Monday, 3 November 2008

No on Proposition 8

for those of you voting in CA...

Los Angeles Times

Debunking the myths used to promote the ban on same-sex marriage.

November 2, 2008

Clever magicians practice the art of misdirection -- distracting the eyes of the audience to something attention-grabbing but irrelevant so that no one notices what the magician is really doing. Look over at that fuchsia scarf, up this sleeve, at anything besides the actual trick.

The campaign promoting Proposition 8, which proposes to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, has masterfully misdirected its audience, California voters. Look at the first-graders in San Francisco, attending their lesbian teacher's wedding! Look at Catholic Charities, halting its adoption services in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal! Look at the church that lost its tax exemption over gay marriage! Look at anything except what Proposition 8 is actually about: a group of people who are trying to impose on the state their belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gays and lesbians are not entitled to be treated equally under the law.

That truth would never sell in tolerant, live-and-let-live California, and so it has been hidden behind a series of misleading half-truths. Once the sleight of hand is revealed, though, the campaign's illusions fall away.

Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state's gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households -- among those most willing to take hard-to-place children -- until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church's religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church's adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.

How can this be? It's a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.

That San Francisco field trip? The children who attended the wedding had their parents' signed permission, as law requires. A year ago, with the same permission, they could have traveled to their teacher's domestic-partnership ceremony. Proposition 8 does not change the rules about what children are exposed to in school. The state Education Code does not allow schools to teach comprehensive sex education -- which includes instruction about marriage -- to children whose parents object.

Another "Yes on 8" canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings -- of any religion -- could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.

The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it's not public. The ruling does not affect churches' religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn't about a wedding ceremony.

Much has been made about same-sex marriage changing the traditional definition of marriage. But marriage has evolved for thousands of years, from polygamous structures in which brides were so much chattel to today's idealized love matches. In seeking to add a sentence to California's Constitution that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized," Proposition 8 supporters seek to enforce adherence to their own religious or personal definition. The traditional makeup of families has changed too, in ways that many religious people find immoral. Single parents raise their children; couples divorce and blend families. Yet same-sex marriage is the only departure from tradition that has been targeted for constitutional eradication.

Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state. Proposition 8 proponents know this, which is why they have misdirected the debate with highly colored illusions about homosexuals trying to take away the rights of religious Californians. Since May, when the state Supreme Court overturned a proposed ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, more than 16,000 devoted gay and lesbian couples have celebrated the creation of stable, loving households, of equal legal stature with other households. Their happiness in no way diminishes the rights or happiness of others.

Californians must cast a clear eye on Proposition 8's real intentions. It seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way, to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept. Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.


Robin Lunt said...

it will be interesting to see what happens in CA. Some classmates of mine from BYU law have been discussing it here:

robin lunt said...

I also feel strongly that this is an often oversimplified issue and that there is more to it spiritually, socially, than is presented in this somewhat oversimplified article. I listen to arguments on both sides and remain somewhat unconvinced. But I do believe in the sanctity and importance of marriage and of gender as an eternal principle.

Annie and Doug said...

go-bama! Just wanted to see how happy you were! His speech was great last night. I am excited to see how he does.

so are you serious about supporting no for prop 8? Don't you think we should stand up for families. The adversary is persistent and sneaky. He will stop at nothing until he slowly breaks down the most important unit of our mortal existence and our immortal happiness.

Don't you think it is time to stand for what we believe in? In the sanctity of marriage - marriage between a man and a woman, in the importance of families.

joshuapackard said...

I'm troubled on this issue.

I agree that gay/lesbian couples should have all the civil rights any other committed couple should enjoy (ie hospital visitation rights, etc). However, don't they already have these rights? Doesn't "civil unions" give them all the rights they say they are being denied?

However, if I was told I couldn't be "married" but could only have a "civil union" or marriage by some other euphemism, despite having all the same rights, I would feel discriminated against as well. I see their point.

However, I do not feel that this issue equates with the civil rights movement - since gay/lesbian couples already have the same rights under the law as heterosexual couples.

But, does letting a gay couple get "married" threaten my marriage, or the marriage of future religious people trying to preserve the sanctity of marriage? Does it destroy the sanctity of marriage? I don't think so. Does letting idiots get married in Vegas chapels, only to divorce months later, or just walk away from their "commitment" trample in the sanctity of marriage? Speaking of divorce, what about the divorce rate of nearly 50% in the US? Does divorce destroy the sanctity of marriage? Some churches believe this to be the case. Earlier in history, the LDS church fought before the Supreme Court for equal rights protecting Polygamous marriage (polygamy doesn't fit the "one man and one woman" definition of marriage). I don't think the LDS church was trying to destroy the institution of marriage during it's polygamous roots. However, most people believed it was, which partly explains the public disgust with polygamy. (interestingly Brigham Young was very liberal in his granting of divorces during the practice of polygamy, in order to preserve the practice of polygamy itself- giving people a loop hole)

I think the LA Times article illustrates the point well that half-truths were used to scare people (I admit I was scared too) in voting for Prop 8.

What most conflicts me about Prop 8 is the church's involvement. The justification is that this is a "moral issue" and that we need to make a stand. The fact is that the church has a spotty record when it get's involved in politics, or when church leaders make their political opinions known, and hasn't always been on the right side of the issue. This is understandable since church leaders are human and do not live in a vacuum - they are influenced by people, values, and culture around them. We follow them as prophets, not as political leaders. On prophetic issues, they have a major "life-line", on political issued, they have their opinions. Sometimes the boundaries blur.

What is interesting in the fact that Prop 8 passed, is that younger voters voted against it in droves, while older voters voted for it. The fight for gay marriage will continue, old people will die, and perceptions will change, and gay couples will eventually get their right to marry under the law. Maybe what the church should have focused on is protecting our right to marry in churches and temples (free of coercion from the government or gay activist groups - if this right is indeed threatened), instead of fighting to limit others the right to do so.

raisngdc said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
joshuapackard said...

Before anybody turns in their temple recommend, you can be against Prop 8 and still be morally opposed to gay-marriage. I believe homosexuality is a sin, but that doesn't mean we should make it illegal to be gay.

Similarly, I can think its wrong to drink alcohol, but not support reinstating prohibition, or think it's wrong to get divorced, but supportive of keeping divorce legal in our country, or think it's morally wrong to get an abortion, but supportive of keeping abortion legal.

The umbrella of church membership is big enough to cover many opinions without other members thinking they should be disciplined or have their church membership restricted.