- BIG NEWS:
- Barack Obama
- |
- Health Care
- |
- Dick Cheney
- |
- GOP
- |
Prop 8: Preying on California
Read More:
California Prop 8, Catholic, Catholic Church, Constantine's Sword, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Holocaust, James Carroll, Mormon, Oren Jacoby, Pope Benedict XVI, Prop 8, Ronald George, Same Sex Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage, Separation Of Church And State,
Politics News
On 15 May, California's Supreme Court ruled that the one man-one woman marriage laws are unconstitutional. The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald George, cited the court's 1948 decision that reversed the state's interracial marriages ban. It found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples. Chief Justice George wrote:
"Retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples ...may well have the effect that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects 'second-class citizens' who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples... Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."
In the months since the decision, thousands of California same-sex couples have married. Their serious approach to matrimony is steeped in years of steadfast commitment that has survived without any protection or acknowledgment under law. The handful of same-sex weddings I've attended have been devoutly thoughtful. At these celebrations, the strong social, emotional, and historical marriage bond is being honored more reverently than I have ever witnessed.
Sharing in the joy of these not-so-young couples, some of whom have been together over 40 years, reminds me of my twenties when I went to scores of young heterosexual marriages. I recall the joy tempered by the serious thought that these lucky new couples were able to publicly commit to each other for the rest of their lives. I remember my friends David and Clift sitting in a pew looking at each other, secretly sharing in the vows of the wedding couple; in 1980 it was the best they could do. For David and Clift their marriage is a recognition and celebration of their lifelong commitment. The state is finally affording them the rights they should have shared long ago.
Even before the California judiciary decision allowing David and Clift to marry, churches were circulating petitions to rescind the official pronouncement. Due to California's Prop law, judicial prudence is now in the hand of the voters in the form of Proposition 8. It's a California constitutional amendment that reads: "ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY."
When the dollars are added up, the opponents of marriage ("Yes on Prop 8") are overwhelmingly culled from churches, mostly from out of state. Over eight million dollars has been given by the Mormons, hundreds of thousands from Focus on the Family and millions more from Catholic organizations including the Knights of Columbus. "Yes on 8" has also selected a Mormon law professor teaching at Pepperdine University, Richard Petersen as the expert face of the campaign. He's on TV scaring people about teaching school kids about gay marriage -- scary indeed!
Silly Jim Garlow, a San Diego evangelical pastor, called for forty days of fasting leading up to Election Day. The goal, says Garlow, would be to fill San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium and other large venues with (newly skinny) people praying for a ban on same-sex marriage. Haven't we had enough of this folly?
The church poking its nose into politics has too long been too pervasive and too powerful in Bush's America. This continued effort against same-sex marriage is reminiscent of the Catholic Church's inaction against anti-Semitic murder under Adolf Hitler. This Election Day, less than three weeks from now, churches are leading the hate and raising the banner as Americans are being persecuted, bashed and beaten all in the name of God.
A newly-released DVD sheds some light on the hatred inspired by religion. James Carroll's cold hard documentary Constantine's Sword is a serious study of the religious revival that is transforming our country and, since the U.S. is a superpower, what happens here affects the whole world. Director Oren Jacoby explores the mindless meanness man has perpetrated against humanity in the name of god. Carroll, a former Catholic priest, attempts to understand how the long and sordid history of the Crusades and the horror of the Holocaust could have happened in a Christian world.
One story told in the film is harrowing and feels a little close to home...
In July 1933 the Cardinal that would become Pope sent warm greetings to Adolf Hitler. In July 1933 the Vatican became the first foreign power to enter into a bilateral agreement with Hitler. Edith Stein, a German-Jewish Philosopher whose dissertation was a study of empathy, converted to Catholicism in 1922 and entered the Carmelite Monastery in Cologne Germany.
In 1933, Sister Edith wrote to Pope Pius, warning about persecution and hatred levied against the Jews. Stein implored for intervention against this inhumanity.
In her letter to the Pope she wrote:
"As a child of the Jewish people who, by the grace of God, for the past eleven years has also been a child of the Catholic Church, I dare to speak to the Father of Christianity about that which oppresses millions of Germans. For weeks we have seen deeds perpetrated in Germany which mock any sense of justice and humanity, not to mention love of neighbor. For years the leaders of National Socialism have been preaching hatred of the Jews. Now that they have seized the power of government and armed their followers . . . this seed of hatred has germinated. . . . But the responsibility must fall, after all, on those who brought them to this point and it also falls on those who keep silent in the face of such happenings.
