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

[Scholar in Training]

What about all of the instances of obnoxious protesting where groups are literally trying to put small businesses out of business? Is that democracy as well?

http://www.acouplethings.com/blog/2008/11/see-protesting-works/

[pfrogger]

It's an unfortunate situation. But peaceable protest is guaranteed by the constitution.
And why not. Either the manager, or the staff, whoever contributed, didn't mind donating to such a dubious cause. Now, it's the protesters right to protest. I feel a little bad for the restaurant, but I wonder if the manager, or staff felt bad when they contributed to prevent others at a chance at happiness. Probably not.

[BruceHNV]

If somebody voted my marriage out of existence, I'd for sure protest their business out of existence.

With the value Mormons place on family, it should seem obvious to them that disallowing people to have a family would inspire a strong reaction. They don't want others taking their families away, so why would they take away the families of others?

"I'm going to steal from you the thing I most value. But don't you dare try to hold me to accout for it. That would violate my rights."

[Balancement]

It's really quite simple: An individual who votes to take away my rights has made a decision. If I choose not to support that business because it enables them to vote to take away my rights, then that's *my* decision. I'm not supporting someone financially who uses *my* money to take away my rights. If you find that "obnoxious" then your priorities are *way* out of whack.

[Rrhain]

Yes, it is. Your right to free speech does not come with a right to be free of consequences. You do not have the right to other people's business. If you take a stand on a position, as you are free to do, and that position makes it likely that others will no longer wish to do business with you, then you are just going to have to suffer the consequences. Nobody is putting you in jail. Nobody is suggesting you pay a fine. They are simply refusing to engage you in the public square.

I'm reminded of the brou-ha-ha over Laura Schlessinger and her TV talk show. As it was gearing up, a group of people went to the various advertisers, pointed out the things Schlessinger routinely said on her radio program, and asked if they really wanted to be associated with such pronouncements. The advertisers pulled out in droves. Schelssinger cried "censorship," but please. Nobody was preventing her from having a talk show. Her right to the airwaves does not come with the right to someone else's dime to pay for it. She could have paid for it herself.

[mercury613]

Religious fanatics have been boycotting supporters of the gay community for decades. If the can't take it, they have no business dishing it out.

[Steamboater]

It's unconstitutional for churches to get tax-free status to begin with. That gives churches special rights, something they accuse Gays and lesbians of wanting with marriage rights when it's also heterosexuals who have those special rights and not us.

[sdskelton03]

If taxes didn't have tax free status, a donation to a church would also be a donation to the government. Wouldn't that violate the seperation of church and state?

[Steamboater]

No, I don't think so. Priests and rabbis etc are citizens too and should pay their taxes for the houses of worship they represent. You could make a very good argument that seperation of church and state was meant to keep religion from interferring with government and the people and their rights. Government taxing the church etc would be a duty and not something that oppresses. Taxes benefit all citizens, something you'd think the church would want to take part in but the hypocrites only desire their own empowerment. Besides, there's been several cases of fundamentalist churches especially sneaking though the process all the ime e.g., handing out political flyers to parishoners as was done when Bush ran and they weren't punished for it. Seperation of church and state only works for them when it suits them.

[torrrep]

Separation of church and state does not exist. Show me in the constitution where those words exist.

[torrrep]

What special rights are those? Maybe Churches then should just get out of the charity business. And we'll take our BILLIONS of dollars in charitable donations with us. Funny how people never seem to mind our church being tax exempt when we are rebuilding their neighborhoods, recreation centers, tutoring their kids and providing them school supplies, and feeding and clothing the poor. Maybe you need to learn the difference between religious organizations and religious people. Only religious organizations are tax exempt. As a religious person I pay the exact same taxes as you do. And I have a right to participate in politics in any way I choose. If I want to donate MY money to a proposition that I think is worthy then there is nothing you can do about it. You can't blame the church for the actions of individuals.

