The civil right to make your own decisions
This year, voters in California passed a state constitutional amendment that says: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
That vote effectively invalidated thousands of marriages that had been sanctified and legally recognized in that state in the last five years.
What’s it like to get the kids dressed for school, go out the door, and know that the bus driver, the teacher, the gymnastics instructor … all may have cast a ballot declaring the family you have built morally wrong and illegal?
I believe strongly in every American’s right to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, and their freedom to pass that idea on to their children. Part of what makes America great is that very few of us agree on much. If my friends and neighbors were asked to cast votes against me, many would call my views on alcohol, caffeine, gender equality, sex, and South Park morally wrong.
But we aren’t supposed to cast those kinds of votes in America. We’re supposed to mind our own business and let our neighbors mind theirs.
One anti-gay marriage argument that is often used is that “Homosexuals have the same rights as the rest of us … to marry someone of the opposite sex.”
By that count, we are all denied the same right as well, even though heterosexuals don’t notice. We are ruled by a government we have given the power to override our choices in love. We’re charging the government as final arbiter of what loves are legitimate and moral.
I don’t expect an America that universally accepts homosexuality — any more than I predict an America where no one preaches that men are the natural rulers of women. But do we believe in free religion or don’t we?
My church sanctifies homosexual marriage, but state governments consistently deny the legitimacy of those marriages. Government officials say they’ll support some form of civil agreement granting rights, but never the legitimacy of the word “marriage.”
In other words, the government will grant legal equality equal to the idea of marriage, but they won’t allow churches to call it a marriage. — A bizarre violation of the separation of church and state.
Generally, I try to avoid controversial topics on this blog because I think most people have their own opinions and don’t need mine.
But the people of California had a say I don’t think they ever should have been given. And I have a say here, and not to use it is complicity in something I believe is horribly wrong.
I support a federal law protecting marriage as an entirely personal decision between consenting adults.
… and none of the government’s – or our neighbors’ – business.
November 16th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
ooooh…..I wish the incompetents running the No on 8 campaign had thought to market it as a violation of religious freedom. Take that, LDS!
November 16th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Hi, Jess. I didn’t read a lot about what the opponants of Pop 8 argued. What was their case?
For the record — I disagree with the Latter Day Saints church very strongly on this issue, but I have a good many friends and family who are LDS. Generally, I think the LDS church is a very positive, family-oriented and generous group and I respect their faith.
November 16th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Hear, hear!
November 16th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Amen.
November 16th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
“I believe strongly in every American’s right to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, and their freedom to pass that idea on to their children.”
The thing I fear is that the government will start telling me that I have to tell my children what THEY say I should tell them about this issue, on either side. If I choose to pass my belief on this topic to my child, will I be told that I am wrong?
I guess I feel that being tolerant is important, but because I am what some would consider to be a “conservative Christian”, all beliefs seem to be tolerated except mine. I don’t force mine on others, and I certainly don’t expect that the government will legislate according to them either. But I would like to enjoy the freedom to have these beliefs without being belittled or criticized or being stamped as intolerant. If I’m not trying to force someone to believe in God, no one should try to force me not to.
I’m glad this is a “keep the peace” blog. Often I don’t feel like I can share how it feels to be a conservative in an age where it seems to be the unpopular position. Here I feel that I can be me, so long as I don’t criticize others, and readers all afford one another the same courtesy.
Thanks, Liz.
November 16th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Amanda, I’m glad that you feel safe sharing your views here. That means a lot to me. And I’m really glad to hear from you.
November 16th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
This is something that should have never been on a ballot. Everyone has the right to have their opinion but as soon as you put it up for a vote, you are enforcing the will of the majority - not something many would consider the foundation of our country. It is a little sad, on the same day we made a once not possible dream come true, with electing the first African American to the white house, we took large steps backwards in California, Arizona, and Flordia. Even would be parents to children were legislated against for their sexuality. This has gone to the Supreme Court in California and was ruled unconstitutional to deny same sex marriage - and still somehow made it on to a ballot. As much as conservatives have their position and it should be protected - so do people who believe the exact opposite - and they should be protected too. As a heterosexual woman, I look at how we have represented marriage - not exactly ideally considering the high divorce rates - should it be feared that people in same sex relationships may not do the word justice? This should be a civil right to love whom we choose, without interference or critique from anyone - and certainly not legislation.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I am all for gay marriage. That said, there are people in my life who I love that are all for gays having equal rights but object to the use of the word “marriage.”