Everything that happened and continues to happen on a daily basis originates with a government that calls itself "Christian." For weeks, not only Jews but also thousands of faithful Catholics in Germany, and, I believe, all over the world, have been waiting and hoping for the Church of Christ to raise its voice to put a stop to this abuse of Christ's name. Isn't the effort to destroy Jewish blood an abuse of the holiest humanity of our Savior, of the most blessed Virgin and the apostles? Is not all this diametrically opposed to the conduct of our Lord and Savior, who, even on the cross, still prayed for his persecutors...We all, who are faithful children of the Church and who see the conditions in Germany with open eyes, fear the worst for the prestige of the Church, if the silence continues any longer.
At the feet of your Holiness, requesting your apostolic blessing,
Dr. Edith Stein"
Stein's letter received no answer. In 1942, she was arrested at a Netherlands convent. Later that year, she was murdered at Auschwitz. The Church did not release her letter publically until 2003.
If we cannot learn from our past we are condemned to relive it. God Bless America? I guess we'll see on November 4th.
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
R1J07PUkA6gwfzCqmTR%2FMYDgnqG0GMgIoB2imeoKVGtQLd5j4KyeMDSV6CxzM5bbosB8CVDQdh3N9b%2B%2BCWsF9Q%3D%3D
9l%2BPx4CDpZSK4mRnHqGIadcXbIe%2B%2B0ofpEn4d5O%2BHB7xi%2F5XwTkR35RkNgJax4pPmZn7aciHWKXaj1L4vezsQQ%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
rp9ykyUYbbG8tsjFRRh4M63V7elYoKoW
13rB8NFkogZuvDqVUGsGDf9LWZCVwGn%2F
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 2
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Readers interested in how the churches are pressuring California may like the new issue of High Country News, a nonprofit magazine covering the American West, which has my 5,000-word analysis piece about the Mormon Church pushing California's Proposition 8 against gay marriage. The link is http://www
Why does nobody seem to make the connection that this is about suppression of religious freedom by the state. As we all know there are churches that feel performing same sex marriages is perfectly acceptable within their particular belief structure. If this “prop 8” is passed these churches will be banned (by the state) from practicing their own faith as they themselves see fit. In practice this proposed ban on same sex marriages of course is state endorsement of one religious belief by act of suppressing another. This is a precedent I would not imagine many religious people regardless of their particular faith would/should feel comfortable with.
But what do I know? I’m just some straight, agnostic, Canadian kid
Ya know whateversl
It's very confusing that the oppinions of one religious group would be able to limit the services/o
yes of 8 --
CALIFIORNIANS for a TALIBANGELICAL REPUBLIC --
because my preacher told me so
Who is poking their nose in to whose business? Hasn’t marriage traditionally been a religious institution? It seems to me that by making laws about who can marry government is encroaching on the church’s business.
People who continuously make this empty argument seem to forget that other heterosexual folks can get "married" in non-religious ceremonies. I'm an atheist, and guess what, I can get married! So the argument that it's protecting the religious connotation of marriage is nonsense..
(Oh no, now there's going to be an entire movement of religious wingnuts that say, hey, wait a minute, she's right...at
That is an empty argument. You may choose to get married in a church by a cleric, but the marriage has no legal standing unless it is registered with the state. Even in a church, the cleric says, "By the power vested in me by the state of ---------, I now pronounce you -------." The power to perform a legal marriage in this country comes from the state, not from some deity.
Time to take a look at the tax-exempt status of religious institutions.
If the Mormons have spent $8 million of their revenues in California on a political operation, then that $8 million should be taxable revenue, since it was not used for the non-partisan, 100% religious purpose that was claimed to justify its tax-exempt status. Penalties and interest should be levied also, as they would be in any other case of tax fraud.
I'd like to see a proposition in California to this effect.
I support SEPARATION of church and state.
Same sex marriage has no impact on my life. God Bless anybody willing to take on the challenge of marriage.
NO ON 8 and
http://www
I also support seperation of church and state. It's one of the bricks that makes our country great. This "prop 8" BS is nothing but bigotry and the attempt of a "church" (I use the term lightly) to influence politics in another state. This is a true OBOMINATION. TAKE AWAY THEIR TAX EXEMPTIONS~!
I cannot vote for Prop 8, a "new" bill to protect the so-called sanctity of marriage. Today, my sons and I have voted NO on Prop 8 by absentee, ink-dot paper-ballot.
To support Proposition 8 would make you a hypocrite since it doesn't outlaw divorce as well; the MAJOR reason institutionalized marriage is under attack.
If those sanctimonious religious zealots want to change the law to fit their skewed, incomplete religious dogma then they should remember, as Christians, Jesus outlawed divorce for any other reason than death, and Prop 8 should do so too otherwise lay off those who wish to marry no matter their sexual preference. It's none of our business and we are not God who is the ultimate judge, as Christians should know.
I'm sorry. I refuse to be prejudiced and to discriminate using laws and constitutional amendments to appease the cherry-picked prejudices of closed-minded haters.
