Proposition 8 and Religious Freedom in Northern Orange County

Los Angelinos won't naturally see the corner of Imperial Highway and Yorba Linda Boulevard in Northern Orange County, if they can conceive of where it is, as a mirror of social change. But every night last week dozens of people were demonstrating on both sides of Proposition 8, the attempt to roll back the California Supreme Court's decision in May to end the state ban on same-sex marriages.

The marching formed a revealing pattern. Late in the afternoon a group of middle-agers (with a few kids) would start waving "Yes" signs only to be equaled in number by young people waving "No on 8" signs, some handmade, by dusk.

Both sides believed they were standing up for the best traditions of this country. Some of the "Yes on 8" signs made the argument that voting against this civil right was a vote for "freedom of religion" and "free speech." Meanwhile, on Tuesday and Wednesday at least, I noticed that the only demonstrators carrying an American flag were those with "No on 8" signs.

American history, logic and justice are on the "No" side.

The "Yes on 8" forces are trying to win by confusing people about what this proposition means. Freedom of religion or free speech is not at stake. Our governments -- local, state and the federal government -- regularly license activities by consenting adults that some religious groups find incompatible with their beliefs. But do the existence of state liquor licenses imply a curb on the freedom of religion of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? And what about the Food and Drug Administration's monitoring of pork products? Is this, in any way, an attempt by government to hamper the religious practices of Orthodox Jews or Muslims? No, of course not. Our earliest founders were Puritans who had experienced discrimination because their beliefs and practices differed from those of the Established Church in England. As a result, from the Mayflower through the formation of the United States, our civic leaders sought to create a society where individuals were free to practice whatever religion they chose and where government would remain neutral on religious preferences.

The "No on 8" kids carrying the US flag had it right because Proposition 8 would do what this country was set up not to do: to use government (state government, in this case) to take sides in a religious debate.

In its decision, the Supreme Court of California did not mandate that churches perform same-sex religious ceremonies or that same-sex marriages be discussed in schools. It is left to churches and school boards to make those decisions.

Voting "Yes," on the other hand, would place a clause in the California state constitution that would discriminate against gays and lesbians. It would send a message that as a matter of principle same-sex marriages were illegitimate. One handmade "No on 8" sign in Yorba Linda pointedly reminded passing motorists that some of the same arguments used by the "Yes" side were once trotted out to outlaw interracial marriages. Indeed, until the Supreme Court of California's decision in Perez v. Sharp in 1948, interracial couples did not share the constitutional "right to marry" in California.

Somehow gays and lesbians forming enduring, loving couples is a threat to traditional families. It boggles the mind why American society would have an interest in promoting promiscuity and a sense of exclusion in our community. We are your friends and neighbors. The "No on 8" kids marching in Yorba Linda get that. The fate of this issue is still too close to call. But if "Yes" should eke out a victory tomorrow, it is only a matter of a few years before this blot on the California constitution is repealed. Let's hope that we don't have to wait more than a matter of hours for Proposition 8 to be consigned to the ash heap of bad political ideas.

Comments

[blasofsky]

Two close friends and I recently started a grassroots site www.OurVoicesForMarriage.comm) as a response to Proposition 8 passing. It is a VERY basic, no-frills site that allows individuals to voice their sadness, their frustration, and, most importantly, their personal stories on how the passing of Proposition 8 effected them. Our hope is that President-Elect Obama will soon announce a GLBT liaison whom we can refer to this site, and, who in turn, will refer President Obama to it with the hope he will speak out and say, loud and clear, that discrimination written into any constitution is a violation of everyone's civil rights.

PLEASE take a moment, go to the site, and post YOUR story. The more voices we have the louder our message will be. . .

[JohnBisceglia]

Heterosexuals apathy on marriage equality is going to start hitting them much harder in their wallets. It's OK to "not care", but do realize you WILL be paying my taxes until you start to care.

That's not me "holding my breath until I get my way".....t­hat's "I refuse to be taxed AT ALL until equal - period".

Now you may all vote on THAT!

[xscd]

Legally prohibiting gay marriage is like legally prohibiting marriage of anyone who lives in Utah. It is an arbitrarily prejudicial restriction of the rights and freedoms of a class of people based on a particular characteristic they share.

Some people argue that gays are not a protected class of people regarding legal rights because homosexuality is not proven to be a genetic characteristic or predisposition, but is instead a choice. If that is true, then heterosexuality is also "a choice" and not genetic. Therefore a legal prohibition against heterosexual marriage is just as valid (and as nonsensical) as a prohibition against homosexual marriage.

Most of the arguments against gay marriage are based on religious beliefs. But "freedom of religion" also means freedom _from_ the religious beliefs of others.

All that aside, however, the truth is that restricting the rights and freedoms of any group or class of people based on a shared characteristic is unfair and will not stand up to legal scrutiny. Like any arbitrarily prejudicial laws such as keeping women from voting or blacks from using the same public bathroom facilities as whites, prohibition of homosexal marriage will ultimately fail.