How about this solution: As far as the government is concerned everyone who chooses to commit to each other gets a CIVIL UNION. That includes men committing to women, men committing to men, and women committing to women. In the eyes of the government, it’s all the same, it’s the same rights, and it’s all called a CIVIL UNION.
Then, if you want the word “marriage” you take that up with your church if the word itself is imporant to you.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Karin, I love that idea.
I think everybody has the right to believe whatever they want, but nobody has the right to impose anything on anybody else. Recently two women (a couple) were assaulted not far from where I live, while picking up their son from school. The little boy witnessed his Mom and her partner(not sure if they were married or not) being beaten up by a stranger. I read that and wondered why people feel such hate towards people who have done nothing but fall in love.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
thanks for that, elizabeth. i couldn’t agree with you more.
after i read about the mormon church’s effort on behalf of prop 8, i made a vow to get rid of my american express card, which i have used almost exclusively since 1991. the mormon church has a big stake in the american express company.
November 16th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Although I adamently believe in the importance of preseving liberties that do not harm others (except for potentially through moral offense), I am sincerely interested in understanding the other side. If any out there who hold views that oppose my own are comfortable responding, I would truly be interested in hearing why you not only oppose gay marriage but believe it should be legislated. If that is your view, do you believe that all acts that you consider sin should be out-lawed? I hope these questions don’t offend anyone. I come from a socially liberal background, so I am just trying to understand both sides of the issue better.
November 16th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Liz-
Yours is such a gentle, thoughtful voice. Thank you for that, and for the opinions you expressed; I agree wholeheartedly.
You know, one of the most appalling things about the passage of Prop 8 this year was the passage of another proposition on our ballot. I called it the Chicken Amendment. We Californians voted in droves to protect farm animals from cruel conditions. We approved a bill to guarantee that farm animals bred for food will have cages large enough for them to move around in, for them to spread their wings, turn around, lie down. A noble cause. I voted for it.
At the same time, and barely an inch away on the ballot, we denied human beings who love each other the right to marry. Horrible. Surreal.
We did a lot of things right this election, and the world is rejoicing with us. I believe that we were wrong on Prop 8. And as a result, so many good people have been slammed back in their cages, where they cannot spread their wings. How sad.
November 16th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
coastofcalifornia- that was very well put!
At the same time in Maine, I signed a petition to get the vote FOR same sex marriages on the ballot. The world is a crazy place.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you, Liz.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:20 am
thank you! thank you! thank you!
November 17th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Standing up and applauding your post, Liz!
November 17th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Elizabeth,
Thank you as always for providing such a balanced and peaceful voice to a controversial issue.
Karin in CT, you took the words out my mouth. I agree wholeheartedly with you, and have been arguing the same thing to many of my friends.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Liz–
I noticed above you asked about the “no on 8″ strategy. Unfortunately, they were rather disorganized, having presumed this ballot measure–in California–would be safely decided in their favor.
Blindsided by the millions pouring in from out of state (and largely from Church of Latter Day Saints supporters; $20M–fully half of the “yes on 8″ coffers–by some figures) the foes of 8 were reduced to playing frantic, underfunded defense. The pro-8 faction ran blatantly false ads about what this would mean for religious sacraments–things untouched by the existing law–and fabricated claims about schools being mandated to “teach” young children about same sex relationships. Unfortunately, bald-faced lies can be an advantage, because when your opponent is left with no recourse but to call you a liar, the public assumes the normal political shorthand is at play: the truth simply MUST lie somewhere in the middle. Those manufactured charges, coupled with a devastaing clip of S.F. mayor, Gavin Newsome, on camera claiming “same sex marriage is coming whether you like it or not,” caught the anti-8 forces flat-footed in a tooth-and-nail struggle they never anticipated.