VOTE NO ON PROP 8 - VOTE NO ON DISCRIMINATION!
MICHELE BACHMANN'S THOUGHTS ON MARRIAGE:
http://www
http://www
the rationale given against marriage equality by those bleating voices repeating what they have mindlessly taken in by the talibangelical clergy and other conservative purveyors of intolerance(the "sanctity of marriage", "ordained by god", "for the purpose of procreation", etc, etc) could not be a more transparent fig leaf covering for their closed-minded bigotry. if the religious wrong were so interested in preserving the "sanctity of marriage" as they narrowly define it, they would be out in full force to push a constitutional amendment that would outlaw divorce. but they know that wouldn't fly. it's easier to project the worst of their own kinds' desecration of the institution of marriage onto committed same-sex couples who love each other and whose relationships have withstood the tests of time and the pressures of life (while watching legally married couples all around them dissolve their sanctified, god-ordained, church-blessed marriages). HYPOCRITES!! baaa-aa-aa
Yes on Prop 8:
http://hub
How interesting. . .everyone is concerned about the right to marry. Why don't we just award rights based on humanity, not marital status?
We are all born singlely and die alone.
Single people are discriminated against in everyway imaginable; just recently there was an article about how single people pay almost double when traveling alone? How disrespectful.
There continue to be reports of single people being denied respect for the care they desire, even when living wills, advanced directives and papers of personal representation are submitted to medical care institutions. See unmarried.
Single people have NO beneficiary rights in Social Security, cannot put a beneficiar
There are lots of other things single people face; martial status should never be a criteria for anything, includidng tax breaks.
http://www
Please donate even a little bit. We're on the verge of losing our constitutional rights.
The issue of same-sex marriage, is not an issue about equal rights. This is a distortion to what true discrimination is, and that which the U.S. Constitution ensures protection
http://hub
Citing a section from a cultist website is hardly a valid argument. You can say it's not an equal rights issue all you wish but that doesn't make it so.
And please also keep in mind that the California State Supreme Court disagrees with you and the majority opinion was written by a Republican appointee.
My husband and I have been married for 30 years, have five children, and almost nine grandchildren. As you might imagine, my family is quite diverse; however, we have a strong desire to preserve traditional marriage, thus the family. I am also a Christian, who believes that the only definition of marriage, is between a man and a woman.
What I am very disturbed about, is the negative perpetuation, of persons like myself, as having our position in opposition to same-sex marriage --- as hate based. I suppose that this is easier to accept, than the actual facts, that we simply are striving to preserve that which we value greatly!
If mainstream media can convince the majority, that we truly hate a small sect in our society - then a division will occur. Them against us.... The cry goes out of inequality, of which many people are then distracted by this utter distortion. Many even buy into these lies.
Take the time to study the importance of traditional marriage, which begins a family -- as the best unit of any society or culture. What you will find on your own, is that we must Vote Yes on 8, to preserve that which is best for all of us... In this, there is no division necessary.
tMDg
Kathryn Skaggs
it appears the whole of your arguement is the ability of a man and woman to make babies.
The universal institution of "Marriage" - has always been that core unit, which then perpetuates the family of mankind. Because a small sect of a liberal society are now insisting that the definition of marriage be redefined - you must and are forced to NOT acknowledge the natural purposes for a "Marriage" in the first place. Don't you think that this is kind of convenient to ignore?
However, it cannot be ignored. There is no other process for mankind to perpetuate itself, without the union/marriage of an egg/female and a sperm/male. To remove gender from marriage - is basically - choosing to ignore science.
With all due respect, Ms Skaggs, your position makes no sense. Why does my wanting to have what you have devalue what you have? You ask why we think negatively of people who feel like you do...well it's difficult not to feel that way towards someone who wishes to deprive you of your rights. Please keep in mind that in California we already HAVE the right to same sex marriage - this measure will remove that right. Never in the history of our nation has a constitutional right been removed from any person or group. When you use the term "protect marriage", in this case a vote as you recommend would be a vote NOT protecting marriage.
It is not a hateful position that those of us are taking, when we desire to preserve the only definition of marriage that is acceptable. You simply cannot redefine, that which biology demands, in order to perpetuate the human race.
You are buying into a mainstream media attack - which is meant to divide people like you and I. That is not necessary. What is necessary, is that those who choose to have a same-gender relationship - made legal and binding, are engaging in an alternate lifestyle, that needs to be acknowledged as such. It is simply not the same. It cannot produce the same, etc...
Please explain to me, and I mean no disrespect, but... why must the homosexual community insist on applying "marriage", to a union that cannot procreate. I understand that now -- some courts are even trying to remove procreation out of the definition of marriage altogether. Whom does this serve?