To those who propose "separate but equal" civil unions, it might be argued that all marriages whether homosexual or heterosexual should be legally defined as civil unions, while both the definition and the act or ceremony of "marriage" should be left to each person's or couple's church or religion.

[canow]

There is a piece up today at the CA NOW blog by Meredith Patterson, "Prop. 8 Postmortem" that breaks down the current challenge to the passage of Prop. 8, the legal background for the challenge, and why it may work to preserve marriage equality in California. http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/11/prop-8-postmortem-part-1-dissecting-history.html

[re spekt]

I was one of those young people on the corner of Imperial and Yorba Linda and I was shocked by the fact that most of the people who were flipping us off and calling us every crude thing in the book, were children with their parents sitting in the front seat next to them. I am so disappointed and-quite frankly-scared for the future of our country. I honestly thought that the majority of people weren't as closed-minded as those who lived in Orange County, yet alas I was sorely mistaken. We fought so hard and yet we were overcome. How is it possible that our country took a huge step forward and a huge step back all in the same day?

[pollen8]

Proposition 8 was driven by Evangelical White and Latin Churches, and Black Christians (in general). http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1

For the Referendum and for future understanding on how to move these people to tolerance, acceptance and a more genuinely loving attitude for all parts of our society we will need to go to them and show them who we, as gay people, are. EQUALITY FOR EVERYONE - NO MORE "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL" Let's ask to speak at their churches when the Referendum comes.

[JohnBryansFontaine]

If Barack Obama and the Democrats had supported gay marriage and campaigned against Proposition 8, he would have lost the election. The November 5th page of Huffingtonpost, instead being jubilant about Obama’s Historic victory, would be mourning the loss of the election.

[JohnBisceglia]

Will we as a community EVER get ANGRY ENOUGH to do something besides hold signs, chant, and donate millions to organizations?

As ALL of these ANTI-LOVE, ANTI-FAMILY amendments and propositions continue to keep LGBT American's legal status as SUB-Americans, don't you feel good as U.S. tax-payers, knowing that your own state and country says your family and children are worthless in the eyes of the law? Pissed yet? If not, keep paying your taxes and acting like everything is OK; keep playing by the rules, even though these "rules" do not even INCLUDE you.

Self-respect and self-estee­m.........­......anyo­ne?

[MagisterLudi]

Why don't YOU lead by stopping to pay your taxes. Call your local paper and announce that: you will henceforth refuse to pay state and federal taxes. Make to sure to provide your full name and address.

[JohnBisceglia]

The mainstream media is too afraid of these stories - Chalres Merrill's own tax protest is barely known given the little coverage it is receiving. But the information is already out there.

GAY TAX PROTEST - http://www.gaytaxprotest.blogspot.com/

[MagisterLudi]

You go first,. do in public. You'll be the latter day Thomas the Paine.

[Maddhaus]

Ok, could someone please answer a question for me?

How, exactly, does same-sex marriage threaten opposite-sex marriage?

I hear a lot of talk about same-sex marriage destroying the institution of marriage and "family values", but I've yet to see a single cogent argument as to HOW same-sex marriage would bring about such destruction.

So please, enlighten me.

[JohnJames]

It doesn't, of course. But that's not what this is really about. It's about maintaining bigotry against gay people by witholding the imprimatur of the state from our relationships. The implicit message from government that comes with the denial of our equal rights is that there is fundamentally something wrong with us and that public perception is what the religious right is desperate to maintain. It's all about hate, not any real harm we're capable of causing.

[bannorhill]

Again same sex marriage has not been ruled as a right under the US Constitution. Until such a ruling or a constitutional amendment it is not a right.

[bannorhill]

Since when does something have to threaten me for me top oppose it? I oppose Government pork spending but it does not threaten me. I oppose prostitution but it does not threaten me. I oppose the Book of Mormon but it does not threaten me. And I oppose same sex marriage.

As for destroying the institute of marriage it is like calling Ripple wine a fine Napa Valley Cabernet. If you keep serving Ripple and calling it Napa's Finest you degrade the image of Napa wines. Divorce, infidelity, abuse, and other actions likewise degrades the institution of marriage. Please do not degrade the institution of marriage.

[JBryan]

Marriage is a contract under the Laws of the state. It isn’t a religious institution it is a secular one. This should be obvious to anyone who thinks about the various ways people get married. Some kneel in front of a Priest, others stand under a chuppah, some swear in front of the county clerk, and some even choose to stand in front of a man dressed like Elvis. In every case there is one constant, the words the state requires to make the Marriage a legal contract.

Everyone deserves equality under the Laws of the State. “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal” If you wish to make your Religious Ceremonies between a man and woman only so be it. The Constitution grants you the right to worship your religion as you please. What you do within the confines of your church is your own business, but don’t drag your narrow minded bigotry into the main square and demand we all worship as you do. It is un-American, un-patriotic, and frankly it goes against my Christian beliefs of tolerance and respect.

