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

[yogilroy]

If one citizen has a right that another citizen does not, that is Discrimination, pure and simple. Why waste time parsing the differences between 'religious' or 'civil?' Discrimination in the USA is illegal, period, and Prop 8 will be proven to be unconstitutional.

Regarding one's personal beliefs on homosexuality and the separation of church and state, there is no reason to oppose gay marriage OTHER than religious belief, which means it has no place in our government--given the SEPARATION of church and law as it exists in our founding document. If you don't like our founding document, you are free to move to a theocracy like Saudi Arabia.

Thirdly, one has to wonder why this is an issue, given the fact that the country is literally collapsing all around us. if you're against gay marriage, don't marry one. Shut up and figure out how to fix the economy, teach our children, or make sure our air and water won't kill us.

[24hourrifle]

not true...i know many people who are not religious in any way yet they are still hateful and ignorant.i also know many many christians who completely support the rights of everyone,regardless of their sexual identity.

[Bibbo]

I feel like I'm seeing things through the eyes of people I've only read about in history. The political powers of today(Obama and his supporters) believe Christianity is promoting intollerence by opposing homosexuality. The Prop.8 vote broke down along religious lines. The more someone attends church the more likely they would support Prop.8 and the reverse is also true. So the power of the state(Obama) must defend the country against the dangerous message of the extremist Christian group. Whats changed in the 2000 yrs when the Romans persecuted the early Christian church? I'm sure the Romans had a self justification. Its been said that the more you look back into history the further into the future you can see. Do all these gay marriage supporters really want to be the political descendents of the Romans.

[mercury613]

Gay people have had their rights taken away while the cowards doing it are hiding behind their collective religions. You've got it backwards.

[poizinniv]

I agree Roy. I think it's sad and kind of disgusting that religious groups are putting millions of dollars campaigning for these props. What about feeding the hungry? Educating our children? Surely that money could be put to better use? I can't seriously believe that Jesus would care more about gays than people without jobs or enough food. In fact, wasn't he the one who hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors?
I also agree that this is a moral/religious initiative and discriminates against a significant portion of people in this country. This prop will not stand.
If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you aren't gay, then don't marry someone of the same gender. Stop trying to make everyone be like you and believe what you do. The point of laws are to keep people safe and to have some organization in our society- not to legislate morality and/or religion (although I'm sure some would disagree).

[NoOneSpecial]

I'm not sure about your legal reasoning on this one. If it is truly is a violation of church and state simply because of voting patterns, then you could also argue that any number of laws (not just ones related to marriage) are said violations if the voting patterns fall along the lines of religious vs. non-religious. For instance, an initiative to legalize prostitution or gambling.

What I think is a more compelling church-state argument is the Mormon's church's direct fund raising and activity in passing the initiative. But the resolution there, I think, is not that it should invalidate Prop 8, but that the Mormon Church should lose its tax-exempt status.

Although the Mormon Church is by all accounts guilty of assisting this legal and anti-American travesty, they are not solely responsible for Prop 8 supporters pulling the lever in favor it.

[iLLogicaL]

Great article...thanks especially for the breakdown on voting patterns.

[K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

One thing the state can do is rescind the rights of clergy to perform legal marriages.

I'm an American living in Argentina and here couples who wish to marry must stand before a judge at the Registro Civil (Civil Registry) in order to get married. This is also true for gay couples who wish to register as domestic partners. If any of those couples then wish to have a separate religious ceremony, that is, of course, their right. However, the only marriage recognized by the state is that performed by a judge at the Registro Civil.

Marriage is first and last a civil institution. 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.

Clergy should not be empowered by the state to perform civil contracts. Perhaps if they were barred from the process, as they are in Argentina, we might have a more sensible debate (in other words, no debate at all) regarding gay marriage.

[muggles5]

Thank you for this perspective from another country. Related to this, conservative religious people ought to brush up on the history of marriage and the church. Marriage in Europe was strictly a civil affair, with no church involvement, until well into the late Middle Ages. Even then, few were married in a church ceremony. The true history of monogamous marriage in the west is one of legal protection of property and rights over children, not one of religious sanction for sexual activity.

