Democracy, Religion and Proposition 8

How can a free society reconcile the often competing values of democracy, religious liberty and the separation of church and state? This challenge was vividly illustrated by the recent controversy over California's Proposition 8, which forbade same-sex marriage.

In a democracy, the majority of citizens ordinarily may enact whatever laws they want. Some laws, however, are prohibited by the Constitution. For example, the majority of citizens may want a law denying African-Americans the right to vote or prohibiting Muslims from attending public schools, but such laws violate the Constitution.

Does Proposition 8 violate the Constitution? There are several arguments one might make for this position. One might argue that Proposition 8 discriminates against gays and lesbians in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. One might argue that Proposition 8 unconstitutionally limits the fundamental right to marry. One might argue that Proposition 8 violates the separation of church and state. It is this last argument that interests me.

Laws that violate the separation of church and state usually take one of two forms. Either they discriminate against certain religions ("Jews may not serve as jurors"), or they endorse particular religions ("school children must recite the Lord's Prayer"). Proposition 8 does not violate the principle of separation of church and state in either of these ways. It neither restricts religious freedom nor endorses religious expression.

What it does do, however, is to enact into law a particular religious belief. Indeed, despite invocations of tradition, morality and family values, it seems clear that the only honest explanation for Proposition 8 is religion. This is obvious not only from the extraordinary efforts undertaken by some religious groups to promote Proposition 8, but also from the very striking voting patterns revealed in the exit polls.

Proposition 8 was enacted by a vote of 52% to 48%. Those identifying themselves as Evangelicals, however, supported Proposition 8 by a margin of 81% to 19%, and those who say they attend church services weekly supported Proposition 8 by a vote of 84% to 16%. Non-Christians, by the way, opposed Proposition 8 by a margin 85% to 15% and those who do not attend church regularly opposed Proposition 8 by a vote of 83% to 17%.

What this tells us, quite strikingly, is that Proposition 8 was a highly successful effort of a particular religious group to conscript the power of the state to impose their religious beliefs on their fellow citizens, whether or not those citizens share those beliefs. This is a serious threat to a free society committed to the principle of separation of church and state.

The Framers of the American Constitution knew that throughout human history religious self-righteousness has caused intolerance, discrimination and injustice. They understood that religious self-righteousness is dangerous, divisive and destructive, and that it has led to untold ignorance and misery. It was for that reason that they embedded in our Constitution a fundamental commitment to the separation of church and state.

The Framers were not anti-religion. They understood that religion could help to nurture the public morality necessary to a self-governing society. But religion was to be fundamentally private. It was for the individual. It was not to intrude unduly into the political sphere.

But here's the rub: From a strictly legal perspective, it is next to impossible for courts to enforce the separation of church and state in the context of laws like Proposition 8. When a law does not directly restrict religious activity or expressly endorse religious expression, it is exceedingly difficult for courts to sort out the "real" motivations behind the law. As a consequence, courts are loath to invalidate laws on the ground that they enact a particular religious faith.

This does not end the inquiry, however. Courts also have difficulty in dealing with laws that do not expressly discriminate on the basis of race or religion or gender, but that were motivated by racial, religious or gender prejudice. But we know - as an essential part of our national character - that we as citizens should not support laws because they advance our discriminatory biases about race, religion, and gender. We know that it is un-American for us to enact laws because they implement our prejudices. We know that it is our responsibility to be tolerant, self-critical and introspective about our own values and beliefs and to strive to achieve our highest national aspirations.

The separation of church and state is one of those aspirations. Indeed, regardless of whether courts can intervene in this context, it is as un-American to violate the separation of church and state by using the power of the state to impose our religious beliefs on others as it is to use the power of the state to impose our discriminatory views of race, religion or gender on others.

This is the fundamental point that the religious advocates of Proposition 8 fail to comprehend. Like other citizens, they are free in our society to support laws because they believe those laws serve legitimate ends, including such values as tradition, general conceptions of morality, and family stability. But they are not free - not if they are to act as faithful American citizens - to impose their religious views on others. That is, quite simply, un-American.

This is not to say that individuals cannot attempt to persuade others freely to embrace and to act in accord with their religious beliefs. The First Amendment gives us virtually absolute protection to preach, proselytize and evangelize. But the fundamental point about religious liberty in the United States is that it is private. Christian Evangelicals have every right to try to persuade others to accept and abide by their beliefs. But they have no right - indeed, they violate the very spirit of the American Constitution - when they attempt to conscript the authority of the state to compel those who do not share their religious beliefs to act as if they do.