[jhoughton1]

However this turns out -- whether gay marriage in California is legalized by the courts overturning 8 or the voters nullifying it in 2010 -- what we're dealing with is an anomaly where an out-of-state church exhorted its members to contribute to a California measure that never would have passed on its own merits. Yes, money has the power to do that, and what needs to change is that money supporting or opposing an in-state initiative should ONLY come from citizens of that state.

[pfrogger]

Wow, this topic and the arguments are diverging into too many tangents that draw the issue away from the main point. Let's focus. Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?
The question is moot! Should black people be allowed to vote? Should Women? Stupid people?
Constitutional rights can NOT be voted on. Period.
You can not vote on certain issues: Constitutional rights, or human rights. This is still America.
Marriage has been deemed a constitutional right in this country. Under the Equal Protection Clause, no groups of people will be denied "equal protection of the laws".
If we do actually "hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights . . ." and as I've stated marriage is considered a constitutional right, then considering that homosexuals are US citizens and human, then in this country they should not be prevented form marrying.
Simple, right? All other arguments are secondary.
You can NOT vote on a constitutional right. If you don't like it, then I suggest you move to another country that does not allow the freedoms this country does. You don't have to like gay people. Hell, I don't think they care what you think about them. But you can't take away their constitutional right. It's un-American. This Prop was a farce. And will be overturned quickly.

[sdskelton03]

"Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?"

Homosexuals have the same marriage rights as anyone else.

[BruceHNV]

But does the law permit them to exercise those rights?

[Lance734]

"Homosexuals have the same marriage rights as anyone else."

--No they don't. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person of their choice, consistent with their sexual orientation which informs that choice. Homosexuals certainly do not have that right, as the "right to marry someone of the opposite sex" means absolutely nothing to homosexuals, effectively removing from them the right to marry someone to whom they are romantically & sexually attracted to, which almost anyone would say is a defining aspect of what our culture considers marriage.

Again, your rationale sounds similar to Loving v. Virginia & Perez v. Sharpe, where the states of VA and CA (respectively) said that there was no consititutional violation in antimiscegnation laws because the individual members of interracial couples had the same marriage rights as everyone else, i.e. the "right to marry someone of the same race." Such an argument was a fallacy then and remains one now, as it applies to the present marriage equality issue.

[stop the politics]

You have said multiple times in your posts that you can’t vote on a Constitutional right. I guess you are basing this on an emotional, moral, or ethical level and not on the actual process of changing a Constitution.

In California, the Constitution can be amended by a vote of the people. If the California Constitution is amended the previous language in the Constitution or a ruling of the CA Supreme Court is overruled by the new amendment. However, if the amendment violates the US Constitution, then the amendment is void.

However, the US Constitution can also be amended. Once again by a vote. First by the US Congress and then by the individual states. If the US Constitution is amended, any previous rights granted by a previous amendment or Supreme Court ruling is overruled. For example, the rulings that African Americans were property and had fewer rights were overruled by the 13th - 15th Amendments.

But rights can also be taken away by amendment. For example the right to manufacture, transport, and sell alcohol was taken away by the 18th Amendment.

The one constant through this is that people, directly or indirectly, vote for Constitutional amendments which can grant or take away Constitutional rights. Whether that is ethically or morally right is a different question.

[Balancement]

Yes, but in all those cases, the constitution can't be amended by a small majority vote--the bar is much, much higher than that. Tell *all* the truth or your argument doesn't fly.

[Hazelnut]

Very good article. The question is, should voters have the say-so over whether or not two adults have the right to marry. I would say no, they should not, it should be a right no matter what a majority of voters think or believe. If gay marriage continues to be put to a vote this way, you will continue to have to deal with the fears of some religious groups, and the prejudices of others as an obstacle. Marriage between two people should be their right, period.

[sdskelton03]

"The question is, should voters have the say-so over whether or not two adults have the right to marry. I would say no, they should not, it should be a right no matter what a majority of voters think or believe."

Do you then support adult children marrying a parent? Or how about a pair of siblings marrying?