Going further back, and speaking as a Christian myself, it is rich for fundamentalist Christians to privilege monogamous marriage as a biblically endorsed proposition, on two grounds: 1. The Old Testament holds up as heroes men who had multiple wives and impregnated slaves, yet we are told that belief in changing, evolving standards with regard to sex is a form of moral relativism; 2. Paul, on whose letters to early churches most Protestant theology is founded, in fact recommends against marriage, seeing it as a refuge of the morally weak.

[Proletarian101]

Your a little mistaken here. In much of Europe, the church was the government well into the Middle Ages.

[Clavis]

Didn't Solomon have hundreds of wives and thousands of concubines?

Now *that's* what I call "family values"!

[muggles5]

As a bisexual with many many friends and family who are gay, I am saddened at the hold this issue has on our culture, the resistance to inevitable change. As a Christian, I am so very tired of bad theology, and warped narrow visions of the history of our faith, being used to justify personal discomfort with homosexual practice. There are many problems with the Bible, taken as a whole, as a model for a just social order; it is clear, however, that the many parts and stories and theologies and prayers and arguments (and I would say also truths) in the Bible are only slightly concerned with personal morality. It is not sins the Bible is largely concerned with, it is SIN. It is the need of humans to be in right relationship with the creator and the creation.

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

what you describe is not 'bad theology' but religion itself - give atheism a try.

[muggles5]

Must it be said to Christians one more time: if you are so concerned with the literal truth of our text, then how is it that you fail to notice the relentless theme of much of the Bible, and the final warning of Jesus in the last parable: it is the sins of omission that imperil your soul, those of neglect of the least of humans around you. For progressive Christians: time to come out of hiding on this issue, we can't expect people to take us seriously as a useful part of society, and keep silent on this injustice inside and outside our churches.

For non-Christians: I fully understand your rage at the imposition of theology into your civil life. And the fact is that it is bad theology, not rooted in either scripture or the mainstream of church history. The challenge to this bad marriage (forgive the pun) between bad theology and bad law is good coalitions, not hateful rhetoric... let's leave that to Dobson and his ilk. The change will come when the evil of discrimination and exclusion is challenged from all sides, religious and secular people working in concert. I beg you to notice that many many followers of Jesus are fighting this garbage from inside churches, and outside.

[Morcat]

Bravo! Excellent response. It is bad theology indeed, and it is unfortunately accepted by so many as received wisdom, when it is in fact, in direct opposition to the gospel message.

[K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

I accept your argument, but I take exception to the referenced "hateful rhetoric." Are you suggesting that by opining that clergy have no civil authority to perform civil contracts I'm therefore employing "hateful rhetoric?"

I'm hoping that you were referring to the proponents of Prop. 8, but given your admonition to form "good coalitions," it's a little fuzzy.

Clarify please.

[Proletarian101]

So we should give up a long-standing tradition for the needs of a minority of the population. Also, your advocating government authority over marriage? What is next? Government authority to determine when you can have children? Where does this process of turning responsibility over to the government stop? The reason that there is currently not gay marriage in the US is directly because of government intervention. Maybe the fight should be to restrict what government can have authority over instead of giving them more control.

[stateretiree]

Government already has authority over marriage. You have to pay the government to get married and then you have to pay to get divorced.

[K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

Government already has authority over marriage. That's why when someone files for divorce they go to court, not their church.

Regarding your comment: "The reason that there is currently not gay marriage in the US is directly because of government intervention." Like the vast majority of conservative arguments on a whole range of issues, that is simply a fatuous misreading of reality. The fact is that the Supreme Court of California, representing the judicial branch of government, deemed the exclusion of gay people's access to marriage illegal. It was precisely because of government intervention that gay people won the right to marry. That is why thousands of legally married gay couples existed before the enactment of Proposition 8.

It is the continued blurring of this reality that leads to a direct violation of Church and State and, frankly, idiotic arguments against gay marriage. These arguments have no basis in a civil society.

Clergy should not be empowered to perform civil contracts. Period. By taking them out of t the mix, we can have a truly civil discussion regarding gay marriage.