Comments

[yesicanne]

Why on earth are you all arguing over whether or not this law was put forward & supported by churches &/or religiously motivated persons??? It doesn't matter!!! What matters is that it's clearly unconstitutional.

Mr. Stone, this article's author, states: ****"From a strictly legal perspective, it is next to impossible for courts to enforce the separation of church and state in the context of laws like Proposition 8. When a law does not directly restrict religious activity or expressly endorse religious expression, it is exceedingly difficult for courts to sort out the "real" motivations behind the law." *****

I maintain that, if the State intends to mandate to my church whom they may marry (or whom they may baptize, or whom they may allow to take communion, or whom may sing in the choir), then the State is INTERFERING in my church, RESTRICTING RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY of the clergy and/or parishioners. Why is it not simple for everyone to understand this????? And how can these "laws" possibly stand?

[siellis]

I agree with the blog post and your response. I am all for gays having the right to legal unions. But if the churches who refuse to marry them, are subject to breaking the law. That is wrong. Why can't someone write the law such that gays are allow to unite, while protecting the churches right to refuse to marry them based on religious beliefs? Outside of that both of these sides will continue to bump heads.

[BruceHNV]

This is an unfounded concern. Churches don't respect equal rights now, and they don't and won't have to. If gays have a right to marry, this does not cause anyone to have a DUTY to marry them, except a government functionary.

[mercury613]

Such a law is unnecessary, as churches already can refuse to marry pretty much whomever they choose. It's a perfect example of a Yes on 8 outright lie.

[Pearlswan]

When I got married, my fiance's minister refused to marry us because we had different religions. When we went to my church, my priest put conditions on performing the union. Since I was catholic and my fiance was not, my fiance and I had to take classes and he had to agree to raise the kids catholic before the priest would marry us. And, we were both in the military so these two chaplains were military officers and no one in the military was telling either of them they had to perform a ceremony for us. So what is your point about churches not having any choices about who they will and will not marry again? And, what does that have to do with gay marriage? Your point makes no sense to me and is contradicted by my experience.

[Pearlswan]

Unfortunately, its you who does not understand that the law does not force any church to marry anyone. Why do gays want to marry before a religious community that rejects rather than embraces their union? Gays would not come to your church seeking to get married there. Gays will go where they are welcome to marry and their money will also go where they are welcome to marry. Your church will not be affected by gay marriage at all. Please understand that. Your church exists with many others in your community. Those faiths may be opposed to yours but it does not affect your church if those other churches are also permitted to exist. Why does it affect your church if one of those other churches allows gay marriage. It causes no more harm to your church than if another faith is praying to their God in your community while you pray to yours.

[kdogg]

The constitution guarantees certain rights no matter what the majority wants. You can not take away right guaranteed by the constitution with a simple a majority vote. Any amendment to the constitution should require at least a super-majority vote of 2/3.

You know the thing that really gets me? In Washington, where I live, school levy's that help pay for local schools require a super-majority, 2/3, to pass. So its easier take take away peoples civil liberties then it is to pass a levy to support local schools. How messed up is that?

[BruceHNV]

Totally.

[Pearlswan]

Plus, the proposition to bring Bart to San Jose requires a 2/3 majority to pass because of the accompanying 0.5% tax increase it imposes on the citizens. Right now, they are still counting ballots but the measure has 66.52% of the vote and needs 66.67%. It can't pass even if its one vote shy. This measure has overwhelming support and denies no rights to anyone yet it fails if it can't get 2/3 of the popular vote. Yet, Prop 8 passed with only a 4 point majority and it denies rights already granted to 18,000 couples or 36,000 people and their children. Go figure.

[gotborked]

Are laws against fraud laws of “religious belief”? Are laws against stealing enactments of “religious belief”? Are welfare policies enactments of “religious belief”?

Just because a governmental action corresponds with some tenet of some religion (or in the case of traditional marriage, most religions) doesn’t mean it “violates separation of church and state”.

Do you think that the rationale behind promoting, preserving, and recognizing [traditional] marriage by this country's government and the government of most other civilized nations through out known history has only been "religious belief"?

[mercury613]

"Do you think that the rationale behind promoting, preserving, and recognizing [traditional] marriage by this country's government and the government of most other civilized nations through out known history has only been "religious belief"?"
-----------------------------

Given the statistics that Mr. Stone presented regarding the way churchgoers vs. non churchgoers voted, I think it's pretty apparent that the answer to your question is a resounding "yes"..

