a big fat NO from me. If people would put as much energy into practicing tolerance as they put into minding others’ business, time could be spent resolving real issues. There is no excuse to deny anyone the rights and privileges that the rest of us enjoy. We were all brought into existence equally and that’s how we should live here on earth and leave it. All IMO, of course.
Nice avatar, TimeThief!
Oct 29th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Good point, Omar! I agree w/y’all.
Oct 30th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Thanks for this post. When we ask for equal protection under the law, we do not threaten heterosexual couples’ relationships or their state of being at all. These protections assure that I can make decisions if my partner cannot, and protect our financial future together to name just a couple of things. If anyone is threatened by that I don’t understand it. The arguments for supporting the hate-mongering are mind boggling.
Oct 30th, 2008 at 8:41 am
@Jennifer
I’m glad to hear that you have already given this matter serious consideration and have voted in favor of equal access to government services for all consenting adults.
IMO the hypocrisy posed by the artificial creation of a class of citizens that has enabled this discrimination must come to an end. Government has no legitimate role to play in the bedrooms of the nation and the definition of what constitutes a “family”. Government’s role is to serve by providing equal access to government services to all citizens.
Oct 30th, 2008 at 8:46 am
@roadgurl
If people would put as much energy into practicing tolerance as they put into minding others’ business, time could be spent resolving real issues. There is no excuse to deny anyone the rights and privileges that the rest of us enjoy.
IMO there is a distinct difference between reasons based on well defined criteria and excuses based on nonsense. What we are witnessing from the extreme right wing is excuses, not reasons.
A “reason” is an explanation for why something is the way it is, with everyone involved taking accountability for their part in a situation.
An excuse is an explanation for why something is the way it is, that always involves the blame being put on someone or something that isn’t involved in the conversation, and not able to share their side of the story. What’s the difference? The accountability.
In this case the religious right wing is responsible for making specious and spurious arguments that do not amount to “reasons”. They are not being reasonable nor accountable for their exaggerations, lies and fallacious arguments. They are clearly pressing forward with the intent of enforcing their religious beliefs on others contrary to the underlying tenets of the Constitution and Amendments.
They are not be held accountable for their departure from the New Testament teachings attributed to Jesus. Free speech cannot be an excuse for hatred. IMO what we are witnessing is the extreme manipulative behavior of a fear filled faction of power and control freaks who have zero respect for the separation for church and state, and the underlying intent of the Constitution, and the “love one another” commandments.
Heterosexism and monogamy have worn the mask of religion and most particularly, of Christianity for far too long. The “love one another” commandments of Jesus, carry with them an expectation for followers to remain faithful to the values he established in his stance against the narrow minded and legalistic religious zealots of his day. So while there are religious voices conspiring against “liberty and justice for all” condemning this same sex marriage, quoting scripture, church law and tradition in desperate attempts to legally justify their fear and revulsion of same-gender love and attraction, we have no doubt that they are out-of-alignment. Without doubt, when religion uses God’s name in vain in order to exclude, marginalize, demonize and control a class of citizens, we can be sure that the mindset and behavior is not “Christ-like”.
Oct 30th, 2008 at 10:31 am
@Judith
The arguments against same sex marriage are all mean spirited and small minded. Those who make them and then claim to stand for democracy and equal rights are liars and hypocrites. The time has come for the rest of us to demand that the elected strengthen the separation between church and state. It’s also time for us to stand on our convictions and tell the religious extremists loudly and clearly to place their religious agendas where the sun don’t shine, because the founding fathers clearly did not choose to create a theocracy.
Oct 30th, 2008 at 10:34 am
@Omar & Lana
The situation is grievous. It’s time for this kind of abuse masquerading as “god’s will” to come to an end.
Oct 30th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
You know, just today (couldn’t come at a better time, it’s like they knew about this post!), I read an article in the paper (weekly paper, great content) about proposed changes to our constitution, one of which defines marriage between a man and a woman as “the social foundation of family” in this country. Not that same-sex marriages are legal in this country, but such an amendment becomes part of the constitution, it’ll make things difficult. So, esentially, the Dominican Republic sort of has it’s Prop. 8 equivalent (Proposition 44?). Not just that, but they’re thinking all families here consist of two happily-married parents. I guess single parents and divorcees who raise and maintain families have ceased to exist.
Another part of the proposal states that “all people are born free and equal to the law [...] and there will be no discrimination based on gender, race, national/family origin, language” and many, many other things but suspiciously leaves out sexual orientation from the list. Not sure what the current one says about that, but it’s funny that both of the above things have come more or less at the same time.
Oct 31st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
There’s a big THREAT tonight. Some churches want to spread disgusting things to kids when they hand out candy. See It’s OK to Vote No for more info.
Oct 31st, 2008 at 1:27 pm
@Omar
It sure sounds as if the same small minded and mean spirited religious zealots are at work in your country as well. I’m so saddened to know this.