[dshwa]

Government already has authority over marriage, and has since the founding of the country. After you get married in a church, the participants, witnessess, and the clergy memeber who performed the ceremony must submit a form to the state. If they don't, then the marriage is not a legal one.

And no one is making anyone give up a tradition. No church can be forced to marry same sex couples if they do not wish. All that is being asked for is that these couples have access to the same legal rights that are confered to married herterosexual couples.

[Clavis]

Why should a religious ceremony held in your church automatically give you a governmental status of "married"? A religious ceremony is private. Being married in the legal sense requires a legal authority, not a religious one. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Your witch doctor isn't a government employee!

A legal marriage and a religious ceremony are two different things. For that reason, any couple who wants to legally "tie the knot" should be allowed to. Anybody your church doesn't want to perform the religious ceremony for, that's fine, they don't do it. See how simple it is?

[nevadagirl]

Yes, we are advocating giving up a tradition for the needs of a minority. Yay!

[blueshift]

I am one who is disappoint bt the failure of to defeat Prop 8. However, your legal rationale is preposterous. The 'right to marry?' Where in the Constitution is that? The Proposition was never framed in religious terms, so in what way was the separation of church and state abridged? By religious (and non-religious) voters expressing their preferences because of their right to vote? (That last one IS in the Constitution - there is no exclusion of voters based on religion, or not.)

To ask the courts to overturn voter preferences based on dubious 'constitutional' grounds will be perceived as nothing short of judicial activism, on the order of Gore v Bush or Roe v Wade, decisions based on similar constitutional fantasies. It is better to accept the loss, regroup, and get the law passed either by another ballot initiative, or the legislature. Or move to Massachusetts or Connecticut.

Doing this on a state by state basis, by the way, is the Constitutional remedy.

[LeftRight]

It's no more in the Constitution than the right to privacy. However, since the SCOTUS has determined that both of those rights are implied by the founders, they both exist equally!

[Balancement]

Read the Supreme Court decision on Loving v. Virginia--that overturned the ridiculous restriction against inter-racial marriages. You will see that the SCOTUS clearly identifies marriage as a civil right.

[Balancement]

No, that is still discrimina­tory--ther­e are over 1,000 federal rights and benefits afforded heterosexual marriages that would still be denied same-sex couples. This *nation* is based on the idea of equal rights for *all.* The Proposition 8 travesty has mobilized the country to fight for those equal rights for everyone everywhere in this country--and we will prevail.

[Clavis]

The majority do not have the right to referendum away the rights of the minority. That's the whole point of "they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". Just because a majority of a state decide that up is down or evolution is evil, doesn't make it so.

[Channel4NewsTeam]

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[eisforelephant]

Too, and I think this is worth throwing out there, I sort of grew up in the Conservative Evangelical Christian circuit and honestly, there's a huge chunk of people that don't believe separation of church was ever called for by our founding fathers. I've read that in Abeka books. TEXTBOOKS for goodness sake.

[Balancement]

Have them read The First Liberty: America's Foundation in Religious Freedom by William Lee Miller from Georgetown University Press. That will dissuade them from their notions.

[dshwa]

Not likely. I've talked to some of these people. Evidence does not disuade them from belief they take as faith, and they take it as an article of faith that this is a "Christian nation." Facts and evidence do not change their minds (Prime example: Evolution).

[zjr909]

The religious right never follows the logic of its own dicta - duh, what a surprise! Take California: Proposition 8 passes, a couple weeks later the state's in flames. Now if the religious right did unto California what it did unto New Orleans after Katrina, it would have to seriously consider that Proposition 8 offended their god so much that it set the state on fire. After all, a gay pride march in New Orleans so offended their god that it flooded the whole city. But no, that kind of logic entierly escapes them. That's almost literally a case of working with half a brain.

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

You have pinned the tail on the elephant!

[duchessdorleans]

Hold on there. I know there were the Jerry Falwell set who said that God was smiting us for our gay pride parades, but in reality it was churches who organized and sent people down here to help feed people and rebuild their houses when our government was sitting on their hands. They were the compassionate and charitable Christians they were suppposed to be we're grateful to them.

[Balancement]

And imagine how much good that $20 million could have done if it had not been directed to taking away rights of the citizens of California.