[Zanti]

Hm. So what's the next step? To outlaw religious belief?

[Strepsi]

It has been mostly, yes. Either:
a) Religious belief
b) Getting material stuff
c) Selling your daughter in an arranged marriage to get more stuff
d) Buying a daughter so you can get stuff, having your son r4pe her until she gives birth to a boy (even if she dies in the process) so you have another boy to give your stuff to.

Traditional marriage is unrecognizable today, to the civil union between two equal loving partners.

Or did you want to go back to the r4pe?

[RMutt4m]

Spot on.

[Pearlswan]

The proponents of the Proposition themselves have stated that it is about religious belief by citing Bible quotes that imply homosexuality is a sin. Sin is religion. And, they say the measure is necessary to protect traditional marriage and by traditional marriage they mean religious marriage since there is no such thing as traditional marriage outside of a religious tradition.

[JohnBisceglia]

(sigh) Can't we just get this whole Equality mess OVER WITH in the United States?

The National Equality Tax Protest is Wednesday, April 15th, 2009.

Those who do NOT wish to engage in civil disobedience may simply protest outside of their local post office (where our IRS tax forms will be mailed). The message is this - "WE CONTRIBUTE TO AMERICA - WE THINK WE DESERVE THE SAME".

Those who DO wish to engage in civil disobedience may stand there withholding their tax forms and let society know that "WE USED TO CONTRIBUTE - WE DEMAND THAT YOU TREAT US THE SAME IMMEDIATELY!"

Organizations will NOT get us our civil rights alone; if they could, we would have equality now.

INDIVIDUALS will push this forward, as they always have in the past.

[liebo76]

I think that is a great idea! How about having sit-ins at locations where marriage licenses are distributed?

[JohnBisceglia]

We could have sit ins at thoswe locations, or at the Post Office itself (as other tax payers rush to send in their 1040s).

PLEASE CONSIDER:

Americans who DO NOT wish to engage in civil disobedience may protest outside of their local post office (where IRS tax forms are being mailed). The message - "WE CONTRIBUTE TO AMERICA - WE DESERVE THE SAME".

Those who DO wish to engage in civil disobedience may stand there withholding their tax forms and let society know that "WE USED TO CONTRIBUTE - WE NOW DEMAND THAT YOU TREAT US THE SAME!"

Organizations alone will NOT earn our civil rights; if they could we would already have equality. Organizations by nature have their own baggage, bureaucracy, and limitations.
INDIVIDUALS also need to push this forward (as they have in the past).

[Mach8]

As long as the gay/lesbian community treats the passing of Prop 8 as a problem of "religion," it will fail to convince people of the legal significance of same sex marriage.

http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=41893

[BruceHNV]

When 85% of those voting "yes" were the very religious, and 80% or better of the less religious voted "no," the mention of religious doctrine as an influence on civil law is not off-point.

There need be no public perception that being gay is normal. Indeed, for the majority of society, it is not. As such, battling for acceptance before legal recognition is putting the cart before the horse.

Legal precedent establishing minority rights has always preceded rather than followed the tilt of majority opinion. The Salon article, in short, is full of it.

[Mach8]

You're treading dangerous ground when you claim that this issue is a "right." There was no doubt that African-Americans were human beings of genetic equivalence to Caucasians. However, homosexuality is regarded as a behavioral issue. Making the case for "civil rights" is not as cut and dried.

[Balancement]

Stupid argument. Children are *not* consenting adults. Religion-funded lies helped to strip rights *already granted* away from a class of citizens. You can try and search out as many arguments as you want to justify bigotry--but that's called rationalization, and it won't fly.

To paraphrase Gertrude Stein: Rights are Rights are Rights. And they are not subject to the tyranny of the majority--whatever any Invisible-Sky-Thingy-in-Charge may tell them.

[Mach8]

I think stomping your feet and holding your breath isn't going to do much good either. As long as you refuse to consider the opposition's viewpoint, this issue will remain a problem.

[PlaceboStud]

Folks the Bible does not include any references to homosexuality as we know it and understand it in today's world as a scientific medical state of mind. The biblical and therefore religious arguments against homosexual BEHAVIOR are primarily based on a rejection of ancient Greek and Roman religious practices that included homosexuality as a form of spiritual expression.