And so, such shameful abominations get codified in law.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:18 am
How about this solution: As far as the government is concerned everyone who chooses to commit to each other gets a CIVIL UNION. That includes men committing to women, men committing to men, and women committing to women. In the eyes of the government, it’s all the same, it’s the same rights, and it’s all called a CIVIL UNION. — Karin in CT
———————–
Unfortunately, the anti-gay movements is too many states, mine included, have managed to enact laws eliminating both marriages AND civil unions with language about “any legal arrangements giving similar legal rights” etc. While I totally respect the views of folks like Yankee Amanda, it’s needlessly punitive provisions like that, that show some conservatives’ efforts in this area to be so blatantly hateful.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:02 am
thank you liz for posting something on your blog about prop 8. november 4, 2008 i went with mila (my 5 year old daughter) to the polling booths to go and vote for something that is now considered an historic event. i cast my ballot for obama, voted no on prop 8 and came out feeling super proud and super excited that i was able to share this experience with my 5 year old. she was excited that we voted on “collection day” as she calls it. i was so sure that my vote for obama and prop 8 would come out the way i was hoping. i was uber-excited to find out the next morning that obama was our president-elect - i like a dork fell asleep on election night and didn’t partake in the celebrations of election night. my feelings of hope were tarnished / dashed, if you will, when my friend told me that prop 8 passed. i was so upset and so disappointed in california… we voted and did something so awesome - voting in barack to the office of the president but then it felt like we took 20 steps backwards by denying the LGBT society the right to marriage…. thank you for your words on your blog. thank you for saying what a lot of people are thinking….
November 17th, 2008 at 2:30 am
Hear hear.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:55 am
I’m from CA. Voted No on Prop. 8. I think you should always marry for LOVE. Just wanted to share.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:43 am
Personally, I’m always a little concerned when people have a strong opinion about what type of sexual shenanigans go on behind closed doors. I’m all for whatever type of union people deem appropriate. Unless it’s with an animal.
I think there is one very important fact that people opposed to gay marriages are overlooking: THE ECONOMY! If gay people are allowed to marry, think of the money it will generate - your average wedding here in Australia costs $20K, and once you factor in the inevitable divorces (1 in 3 here in Australia I think) and the laywers that go with it, it’s a HUGE money spinner!
Now before any of you get all up in arms about the fact that I’m not taking this seriously, I have to tell you that I once was a wedding photographer (so know what I’m talking about when I get ontot he subject of ripping off people) (!!) and my Uncle and cousin are the campest men in Western Sydney. And I would love for them to be able to marry their long term partners.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Elizabeth,
I am a Massachusetts resident preparing to propose to my girlfriend very soon.
However, right now, I’m crushing on you a little bit.
: )
November 17th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Why Rhonda … I’m BLUSHING!!!
November 17th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I’m a little concerned that this amendment was voted in by the PEOPLE of California once, then the state supreme court decided that the people shouldn’t have the right to democratically cast their vote on this issue and legislated their own beliefs. (How many sit on the state supreme court?) To me, I am glad California voters got a second chance to state their views on this; their decision was rendered null the first time. Go democracy!
November 17th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Thanks, Liz, for writing this.
I tend to find myself on the morally conservative side, and the politically liberal side. To many, this is very hard to come to terms with, however, to me it’s so simple. I like to believe the way I like to believe, and I am surely not going to stand I the way of someone else’s beliefs, as long as they do not act hurtfully upon them.
And I love Karen’s idea of everyone entering into a CIVIL UNION.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I may regret commenting on this but, to answer Joy’s question: those of us who oppose same-sex marriage do so for a variety of reasons. The first item for many is recognizing that marriage is not something that was invented by the US, or any other state–the fact of marriage, or pair-bonding, or what have you, pre-dates any and every current state or gov’t and is a matter of what might be called natural law–it simply exists as a fact. You can’t change a fact simply by wishing it away, or calling it a “right.” Thus the laws, rules, etc. that have accumulated around marriage have done so as attempt for the state to manage a natural state that results as most marriages still do–with children. I’m not going into the “what about childless couples alley”…those are exceptions, and the laws are designed for most cases, not the exceptions.
Which brings us to SSM, and for that matter polygamy, polyamory and other exceptions (if you like) to the ordinary. Aside from the some of the religious objections to extending recognition to something that is perceived as outside the natural law, there is also the question of getting government involved in what it doesn’t need to be involved in—there are legally binding ways of getting the benefits of marriage without a gov’t stamp of approval, and as I said, the laws governing marriage are there for necessity as much as anything.