[Simpsonsfan]

By the logic of this article, on any topic where a majority of religious people disagree with a majority of non-religious people, the opinions of the religious people should not count because church/state separation comes into play. This isn't a case of one church making its own opinions the law, this is a case where the vast majority of people across a wide spectrum of religions share a viewpoint.

[shadowgm]

The point is that even if a 'vast majority' shared the viewpoint that same-sex marriage is wrong because of a perception that homosexuality is wrong, this is not sufficient as the SOLE basis for law. It doesn't matter whether it's one church or a hundred churches.

The law must accomodate and integrate both secular and religious concerns without becoming the exclusive instrument of either. This is the meaning of the separation of church and state, not 'nyah, nyah, you can't have your God!'

[LeftRight]

Your opinion of the article assumes thoughts that aren't reasonable. The religious opinion in this case counts less because that opinion causes harm to others. If the secular view were to harm other people, then THAT opinion would count for less!

[azyuwish]

Even if the case is, that "the vast majority of people across a wide spectrum of religions share a viewpoint", it doesn't give them the right to impose that viewpoint on others via the law, if it violates Civil Rights.

Case in point: In 1967 the Supreme Court finally recognized the Civil right of white people to marry black people: Inter-racial marriage. (It had been illegal prior to that). Even THOUGH the SCOTUS declared it legal and Constitutional, a full 80% of people across a wide spectrum, as you say, shared the viewpoint of DISAPPROVAL. Had they the ability to vote on the matter, they would have voted to ban it. Exactly the same thing is at play here, only the ban is on gay marriage.
The same arguments were heard then that God intended the races to marry only each other, blah blah blah.....just as they now say "God's" intention (as if anyone could adequately know) is that only heterosexuals may marry.

The REAL question is this: Are gays and lesbians full fledged citizens of the USA, or not? In California: Are they full fledged citizens of CA or not? That is the fundamental matter in question and it IS one to be handled by the SCOTUS ultimately.

[Morcat]

Unfortunately, the "vast majority" of people are far too ready to accept unexamined bad theology and embrace it as an opinion. It shores up their own prejudices so well. Our constitution protects the minority from the excesses of the majority, which may not rule in ever instance.

[poizinniv]

I'm not sure a "viewpoint" is a valid reason to discriminate against part of the American population. This is about peoples' rights, discrimination is never okay in the US. That's what we're supposed to stand for.

[vicar123]

This is crazy, Civil Laws trump religious everytime.

[azyuwish]

OH, if only this were practiced!!

[RButler]

Many Proposition 8 supporters have said 'it's the will of the people'. Well, in a few years, with younger, more tolerant voters, it's possible that another proposition will allow for gay marriage and win. It will then be the 'will of the people'. How will those Prop 8 supporters respond to that? Will they accept the 'will of the people' or run to the despised activist courts to overturn it? Stay tuned.

[firstfreeze]

I say leave it to each state (with no reciprocal recognition across satte lines), same way with abortion. I mean my 2d amendment rights get retsricted from state to state, why not marriage and abortion. I have a right to keep and bear arms. In my state that means no registration, licensed concealed carry, and no ban on private sales. However, in many other "blue" states, they have vuury severe restrictions. I say leave to the people of each state. You can vote it in wherever you like. JUst alow me to also vote on abortion, guns, etc. Just a thought and a compromise. I do wish you happiness and peace.

[Osprey3]

States rights are fine until they enact laws which deprive an individual of his/her rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. I refer you to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It doesn't take a law degree to see that Prop 8 denies a gay person equal protection of the laws.

[Steamboater]

Marriage between same sexes should not be voted for state by state anyway. That happens and you'll always have some states allowing it and most not allowing it. Same sex marriage needs to be done across the board and not piecemeal, and the only way that will happen is if it's done at the federal level with a president willing to put the Oval Office behind it and we don't have that with Obama. That's the not-so-dirty little secert of his victory and too many of of his supporters, including too many Gay supporters, haven't the courage to admit it. After all, if the democratic presdient doesn't support same sex marriage, why should most heterosexuals who voted for him support it. He also gave republicans a mask to cover their homophobia with.