If Jesus, the originator of the Christian Church, knew and understood the world we live in today, based on the scientific principles of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates, all who pre-dated Jesus Christ, then Jesus would have been much more vocal in his SUPPORT of homosexuality and the relationships of homosexuals.


I do have to agree that religious organizations and representatives who do not support gay rights, including gay marriage, ARE pushing an agenda that is faulty and not applicable in today's world. I do find it ironic that conservative judaism has condoned gay marraige and the ordination of women, which many christian churches have rejected. This seems like an oxymoron to me, considering Jesus himself was Jewish . I contend that if Jesus himself had written the bible, instead of having been written by dozens of men, hundreds of years AFTER the life of Jesus, then there would be no argument agains thomosexuality or gay marriage, based on the actual beliefs of Jesus himself, not on the beliefs and baises held by the arrogant mysogenistic men who wrote the bible AFTER Jesus's death and ressurrection

[BruceHNV]

Well, to be fully accurate, the parts of the bible abjuring "man lie with man as with woman" were written down before Jesus lived.

[mercury613]

And thus exempts Lesbians completely.

[devdil]

Imposition of which religious belief? Mormon, Catholic, Islam or Hinduism? Buddhism?
As far as I can tell, people from all walks of life voted for prop 8. And its not just prop 8 money that came from out of state; the no on 8 got a lot of outside money too. Lots of it.
There are many people who voted for prop 8 .....not everyone was a mormon. I barely saw any of the prop 8 ads here in the bay area. Most of my neighbors are of Asian origin and there was a lot of support for prop 8. And why arent the gay marches being done before Black churches?

[Balancement]

Red Herring, devdil. The rights of *all* minorities are threatened by what happened with Prop 8.

Civil rights groups filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the enactment of Proposition 8 because it would mandate discrimination against a minority group and did not follow the process required for fundamental revisions to the California Constitution.

In the petition, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Equal Justice Society, California NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. argue that in order to protect the fundamental rights of all Californians, a higher standard is required to overturn the right to marry.

Minority communities cannot be stripped of their fundamental rights by a simple majority vote.

"We would be making a grave mistake to view Proposition 8 as just affecting the LGBT community," said Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society. "If the Supreme Court allows Proposition 8 to take effect, it would represent a threat to the rights of people of color and all minorities.

Gay people have *great* minority support in this battle.

[pfrogger]

It's about time.
Why aren't there more stories on legal actions preventing Prop 8, either overturning it or preventing it from ever bearing fruit?

[HaveFaith]

As a minority, I cannot hide what my skin looks like or what shape my eyes are therefore, discrimination against minorities based on thier SKIN color is not the same as discrimination against what someone does in their bedroom. Gays always say they want to be treated fairly and cry when they don't get their way. Marriage is a legal institution in the U.S. therefore it is a LEGAL entity. Respect the vote of people who are considered heterosexual and want to frame marriage as an act between heterosexual people.

[rwt1138]

If you are asking about Prop 8, the answers (in order) are: Yes, Yes, Yes, No and No. You can't seriously be arguing that Prop 8 was not a religious law; how else do you justify it?

As to why the marches aren't in front of black churches, well that's easy. Despite the 70% "yes" vote among black voters, that was just a matter of how the individuals in the black community happened to vote. They didn't collective organize and fund a drive to convince OTHER people to vote wrong on the issue, they simply expressed their personal opinion.

If the Mormons had just shut the hell up and voted their own consciences, they wouldn't be facing the opposition they are now. When they decided to require their members to contribute, donated money themselves, and joined in a coalition with other superstitions to promote discrimination against others, they became legitimate targets.

One other thing I haven't heard a lot of people bring up, but the religious organizations got donor lists of those who contributed to the opposition on Prop 8 and sent them all letters threatening to harass them after the vote if the measure had failed. So really, they have no business complaining about being targeted themselves, on any level. What is happening is technically right out of their own playbook.

[torrrep]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Many people who voted for this proposition have no religious affiliation whatsoever. Many do not attend Church, even though they say they believe in religion. And yet others do not even believe in God at all. So to blame religion and to assume that everyone who voted for this proposition is a religious bigot is ridiculous. Do you even realize that many people who voted against prop 8 were also religious? You can't have it both ways. You blame religion when religious people voted on both sides of the issue. Maybe you should just accept the fact that many people, religious or not, do not want gays redefining religion, redefining the family, and teaching our kids that your point of view is ok and that all others is wrong.

[mercury613]

"One other thing I haven't heard a lot of people bring up, but the religious organizations got donor lists of those who contributed to the opposition on Prop 8 and sent them all letters threatening to harass them after the vote if the measure had failed."

