Proposition 8: "It Is Written, but I Say unto You."

I just don't get California's Proposition 8, the initiative for a state constitutional ban against same-sex marriage. It's become the most expensive "social issue" ballot measure ever. The stakes are high.

In my neighborhood, there are yard signs for and against the measure. I must say, I'm simply baffled by the "Yes on Prop. 8" folks. I've listened carefully to their arguments, I've tried to heed their sentiments, I've tried to respect their "moral" concerns. But I just don't buy it. In fact, their campaign saddens me greatly.

My wife and I have been together for almost 25 years. We have two beautiful children. For the life of me, I simply cannot see any way that same-sex marriage threatens my marriage, not by any stretch of the imagination. Not in the least. I just don't get the claim about how the ban is necessary to "protect marriage."

The argument about procreation doesn't make any sense. If that were the crux of the matter, then marriage would be proscribed or discouraged for older hetero couples, or infertile couples. Such childless marriages are no less sacred or celebrated. And it's not as if the presence of same-sex married couples is going to inhibit the procreative tendencies of hetero couples. Why presume that these sexualities are competing or in active conflict with one another, as a zero-sum trade-off? Is the sheer idea of same-sex coupledom somehow a romantic turn-off for certain heteros? Are the "Yes on Prop. 8" folks implying that a sizeable number of otherwise hetero individuals will convert to homosexuality if same-sex marriage is permitted, and that's why the breeding foundations of society are allegedly imperiled today? Will hetero couples have less sex because they'll get depressed that same-sex couples will now be sharing the institution of marriage? The procreative argument just doesn't fly. Maybe someone out there can explain it to me.

The main animus, as far as I can tell, against same-sex marriage is religious (I could proffer psychological explanations as well, but those seem derivatively intertwined with the religious reasons). The offended religiosity claims to be based on Scripture. It all boils down to a couple of passages in Leviticus, and maybe a few scattered comments in Paul's letters. To take those passages seriously, however, one today must read them selectively and tendentiously while ignoring their clearly antiquated aspects. I don't see any way around it. If a man lies with a male as with a woman (Lev. 21:13), then that "abomination" requires that they both be put to death--along with the death penalty for adultery and other offenses. If the "Yes on Prop. 8" folks are sincerely convinced that Leviticus requires them to oppose same-sex marriage today, then why aren't they following Scripture more rigorously and calling for the death penalty--not only for homosexuality but also for heterosexual adultery? I just don't get how one can be actively incensed by one line of Scripture but then be completely oblivious to the very next line. If you're a literalist and you believe every word in the Bible is God's revealed word, then you have no exegetical right to pick and choose which passages in Leviticus matter to you today and which don't.

Christians in particular surely ought to read the books of the Hebrew Bible, such as Leviticus, in the manner in which Jesus suggested they be read. Max Weber, the great sociologist of religion, insisted that Jesus' main charismatic appeal and divine-like authority could be traced to his personalist rejection of Scriptural literalism. For Weber, the key to the entire spirit of Christianity is to be found in the Sermon on the Mount, precisely when Jesus repeats time and again: "It is written, but I say unto you." [Often translated as, You have heard, but I say unto you."] With those words, Jesus reforms Scriptural law and prophesy, subsequently telling his followers that they must read past the strict letter of the law and, instead, inquire into its greater meaning, the "spirit" of the law.

That said, I simply do not see how any devout Christian today can read the Sermon on the Mount scrupulously and still support Proposition 8. Jesus' unconditional embrace of the disaffected and the marginalized in society--the poor, the meek, the persecuted--simply doesn't square, in the above Weberian sense of Christian spirituality, with the invidious, exclusionary, self-righteous, and judgmental tendencies that sanctimoniously inform the rationale behind Proposition 8. In his 1919 address, "Politics as a Vocation," Weber warned that the Sermon on the Mount is an absolute ethic; it is, he said, "no joking matter." The commandments therein are "not a cab, which one can have stopped at one's pleasure." Turning the other cheek, forgiving trespasses, loving your enemy, judging not: those are not pretty verses to be heard and then merely mouthed. Those words, rather, must be lived, and lived consistently, doing whatever one does for the least of one's brethren.

Comments

[stopthemadnessLA]

Religious intolerance and fear in 2008 is a pitiful sight to behold, indeed.

