More on Anti-Prop 8 Supporters and Religious Freedom
I never thought that I would be posting so much about religious issues on my personal blog. But I couldn't believe this post from Lowell Brown:
Proposition 8: Open Season on Mormons?
Basically the Daily Kos is asking its readers to single out Mormons who have donated to support Prop 8 and look for information to smear them. Smearing people for supporting a cause that you are opposed to is bad enough. But singling out people because of their religion is deplorable.
Also, in the post above it describes anti-Prop 8 supporters harassing Mormons as they went to attend church services last week. In contrast, my parents participated in Pro Prop 8 rally in their city on Saturday. My father told me that they didn't have a single opponent to Prop 8 come up to them and have a rational discussion. All they did was yell obscenities as they drove by and call my parents bigots. Interestingly though, my father said that the number of people that gave them a thumbs up or thanked them for what they were doing was about 5 times higher than those who came and verbally assaulted them. Just so you understand, this rally was a group of people on a street corner holding signs that said "Vote Yes on Prop 8". My parents didn't yell at anyone. They didn't try to berate anyone. They didn't jump out and try to stop traffic. They just held signs.
Compare that to the protest in Oakland where protesters tried to block traffic, intimidate and frighten Mormons trying to attend a worship service.
What you see is that there is a very vocal minority opposed to Prop 8 whose only tool seems to be intimidation. They won't try to influence you. They will try to shame you into shutting your mouth.
A lot of people say that Prop 8 won't affect religious freedoms. Looks like it already is.
Clash of Freedoms – Prop 8 and Freedom of Religion, Speech and Association
In a previous post I talked about Proposition 8 in California and how many people view Prop 8 as a freedom of religion issue. Several of the commenters informed me that religious freedom was a red herring. Here is an excerpt:
So those at the top of the Yes-on-8 effort have tried desperately to cast this as being about religious freedom, despite the fact that the religious freedom is already guaranteed by the US Constitution, by the state constitution, and by the very state supreme court ruling that they are railing against. Their falsehoods are being carried along by well-intentioned folks who are deceived by them.
But it seems that there are some experts that would disagree with them. My brother, Trevor sent me this article:
"[Banned in Boston]"[2]
The article goes into more detail about the Catholic Charities case there (Catholic Charities ceased offering adoption services in Boston because they felt that, due to the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, they would be forced to provide adoption services for gay couples, which would be contrary to their religious beliefs). I suggest you give it a read.
A few quick highlights from the article:
- The attempt to define gay marriage as a right is very much an attempt to setup sexual orientation as a protected class under the Constitution. Doing this would put sexual orientation on the same level as race, i.e. denying adoption to a gay couple would be equivalent to denying adoption to an African American couple.
- Though it is unlikely that religions will ever be overtly forced to do such things as perform gay marriages, they will have their non-profit status threatened if they refuse to do so. Basically, supporters of gay marriage who want to force religions to accept the practice will attempt to levy a "religious belief" tax on religious organizations, threatening removal of their tax-exempt status, costing them millions of dollars. They will be told, "Accept gay marriage and you can stay tax exempt, deny it and you lose the status." Sounds like a very conditional form of religious freedom. Don't believe me? Read the article.
If you want a more detailed explanation from one of the religious organizations supporting Prop 8, the LDS church (of which I am a member) has an excellent article detailing their stance and the reasons for their support of Prop 8. As I have stated previously they, nor I, am opposed to legal rights being offered to domestic partnerships. But redefining the word marriage has far reaching consequences as outlined in both articles mentioned above.
Prop 8 – Will All the Bigots Please Leave the Room
I don't usually blog about political issues but I felt I had to say something in this case.
Being a regular reader of Daring Fireball I am well aware that John Gruber's politics are quite a bit different than my own. I really don't see that as a problem. I am fine with different views since they often help me clarify my own. But last week he posted a note about Google coming out against Prop 8 in California with this commentary:
Good for Google. I hope they put some money behind it too; anti-gay bigots are putting a ton of money into a campaign to pass this initiative.
I have no issue with Google stating their position or with John Gruber stating his. But it seems to imply that anyone who supports Prop 8 must be an "anti-gay bigot". It is possible that Gruber didn't mean to lump everyone together on this but it sure seems this way. I support Prop 8 in California and do not consider myself an anti-gay bigot so I thought it might be useful to make a few points about what is going on in California from my perspective.