This puts aside the question of marriage as a “right”–I do not think marriage is a “right” for anyone (I have a very limited concept of what consitutes legal rights.) It seems to me what is being sought is approval–and I would argue that gov’t approval isn’t worth much. Those of us who are married might argue that the recognition by the state gets us nothing but a higher tax bill.
Lastly, I do think, like Yankee Amanda, that there is an element of coercion on the part of some in favor of SSM–there is a real possibility that clergy who oppose SSM will be forced to particpate or lose some aspect of their ability to minister—much like the Archdiocese of Boston was forced to give up all adpotion services, including those for severely disabled children, because it would not place children in same-sex homes (referring those couples to other agencies was not regarded as sufficient in MA). And including info on same sex couples in public school kindergarten packets would fall into this category of coercion , IMO.
Finally, I do think the end result will be the gov’t getting out of recognizing marriage–a state civil union will be issued to “Partner 1 and Partner 2″ ( or more) and churches will marry or not, according to their rules. Do I think that’s a good thing? I don’t know.
Sorry for the length, but you did ask.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:14 am
And I should add (you wouldn’t think there was anything else!): I don’t particularly care about same-sex relationships, or think they ought to concern me. So, insofar as government is an extension of the people (and me!), I think that people should stay out of your business.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:15 am
RE: Amanda @ 10:47–
Respectfully, you don’t seem to understand the situation that existed in California. The law banning same sex marriage that the voters initially passed ran afoul of the provisions and protections that existed in the state constitution. As such, the California Supreme Court had no choice but to void it. That wasn’t “legislation of beliefs,” it was the letter of the law.
That is precisely why the next move was Prop 8: amending the constitution, itself, to establ;ish a ban that eliminates, outright, what couldn’t be taken, otherwise.
While you are certainly entitled to your beliefs and enthusiasm, one of the most painful and and saddening parts of this debate are the number of people who proudly wave the flag of “Democracy” over a situation where a larger group has stripped rights and legal status away from a minority.
Yes, this was a case of democracy in action. But history is full of institutions that, while enjoying popular support in their respective society, were, nonetheless, deeply wrong. In a country where–broadly–in terms of the individual, constitutions are used to establish personal rights and abilities, not take them away I fail to see how this is any sory of “victory” for either person or process.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:16 am
..I also wish you had preview!
November 17th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Cathy J — a preview?
November 17th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Oh of the comments? Before they post? Okay, lemme talk to the designer and mention it to him.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Interestingly, my gay mother-in-law opposes gay marriage. She’s a Christian who firmly believes that marriage is between a man and a woman as stated in the Bible.
Two lovely women who are no longer on this Earth also opposed gay marriage. They had been together for 26 years. They set it up legally to have the ability to make medical decisions for one another, to share an estate and upon death, there was no issue with Em receiving Dee’s assets and no one was able to contest her will. When Em died and we inherited most of what was hers (and Dee’s), we had no problems and no lingering in probate court. And we live in Texas!
Perhaps they are the exception to the rule, I don’t know. But religion is a huge part of our society and therefore will always play a major role in voting. It is a moral conflict for many, I imagine even more for Christian conservative gays.
If we had voted as a nation rather than state-to-state, I wonder what the outcome would’ve been for gay marriage. I imagine at this time it still would’ve been banned. One day it may be more widely accepted but I don’t think anytime soon.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Amen!! Amen!! Amen!! My thoughts are so similar to yours, Liz, that I got cold chills reading this. Don’t we have enough things to worry about i.e a war that is costing billions of dollars, an economy that is in the toilet, unemployment rates that are skyrocketing, poor education for most kids, homelessness, people starving, disease, etc…without worrying about who someone chooses to love? It pisses me off…let’s get focused people and worry about the important things!! I don’t care what color you are, where you are from, what your love life consists of (I say we could all use someone to love/and love us), let’s get back to making this the “powerhouse” of a country we once were, be the “melting pot” that everyone loves us for, and get this country straightened out and QUIT worrying about what people do in the PRIVACY of their own homes.