Armageddon is coming, people. And it will be in the form of LASER GAYS.

www.lasergays.com

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8.

[JohnBisceglia]

RE: MARRIAGE versus CIVIL UNIONS. Both sides have spent millions, and what is at stake?

WORD USAGE.

Yes, one side wants to use a word, the other wants to "keep" that word and "protect" it, despite how they have already destroyed any sanctity that word MIGHT have had with no-fault divorce, Las Vegas marriages & Britney, and a 50% divorce rate, for starters.....

But this word also comes with civil rights, so it is much MORE than a fight for a word.

Now that more Americans are demanding justice, it's difficult to ignore the pervasiveness of discrimination against the LGBT community in US law . We are being assaulted by 4-letter words from DADT to DOMA, with more on the way as lawmakers spend precious time creating new laws to limit our rights concerning adoption, hate crimes legislation, or even word usage. WORD USAGE?!

[Tallhill]

I have been married for 26 years, we have three daughters and, as you, I do not understand why some want to change the California Constitution to make sure that part of the Californians do not have the same right as us. Are they jealous and frustrated? Not long ago in the USA, blacks could not even stay in the same hotels as the whites. Anybody wants to keep making the same mistakes?

[Brillig]

Oh, and moderator - please do not deprive me of my right to free speech. Thanks.

[smithshaw08]

If what you say is true, that some gays wish to force churches to perform their union even though the church is against it, then I believe that is wrong. I think churches should have the right to refuse gay unions if it goes against their religion. I believe every church has the right to their beliefs, but............by denying the right to marry across the board is wrong. There are non demoninational ministers who have no problem with these marriages. I am speaking as a gay person, I have no desire to marry in a church that believes I chose this life & I'm going to hell in a handbasket. Your fear is unsubstantial.

[tide83]

Smithshaw - I agree with you 100%. Except the latter part of your statement is just you. There are way too many gays who are overly eager to force everyone (especially churches) accept their lifestyle. Both you and I know that several religions will be taken to court for "discriminating against gay lifestyles" and all it takes is one sympathetic anti-religion judge to bring down a church or any other private organization's rights.

No on 8 proponents will come out and tell everyone and that religion's in now way will ever be impacted and this is only a civil issue. I wish that were true. I would support no. The Boy Scouts lawsuit is a great example of a gay forcing his lifestyle on a group that didn't accept it. The BSA is wrong to discriminate but even worse it is wrong to take away their right to do so. He won in the state of NJ and thankfully the supreme court honored the BSA's rights.

[senioradvocate]

When my beloved partner and I became domestic partners several years ago, we downloaded the form, went to the local mail box store, paid ten dollars to a notary and showed our ID, then went home and continued our day.
When the California Supreme Court made it's landmark decision, we immediately started making plans for our wedding. We sent out invitations, made arrangements with the minister of our church, and lined up a dj and caterer. When I told the women with whom I work, they all became teary and excited and were effusively congratulatory.
Friends and family (even Baptists) came from all over the country, some of whom we'd not seen in 30 years. Our church community was openly excited and supportive. The ceremony was fabulous with many tears of joy. The reception was great fun ... we danced at our wedding.
This is the dream that as children we are told we all deserve and are expected to experience.
WE ARE ALL WORTHY IN THE SIGHT OF GOD!
This issue is about our RIGHT to have our relationship acknowledged by the STATE as one of commitment and love for each other. We have waited 26 years for this day, and will continue to lead our lives working, supporting the community and paying taxes ... LIVING LIFE LIKE ANY OTHER MARRIED COUPLE.
This is not about children, this is not about schools, this is ONLY about EQUALITY AND FAIRNESS UNDER THE LAW.
VOTE NO ON 8.

[smithshaw08]

You are absolutely right! This is ONLY about EQUALITY. I drove 12 hours one way to California this year with my partner, so that we could be legally married. We found a minister was was happy to marry us, even the notary was excited for us. The argument that ministers, businesses or photographers could be sued because they decline a gay wedding is ridiculous. I don't know of one gay couple who would want a minister or wedding photographer that wasn't a willing participant. We have waited for so long for the right to marry, I can't imagine any gay person opting for a lawsuit to set back the clock again. There will always be people who don't agree with marriage issues. But instead of assuming that gay marriage will be the end of life as we know it, observe first. If the rules in education need to be changed then make a proposition for that cause. But religious groups need to remove their noses from other peoples lives. And even though I'm ashamed at the behavior of the catholic & mormon church, I know not all the members are in favor of prop 8. I'm a catholic, I married a mormon.