[Lionsden]

Mr. Stone writes:

"One might argue that Proposition 8 violates the separation of church and state. It is this last argument that interests me."

Separation of church and state means that the GOVERNMENT will not threaten the church or churches, not the other way around.

And when the Constitution, itself, deals with the relationship between "religion" and government, it is only CONGRESS (and specifically the FEDERAL congress) which is forbidden to act AGAINST the church/churches.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

That means what Judge Roy Moore did with his monument at the Federal Courthouse was LEGAL. And Christians opposing same-sex marriage in their state Constitutions and state legislatures is within the lawful traditions of GOOD Constitutional government in America.

[jfalco00]

Sorry, but you're incorrect. The seperation of church and state is to insure that religious instiutions may practice freely and ALSO to insure the secularity of the government. No religious institution is to insert itself into any facet of the government. Conversely, the government may not insert itself into religious practices. The framers knew that in either of these instances, inequality and public upheaval would ensue. Plainly stated, theocracies do not work based even on people of the same religion because views vary drastically. Oh, and your comment about individual states? I suggest you read Article 6 of the Constitution. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

[Lionsden]

You said:

" No religious institution is to insert itself into any facet of the government. "

But that isn't what the separation of church and state referred to. It was a reference to worried baptists that they would be protected from the federal government, not the other way around.You are investing into the phrase your desires and wishes. You are fabricating a fiction.

Why did Jefferson (as president) sign legislation to provide funds for a congressional and military chaplins? And why did he, as president, encourage military officiers to attend religious services?

Was it because he was stupid and went back on the Constitution's warning against establishment or forgot about "separation" as you view it? Or is it because separation and establishment are not what you think they are?

Article Six, the Supremacy Clause (which you refer to) tells us that when state and federal law conflict, federal law is supreme. But to be supreme, the federal law must not violate the Constitution.

There was no Constitutional clause or Federal law which Judge Moore violated. None. He did not do any more than Jefferson did, in fact, he did less. So Article Six (the supremacy clause) remained untrammeled. There was no establishment. There was no violation of Article Six, and there was no law pursuant to Article Six that was violated.

[VicF]

I gotta agree that the first amendment protects religion from government and not government from religion. The point is to protect religious freedom. I think religion is seen as a good here that needs to be protected, not as dangerous or a threat.

However if the Congress is not allowed to make laws respecting a religion, (And the use of the word "respect" indicates government could be more respectful of religions), and Congress is the law of the land, then no laws anywhere can do what congress can't do, because congress is the law of the land, those other laws of states and towns, are under federal law, so if federal law is restricted, so must be law under federal law.

[FJRinLA]

PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENTS HAVE CHRISTIAN FATHERS

DEMS should know how much today's Progressive Movement owes to aggressive Christian activism. Gay activists sometimes seem to leap right from Jesus to Andrew Sullivan with occasional nods to Gandhi or King.

Slavery was an economic system that most early Christians from both Virginia & Massachusetts wanted abolished in the Declaration of Independence. They kept it to be unanimously against the British. So slavery did not continue on here because of Christianity; but in spite of it.

And in that beginning, all Christian-based opposition to unjust laws began. The Abolitionist Movement was clearly a fundamentalist Christian Movement created solely to cause the end of slavery through activism. Like the Suffragette and Temperance Movements which followed, it was fueled primarily by white female Christians before they could even legally vote.

And of course, the Civil Rights Movement came from Black church members who also couldn't really vote, and birthed both the modern Feminist and Gay Rights Movements of the '70s.

These Christian-based political protest movements sought to make the law conform to a more Christ-like vision.

Are today's gay activist teachers on-message or off? Their overreaching interpretation of the right to marry was already creeping into public schools, and the Mormons just shed a light on it. They continue to conflate being black with being gay, knowing it infuriates most AAs. And they've yet to present an endgame narrative for their agenda that the most tolerant Christians can agree upon is Christ-like.

[che1111]

Yeah, blame the gays because they are unable to convince straight, homophobic Amerika that the discrimination they have faced since the beginning of time is unjust. The right to marry is a right that is provided by the state and has no religious interpretation. Any person of any religion can go to City Hall and get a marriage license. How is extending that right to same-sex couples, "overreaching"?

