The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Proposition 8 passed because of religious folk. There is no question about it. Church-going Black Americans, tithe-paying Mormons, mass-attending Latinos, and Evangelical whites all joined forces in "protecting marriage." The underlying reason religious people voted to revoke from gays and lesbians the legal right to marry is doggedly theological: God doesn't like it. And when a society or culture does things that God doesn't like, that society or culture will suffer. This is a central tenet of every religion, and has been ever since the first shaman first claimed to be able to discern the will of the Almighty by examining the patterns in a bowl full of crushed berries.

And it simply isn't true. If God punishes societies that violate his commandments and rewards those that do, this just isn't apparent by looking at the state of the world today. The sociological fact is that the most irreligious nations right now are among the most successful, humane, moral, and free, while the most religious nations tend to be among the most destitute, chaotic, crime-ridden, and undemocratic. A similar pattern also holds true within the United States: those states and counties that boast the greatest numbers of strong believers and regular church attenders tend to have higher poverty rates, child abuse rates, violent crime rates, and lower educational attainment rates than those states and counties characterized by more secular populations.

Consider the nations of Scandinavia specifically. These countries are noteworthy because they were among the first nations to make abortion legal and readily available and they were also among the first nations (along with Holland) to allow for gay marriage. Indeed, gays and lesbians have been able to wed in these countries of Northern Europe for nearly 20 years now. And what is the state of society in these relatively irreligious nations, where weekly church attendance is among the lowest in the world and belief in God is markedly thin? They lead the world on nearly all indicators of societal well-being. From economic prosperity to low crime rates, from equality between men and women to excellent child welfare, from life expectancy to low rates of H.I.V., the relatively godless (or at least God-indifferent) nations of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Holland suggest that secularity - and acceptance of gay marriage, specifically -- doesn't bring down the wrath of God at all. And yet when we look at the most religious nations in the world - especially those that severely condemn homosexuality, such as Iran, Angola, and Mauritania -- we see extreme poverty, high violent crime rates, oppression of women, dictatorship, warfare, corruption, etc..

Where is the best place to be a mother and raise children? According to the latest Save the Children Report, it is relatively godless Sweden. The worst? Extremely Godful Niger. How about murder rates? Highly religious Columbia leads the globe, while highly secular Japan is near the bottom. What about strong economies? According to the World Economic Forum, of the top ten nations boasting today's most competitive economies, nine are relatively irreligious (the USA being the sole exception). According to the latest Global Peace Index, the top five most peaceful nations are simultaneously among the most secular, such as Denmark, which ranks in at #2. Even when it comes to suicide rates, it is the former Soviet nations that lead the pack, some of which are fairly secular, but most of which are quite religious, such as Lithuania.

Admittedly, atheist-communist regimes constitute an ugly experiment in human misery. North Korea is far from a beacon of societal health. The same can be said of the former U.S.S.R, China, or little Albania under former atheist-dictator Enver Hoxha. There is no question that atheism coupled with totalitarianism is a veritable recipe for societal disaster. But as for democracies that forgo God -- societies in which secularism is not forced upon a captive citizenry by dictators, but emerges organically and freely over several generations -- the overall international pattern is unmistakable. It is the more godless democracies - and especially those that allow for gays and lesbians to wed -- that are faring the best, while it is the more God-worshipping and homosexual-condemning nations that are faring the worst.

When it comes to God and the acceptance of gay marriage, the religious supporters of Proposition 8 certainly have a right to their opinion. But that doesn't make their opinion right.

Comments

[PhillyBella]

The "religious" nations you cite are Muslim nations. Not all religions have the same ideals.

[scotus1]

When appellate courts look at an issue, they often will discuss and decide it in context of its effect on society, not just its adherence to the letter of the law. This is the key to this "modest proposal."

Let an interested party prepare a ballot initiative that would, in the spirit of Proposition 8, BAN MORMONS FROM BEING ABLE TO MARRY IN CALIFORNIA.

The rationale: Proposition 8 stands for the principle that a majority in a society can restrict a civil right of a minority when the majority has concerns that the minority might somehow abuse that civil right.

Proposition 8 restricts the rights of gays to exercise the choice of marrying someone of their choice because there might be some future abuse from the exercise of that right eventhough no such abuses occured.

