Marriage Equality Struck Down in California -- One Year Later

November 4th will mark both the one-year anniversary of the historic election of America's first African American president, and the historic denial of the fundamental civil right of marriage to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens of the State of California under Proposition 8.

The idea of Marriage Equality as a civil right was clouded last year by an effective campaign led by conservative evangelical Christians who framed marriage as a purely religious institution. The campaign used scripture to justify their notion that same-gender marriage is against God's will. Many voters, who consider themselves to be Christians, and many African-American voters who normally vote to uphold civil rights, instead cast their vote based on their religious convictions, without regard to their actions' impact on freedom, justice and equality.

On this anniversary of the passage of Proposition 8, the challenge that proponents of marriage equality face now is how to reframe the issue within the context of social justice so voters are not unwittingly contributing to the discrimination, oppression and marginalization the LGBT community has faced based on a conservative interpretation of 2,000-year-old texts.

The only way to reframe the issue of marriage equality amongst those who voted against It, is to engage voters at their point of reference...religion. This is not to suggest that we must stay at that point of reference, but we must start there. The reasoning behind this strategy is simple: on any journey, you must meet people where they are before you can get them to where they need to be.

I have encountered many well-intentioned and otherwise justice-minded Christians who voted against marriage equality last November because, "their Christian conscience would not allow them to support same-gender marriage." To them I ask, does your Christian conscience allow you to discriminate, oppress, persecute, condemn or judge others? One of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that God is the only One able to judge us. Therefore, for Christians who struggle with marriage equality as a matter of conscience, perhaps they should have allowed God to be the judge by abstaining from voting in that political election. Imagine how different the outcome of the November elections would have been if all those who voted against Marriage Equality based on their religious convictions simply hadn't voted on the measure at all.

Many voters who voted against marriage equality strongly believe in the idea of marriage as a religious institution, rather than a civil one, and claim that the Bible's example of a traditional marriage is between one man and one woman.

For those of us who have truly studied the scriptures and the Bible's patriarchs, it's clear that traditional marriage also included men with multiple wives and even more concubines. From Abraham to Isaac, David to Solomon, and every patriarch in between, the Bible characterizes traditional marriage as less than monogamous, with women being the property of men. Clearly, the Bible's traditions around marriage do not dictate the structure of marriage today. For women voters, this important detail is particularly resonant.

Indeed, I have also found it effective to state the obvious: marriage licenses are issued by the Secretary of State, an elected, publicly paid official. While clergy request the license and affix their signature and denomination, they require the signatures of two witnesses before conducting the ceremony; and they must verbalize as part of the ceremony, "by the powers vested in me by the state of California", indicating that they are operating as an Agent of the State. The religious component of the ceremony reflects the traditions and culture of the participants. Without the sanction of the State, no marriage would be legal.

The objective is to engage voters in a rational dialogue - one which questions why their personal religious convictions entitle them to deny a fundamental civil right to an entire a group of people. It is paramount to forcibly imposing their theology upon individual citizens and state institutions, violating the principle of separation of church and state. If the voter is of the Christian belief, ask them how they would feel if Islam was forced upon them. If the voter is a Muslim, ask them how they would feel if Judaism was forced upon them.

At the center of this issue is the right to choose how individuals live their lives. Freedom of choice is essential and critical to our democratic ideals, and also a core component of the Christian faith. At no time should any tax paying citizen be denied the constitutional right to freedom. The issue of Marriage Equality needs to framed as a right to freedom, justice and equality, the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

Jesus asked that we love our neighbors as we love ourselves. This is our opportunity to follow in His footsteps and show the true power of His words.

 

Comments

[richdibo]

If every Christian picked the brightest, juiciest, and delicious cherries from the bible that Mr. Lee picks, same-sex marriages would not be an issue.

Why should the bible even be relevant?

[Peter Danbridge]

Someone brought up Genesis.

I get a kick out of the religious anti-gay folks using Genesis against us, for a couple of reasons.

We hear all the time the vapid battle cry "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

So, first off, they're using what is essentially an incest story to condemn our alleged sexual immorality.

Adam and Eve had kids and from there what? The kids had two choices, to reproduce: pick a parent or pick a sibling.