[smithshaw08]

Since the mormons believe there is a gay agenda.............maybe we should explore the mormon agenda. What is driving them to such extreme measures? Yes I know they believe that they are here to have as many children as possible, even when they're not married! They have been ridiculed for polygamy, white suits, onesy undies and so on. Now they turn around and ridicule another group because they don't fit in with the norm. Are they hoping to ascend to power in politics? AKA Mitt for president.

[Pegasys9]

As a Mormon, let me set you straight on a few facts. First, we're not trying to have as many children as possible - esp. when we're not married. As a matter of fact, we don't believe in intercourse outside of marriage. I'm sure that some people have done that, but it is in no way a common practice. Polygamy has not been an aspect of the church for over 100 years.
Mormon's aren't ridiculing others because they don't fit in with the norm. They are honestly concerned with what will be taught to their children. If we don't want the homosexual lifestyle taught to our children in school, we should be able to assert that right.
Mormon's aren't trying to ascend to power, as a group, but neither do we want our rights as parents trampled on.
The author asks what drives Mormons to extreme measures. Mormons have the courage of their convictions.
Thank you

[smithshaw08]

No.........you have the audacity to think you know my life. YOUR children don't have to worry about getting the cr*p beat out of them just because they are gay, or hung on a fence post & left to die in Wyoming, just because they are gay. Your schools do NOT have to teach a word about marriage, that is up to you to teach your child. I've been to school...........not one word about marriage was every spoken. If that changes, then take up that fight!

[Cybersquirt]

I don't want the hetrosexual lifestyle promoted in schools. Can I have that right?

[Cybersquirt]

..and this has NOTHING to do with what will be taught in school. Yet another LIE by the Yes On 8 group.

STOP THE HATE - NO ON 8.

[smithshaw08]

John, thank you for sharing some very important points.

For many years religion has cherry picked what they want from whatever version of the bible they read. We all know that scriptures have been translated & rewritten many times over. So I take with a tiny grain of salt, what is written. I was raised Catholic & it pains me to see the catholic church on board with the mormon leaders for prop 8. But I stopped going to catholic services long ago, and prefer a more accepting crowd. In my opinion, the mormon leaders are flexing their self-righteous muscle, and hoping the ignorant will hop on board. They believe that gays are going straight to hell. They can believe what they want.............but they cross the line when they try to force their beliefs on the rest of the population. I've read the posts from mormon members on their mormonfor8. It's far from Christ-like. It should be called mormonsforhate. I will pray for souls.

[GregJL]

John, let me see if I can explain it to you.

The conservative worldview is a family-based view centered on a strong central authority figure. That central authority figure is Daddy. The job of Daddy is to protect and provide for the family. That is the MALE job. The job of the Mommy is cooking, cleaning, etc. and telling the children that everything Daddy says is right, since he is the authority figure. That is the FEMALE job. This is the ONLY way it works, in a conservative worldview. Now, in a same sexx marriage, one of these two figures would most obviously be missing, since there would be two MALES or two FEMALES. So, if we allow same sex marriages, the whole basis for the conservative worldview would completely disintegrate because we would be allowing that some other model than the "one man in charge, one woman subject to the man" is workable. See, even though there are progressive heterosexual marriages out there, with equal partnership, conservatives can ignore that fact because they have the APPEARANCE of the traditional "one man, one woman". They might even go so far as thinking that couples only SAY they are equal when in fact the man is ruling the roost. But there is NO way to fool themselves with same sex relationships. So their whole world WOULD come crumblng down.

And I say good riddance if it does.

[elsie900]

You beat me to it, and hit the nail on the head. It's really about maintaining a power structure. That's why they don't have a problem with polygamists who marry young girls!

[harriettubman]

What family did you grow up in?