"creeping into public schools"?!!! what is that supposed to mean? Threats agains the "children" have been used as long as there have been campaigns againsts "others" - Jews were purported to eat chidlren by the Nazis, gypsies (Roma) were said to steal them, gays are "teaching?" them?? What a horrible thing for children to learn that sexuality is not always heterosexual.

As far as infuriating African-Americans with comparisions between the gay rights struggle and their own - African-Americans do not own the franchise on Civil Rights. The more we are divided, the better chance the regressives have of taking this country back. That is why Bill O'Reilly is fanning the flames of the supposed war between blacks and gays.

[azyuwish]

You make many good points. One of which is the "teaching" about gays. Well, duh.

Children are exposed to "gays" in preschool; each other. Homosexuality and transgenderism shows up as early as 4 years old. I've taught for ten years in Kindergarten and every year or so there are one or two children who CLEARLY and emphatically state that they are the opposite sex. A boy may identify as a girl, beg to dress like a girl, play exclusively with girls and talk about growing up to be a "princess". The same holds true for females identified as boys. Later, their erotic attraction is the same as the peers with whom they've played. It's so obvious and simple. These children are healthy, happy, intelligent kids who just aren't in the hetero mold. It expresses itself EARLY.

In Santa Cruz where I live, there were Prop 8 protests Sat. One of my students and I were passing by, he asked about it, I told him that people are upset because there was a new rule that only men and women could marry each other. I said, MOST of the time, men and women DO want to marry each other, but that sometimes, men fall in love with men or women fall in love with women. They want to get married too. I asked him what he thought about it, he said "They should get to marry who they want, if they love each other."

Out of the mouth of babes.

[FJRinLA]

Hello Che1111

I support gay marriage rights....even if it means changing the legal definition of marriage to guarantee that gays get the full legal and economic benefits of marriage available under the law.

I don't know what my opinion of Bill O'Reilly is except that he's so clearly not what he presents himself to be. He is the opposite of authentic; so he's probably wasting his time and anyone's who watches him (which I must admit includes myself).

Gays are fanning those flames more with their irrational and misplaced anger at Black people for Prop 8 when we constituted 5% at best of all YES votes (70% times 7% of the population). Latinos contributed 4X-5X more YES votes statewide and Asians double the Black YES votes.

I define "overreaching" as gay activist teachers using the marriage right to justify taking 1st graders on field trips to gay marriage ceremonies and teaching the KING & KING childrens' story about princes marrying princes to 2nd graders. Introducing homosexuality to public school students pre-empts their parents' rights to define marriage as their family sees fit and was not authorized by the Court in granting the right to marry. These things would have only escalated if Prop 8 had failed. Hopefully now we can debate them.

[ScienceLady]

FJRinLA wrote: "And in that beginning, all Christian-based opposition to unjust laws began. The Abolitionist Movement was clearly a fundamentalist Christian Movement created solely to cause the end of slavery through activism. Like the Suffragette and Temperance Movements which followed, it was fueled primarily by white female Christians before they could even legally vote."

NOT TRUE, many abolitionists abandoned, or revised, their faith. Many Christians used their bible to justify oppression of blacks and women. Elizabeth Cody Stanton and Susan B. Anthony had to denounce traditional Christianity to stay true to their cause. Stanton wrote the Women's Bible, to encourage women of faith to take up the cause.

And stop with the Christ-like stuff, we all do not believe in fairies(angels) from the sky, or a trinity of deities, or magical thinking. Saying things like "Christ-like" or "unchristian" is a standard left to the interpretation of dogma. I do not comply.

Oh yeah, and get used to seeing men kissing on TV, it seems the media have thier own version of activism going. If we are desensitized to it, it won't be taboo. The next time the issue on gay marriage comes up don't be surprised when it passes.

[FJRinLA]

Hey, SCIENCE LADY

After the words "NOT TRUE", you agreed with everything I said. ..

...."many abolitionists abandoned or revised their faith," clearly implies they were Christians to begin with which is what I stated.