They sure did:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/23/state/n145556D05.DTL&tsp=1

[markusmarkus]

"...And why arent the gay marches being done before Black churches?.."

Black churches, a discriminatory term, didn't organize their congregations against Prop 8. Blacks, and Hispanics alike, voted for Prop 8 because of their historically conservative social views. On the other hand, clergy from the Morman and Catholic churches actively advocated thier flocks to vote for Prop 8.

[misker]

"This is the fundamental point that the religious advocates of Proposition 8 fail to comprehend. Like other citizens, they are free in our society to support laws because they believe those laws serve legitimate ends, including such values as tradition, general conceptions of morality, and family stability. But they are not free - not if they are to act as faithful American citizens - to impose their religious views on others. That is, quite simply, un-American."

What the author and opponents of Prop 8 fail to comprehend is that secularism is, to many of us, a religion that is being forced upon us. His argument cuts both ways. Putting that aside, his argument doesn't make any sense. He's basically saying that religious people should be able to support some laws that impose their religious views, but not others.

I understand that a lot of people would strongly disagree with my view that homosexuality is immoral. But as long as I am able to vote on laws such as Prop 8, I will vote to uphold MY moral principles. Others are free to vote to uphold THEIR moral views. But don't tell me that I'm "unAmerican" for holding those views, and voting accordingly, and that those who disagree are somehow more American.

[mcthfg]

I could say that you choose to be religious, while gay people are born gay. You choose, they are. You live in a secular society - get used to it.

There's always Iran, where they LIVE their religion - how many shellfish did you eat today, or EVER?

[Balancement]

Are you telling me that it's American to take people's rights away? Is that what you're saying? If it is, then you are living in a different nation than I am.

Civil rights are *rights* and not to be voted on--the majority of people in this country were against inter-racial marriage at the time of Loving v. Virginia. The courts decided that marriage was a right--no matter what the race of the individuals involved. Yet if it had been put to the kind of vote you advocate, inter-racial marriage would still be against the law.

Some values.

[darcy]

You are definitely un-American, misker, and you are also personally unethical. No one is telling you that YOU must marry someone of the same sex; however, you feel that it's okay to tell others that they CANNOT marry someone of the same sex.

You will lose this fight eventually. The majority cannot take civil liberties away from the individual.

[devdil]

40 out of 49 states are un-american according to you. Blacks are unAmerican too? Is Obama unAmerican? He believes marriage is between man and woman.

[pfrogger]

Moot, moot, moot.
You can't vote on constitutional rights!
CA Supreme Court 2008: "that the California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying",
and "and that marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution".
You can NOT vote on a constitutional right!
You can NOT vote on a constitutional right!
You can NOT vote on a constitutional right!

[doodlefarbe]

kind of barking up the wrong tree. How do you think we got the Bill of Rights? These were the 1st 10 Amendments to the US Constitution, and Yes, Virginia, people did vote on them.

The California constitution is not holy writ delivered by space aliens - it is a document written by humans. What those humans wrote became the basis for deciding what constitutional rights a California citizen would hold. California allows for constitutional amendment, by humans, in the fashion complained of.

[torrrep]

Actually yes you can. It's called amending the constitution. It's only a constitutional right if the constitution specifically states that it is. If an amendment is passed according to the requirements set forth by the constitution that new amendment is not only law but constitutional law.

[SUIGENEROUSLA]

proof! so if the rights existed in the existing CA constitution in MAY, then how can Prop 8 not be rewriting the existing CA constitution now? in an odd way, i feel sorry for the people that the Mormon elders told to spend thier savings in this difficult time on something that may last for a few months and ultimately end up embarrassing the church itself leading the adherents to question its wisdom down the road -- look at the state of the American RC Church........

[SUIGENEROUSLA]

proof! so if the rights existed in the existing CA constitution in MAY, then how can Prop 8 not be rewriting the existing CA constitution now?

in a way, i feel for the people that the Mor mon elders told to spend thier savings in this difficult time on something that may last for a few months before being overturned and ultimately end up embarrassing the church itself and leading the adherents to question its wisdom down the road -- look at the state of the American RC Church........

[SUIGENEROUSLA]

proof! so if the rights existed in the existing CA constitution in MAY, then how can Prop 8 not be rewriting the existing CA constitution now?