I am a Christian and I’ve always been told that there is ONE judge, ONE perfect person, ONE person that we are going to answer to… last time I checked he said “LOVE ONE ANOTHER!” He’ll deal with the rest…
November 17th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Liz - Amen! (and that’s coming from an episcopal priest…)
November 17th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Karin..ITA!!!!! I am ALL for the concept of the Civil Union as totally separate from religious marriage. That way if people want to have a religious ceremony, then have at it and if its not for you, it’s all good. I actually discussed this with friends a year ago. Nice to see I’m not the only one thinking it
November 17th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
While I always read, I am not often inclined to comment on your blog…..however,the salient point in the arguement against any legislative prohibition against gay marriage is that you are basing law on a religous value. Yes, many laws have a religous correlary, but these legally prohibited acts also also deprive a person of life, liberty, property, established rights, etc., which is the true basis of the legal prohibition of the act, not the religious invictive. These prohibited acts are not solely regulated because they violates a religious prohibition, which is the case with any legislated or constitutional prohibition against gay marriage. I am male, heterosexual, in an age group generally known to be conservative, and a non-practicing Christian. I have no problem with gay marriage, and if I did, I would recognize and accept the fact that this country has established, from it’s inception, the principal of seperation of church and state. I find it hard to understand why there have been no legal challenges to such laws under this seperation principal.
And on the lighter side, one of my more conservative friends deals with this issue by saying; “what the hell, they should be entitled to the same misery that often befalls hetero married couples,why deny them equal aggrevation”.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I feel that that gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and it was upsetting and infuriating to see Prop 8 go through. The area that has upset me the most, however, due to my experience, is the measures banning gay couples from adopting. I think people sometimes forget that adoption is not just about tiny babies. I have been a therapist working with children for 15 years. The children I have worked with the longest are those who have a history of abuse and neglect so severe that the rights of their parents were terminated and they became wards of the state. To clarify, this termination does not happen easily, as the there is usually lengthy effort to either help biological parents become safe and responsible caregivers, or to find other biological family with whom to place these children. However, when these efforts fail, they enter the foster care system. My area of expertise is in attachment and bonding issues, which, not surprisingly, most of these children suffer from, as well as PTSD, ADHD, depression, and a host of others struggles and issues. Most are not babies or toddlers, but school age children and teens. They are difficult for caregivers to handle, and they often bounce from home to home as they burn out families, which, of course, then deepens their attachment issues. In my experience, it has often been the case that gay couples looking to adopt are uniquely open to the idea of adopting and working with these children… perhaps a certain stamina for adversity. It makes me furious to think that people in certain states have decided to statistically reduce the number of potential adoptive families available to these children, which condemns a percentage of them to languishing in the foster care system, and denies them (some forever, as they age out of the foster care system) a “Forever Family” that might offer them the nurture and stability they crave and so desperately need. There has been, rightly so, so much focus on the gay marriage issue, and this piece has not been talked about much, so I just wanted to say my piece… perhaps it might give someone pause the next time they vote on such a measure.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Thanks Liz, that was awesome!
I believe that everybody, gay and straight, should be granted total equal rights and I think that the word “marriage” should be used only in a religious, not a civic, context. What I mean is, EVERYBODY who wants to get the legally married would get a civil union and it would be called a civil union, with all the same benefits and priveledges that go with the state of marriage now. And if you want a religious marriage, then you would go to your church of choice and do that there. But that way, all citizens would be granted equal rights, and the war of semantics and what holy book says what could be left to the realm of religion.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
The most power argument to vote No on Prop 8…..have this convesation and replace “homosexual” with “interracial”. Let’s imagine having that vote.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Well, hi again.
I just re-checked, I didn’t realize you’d asked a question.
And the only answer is: yeah, what Verchiel said. No on 8 got cocky, I think, and didn’t have NEAR the funding that the other side had.
I suppose I am guilty of lumping ALL of the LDS laity in with its…whatyoucallit…um…administration, maybe? A bit like judging individual Americans on the behavior of our Congress, I suppose…
I apologize if my comments offended you, or was hurtful to someone you care about.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:54 am
While there is already much said I wanted to ask what others thought about this..going a bit more into detail. (Cindy J talked a bit about this).
If marriage is redefined and it’s declared by law that anyone can marry whom they choose and a group of churches decides to stay with what they believe and teach (that marriage is between a man and a woman), thereby refusing to perform same sex marriages…what happens next?