However, the situation with Mormons is quite something else again. The religion has a long tradition of pluralistic marriages and even though the mainstream Mormon Church no longer condones the practice, Mormon offshoots have had literally thousands of pluralistic marriages; a practice continuing to this day. State attorneys general in Utah and neighboring states admit the practice is rampant in their states but they typically don't prosecute unless there are extenuating circumstances; e.g., the Warren Jeffs scandal.

Since Mormons have demonstrated in inappropriately high numbers they are simply not responsible citizens to exercise the right of marriage, should not society, in the spirit of Prop 8, restrict that right?

[herrshaftdesgottes]

Scotus is on to something here. As the justices of the California Supreme Court hear and evaluate the challenge to Proposition 8, they would almost certainly become aware of an extant movement to qualify a ballot initiative that would ban marriage for Mormons based on the salient principles of Prop 8. Delicious irony aside, it would be hard to conceive of a rational court upholding Prop 8 when they see it can and WILL be used as enabling legislation to take away the civil rights of minority populations who may be held in contempt or disfavor by the majority.

To the argument that the Constitution would never allow a religion to be singled out for such a ban, the counter argument would simply be: Mormons are not a religion. They are a cult and as such enjoy no such protection. This is certainly the point of view of Christian evangelicals.

The irony becomes doubly delicious when you consider that the Christian evangelicals (who polls indicated were the most committed bloc voting for Prop 8 ) would be the most ardent supporters of a ban on Mormon marriage.

[Wickywoo]

>>>Admittedly, atheist-communist regimes constitute an ugly experiment in human misery.

[JohnBisceglia]

As I read Phil's article, I kept wondering why the American Psychological Association has NOT spoken out MORE forcefully about the SERIOUS harm these "props" and "amendments" cause; my worst fears about PROP 8 were confirmed November 18th by the American Psychological Association: Anti Same-Sex Marriage Amendments Spark Psychological Distress..........

http://www.apa.org/releases/glbt-stress-1108.html

Government-Sanctioned Psychological Warfare Against Families and Children? How else shall we interpret these findings? The "marriage conversation" needs to focus more on the suffering experienced when those 1,138 federal rights are denied. The REAL LIFE SUFFERING; the tangible, empirical ramifications of this government-approved psychological & spiritual abuse.

"Amendments that restrict civil marriage rights of same-sex couples " such as Proposition 8 that recently passed in California " have led to higher levels of stress and anxiety among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adults, as well as among their families of origin".

Yes, even those who love us are stressing from PROP 8 and other electoral insults.....with good reason. No family exists in a vacuum; did voters and constitution experts forget about The Family Tree? The stories of other Americans need to be heard, esp. by Huckabee, Norris, Newt, or other idiots who are allowed to use microphones. Marriage laws were put in place many years ago in order to PROTECT individuals and their families; if they were not necessary THEY WOULD NOT EXIST (for the heterosexuals).

Americans want to deny us what they DEEM ESSENTIAL.

[mercury613]

Great article Mr. Zuckerman. Thank you.

It occurred to me while reading your second to last paragraph that virtually the only difference between an atheist dictatorship and fundamentalist religion is the fact that one has a visible dictator, while the other has an invisible one.

Totalitarianism in any form is bad.

[operamartyc]

I enjoyed your piece and certainly agree with it and have always thought that perhaps God, if he exists and does have wisdom, created "gay" people to control procreation of the species. That is not important but love of the human race is supposed to be. I was raised a Christian and believed in Santa Claus too up until I realized the "imaginary friends" applied to both. I also liked Sam Harris' books. I have gay friends who don't understand why anyone would "want to get married" but to not allow gay marriages is also wrong in a country that is based on equal protection under the law, etc. Since the religious institutions in this country want to engage in politics, they should pay for the privilege and pay taxes to the state and federal governments. When they do, they can pay and lobby for anything they want. Until then, they should shut up about all things political. Stick to their hymn books and the Jewish fairy tales of the Bible. It is only reasonable that gays should be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of the married population - gay or straight! (Yes, I'm divorced and much happier, single!)

[redlinemetro]

Funny group the religious right. Bible in one hand and gun in the other. Even though they can overlook the passage thou shalt not kill they get stuck on same sex matrimony as being unholy.

[wndrwrthg]

"Trust in the Lord, but keep your powder dry".

[gaydm]

If all the focus of these amendments is to end sin. Then why not just go straight to the heart of the problem and banish religion. End religion and then no more sin. It is really as simple as that.