Secondly, to "protect the sancitity of marriage," in their allegations that we will taint it or devalue it, they use the story of original sin...um...isn't that the story of how a heterosexual couple really screwed it up for ALL OF US, in what, less than a week or so, wasn't it?

Yeah, Eve couldn't control herself and her primal urges, so logic dictates you use her as a role model as a weapon against a minority group you wish to marginalize and stereotype as being unable to control primal urges.

Oh, the irony of it all.

Oh, the irony.

[Zed Oud]

"...with women being the property of men."

{This being an objective statement I am forced (if I do not agree based on objective reasons) to refute it in an objective argument.}

So one tiny problem... no.

Marriage was an institution developed/adopted by the Judaic ancestors in a world where the statement "my woman" and the subsequent action of dragging said person by their hair away was just not enough anymore ( that was meant as a joke). But seriously, before the idea of marriage, the officiated (yes there were records even back then) joining of a man and woman did not exist.
This institution was initially created to protect woman who wished to be in a relationship with a particular man from being taken or claimed by another. This institution thus created a social contract that the society of that time quickly adopted as well; much like how new civilizations adopt a government.
So back when what we call a wife or married woman (now) would be swapped about, kidnapped, or kidnapped and abused without social consequence, an institution of "marriage" was developed.

In summary, this institution was created to respect a woman's choice to be in a relationship with a man.
Nifty, ain't it?

(Initially it was used this way, how subsequent generations and societies abused this institution is of no concern in this argument, as this argument is concerned with the early (think Abrahamic times) idea or definition of marriage.)

[Zed Oud]

(Continued from last to clarify)
The premise does not allow a Christian to judge everyone based on any act, if one were to judge someone for murder, assuming they were never to murder, or be responsible for murder, they might find out that in the reality of things, their everyday actions will ripple, affecting those around them affecting the moods and feelings of a potential murderer: in other words, if it weren't for you, it might have not happened. It's your fault. Your responsible. And if you think harshly of the murderer (versus condemning the actual murder) then you yourself, as having partial responsibility for said murder, are judged as harshly as your harshest moment of judgement or hatred against said hypothetical murderer.

In summary: A lot of these so-called "fundamental truths of Christianity" are in fact guidelines meant solely as advice or guidance to unfounded Christians (unfounded means they have not put time or understanding in to seeking the reasoning behind a doctrine, premise or "fundamental truth").

(btw, I love philosophy if you didn't catch it while reading this or decided to skip to the end. Here's from Brian Magee who I'm sure paraphrased this together:
"The very fact that we argue about whether a particular reason is a good one
means that we believe that a good reason deserves universal sanction.
If a reason is valid, it is universally valid." )

[Zed Oud]

"One of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that God is the only One able to judge us."

I would have to disagree:
When one is still learning the fundamentals of Christianity, the above statement is true only so far is it is used as a guide line, again, only as a guide line. Christianity, especially and specifically amongst Evangelicals, is taught in the manner of a philosophy or intellectual inquiry. This not to say that it is treated like a philosophy instead of a religion (which would be wonderful).
If someone takes a Philosophy 101 class, they are learning it through curriculum, same as Christianity.

So when one learns more of Christianity and accepts more of it (if taught in the style of a philosophy class, either from a Church or school environment) they will learn the premises or the philosophical reasons behind these "fundamental truths."

In this case the reason for the above quote is that, as a Christian, or anyone else, being judged on the Judgement Day, the true premise is much harsher:
"Judge others only in so far as you are willing to be judged yourself."
This sounds like an extension to the Golden Rule: "Do unto others..." It almost is, but is based on different scripture.
So this premise is interesting and dangerous, as Socrates would say: damaging to the soul.

[MamaBear6]

I support marriage between one man and one woman. Why? Because I believe it is morally wrong any other way. I have a question... if it is NOT okay to condemn gay marriage based on my moral beliefs, why is it okay to condemn the FLDS and their polygamy ( I am not referring to marriage with underage girls, only adults) based on my moral beliefs? They are both alternative marriage forms that one could argue does not hurt anyone else. I do not support polygamy, just as I do not support gay marriage. Why? It is simply a matter of my moral beliefs.

If I voted against a law that would allow polygamy, would I be accused of being hateful, discriminatory, oppressive or harshly judging polygamists? Probably not. Why should it be any different now?