[Hazelnut]

Incest, and it's genetic ramifications, are a completley different argument, and off-topic to the current discussion.

[pfrogger]

And how about an adult marrying a dog, or cat, or any pet? How about two pets being married to each other. If Minnie mouse married Goofy, is that bestiality - aren't they both animals? What if a human married an alien? And what if homosexuals marrying caused dogs and cats to live together, mass hysteria?
Seriously? That's your argument? Are you American or are you retarded?

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!

[Lance734]

"Do you then support adult children marrying a parent? Or how about a pair of siblings marrying?"

--The point lacking when you and others advocate this slippery slope argument is that you don't ever give a legitimate reason as to why the line drawing should end at opposite-sex marriage. Your argument rather weakly assumes that the burden falls on those advocating same-sex marriage to prove why allowing same-sex couples equal access to civil marriage would not cause this host of horribles like marriages based on incest, bestiality, multiple partners, etc. But why doesn't recognition of opposite-sex marriage also not lead to a slippery slope with all of these supposedly horrible things? Your argument is a specious one because you've arbitrarily designated opposite-sex marriage to be the moral standard, thus rendering anyone else's argument automatically invalid without any actual analysis.

Same-sex marriage does not change the binary nature of the institution, but still you propose the polygamy nightmare scenario. Same-sex marriage involves consenting adults but still you claim fear of bestiality and adult-child marriages. Same-sex marriage advoctes contemplate marriage of non-relatives (just like opposite-sex marriages) and many states have always been cousins to marry buy you still introduce the "incest" red herring. Your arguments are just ridiculous, you know they're ridiculous, but you're trying to sound reasonable to mask the real reason. that prejudice is involved in denying people's rights here. So intellectually dishonest.

[sak]

Certainly the Morman church based in Utah should not be allowed to fund a campaign to alter the secular constitution of another state. I think their status as a church - thus tax exempt - should be reversed based on what they just did.

[Overd0g]

Weak. Laws against murder implement the ten commandments. Perhaps we should abandon them.

[jimmytripps]

Actually, your argument is weak. An edict against murder exsists in virtually every society. The ten commandments are, at their core, laws for the jewish people to live by. It follows that both the commandments and our own law would prohibit murder. We do not do so because it is in the bible. Laws like prop 8, on the other hand, seem to flow directly from certain religious groups' interpretation of the bible. That is the distinction he is speaking of.

[sdskelton03]

I think Overdog is correct. The argument being used is that a religious group is imposing it's religious beliefs on others by codifying these beliefs into law.

We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[sak]

If we are going to abide by the Old Testament, then we should abide by all of the laws put forth in that portion of the bible. Jesus never mentioned gayness or homosexuality. Nuff said. If we are going to revere the Old Testament, then we will go back to men having several wives, daughters being sold into prostitution, and other less than attractive practices at that time, based on ignorance.

[SUIGENEROUSLA]

Agreed. Is there a parallel between the right to marry and any potential "right to murder"?

Ummmm...let me think now.....uhhhhh....no.

[hsirt]

'Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" an inalienable right stated in the declaration of independence as one of the very reasons the US was formed. You can't murder someone because it infringes on their right to live-- not because of the 10 commandments.

[dm10003]

the jewish commandment prohibits murdering fellow jews. which furthers the argument separating church and state,

[rwt1138]

At least you began your argument by noting that it is, in fact, weak. The fact that there is a rule against murder in the ten commandments has nothing to do with why it is illegal, and there are numerous secular and logical arguments to be made for prohibiting murder.

There are no logical or secular arguments against allowing homosexuals to marry each other.

Why is it that many religious people seem to assume that their superstitions dictate all human interaction?

[LeftRight]

NOPE! Try again. Laws against murder, while ALSO in the ten commandments, are created in the USA as a SECULAR law to limit harm to people!