Please don't do that. For the many many who believe in God - you are asking for something that we could never be at one with you on. Such a force of division. We all can do much better...
tDMg
Sorry for the multiple responses but the more I read your post the angrier I get. Let me get this straight..
I wouldn't call it hate based if I didn't see it for what it was.... a religious based proposition and what the other blogger said about why does a gay couple wanting what you have devalue what you have? I've been married for over 20 years to my husband, but I would not for the life of me deny that sense of entitlement to a gay couple just because somebody pointed at the bible and said the bible says so. I have gay family members and it might surprise you to know that not all of them want to get married, it is a matter of respect even if you don't agree with the lifestyle choice.
Then tDMG, as a Christian you should also be against divorce, correct? Jesus condemned divorce, don't you remember? He was *adamantly against* it, even.
Will you then, as a Christian, withhold your vote against same-sex marriage until an addendum is added that includes the outlawing of divorce for any other reason than natural death (excluding malice and murder, of course)?
For the record, my husband and I have met when I was 17 and he 16. We have three wonderful children together and are Christians. We have been married since 1982 and we are liberal progressives.
The strength I found to see a broader scope of the world is, that I am not the ultimate judge but that my Christian God is, and that we are all judged by our individual acts, not by what other people do.
Jesus never preached against same-sex marriage, but he was adamantly against divorce. As a Christian, you choose to live by his example. Don't discriminate. Don't vote for Prop 8 unless you're willing to outlaw divorce simultaneously.
VOTE NO ON PROP 8! VOTE NO ON DISCRIMINATION!
Civil rights are for everyone.
No on hate.
No on 8.
This is not a civil rights issue. All the marriage rights afforded to heterosexual couples are afforded to homosexual couples under the California Family Code. If its not about rights, which it clearly isn't, what it is really about then? This is about forced acceptance of the gay lifestyle, which many Californians are morally opposed to.
Marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman. Never has it meant the union of any two individuals irrespective of gender. The real issue of Prop 8 is the assurance that the tradition of the nuclear family unit, where there is a mother and father, is not further eroded until it has no perceivable value. If gay marriage is allowed to remain defined that way, as marriage, then how is one to ever determine whether traditional marriage is a course worth pursuing? Homosexual marriages are a social experiment that unbiased data shows are not as solid a bedrock for the raising of children as a heterosexual marriage. If you think about the "greatest generation" of Americans, the soldiers and servicemen of WWII, I wonder how many of those great men were raised in homosexual situations?Rather, they were raised by good men and women, who were able to teach different values and gender roles naturally. How can anyone argue that the most ideal situation for any child to grow up in is with a mother and father? What data can support any argument otherwise??
If you don't believe in same sex marriage, then marry someone of another gender.
And stay out of everyone else's business.
in the past 20 years, numerous studies have been performed by such groups as the american academy of pediatrics, the american psychiatric association, the american psychoanalytic association, and the american psychological association and the majority have issued statements stating that there are no ill effects or essential differences between children raised by gay couples and those raised by mixed couples.
just sayin'
Are you not aware of the "separate but equal" idea that kept African American children in one school and White children in another? Water fountains were labeled "colored:" and "white".
I have a friend who lives in California. His husband passed away earlier this year. They were legally married in their state and when he passed away unexpectedly, my friend was not afforded the same rights of a spouse in the situation.
The sheriff was involved because the death happened at home. They wouldn't permit my friend to tell them where he wished his husband's belongings to go. They insisted on calling the deceased's next of kin, his brother in NY. A man he didn't have a particularly close relationship with.
This all happened this year during the time under which same sex couples can marry in California. The officer involved wasn't educated about the law. My friend had to subordinate his wishes for his husband's body and belongings to someone else.
You're not going to end same sex relationships. Dignifying the love of two people who want to be married is going to happen. Your kind might make it more difficult but it will happen. And guess what? The world will continue to turn on its axis! There will be no plagues visited upon us.
Those servicemen you mentioned from WWII, how many of them married women because that was the "right" thing to do? How many of them detested themselves because they couldn't be happy in hetero relationships?
Of course it's a civil rights issue. You have obviouly forgotten the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 60s by saying, essentially, that separate but equal is OK. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is NOT OK. Nobody is "forcing" you or anyone else to accept anything. You can hate on us all you like but you cannot deny us equal rights.
Your statement about marriage "always" meaning the union of a man and a woman is equally specious. First of all, marriage has only been around for a couple thousand years...mu
You can discriminate against anyone you wish in your own life but you cannot tell ME how I can live MY life. If you are against same sex marriages, then don't enter into one.
These kinds of arguments make me want to barf.
NO on HATE
NO on BIGOTRY
NO on IGNORANCE
NO on THEOCRACY
NO on SECOND-CLASS CITIZENSHIP
NO ON 8
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