Every person who votes on this issue basically votes based on what they feel is morally right at that time! Whether those morals come from religion or upbringing or WHATEVER will vary from person to person. We have the right to vote according to our own conscience, as protected by our constitution. I hope that we can continue to exercise that right without finding retribution upon our heads for doing so! Perhaps in 50 years, we will also allow polygamy and incest in order to not hurt feelings. Sometimes I think that we are so afraid of "discriminating" that we no longer feel that we can stand up for what we believe is right!

[AlaskanWannaB]

Agreed!

[richdibo]

Agreed! We should not allow same-sex polygamous marriages.

[kidquertus]

The only restriction on civil marriage is on the number of people you can marry. Not the kind, color, origin, or the religious persuasion of the (one) person you want to marry. There's no reason fear that allowing gay marriage will open that door. None.

Many of the arguments against polygamy (and bigamy and adultery -- also illegal -- tell a few senators, they may not know), is that it is demonstrably harmful to women and children. And the state has a compelling interest to protect children. How is it harmful to children? Polygamy as practiced here and around the world is mostly one man marrying several women (polygyny) not one woman marrying a bunch of men (polyandry) -- and it its practice, we've seen trafficking, statutory rape, incest, and abuse of women. Documented. Frowned upon.

The law that made polygamy illegal was not based on the rights of women, but on the fact that bigamy was already illegal. The Supreme Court decided that the free exercise of religion was not a good enough reason to permit those practicing that religion to break the law.

Everyone has the constitutional right to vote his or her conscience, but if the thing you're voting on is denies rights to a subset of the population based solely on a characteristic of that population, your vote will eventually be declared unconstitutional.

[mithras93]

Well said.

[FearlessFreep]

Funny how Prop 8 ended up being about the black victimology.

[carsntrucks]

It's funny that the gay community wants so bad for the rest of us to support them, but they have never shown an ounce of interest in anything the rest of us go through. The only time they rally for a cause is when it's something gay related.

[xenas mom]

Had you cited specifics, rather than the generalization "anything the rest of us go through," it would be easier to respond. However, let me assure you that (a) Yes, the LGBTQ community is vitally interested in LGBTQ issues; (b) AND the LGBTQ community is also vitally interested in a spectrum of other issues, such as the health-care debate (yes, we are human, we do require health care), taxes (yes, we do pay taxes--indeed married same-sex couples pay more taxes for fewer benefits than do opposite-sex married couples), the recession (yes, we do have jobs, lose jobs, have 401ks that are performing as well or as poorly as those held by straight folks), the housing crisis (yes, we do own homes that were as devalued as our straight counterparts)...In short, we are just as interested in "anything the rest of us go through." The difference is, we must also care about gaining equal rights that the straight folks already have.

[mercury613]

carsntrucks: it's funny that the gay community wants so bad for the rest of us to support them, but they have never shown an ounce of interest in anything the rest of us go through.
---------

Really? Please point us to evidence that will back up your statement. Otherwise it's just another one of your meaningless generalizations about a group of people you obviously know nothing about.

[Liberal Angel]

What are talking about? We're in this recession boat just like evryone else. The difference is that people like you are incapable of not being self-centered. You think you have some right vote on our civil rights, that's the problem. You are the ones who don't give a damn about what other people are going through. Do you think we're not suffering? We have even less job security than you, because we can be fired just because we're who we are. Our families have less protection than yours, and you have NO idea what that feels like. We lack healthcare just like anybody else. You seem to think that we inhabit some other country. You need to pull the blinders from your eyes and realize that you hate other human beings, just because we exist. That is what we're going through. What are you going through that's more pressing?

[Tizoc]

carsntrucks, prove that the gay community is not out there with so many other issues; name one and I'll show you it ain't true. Do I need health care, do I want my taxes increased, do I want a proper education for my children, do I want protection from my enemies, do I... Of course we are fighting for gay marriage rights, we have no choice, WE DON'T HAVE ANY right now that are equivalent to HETEROSEXUAL rights. For me the defeat in Maine was a VICTORY. You try to get any MINORITY agenda passed by an opposing MAJORITY. It's just about impossible. But when--just as it was in CA--it comes CLOSE, that's VICTORY as the VOTING population has begun to think about fairness for EVERYONE, something you apparently aren't capable of...TODAY. Perhaps tomorrow; we always have tomorrow...