[FTracy3]

Proposition 8 narrowly won, but the reason the margin was narrow was because Attorney General Jerry Brown worded it on the ballot. as eliminating a six month old California right that had been determined by the CA Supreme Court. If the court had not done that in April the ballot summary would have been different and I suspect the margin would have been even wider. As it stands CA is now in alignment with I believe 47 other states. If Californians are bigoted and hateful, so is the country (and so are Obama, McCain, Palin, and Biden, who all said the opposed redefining marriage but support civil unions, contracts, hospital visitiation, etc). Hopefully the courts will step in or public opinion will change over time (and it will). But the brownshirt tactics of the protestors, singling out elderly Mormon restaurant owners in LA who gave $100 to the yes side, while ignoring the Catholics, African-Americans, Fundamentalists, Orthodox Jews, and both presidential candidates is kind of cowardly and may generate a backlash..

[jhoughton1]

Hear, hear.

[sak]

You are absolutely right. Californians are bigoted and hateful. At least you understand that. The Morman church did this. California had already decided that gay marriage was ok. Do you not understand that? A church based in Utah came into California and spread lies about what children are taught in schools (gay marriage) and overturned a secular constitution! I hope they lose their tax exampt status.

[stop the politics]

When did California decide gay marriage is okay? The people of California previously voted against gay marriage. It was 4 members of the California Supreme Court that decided gay marriage was okay.

[stop the politics]

I have a couple of observations to make:
Isn’t it interesting that 53%-47% means a mandate but 52%-48% means that some well funded groups affected the outcome of the election?

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The idea of Separation of Church and State is not specifically in the Constitution, it was first mentioned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a Baptist congregation and much later adopted by the courts.

That being said, the way to repeal Prop 8 is not to rely on the courts, but to change the views of the electorate. Calling people religious wackos, homophobes, or other names will not accomplish anything. The religious right, in addition to their religious believes, will always start with the fact that the Constitution does not provide for the Separation of Church and State (see quote above). You will not be able to overcome that. However, you might be able to change their minds. For Christians, you need to argue using their faith; Jesus said to love the sinner and your neighbor.

To win you need to understand and think like the opposition.

[Balancement]

Excuse me, but the Mormon Church poured in over $20 million--funding 77% of the "Yes on 8" effort, and that money was used to create fear in voters by propagating lies in TV commercials, mailings, and robo-calls. The ignorant masses believed those lies and we have seen, as a result, civil rights taken away from an entire class of people. The majority--no matter what they believe--do not have the right to write their religious beliefs into law: that's the tyranny of the majority, exactly the reason why our government is designed the way it is--the courts interpreting the law and the constitution to protect minorities from that exact same tyranny.

Civil rights are *not* up for a vote. That's un-American--and it's unconstitutional.

[gaydm]

What part of "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion" did you miss. that part means WE the people, which are congress, shall NOT determine, or make any laws regarding what a religion even is. Yet we the people are also allowed under the second part to believe in whatever dumb thing we wish. that is the separation clause.

[stop the politics]

I did not miss any part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That portion of the Constitution was meant to prevent the US from creating a US national church (like England). Based on statutory interpretation rules, words have a similar meaning throughout the statute or text. Therefore, Congress means Congress (as it does in the rest of the 1st Amendment, Article 1, and the rest of the Constitution) not We the People. Using your version of statutory interpretation, Congress would not exist, but the people would be running the country since We the People would need to be the meaning of Congress throughout the Constitution.

[Clavis]

If the majority of America is against interracial marriages, is it okay to outlaw them?

The Constitution states that the minority is protected from the majority. Get it?

[sdskelton03]

I have long been trying to state the same point, but haven't been able to do it as eloquently as you.

The answer isn't to ransack churches and beat up elderly people. The answer is to use the free speech part of the first ammendment to change people's minds.

[BruceHNV]

Wrong. The answer is to recognize the rights of all without waiting for public opinion.