Would they be forced to perform them? Would they lose their tax exempt status? (If they lost this status many of our churches refusing to perform SSM would be forced to close their doors) And as Yankee Amanda also brought up: would parents be told how to teach morals to their children? Could I or my child be charged with a hate crime for saying I’m against SSM?
That is my concern overall–that the government will mandate how the church and our public schools should view marriage and how I should talk and teach about it.
Do people think this could happen? I fear it could as we’ve seen other types of examples of this happening in Canada/Sweden, etc.
I’m all in agreement with Yankee Amanda about repecting others’ beliefs and not imposing them on others, but to me this issue could do that very thing to those opposing SSM.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Everyone who keeps saying “it’s what the majority wants” seems to be forgetting that one of the primary ideals of American isn’t “majority rule” — it’s “majority rule, but minority rights.” It’s easy to conveniently forget that “minority rights” part when you don’t like what the minority has to say, isn’t it?
November 18th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
While I totally agree with you about Prop. 8, I’m dropping by to comment on your twitter update: Yay for West Wing….
November 18th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
If marriage is redefined and it’s declared by law that anyone can marry whom they choose and a group of churches decides to stay with what they believe and teach (that marriage is between a man and a woman), thereby refusing to perform same sex marriages…what happens next?
Would they be forced to perform them? Would they lose their tax exempt status? — Susie
———————-
I think that’s just the sort of misconception that the Pro-8 advocates were preying on in order to turn out the vote. Nowhere did the existing law extend beyond the issuance of civil marriage licenses. No court in the land can madate the performance of a religious rite and, in following this issue, I’ve never seen any sort of initiative for that to be the case.
While there have been court cases pertaining to groups that ban gays getting a subsidized deal on the existing fees for using public lands (a campground caase involving the Boy Scouts of America) there’s a wide gulf between that and the state dictating how a faith is to be practiced.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Good for you, its really nice to hear that everyone seems to think prop 8 is a bad idea. What I dont understand is how it managed to pass if so many people disagree with it. I guess its all the superchurches, and the prejudiced people.
Thanks for piping up!
November 18th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I voted Yes on 8. For this, I was called ignorant and hateful. I was called a bigot. Someone accused me of brainwashing my children. Um…what? It doesn’t matter that I have gay friends and neighbors or that I support equal protection under the law. It doesn’t matter that I teach my children to be kind and respectful to ALL people.
I voted yes on 8 because California Family law already guarantees domestic partners the same rights and privileges afforded to married couples. Opponents of Prop 8 tell us that gay couples will not be allowed hospital visits or other basic human & civil rights. This is not true. If it was, I would have voted against 8.
If Prop 8 is struck down, it’s silly to believe public schools will not be affected. Of course public school curricula will be affected (the biggest teachers’ union in California donated $1 million dollars to the No on 8 campaign). Of course churches will lose their tax exempt status for refusing to perform SSMs. Of course those of us who do not support gay “marriage” will be targeted as hateful bigots.
It’s already happening. California kindergartners attended a gay wedding as a public school sponsored field trip. Businesses that supported Prop 8 are being boycotted. People of faith who voted yes on 8 are being called hateful–some are being publicly attacked and molested.
Even here, on this blog, I am called “anti-gay.”
Nothing could be further from the truth.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Personally, I wish it were more difficult for EVERYONE to get married, and damn near impossible to get divorced…. It’s a slap in the face to homosexual couples who’ve spent 20 years together to be told their relationship is invalid when a 20 year old hetero couple is able to meet, marry and divorce in the span of a year. Best to not even get started on women with “baby daddies”
November 18th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Elizabeth in CA — I work hard to make sure that no one is called names on this blog and that people who comment here are free to express their opinions. If someone here has called you “anti-gay” please let me know immediately so I can revoke his or her privileges on this website.
Jess — no sweat, it’s all good.
In terms of the rest — I may be naive, but I can’t imagine anyone thinking the government should force a faith group to recognize a marriage outside of their beliefs. Can you imagine knocking on the door of a mosque and demanding that the cleric marry you even though you know nothing about Islam and have never set foot in a mosque before?