[bahamaslass]

In the UK parents can refuse that their children take part in any class about sex education. As an Elementary School Principal ( Primary School in UK) I had to have consent forms from each parent/guardian before Year 6 children could take part. We also ran evening classes for the parents,where we shared the contents of such classes and ran a video, which we intended to show to the children, to get parental feedback. In all of my years as an educator (30yrs) I never had a parent refuse to allow their child to take part in these classes. Ours is a multicultural society, I have worked in state schools and religious schools, taught the children of Christians, Muslims, Jews and a variety of lesser known religions. When sex education is taught in an honest, open way our children benefit. Sometimes children raise questions with teachers that they are embarrassed to raise with their parents, sometimes they ask questions which we as teachers, cannot answer. By having a dialogue with parents we can usually answer most questions between us.
Same sex relationships are seen by our children every day on the TV and in their neighbourhoods. They associate with gay and straight alike at school. Are those who are for Proposition 8 going to refuse to let their children associate with gays in school?........ this will be the next step. I say no to Prop 8.

[harriettubman]

America is not the U.K. It takes time with issues in this country. Where you see naked people on commericals in Europe, you will not see that here.

And yes some children are having problems with it. At my son's high school, a parent had it out with the gym teacher because her daughter did not want to shower with known gay students in her class. They had to allow the student to shower alone. That is her right. The students are going around telling the entire school they're gay. Who needs to know that? As a consequence, they've put fear in some of the students who know nothing about that lifestyle.

I've talked with my children about it and explained that they should not be treated any different than anyone else but many parents have not and will not. That's just a reality. I also don't believe the students need to go around advertising their sexual orientation either.

[carsntrucks]

The way I see it is, most of you are going to hear what you want to hear. Yes on 8-ers are not trying to propagate hatred, bigotry, and intolerance because they feel marriage should stay between a man and a woman. And they're less likely to change if they see how the second they voice their opinion, people hastily make with the passive-aggressive insults. Whatever.

To be honest, if Prop 8 doesn't pass, things will more than likely get worse for the LGBT community, legally and culturally. Change and equality are all good, but you're sorely mistaken if you think you can beat people over the head with it and everything will be cool.

[antaeus]

You mean like things got worse for the LGBT community in Massachusetts? Or in Spain?

Heads up: it didn't get worse. And that, of course, is what drives the bigots. Even they perceive the seamless nature of the change in the areas where same-sex marriage has been approved.

The question is not whether or not we should "beat people over the head" with things. Rather the question is whether we allow an increasingly smaller segment of society control all of us just in order that they can feel their religio-mythical fantasies are universally accepted. They aren't.

[GregJL]

Or like how things got worse for blacks when civil rights laws were passed.

[vipersdad]

Their "feeling" that marriage should stay between a man and a woman is solely based on a parochial religious viewpoint. We have a constitution that supposedly places a firewall between state and religion and religion and state.

There USED to be laws preventing people of color marrying white people of european origin (until relatively recently), and it USED to be legal to own slaves. Both of these were also flawed laws that were frequently defended by pointing to scripture.

You are making the classic "slippery slope" argument which is fallacious. There is no reason to assume that because "X" happens, then "Y" is inevitable, especially (as antaeus points out) since there is evidence to the contrary in Spain and Massachusetts.

It saddens me that people have such little understanding of the power of our constitution and its' greatness that they would play around with it in this way. It also saddens me that people who claim to be Christians spend so much energy and money on issues like this when there are poor, hungry, and forgotten people around them that desperately need their help.

Because I disagree with you does not mean I won't pray for you. I firmly believe that were Jesus walking among us today, he would attend a Gay wedding and the wine would be sweet.

Bless you.

[Brillig]

If only we could convince ourselves that gay people are indeed, poor, hungry and forgotten - then we might be convinced they need help.

They seem to be doing just fine infiltrating modern thought without any assistance, thank you.

[MathIsTruth]

I'm sorry, but as a long time Massachusetts resident, I can tell you with the-sun-will-rise-tomorrow certainty that there are NO ill-effects to society as a result of legal gay marriage.

And when I say "NO ill-effects", I mean none. Zero. Nada. Nil.

Goose egg.

Sorry. You don't get to have an opinion on things that are rock-hard facts.

People who oppose gay marriage are indeed propagating hatred, bigotry and intolerance whether that is what they are "trying" to do or not.

[complice]

Interesting. Is that some sort of thinly-veiled threat?