[allthings]

As someone who worked in the wedding industry for a few years, in my experience, marriage (small "m") for 80% of people has to do with love and rather little to do with religion. For all you married folk. Why did you YOU get married rather than just live together? Was it because it is a blessed event attended and celebrated by Jesus? It is a joining of two souls and flesh into one? because fidelity in marriage is one of the Ten Commandments? Most likely no. Most likely because you were very much in love and wanted to partner with and maybe raise children with (if not create children with) someone for the rest of your life and to have the governmental protections for each other and for those children.

I assure you that is precisely why same sex couples want to get married too, because it shows love, commitment, responsibility. No religious argument exists for withholding marriage because atheists have the unimpeded right to get married.

My point, 1) I want to completely separate religious marriage from civil marriage and grant civil marriage to all consenting adults 2) Get people to come back to church more often then just to get married or witness others getting married.

[llisa]

When my Jewish husband and I (formerly Presbyterian) married, God excused himself from our ceremony. His rabbi wouldn't do it, and my preacher would only do it if he converted. They both said it wouldn't last. So we were married by a judge.

31 years later, I am here to say the marriage lasted, but our religions didn't. We decided to absent ourselves from any religions too narrow-minded to allow two adults who loved each other to marry.

If church members who disagree with their churches' stands on gay marriage would speak out or walk out, maybe these church leaders would think twice about trying to control the lives of people who are not even members of their churches.

[JohnBisceglia]

HuffPost's Pick

Why aren't all of the ba-zillion NON-religious heterosexual couples barred from getting married in the U.S. ?

Aren't their marriages just "Civil marriages" performed with a Justice of the Peace ?

THEY get to use the word "marriage". We are "not allowed". I don't understand.....

[Dohiyi]

Most Christians claim to believe that God abhors sin but grants everyone free will to decide how to behave. Moreover, God loves people, despite their sinful ways, and offers forgiveness to believers.

Given such a belief system, why are devout Christians so determined to take away other people's ability to exercise their free will? Why ban abortion and/or gay marriage? Even assuming that Christians are right in believing that God regards such behavior as sinful, the Godly thing to do would be to allow people the freedom to decide for themselves how to behave. It is up to God to judge their behavior and to decide whether or not to forgive sins.

[mercury613]

Ah, yes, the concept of "free will." Believe in me and do exactly as I say or be doomed for eternity.

That's called coercion.

[Phil Zuckerman - Huffpost Blogger]

Oops -- I forgot to include the atypical case of Utah, which needs to be pointed out as an exception to the general pattern I outline in my post. Allthough VERY religious, Utah does quite well on most measures of societal well being, from low crime rates to healthy people, etc. But I wil stress, Utah is the exception.

[ReverseCurve]

Here is the difference in a union between a man and a woman and a couple of the same sex: The couple of the same sex can never pro-create, i.e., bring a new life into the world. That is the only difference between the couples, but it is not a differnce to be taken casually. Think of the ramifications!
Hence, the separate monikers that the country should apply to these different unions is validated in the fact of the copulation of thesexes: Human life.

Married is the joing of a man and a woman. Civil unions recognizes the differnce in the couples yet provides the legal rights that same sex couples seek.

if miltant gays accept this, their battle will be one of victory.

[LeftRight]

And yet my wife and I are unable to procreate, she having had her tubes tied after the birth of her third child. I am still, however, legally married to her. So are you claiming that my marriage should be dissolved against my will?????? I EAGERLY await your answer, o wise one!

[ReverseCurve]

That is the typical response heard repeatedly. If we as intelligent beings will stop and think this through for a moment: The answer is ability. Barring health issues, the pill, tubes being tied, infertility and other preventive/health reasons, the male and female species have the ABILITY to pro-create. That can never be said for two of the same sex. Can it? (Please answer).

Hence, without bringing a religious slant to the debate, the reasoning is sound. Civil unions should be granted to same sex couples while marriage (the joing of a man and a woman in a sexual nature will produce a new life) should continue to be reserved (and respected) for heterosexual couples.

[ReverseCurve]

To answer that question specifically: Of course not! (See my previous response on "ability.).

[llisa]

Exactly! My daughter and son-in-law are unable to procreate. But they are legally wed and going through the adoption process right now.

If procreation is the prerequisite for marriage, there would be many heterosexual couples for whom it would be illegal to marry, including my 90-year-old friend who was married 64 years till her husband's death and who never had any children.