[Lombard42]

First off, the definition of "secular" ... From Merriam-Webster: "1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal b: not overtly or specifically religious c: not ecclesiastical or clerical " ... Basically, you're arguing the absence of religion is a religion. Seems circuitous and ridiculous to me.

This is from a Catholic education website http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0050.htmll):
"Slavery's biblical pedigree has made it a peculiarly difficult institution for Christians to resist. In the Old Testament, the most notable statement about slavery occurs when Noah condemns Ham and his descendents to perpetual servitude: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers" (Gn 9:25).

Sadly, this verse has been particularly influential in the development of racialized slavery, since Christians and even some Muslims eventually identified Ham's descendents as black Africans."

So, some religions interpreted slavery to be A-OK. By your rationale, we should be able to vote on re-enslaving black people and if it passes, throw 'em in chains.

There is a reason for the separation of church and state. It's why many of us "white Americans" are here in the first place -- our ancestors were persecuted while trying to practice their beliefs by "divine" monarchs. In a way, the only way to protect religion is to keep it separate.

I hold my religion. You hold yours. But in our hearts & minds, not on lawbooks.

[Balancement]

Don't forget that it was the Mormon Church that refused to elevate African-American males to the priesthood until 1978--until the government threatened to strip them of their tax-exempt status. There's a pattern here.

[HaveFaith]

Slavery ended by a Constitutional amendment. No where in the constitution is the right to marry. That is left to the states.

[gaydm]

A civil marriage license, is NOT a license to have sex. A civil marriage license does not require,demand or expect the parties joining into the CONTRACT of marriage, TO engage in sexual activity. Likewise Children are also NOT a part of a marriage license. You neither are required or expected to have, produce or obtain any child to fulfill said contract.
Since sex is NOT involved, then neither should gender be involved in the decision as to what two parties get legally married.
I as a gay man COULD marry a woman, but since i am NOT going to have children for ANY reason, nor will I have sex with any woman, so as to avoid the possibility of having children, Then why do I have to marry a woman, I can get the marriage done better by marrying a man. Then there is absolutely NO chance of me having a child I do not wish to have. Yet with a man, I can still have love, without fraud that would be involved in a relationship with a woman I have NO intention of loving.
NO ONE, has the right to force me to breed against my will. Just because I have the equipment to do so, does not make it a requirement that I use that equipment to make children.

[nevadagirl]

I am a straight woman how got married with no intention of having children, so why should I deny any couple the right to get married?

[HaveFaith]

Sorry, but being Gay puts you at a disadvantage. Almost like being handicapped. There are some things that normal people can do that you can't. Simple as that. Being a gay man is not the norm in society. Marriage is a legal contract therefore enforced by the state. The state of California spoke and they said not, it is not legal for gays to marry.

[frankblank]

Yes, the some of the voters in California spoke.

Prior to that, the constitution has spoken. It says

"No state shall make any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United states...nor deny to any
person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That's the law. If California enacts a law based on the yammerings of the zealots, that law will be illegal.

[klmebane]

people with red hair and freckles aren't the norm in our society. should we start denying them the right to marry?? it isn't about what some people consider normal. it is about fair and equal treatment. you have the right to marry someone you love romantically, and have that be a legally binding contract with more than 1000 rights conferred upon the couple. but i, someone who pays taxes and otherwise contributes to society, can't have the same LEGAL opportunities that you do? B.S. i can't fall in love and marry the person i fell in love with? why is it your business who that person is as long as they are a consenting adult and not related to me?

a majority can't vote on the rights of a minority. gays are about 10% of any population. that makes us a minority. we are a group that has throughout history been specifically targeted for something many would change if they could. when i first realized i was a lesbian i tried to make myself what i thought everyone else was. but you can't. anymore than a straight person can make themself gay. u love who you love, you are attracted to who you are attracted to. you decide your actions, but not your attractions.

[klmebane]

i refuse to choose to be lonely and unfulfilled. i'm not going to let someone else disliking what i can't change keep me from having committed romantic relationships. i'm not in their business, they shouldn't be in mine. im not going to marry a man because someone tells me that's my only option. i don't want to marry a man, i don't want to be with a man like that. i don't hate men, but i don't like them like that. marriage, as we define it today, is generally two people who fall in love and want to make a commitment and maybe raise a family. real commitments cut down on promiscuity, wouldn't that be in everyone's best interests? we don't require raising families, and heterosexual couples have lots of options to make their family. if they can't conceive there's IVF and adoption. they could be foster parents. they could have 12 kids if they were willing and able.

reproduction is not a requirement of marriage. we don't deny infertile people the right to marry, or people who don't desire children. how people have children is their business.