Here is a link from no less an objective source than "American Athiest" which chronicles the history of both women's Christian upbringing and continued affiliation with different Christian churches that fueled their activism:

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/anthony/

They argued on behalf of Blacks and women that the Bible was wrongly interpreted by our oppressors in this justifications. They never claimed that Christianity was the problem...they were Christians. Her dad was a Quaker and her mom was a Baptist so that caused some friction. But they were all against slavery and for womens' rights BECAUSE of the Bible not because of humanism.

Do you even read what they wrote and said? Please check out that link because IGNORANCE is a terrible thing....especially in CAPS.

They were bold and defiant enough to not allow Paul to have the last word on what it is to be Christ-like. But if you have a problem with the historically documented life of Jesus as a behavioral standard then your quibble is not with me at all.

[SpaceboySD]

It's sad that we even have to question who deserves equal protection rights under the law and who doesn't. I thought we were past that. Looks like we've learned very little in our on-going battle with prejudice, division, and propaganda.

I was really shocked at the fact that 7/10 black people voted in favor of passing Prop 8; you would think that they of all people would understand what it is like having to fight to get your rights.

What you do with your own life is your own business.

Marriage is a civil right, and everyone deserves the chance at EQUAL freedoms.

[che1111]

Prop 8 passed NOT because of the black vote, but because of the religious vote. Statistics about the overwhelming majority of blacks who voted for it have been put out there by a media who want to see the progressive coalition divided. Blacks and gays overwhelmingly supported Obama and are traditionally part of the Democratic base. The wrong-wing wants nothing more than to see this base fractured in the same way their own base is fractured by their inflexible ideologies. Don't let it happen! Prop 8 passed from the support of religious voters, older voters and those with less than a college education. The youth vote, was strongly against it and that is where our country is headed. Progress lies ahead thanks to the engagement of our youth in the political process. This time it will be a very different fight and we will win!

[FJRinLA]

THANK YOU Che1111

...for the racial points of clarification.

But it doesn't change the fact that most Blacks and Latinos are Christians and while being on the Christian LEFT which represents the Christ that embraced the poor and economically disadvantaged, still believe in HIM and HIS WORD.

So the only way to keep your Progressive Coalition together is to recognize that we may have some boundaries that need respecting because Blacks and Latinos will not soon completely turn their backs on Jesus and the Bible. Our view is that while Jesus embraced and protected the prostitute from any scorn or retribution, he was not taking her into the temple and telling young children, be like her.

Please forgive my analogy because I do not mean to compare homosexuality to prostitution, though I recognize the reality and divinity of both, but I am just making the point that all Progressive Movements come from Christianity so we should be able to find common ground.

[Smith808]

Gay marriage exists in CT and MA.
How has this fact threatened the “sanctity” of anyone’s marriage? Who is really prepared to defend the bang up job “heterosexual marriage” has done living up to itself? NO ONE should have to, but, to suggest that “I” should consider how gay marriage will make this world a better place for YOU instead of ME speaks more about society’s laxness in fulfilling its own promises (by placing higher expectations upon me, instead).
Instead of arguing “who,” what about “how?” Why not advocate state regulation of “POOR” marriages -- perhaps a ban on divorce, or the nullification of marriages that don’t produce children? These aren’t civil rights, after all. And, to flip an oft used mantra… “Where in the Constitution does it say you can’t?” (CONT)

[Smith808]

(CONT)
I’ve already heard all the predictable vitriol against gay marriage – most of which involve threats of brutality. Still, the most insidious attacks are the ones cloaked in “love.” While these people admonish me about my “choices” and warn me of the hardships I will impose upon myself and my family, they conceal their intent to, in fact, be the very force that obstructs my own path to love. If my life is to be “hard,” it is because THEY have “chosen” not to be tolerant…if they warn me of my own child’s hardship, it is because THEY have “chosen” to teach their own children bigotry and fear.

Explaining gay marriage is not like trying to explain war, poverty, hunger, or death. With an open heart and an open mind, it is the easiest concept to relay: when two people love each other, they get married. This simple realization of love is what I learned in the home, the society, and the country I grew up in.
I fail to see how encouraging monogamy and lifelong commitment is wrong.