On the flip side, I can’t imagine a same-sex couple wanting to be married in a community that does not support their union. Again, I might be naive, but I don’t see anyone advocating that churches be forced to marry same-sex couples when they don’t want to.
There are plenty of religious organizations that deny advancement to women and as far as I know they are not deprived of their tax status for it. If I’m wrong and someone has better information, I hope you’ll share.
Thanks so much to all of you for caring enough to share your thoughts.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:20 am
BTW 0 to those asking about whether the church would be “forced” to perform gay marriages- the answer is no. In fact, I as clergy, have the right to deny marrying anyone - just because you show up at my door it does not mean that I have to marry you. While I am entitled to sign licenses and act as a state agent, I am not required to do so. I always have the pastoral right to say no.
I live in a state (CT) that now (finally) recognizes gay marriages (no longer just civil unions). While I am as a state agent allowed to sign the licenses, my bishop will not let me sign them for gay marriages. He will, however, allow me to bless a gay marriage. In other words I can perform a ceremony of blessing, but not sign the legal part. In our church, to take a stand, the clergy have decided not to sign anyone’s licenses. We ask that people get a civil marriage first (whether gay or straight) and then we bless the unions in a church ceremony (that looks just like a wedding…). (Until we were allowed to bless civil unions/marriages by our bishop we stopped doing weddings at all here).
So, no, the state cannot force me to perform a union that I don’t want to as a clergy person. I think that the only way I can lose my tax exempt staues these days is by telling you who to vote for…
November 19th, 2008 at 11:46 am
I’m so glad we live in a country where everyone has the right to believe what he/she chooses. We do not, however have the right to impose that on others. Separate is NEVER equal. It makes no sense to me that people are denying - and even REVOKING - the civil rights of a group of people. That right has no impact on those who are so “against” it. It’s confusing, it’s aggravating, and it’s wrong.
Thanks, Liz.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
C’mon Liz. Tell us wheter blue or pink.
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!
November 19th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
My partner passed away very suddenly and unexpectedly three months ago. We were together 30 years. He didn’t leave a will. Under the laws of our state his brother is his next of kin. That leaves me in the position of having to ask his brother if I can keep my house. We have to draw up an agreement where he relinquishes interest in my partners’ estate. He is willing to do so, thank goodness, but if we had been able to marry, there would have been no question at all. I was my partner’s beneficiary on his retirement accounts, so those came to me automatically, but since the Federal government doesn’t recognize me as a spouse I have to pay taxes that a spouse wouldn’t. My partner and I weren’t religious and we didn’t care about marrying in a church. We just wanted to have the protections afforded the rest of the population.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Ten toes you will one day paint with pink nail polish?
Or… NOT?
November 19th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Greg,
I am so sorry for your loss. And I am sorry that our government did not allow you to marry in your partner’s lifetime. One day we will look back on these times like the dark ages they are. Best wishes to you.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
As a Canadian from Ontario (the first province to legalise same sex marriage in 2003) I must comment on some of these issues.
Churches have not been forced to marry same sex couples but many congregations have split over this issue. It is a point of contention within religious practice, not law. Churches have neither lost their status nor been forced to teach beliefs that contradict their own.
Do I believe in same sex marriage? Absolutely - I believe in the right of a couple to be legally recognised. Do I believe in the right of a church to uphold it’s own beliefs? Yes I do - both beliefs can be accommodated respectfully in our society and I believe that they are accommodated in Canada.
It is about tolerance.
It challanges us as parents to model respect in the face strong opinions and to examine our own beliefs. Neither of these things is a negative exercise.
Sometimes you just need a little time to think about things differently. In Canada we’ve had a little time but we will always be working towards understanding, tolerance, and respect.
I wouldn’t use Canada as an example of how things have gone wrong but of how things can go right.
November 23rd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
As a Canadian and the proud mother of a gay son, I can only echo what Bea so eloquently posted already. As the minister of an Affirming Church that has publicly stated its unconditional support of our country’s equal marriage laws, my greatest hope is to one day join my son and the love of his life in marriage. Not civil union, not covenant relationship - marriage. Because he deserves that. Because we all deserve that.
November 27th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
THANK YOU. Once again, the emotion behind the choice clouded the issue for far too many.
We have a bit of a fight and a long road ahead of us.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:56 am
An interesting topic. Thank you for sharing your views.