[diegodave]

My husband and I (married 10/31 in CA) are raising our sons, ages 9 and 7, biologically our children. We procreated with the assistance of a surrogate mother. God gave humans brains to figure out how to make their dreams possible. The so-called Christians can look my sons in the eye and tell them that their family is not legitimate or worthy of the same recognition as others... Jesus would be so proud of all of you that voted Yes on 8... so filled with his love for mankind.

[ReverseCurve]

"The so-called Christians can look my sons in the eye and tell them that their family is not legitimate or worthy of the same recognition as others... "

I did not say any such thing in my response. No one here is talking about families being 'illegitimate." And I did not introduce the religious element.

I am trying to point out the difference as to why marriage is between a man and a woman and civil unions (which I support, inclusive all the legal rights) is between two people of the same sex. That difference is not diminsihing anything unless YOU say it is. I don't hold to that one iota.

[gaydm]

Where in a civil marriage contract, is pro-creation, mandated, ordered, required, or demanded. It is not. Children are NOT a part of a marriage contract. You are not required to have a child, you may have one if you wish. That license is for 2 persons, not 2 and a half plus dog and 3 cars. 2 people only. They must be adult, usually over the age of 18, some states have different age limits, They must be willing to freely consent. No forced marriage. Yes some states will allow cousins to marry. Your argument that same gender couples may not marry is false. Gender is NOT an issue of the states.

[ReverseCurve]

The question is this: Can a same sex couple pro-create, i.e., bring a new life into the world? The answer, unless you know something most of us do not, is no, they cannot.

So, in order to bring forth new life, gender IS the only issue (versus NOT being an issue as you stated).

And to address another question from another person: Of course marriages where there are no children are valid! The DIFFERENCE is marriage is between a man and a woman (children or none). Civil unions are between same sex couples.

If there is a difference in the result of a sexual union beween a healthy male and female without preventitive measures being taken (that result being a newborn) then it stands reason there should be a diiference in what the two unions are called.

It ultimately comes down to the ABILITY of what a male/female sexual union produces.
Same sex couples do not share that ability. Hence, it is completely acceptable to call one union civil and another marrriage.

[goodgravy]

my 80 year old widowed mother just remarried. clearly, there won't be any pro-creation going on. my brother, on his 4th church sanctified marriage, has no spawn of his loins. i have two aunts/uncles who never produced a little pooper. and right off the top of my head i can think of 6 married het couples who have no kids. are these marriages valid?

[smithshaw08]

What you fail to understand is, civil unions DO NOT provide the same rights as a marriage. My marriage license was issued from the state, NOT the church. Civil unions to not carry from one state to another. Marriage is a word not a procreation requirement. We reproduce human life in a test tube, your argument is lacking all sides. Let's call is marriage & religious marriage for everyone to be inclusive.

[bwilder]

The founding fathers had it right. The further we stray from their original
intent regarding separation of church and state the worse things get.

I have a deep faith in a higher power. However, when it comes to my government
I want policies that are for ALL of the people, not just those that adhere to a specific
religious belief.

I'm strong enough and faithful enough to know that it's my own personal
actions in my own day-to-day life that determine my destiny. Forcing my
beliefs on my fellow citizens is, in my opinion, very un-God like.

[noel08]

Great post!

[llisa]

Thank you! My thoughts, too! I would never expect others to adhere to my way of thinking, nor would I ever force it on them. And I would really appreciate it if they do me the same courtesy.

[kevinlangendorf]

Very good post. If I may go off on a paranoid tangent for a moment though...

While thinking about all this Prop 8 stuff, it occured to me that what this is actually all about is killing two birds with one stone. Step 1, enrage the gay community by claiming it was the black vote that curtailed marriage equality, Step 2, bring back votes on Affirmative Action, Step 3, incite the gay community to come out for a revenge vote, Step 4, no marriages for gay folks, no more affirmative action, and the two groups that suffer have only themselves to blame.

Again, maybe I am being paranoid, but don't be surprised when Affirmative Action referendums start appearing on ballots and the GLBT community is riled up again to provide that bit of extra umpf at the ballot box.

[goodgravy]

that's not how we roll in california. yes, you are paranoid.

[M1]

Each individual's belief in Equality for All has no doubt been challenged by our disappointment in our brothers and sisters who voted yes for prop 8. However, the vision and committment to equality does not depend upon those who disappoint but rather on those who stay committed and continue to work for the vision.

I decided not to let others define my humanity. I have accepted that it is okay to want Equality even for those persons who do not want it for me....this helps me stay immuned to strategies of divide and conquer. That said....economic boycotts are fine....discriminatory propositions against any group are not.