[FlexSF]

Religious corporations will pay for their political act against equality! Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial begins on 1-11-2010 @ 8:30 AM!

We will watch proposition 8 get destroyed, and the disgusting religious bigot managers will realize how poisonous their religion is!

[Matt Carter]

Thank you for a very insightful piece. I too believe that religion should be the starting point for those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, and often cite several biblical passages which I believe offer guidance on the question. (Full disclosure: I'm Taoist, not Christian, but I do read and appreciate the things written in the Bible, more particularly in the New Testament.) More often than not I'm met with fierce resistance, perhaps because I'm not a member of the clergy. This is one message where the speaker may matter as much as the message, so thank you for your efforts.

[TEHelms]

I would like to know when we began giving the public the right to vote down rights? Would we have submitted the Civil Rights Act to a vote? Would we have allowed the military to vote on integrating itself? When you let the public vote to reduce someones rights you are setting a terrible precedent that continues to hurt the nation. This issue needs to be settled on basis of equal rights for people to pursue life and liberty and not the basis of making my marriage to a woman less because it does not.

[FlexSF]

It began in 1978, in Miami, Florida. The crazy, religious-bigot, orange juice queen, Anita Bryant campaigned to repeal the HRO in the city of Miami, and it passed. However, the Miami voters affirmed the ordinance again in 2002. Anthony Verdugo, the head of the Miami-Dade christian coalition, campaigned to repeal the sexual orientation ordinance, but failed.

[TEHelms]

Well, I don't like it and maybe the ACLU needs to litigate on the part of citizens whose basic rights have been voted down. Rights voted down are rights denied and I believe this entire battle is eventially going to be won by supporting equal rights for all and not just heterosexuals.

[memosyne]

Defining heterosexual marriage as being "for procreation in the interest of the state" is really silly.
A homosexual or lesbian will not marry a heterosexual and then "procreate" because he/she is denied marriage to the person he/she loves.
What the anti-gay-marriage voters really want is to put the genie back in the bottle. No American today is unaware of homosexuality as a possible sexual orientation, albeit not one chosen by the individual.
Besides, would you want your son to marry a lesbian who was trying to be heterosexual, or your daughter to marry a homosexual trying to be heterosexual? No. None of us would choose for our children to marry someone who was trying to deny their true sexual orientation. That is a recipe for serious marital suffering for both parties.

[mercury613]

"A homosexual or lesbian will not marry a heterosexual and then "procreate" because he/she is denied marriage to the person he/she loves."

Exactly. Thank you. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are incapable of wrapping their minds around something so simple and logical.

[YoungSloshee]

Separation of church and state. That's all that should have to be said. It's important to have a sense of faith if it contributes positively to a moral code on the betterment of society, but using faith-based scripture to legitimize removing the legal rights of a certain group you don't agree with is preposterous.

Didn't a large portion of the Prop 8 funding come from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? How can the Mormons, who created a brand-new mythos about contemporary Christianity less than 200 years ago justify supporting Prop 8 based on the "original" Biblical texts? It seems a little ridiculous to me.

[CollinJE]

"It's important to have a sense of faith if it contributes positively to a moral code on the betterment of society..."

Who judges if it is positive? I'm sure supporters of prop 8 would claim to be positive or using their moral code to the betterment of society.

This is the problem with using faith at all for determining public policy.

[mansterEZ]

Great post from a man of reason. Marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is a special partnership business contract. "To deny a fundamental civil right to an entire a group of people" defies the standards of the free market system. To argue otherwise is totalitarian and borderline fascist.

[justjunior]

I do not see where any of this has to do with your religious beliefs. If you as a married couple are receiving benefits from the government due to being married - health care, survivor payments, IRS joint returns, etc etc then you should not be able to tell another couple they cannot have those same benefits because their concept of a married couple does not fit in with your religious views.

All those who voted against same sex marriage should also lose any benefits derived from being married given to them by law. Then all things would be equal. Our government laws should treat everyone fairly and equally. If not then they are not a true reflection of what was intended by our founding fathers. Religion is then free to add another (or several) more layers of "laws" to those people feeling pulled to them.