[smoothdogie]

What you are promoting is essentially non violent pacifism. Love your adversary enough and eventually they will grant upon you the rights you deserve. Bull pukkey. The movements to secure the rights of minorities in this country only happened when they got off their behinds and got in someones face. They weren't popular at the moment but they just kept at it. The type of pacifism you promote only works if your adversary is somewhat civilized. I am not sure the Mormons and Evangelicals are.

[roger3815]

It just proves that religion endorses stupidity.

It will be a great day on Earth when humans retire their imaginary friends to the dustbin of history.

[jesselee26]

don't hold your breath.

[Hazelnut]

Even if all religious people on earth abandoned their beliefs today, I believe the world would still be plagued by ignorance and injustice. Religious people don't have a copyright on stupidity.

[carsntrucks]

So it's OK that 90% of all Yes voters said they had no religious affiliation? The fact that many who voted no described themselves as being religious means their vote should be overturned because they're religious? That's messed up.

[Dave24]

The religious are the ones pining over the definition of marriage. Those who are irreligious overwhelmingly support the rights of all people to marry. Such a proposition shouldn't have been allowed for a vote, let alone get passed.

[pfrogger]

Religious or non-religious does NOT matter. It is IRRELEVANT.
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!

[carsntrucks]

The courts can't create and then protect a Constitutional right within the same ruling, like they did with In re: Marriage Cases.

[sak]

Right on. Religious people lynched blacks while quoting the bible years ago. Even today, some religious people beat their children and put them in cages quoting the bible. There has to be a limit. The Mormans had no right to indoctrinate Californians with lies and to fund the overturn of our laws. Even in Utah, gay people should be able to get married.

[sak]

It looks to me like Utah has established a state religion.

[nevadagirl]

Duh. The Mormon church could have stopped the practice of polygamy a long time ago if they cared. The fact that they would put money into denying gays the right to marry while ignoring the incest in polygamous communities shoud be an outrage to everyone.

[24hourrifle]

while prop 8 does in fact put into law specific beliefs taught by specific religions,like it or not-and i do not-these beliefs are held by many who have no particular religious affiliation.i know plenty of narrowminded knuckledragging homophobes who consider themselves athiests.

[wolfmason]

If one doesn't believe in God, and they still think that homosexuality is "wrong", rather than a consequence of evolution and nature, I'm pretty that qualifies as both a rejection of religious thought and secular/scientific understanding of the world. I'm pretty sure we call these people nihilists.

[BruceHNV]

Nah - it's not a matter of belief for atheists. It's just a gut reaction. More to the point, it's a gut reaction for the religionists, too - they just have "doctrine" to justify it.

[CD-Host]

"We understand this perfectly if and when couples choose to divorce. Do they go to their preachers, ministers, rabbis or priests in such instances? No. They hire lawyers and go to court. Why? Because marriage is a civil institution. Period."

Actually in the US they do. Catholics quite often go through a Catholic annulment as part of their divorce which is administered by the church. Religious Jews go through the process of issuing a get and register the divorce with the state. Almost all states allow both marriage and divorce to supervised by religious authorities (or any other group) providing both parties agree.

[Clavis]

The religious authority generally has to get official civic registration as an officiant, or otherwise sign an officiating document. That essentially eliminates the importance of their religious title. I performed a marriage once, and I'm an atheist. Was my marriage less sacred to the participants? Of course not.

[CD-Host]

Exactly. The state registers and licenses marriages (mostly) the individual clergy perform them.

[LeftRight]

But the Catholic annulment is something that not everyone has to do. In fact, legally speaking, even Catholics don't have to perform that portion of the task!

[CD-Host]

The state never requires anyone to do any religious process. My point was that the state respects religious divorce / annulment.

[rextrek]

Equality MUST WIN OUT in America - IF America is to "Live up Too" it's promise of LIBERTY & JUSTICE FOR ALL.....or are they JUST words..EMPTY PRETTY WORDS? How can a Nation thats VERY Foundation of Freedom....Keep one set of it's citizens from being Treated Equally? ...for God's sake, even South Africa has Marriage Equality..! Look at the Law/Ammendment they just passed in Arkansas...This WAS to prevent ALL LGBT people from either Fostering/or Adopting un-wanted children (that heterosexuals) have thrown away......this is a Travesty to the Very Core of OUR country. EQUALITY FOR ALL AMERICANS!