[bannorhill]

Marriage is a contract under the state "between one man and one woman". The law as written does not define marriage otherwise. If you want a contractual union between two people ofthe same gender please feel free to enter into it, however, by the law as written and passed it is not marriage. What is next? A marriage between 2 men and one woman? How about a 53 year old man and his 13 year old neice? Is outlawing those un-American, un-patriotic, and go against your beliefs of tolerance and respect?

At some point we have to draw a line of what is a marriage. The written definition passed into law was done so with input from all parties in an American way.

[JBryan]

I live in the state of California and you are wrong about marriage being between "one man and one woman". The State Supreme Court, one with a conservative majority mind you, ruled that such wording was unconstitutional and therefore struck that language from the Law. As for contractual unions, the state of California has that. Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. That of course renders the rest of your spurious arguments moot.

As I said before feel free to hold what ever ceremony you wish to have in your own church. Exclude whom ever you choose in that setting, the constitution guarantees you that right. As for the rights of others, our fore fathers put it well when they said “Don’t Tread on Me”

The United States Constitution guarantees we are all equal under the law. That is the ideal to which all true Patriots aspire. If you are unable to understand that I feel sorry for your ignorance.

[MsMeryMac]

I believe Connecticut was the first colony to allow freedom of religion, not Massachusetts. In fact, Conn. was founded on that principle after a split in the Puritan church. But anyway.

The funny thing is, the Yes on 8 people are making this out to be such a doomsday scenario. Our children will be taught to tolerate gay people in school! Oh no! Or that churches will be taxed, or forced to perform gay marriages. Well, a "no" vote on 8 simply retains the status quo - gay marriage has been legal in California for almost 6 months, and society as we know it has no collapsed. In fact, none of the things they're claiming are true. (And if you're really worried about your children learning that two people of the same sex can legally commit to each other in a consensual, loving way, California law allows you to send a note to school allowing your child will be able to abstain from class. Or you could just send them to a different school.)

I really see no reason people would vote FOR prop 8, unless they believe their religion should govern all law, regardless of the religion of others (possible), or they have an unfounded hatred/fear of gay people (probable). Aren't conservatives supposed to want less government intrusion in our lives? And liberals want the government to protect rights?

[abbeyroad]

what you should be doing is teaching your children TOLERANCE and COMPASSION.

[xxnounxx]

I am not against people being gay..but i am against same sex marriages.­..and i am against it being taught in schools to my children..­.and the day it becomes law to teach it in schools,then i will remove my kids from their schools and palce them in the religious schools that follow the laws of god,not humans

[gaydm]

Why?

[MsMeryMac]

I feel sorry that you are teaching your children that discrimination towards minority groups is okay.

[gaydm]

I am not against heterosexuals, but I do not see what that has to do with my Constitutional RIGHT to equal treatment under law. If you are so not wanting gay people to marry, then the only LEGAL means of stopping gay marriages, is to end LEGAL marriages for all. You included, when you stop granting yourself special treatment, I will stop asking for equal treatment under my Constitutional Law.

[Maddhaus]

Interesting.

Perhaps you could point us all to where in your religious text that same-sex marriage is prohibited.

For that matter, perhaps you might also point to the public school programs that teach anything about marriage.

Please understand, I'm not trying to be shirty here; I'm genuinely curious what "laws of god" are violated by allowing same-sex couples to get married, not to mention these schools that are teaching kids about marriage.

Go ahead, take some time if you need it to look these things up. This is the Internet, after all, so an immediate knee-jerk response isn't necessary.

[JohnJames]

Since when do laws pertaining to marriage mandate that anything be taught in schools? I don't recall hearing a thing in school about heterosexual marriage. What's there to be taught anyway. That most adults fall in love and want to share their lives with a partner? By five or so most kids have figured that out on their own and a few years after that they're well aware that there are gay people - no teaching in school required.

[scottowego]

I'm confused. Since there are churches out there who will perform same-sex marriages. It seems to me that by passing prop 8 to ban it it descriminates against those religious groups that accept same sex marriages and as such is unconstitutional. Am I right..... or am I wrong?

[wolfmason]

So, the whole argument for prop 8, is "teachers might have to acknowledge same sex marriage as part of lesson plans, which offends my religion, so we need a law to ban same sex marriage!" That's like creating a law that bans species from evolving to ensure that evolution isn't taught in schools. Why not just seek a law to ban same sex marriage from being taught about in schools? That pretty much makes the outright bigotry behind this obvious...

[Maddhaus]

Sadly, the argument for Proposition 8 isn't even that grounded, as it is essentially a transparent attempt to force a Constitutional amendment via referendum despite the fact that the court has already ruled it unconstitutional. They're essentially banking on voter apathy to push something in through the back door that couldn't fly through the front.

No pun intended, of course...