[SUIGENEROUSLA]

terific reasoning.......

also if the rights existed in the existing CA constitution in MAY, then how can Prop 8 not be rewriting the existing CA constitution now?

[USMC9298]

Yet more evidence that Churches and other religious institutions need to be taxed like any other business. If they want to lobby for their agenda, they should be forced to pay taxes. Lets have a proposition on that.

[Cyano]

It appears that for many people, this issue is mostly semantics, i.e. the word "marriage." The people who vote for these stupid amendments don't want to hunt down happy gay couples and make them stop living together.

[gaydm]

Unless those happy gay couples are in the military. Then the hunt is on.

[Cyano]

Good point, but hopefully not for long. : )

[BruceHNV]

"Marriage" has a legal meaning. It's not a happy couple living together. It contains a multitude of legal responsibilities, benefits and protections. And civil untions are the the legal equivalent of it.

[Balancement]

"Separate but equal." Now where have I heard *that* phrase before?

[billy goat]

Unfortunately, in most states in this country and at the federal level, civil unions are meaningless in providing the "multitude of legal responsibilities, benefits and protections." You can't really argue separate but equal here.

[sak]

I just eviscerated two Morman missionaries who came to my door. I was greeted with, "Why does God love you?" I asked him to tell me why. He replied, "Because you are a child of God." I then brought up Prop. 8. As a Californian, I said that I was outraged that the Morman church would come into my state and promote a constitutional amendment that is religious! In other words, a church headquartered in Utah has changed California's supposedly secular constitution! His partner explained that the percentage of Mormans voting in California was very low. I guess he thought I was stupid. I told them both that if they believed in Christian principles, then they would have to agree that the political ads about Prop 8 were blatent lies. No school teaches marriage and never has. The Morman ads frightened people. Bearing false witness is not Christian behavior. He also said that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages. That is also a lie. They didn't seem to comprehend the difference between a civil, legal, marriage and a religious marriage. If a church wants to perform a marriage for a gay couple, then they can. In fact, they still can. It just won't be legal in the eyes of the law. These two were brainwashed really well. What a shame to fill young people's heads with hatred and fear. I ended my rant by telling them that they came to the wrong door.

[jpopphan]

Kudos to you. I hope that you opened the eyes of two young Mormons.

This whole Prop 8 thing will result in a huge backlash against Mormons, and to be fair they were asking for it. To use the power of a church organization to fund and promote a campaign to take away recognized rights from an identified minority is plain wrong, both morally and legally.

I hope that the IRS comes down hard on the Mormons. I also hope that people of good conscience everywhere reject the tactics of the Yes on Prop 8 crowd and don't hold back from giving them an earful.

[BruceHNV]

Uhhhmmm, yeah. Hope springs eternal...

I fear such hope will go unrealized. If such eyes could be opened by rational discussion, we would not be having THIS discussion.

[torrrep]

First of all many Mormons live here. So it is not YOUR state. The political adds were NOT lies because gay marriage IS being taught in schools. When you take a kindergarden class to a gay marriage ceremony as a "field trip" then you absolutely are teaching marriage. Second of all marriage existed long before "civil laws" existed. Government took it upon itself to take over marriage, which it had no business doing. You are the one brainwashed into believing that you are the only one with rights and that all other beliefs are secondary to yours. You are the one who is a liar. And I neither hate nor fear you, which is another lie told by people like you.

[Balancement]

That was a private school--the *parents* arranged for the children to attend the wedding as a surprise for the teacher. Marriage used to be a "property arrangement" with the bride as part of the "property"--is that the kind of traditional marriage you want to return to? Your disingenuousness is breathtaking.

[TXCourtney]

So, you don't think that government has a role to play in regulating marriage? That means you voted against Prop. 8, right?

[Rrhain]

1) When the money comes from Utah, then it is them coming into California.

2) Marriage is not required teaching in California.

3) The kindergarten class was a parent-sponsored field trip, not a school-sponsored event. Permisison was given by all the parents of the children.

4) If you neither hate nor fear gay people, why do you oppose equal treatment under the law? What are you afraid of?

[LeftRight]

Wait, you mean the gay marriage where the teacher invited her children to her marriage (like my 2nd grade teacher did when she married a man) and the children and parents were welcome to go or not go, as they wished??????

[mercury613]

Good for you!