[Heddie]

My feeling is if "Christians" oppose something, they should personally
not do it. They'd be the first harping for separation of church and
state if there were a majority of non christian churches.

It is utterly ludicrous to tell people what sex they should be
in order to marry. To me all marriages are civil unions anyway, and
all people living in love are married.

There was a time when slavery was supposedly "the will of the people"-
that certainly is a dead argument, isn't it?

Prop 8 went through not because a "vast" majority of people believe in
the issue, but because there was a well funded
drive among a few organizations to push for it.

[LeftRight]

Not just Christians. If ANYBODY opposes something that doesn't harm others, they should simply not do it!

[24hourrifle]

yes,prop.8 was funded by christians.but there were plenty of know-nothings who voted for it out of good old secular hatred.its not fair to hold "christians" responsible.unfortunately,my christian faith has been hijacked by narrow minded oppressors.however,it is important to remember that the vast majority of christians under 35 or so,believe in the rights of everyone,regardless of who they fall in love with.so please do not behave the same way as the hate peddlers of the right.writing off entire segments of our population because of religion,or race or sexual identity etc...is always wrong.

[BruceHNV]

Too true...

[benne]

We can get rid of all marriages, as a vestige of religion in the state, and have the state only give civil unions. Anyone can get married in the church of their choice (if they'll agree to marry them), but none of these "marriages" would be recognized by the state.

Oh, and what about the idea of every civil union lapsing every 3 years? A renewal form would come in the mail, and if you chose to, you could renew it. If you didn't, you could let it lapse. There goes the huge problems with divorce and divorce courts.

[LeftRight]

I agree with your first point, but not the second one. I feel that the civil unions should still last until it's broken, whether by death or by divorce, but it shouldn't be that easy to get out of the legal contract that marriage currently is!

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

It should last until it the one of parties concerned wish it to end and then it should be able to end quite easily and painlessly. As a matter of fact they should legally define how joint assets are to be awarded at the nullification in the contract of the civil union.

[Proletarian101]

That is a "take your ball and go home" way of thinking which tends to be counterproductive. The vote breakdown was 52% to 48%. Almost there. If they continue to work toward a "peaceful" resolution than in 4 or 5 years it will be more publically accepted and won't be an issue. Trying to push this down peoples throats tends to create anomosity where non existed and will result in a backlash. Whether you think that is right or not doesn't matter. It is human nature and the way the system works. Here would be an extreme parallel. Say that people were fighting for a law that only allows marriage if it is approved by the state. A majority of people may oppose it but the group advocating it had a lot of legal influence, and despite the majority of the population voting against it, a judge interprets in the law that the minority is right and requires the law to pass. How would you interpret that situation?

[Steamboater]

The majority voting for something can turn into a tyranny, as happened with Prop 8 etc and has happened in Germany in the 30's. Sometimes you just can't trust people to do the right thing as happened with Prop 8 and especially when Mormons put so much money into the bargain as well as the efforts of the Catholic church to once again find another group to bash and beat up. Then they have the timidity and cowardice to try and distance themselves from what they are responsible for by saying that the churches didn't contribute money to Prop 8 and therefore aren't perosnally responsible They all should lose their tax-free status. In America, money is the reason d'etra. These religions lose their tax-free status and you'll see how quickly they join the 21st century and put their leg irons away for good.

[Dan4Equality]

Imagine the surprise of previously married people in California when they lose more than 1000 benefits from the federal government. Civil Unions in the US are not the same as marriage. This is unworkable unless done at a federal level. It also will not eliminate conflict over these issues, you will just have tremendous outcry from the religious right that "traditional marriage" is being eliminated.