What is Prop 8? Prop 8 is a proposed amendment to the California State Constitution that would establish that marriage is only valid between a man and a woman. Basically it means that same-sex couples cannot get married.
Erroneous Fact - Gary Marriage in California is to Establish Equal Rights
Many are saying that gay marriage in California is necessary so that same-sex couples have equal rights. The California Supreme Court has specifically stated that this is not the case:
We note that although much of the academic literature discussing the legal recognition of same-sex relationships frequently uses the term “domestic partnership” to describe a legal status that accords only comparatively few legal rights or obligations to same-sex couples, the current California statutes grant same-sex couples who choose to become domestic partners virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law . . .
In light of the comprehensive nature of the rights afforded by California’s domestic partnership legislation, the status of such partnership in California is comparable to the status designated as a “civil union” in statutes enacted in recent years in Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont.
This is not about equal legal rights. The court that supported gay marriage stated so clearly.
A Question of Religious Freedom
So what is it about? I will not pretend to know all the factors at play here. But I can tell you that a key component of this debate is religious freedom.
Many people say that allowing two people that love each other to get married doesn't harm anyone else. Therefore, if you are opposed to gay marriage you must be a bigot. What is a bigot? Here is a definition from WordNet.
a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
The idea goes that since same-sex marriage doesn't infringe upon the rights of anyone else, if you are opposed to gay marriage it must be because you are intolerant of same-sex marriages because they differ from the type of marriage you believe in. Basically, you don't like same-sex marriages simply because they are different.
This is far too simplistic a notion.
Legally recognizing same-sex marriages has far reaching effects that go beyond the two people getting married. Many religions believe that homosexual relations are morally wrong. This is true of most Christian religions. You may agree or disagree with that belief, but one of principles this country was founded upon was that of religious freedom. Thus the question arises - should a priest be forced to perform a wedding ceremony for a same-sex couple? I think that most people would say no. In that case the same-sex couple's right to marry would be taking away the priest's right to practice his religion.
But, you say, that wouldn't happen. The government would not force its standards on a religion. The same-sex couple could just find a priest who wasn't opposed to same-sex marriage to perform the ceremony. But that isn't what has been happening.
In Boston, where same-sex marriages are legally recognized, Catholic Charities have ceased to offer adoption services. Why? Because if they denied adoption to a married same-sex couple then they would be practicing discrimination and would therefore be punished.
This is not the only case. Doctors in California have been forced to provide fertility treatment despite the fact that they claimed it was against their religious beliefs.
So, you have to ask yourself a very important question - how important is religious freedom? When does the state have the right to force you to do something that is against your religion?
This is the real question revolving around Prop 8. I have not spoken to anyone in California that is against homosexuals having all the rights that would accompany a civil union. As I stated previously, those already exist. The gay marriage initiative is much more a push to tell religions that they do not have a right to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. Whether or not you support gay marriage you must ask yourself if government should be making this declaration.
Why a Constitutional Amendment?
A constitutional amendment seems pretty heavy handed. So why is this approach being taken in California? Because there are no other options left on the table for those who oppose gay marriage. In 2002, Prop 22 was passed which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. This was passed via ballot initiative where the people of California actually voted on the measure.
So, what happened?
By a 1 vote majority a split California court decided that the definition of marriage being between a man and woman was unconstitutional. By one vote a court decided that gay marriage was constitutionally protected. This despite a popular vote that clearly said the opposite.
Opponents to gay marriage were left with no other option than a constitutional amendment.
Think about this. Five judges were able to declare that they knew better than the majority of voters in California and totally disregard the voice of the voters. Ask yourself how American that sounds.
Is Everyone a Bigot?
So, the question still remains, if you support Prop 8 are you an "ant-gay bigot"? Maybe. If you support Prop 8 are you an anti-religious bigot. Maybe. I am sure that there are supporters on both side of the issue that could easily fall into the bigot category. But there are many who are not. There are many supporting Prop 8 who just want the right to believe and practice their religion. There are many who believe that if the redefinition of the word "marriage" is going to come about after thousands of years, it should happen because the people of California or the United States, or their legislatures have voted to make it so. It should not happen because 5 judges decided that was what they believed. I am also confident that there are many who oppose Prop 8 who sincerely believe that gay marriage should be a right and who may not have even thought about the religious freedom component of this.
Believe what you want to on this issue but don't throw around the bigot charge. All it does is prevent people from dealing with the real issues.