The "churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages" lie is one that has taken firm hold, despite the fact that it flies in the face of common sense and is easily debunked. (Kind of like Obama being Muslim.)

Churches right now can refuse -- for practically any reason -- to marry couples who could otherwise be married legally outside of a church. A Mormon church can't be forced to marry two atheists, for example; nor can it be forced to marry a Mormom and a Jew, unless the Jew converts.

If people would just use their brains instead of allowing themselves to be brainwashed, they would realize how utterly ridiculous the Yes on 8 arguments really are.

[BruceHNV]

In fact the LDS church won't SEAL the marriage (for "time and all eternity") of their own members who don't qualify for a temple recommendation.

Full marriage rights are not even recognized for all members.

Go figure.

[WilliePilgrim]

The involvement by Organized Religion is guaranteed to complicate matters so long as the drive for equality does so using the framing and language of religion. Dump the word marriage and replace it with the broad concept of an individual's rights to form domestic contracts with another consenting adult and soon the resistance over this will fade...of course something else will replace it but the movement towards a secular humanistic governing tradition is still in sway and we're a considerable distance away from seeing our reason and morality free from superstition, but there's no reason to delay it for fear of stepping the the toes of some delusional shaman.
Of course, we will have to permit polygamy by consenting adults too...and some religions find that a very worthwhile tradition and it is really not the governments business to enforce monogamy.

[jpopphan]

If it were just about the word "marriage" then you'd have a point. But it isn't just about what we call the legally-recognized relationship of two people. In our culture, there is a special term for a special relationship. That word is indeed "marriage". We don't have any other word that has the same cultural impact as "marriage".

I want to be married. I am all for civil unions if everyone has to get one, not just same-sex couples. It has already been established that "separate but equal" is an unworkable and unnecessary solution.

Those who oppose marriage equality are homophobes and bigots, plain and simple. Otherwise, what possible reason is there to oppose it?

[gipper1]

Whether it passed with 52% or 99% of the vote, IT IS UNCONSTITITIONAL.

[pfrogger]

Exactly. That's it. All other arguments or statements are secondary.

[sdskelton03]

That's good pfrogger. If you think that way you can close your mind to any other way of looking at it.

[akb1123]

This might be the most circuitous, back-handed denial i've ever seen.
First he says
"It neither restricts religious freedom nor endorses religious expression."

Then the very next sentence he says
"What it does do, however, is to enact into law a particular religious belief. "

If you cannot see the contradiction there and realize that enacting into law a particular religious belief is tantamount to endorsing it, then no reasonable, rational argument is going to get through whatever thick bigoted skull protects that useless brain contained therein.

[sdskelton03]

There are many religious beliefs enacted into law.

I would argue that a prohibition against stealing is certainly a religious belief and it certainly is the law.

I think it's just a matter that many are terribly upset that THIS religious belief has been enacted into law.

[dm10003]

it's religious hubris to think that stealing is wrong only in a religious eye.

[gaydm]

Then how about quit "Stealing" my religious belief to equal marriage to the person of my choice. I have someone who is of legal age, who freely wishes to consent to the marriage. The only difference is in the sex of the two of us involved, and since sex is NOT involved in a marriage contract, required in the contract, or obliged of the contract. Then what reason do you have to STEAL my right to enter into the contract based on the genders of the two of us?

[rwt1138]

Yes, and every one of them has no place in America. I assume you are talking about idiotic laws bans on alcohol sales on Sundays, and so on.

The argument that prohibition against stealing is "religious" is ridiculous. Laws against theft promote harmonious and civil cohabitation, as just and wise laws are supposed to. The same goes for laws against murder. No community can be stable and safe where murder or theft is allowed, therefore these laws serve a secular purpose. The fact that they proscribe behavior also condemned in your religion is coincidental, not causal. Note that I am not legally required to sacrifice a chicken and wash my hands in its blood if I bump into a woman during her menstrual cycle.

This marriage ban serves no purpose other than to restrict behavior between two consenting adults that harms absolutely no one. For that reason alone, it is an unjust law, but the fact that no rational argument exists to support this prohibition makes it a state-sponsored crime.

[torrrep]

The constitution states that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can not endorse any religion. People voted on an initiative is NOT the same as the federal government establishing a religion.

[Rrhain]

You need to keep reading. The Constitution also states that the rights guaranteed apply all the way down. It isn't much of a right to free speech if the State can take it away. So yes, the First Amendment only mentions "Congress," but the Fourteenth Amendment extends that to the State.