[LS1958]

In 2004, Michigan passed (by 59 percent) this constitutional amendment: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Proponents swore this was all about "protecting" marriage and not at all about issues like health benefits for same sex partners, but within months of its passage, the state attorney general ruled that the new law prohibited offering those benefits to same sex partners. SURPRISE! As those of us who opposed the measure understood, it was always designed to create a legal definition of human partnerships that would allow discrimination against 10 percent of our population.

Look at who's behind this measure, where the money comes from. That'll tell you all you need to know.

[Downing]

If this is a religious issue, then how come atheists can get married? Where is the uproar over that?

[vipersdad]

Great question...

"The establishment clause...." It was designed to protect religion FROM government. Wish these people understood there are two edges to the blade.

[Downing]

The Sermon On The Mount is the greatest thing ever said. But if you look at Christianity as a whole, or the most visible part, it seems like the majority have no idea what it says. These are tall orders that don't seem to fit into the world as we know it. Bless them that curse you? Love your enemies? Turn the other cheek? You'll be killed!
If you really believe in a loving God, that won't scare you. we are called to be righteous even in the face of death.
Most churches teach that you must be good or God will punish you; thus people act out of fear and self-preservation. That is the antithesis of what Jesus spells out in the great dispensation.

[luziannagirl]

Science is revealing that sexual orientation in man and many other animals is actually not either-or, male or female, but a continuum along which there are many points, possibilities, and variations, and of course, whether it's a human or a dog or a frog, individuals have very little control over where they end up along that spectrum.

There are individual frogs which change their sex from one fully functional gender to the other, given the right environments.

There are male dogs when placed in a pack of males chasing a female in heat, show more interest in the other males than in the female.

And there are people with working female reproductive parts which present as square-jawed, fully bearded males absolutely no one would mistake for a female when fully clothed, and vice versa.

And there are all variations between.

Some are postulating that this gender spectrum, which we humans try so hard to conceal, is actually one of our main strengths, keeping us alive and extant, and contributing greatly to our success as a species. Perhaps the old saying, "It takes all kinds to make the world go round" has more factual, scientific validity than anyone ever thought.

It is certainly provides one more wedge point between certain religious leaders and science, if not between Jesus' teachings and at least some of Jesus' followers.

[truthandvalues]

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

[Soulsurfer]

"Traditional Morality"? You mean the 2000 + year old doctrine of people who thought thunder and lightening were signs that "God" was angry? How ignorant were the ancients? Extremely. Why not move into the 21st century, and accept that homosexuality exists in nature? These are human beings, law abiding citizens, who deserve the same rights as everyone else. I guess your right to teach your children bigotry at home is preserved, as well as the right to "worship" who or whom ever you want. Just don't expect the rest of us to believe in myths, legends, and fairy tales.

[truthandvalues]

My beliefs do not require you to believe as I do.

However, I take great great exception when my parental rights would be trampled by the school system in teaching that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral.

My religious beliefs hold that there is, "... undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony. "
Therefore what right does the state have to negate that teaching.

Does that not infringe upon my civil rights as a parent, freedom of express, freedom of religion, separation of church and state?

[LS1958]

I went to school with a kid from a Jehovah's Witness family. He never stood for the pledge of allegiance or participated in any holiday celebrations, to the point of not eating a cupcake when it was offered to him. He was mercilessly teased, but he always stood up for his beliefs.

If your child isn't already equipped to stand against the moral challenges he or she will face every day, that's not the fault of public schools. And frankly, if you spend a little time in schools today, you'll find that what you fear is far less troubling than what already goes on in the hallways.

[GearheadGeek]

I don't recall any instruction about marriage (certainly not in elementary school.) Certainly students in health and sex-education classes need to learn about reproduction, social diseases, etc. but I don't think they're taught all possible aspects of sex and sexuality... or have fellatio and cunnilingus become part of the curriculum?

I think this "argument" is spurious. The whole "OMG schools will have to teach ICKY stuff!" meme is not convincing.

[smithshaw08]

Since the gays should never be allowed to marry in your eyes...............how about we no longer have to pay property taxes to educate your children in public schools. Since you choose to descriminate against me, I would like to exclude the mormon kids from public schools where all "the gays" have to pay taxes, bond issues, blah blah blah. Go back into your temple & keep your religion to yourself. Next time you open your mouth you should be more educated on the subject because you've bought the elders lies hook, line & sinker!

[Pegasys9]

The Elders don't lie. Stop smearing religious people and teachings you know nothing about.