The District Weekly - Latest Comments in PROP. HATE

Re: PROP. HATE

howardx — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:31:49 -0000

john b said everything i didnt have the patience to type out! huzzah john b!

Re: PROP. HATE

John_B — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:44:32 -0000

Nikki: That was quite a discourse! Thanks for sharing it. A few comments in response, if I may:

Concerning the arguments you enumerated:

Argument 1: This argument is based entirely on the author’s misunderstanding of the concept of “traditional marriage”. Our current one man/one woman (monogamy), mutual-agreement (love) approach is far from “traditional”. If we consider tradition to be based upon length of time practiced, then approaches that employ multiple spouse (polygamy, both polygyny and polyandry) and arranged marriages are both by far the more “traditional”. Thus the entire premise of "tradition" in this argument is false.

Beyond that, the observations within Argument 1 lack a great deal of foundation as well, to whit:
a. How would gay marriage prevent “the right of a child to be brought up and know his/her biological parents”? One of the marital partners could very well be a biological parent and even if neither partner was, what, within the marriage, would prevent a child from knowing them? To assert that non-biological parents who are married and gay would attempt to usurp their child’s right to know his/her biological parents, assumes facts not in evidence
b. Whose social science are we relying upon? Many studies also exist that find that the “optimal situation for child rearing” is one in which the child is raised in a loving, safe and supportive home and that, assuming this occurs, the gender or sexual orientation of the parents has no significance whatsoever
c. How does gay marriage prevent either partner from bridg(ing) the male-female divide and whence comes this “goal” in this context in the first place, from heterosexuals? How presumptuous of us
d. How does gay marriage in any way “prevent children (from) develop(ing) the positive aspects of their respective genders”? These children do not live in a bubble. They interact and associate with other members of their respective genders routinely. Assuming the “loving, safe and supportive home” I mentioned previously, nothing will prevent developing “the positive aspects of their genders” (an exceedingy subjective topic in any case)
e. “Socially acceptable” to whom? Not too long ago it was not “socially acceptable” for whites to marry blacks. We changed that in our society and it was right to do so. The exponential rise in the belief that gay marriage is now “socially acceptable” in our society would seem to indicate that it’s well past time for our laws to catch up to the trends of society in this area.

Through these rebuttals I hope I have shown that the “goals” of same-sex marriage are not “different” at all from those of opposite sex marriage. It merely seems convenient to believe so.

Argument 2: The challenge here is not so much what sort of institution would best suffice but whether anyone is being denied basic civil rights that others are enjoying. Heterosexuals can choose either civil unions or marriage. Gays who currently also enjoy both options would (again) be deprived of this choice should Prop 8 pass. It really is none of the State’s business which institution a same-sex couple prefers. It is THEIR preference, and not that of others, that should suffice. As the majority so eloquently stated in “In re. Marriage Cases”: [T]he right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people."

Argument 3: Are we to avoid adapting our laws (Family Code or otherwise) simply because the necessity to do so “brings with it challenges”? We adapt our Penal, Vehicle, Welfare and Institutions and Health and Safety Codes *constantly* as society’s views on applicable matters adjust and evolve. Why is the Family Code somehow sacrosanct or immune from such revision? California is a community property state. Why would divorce be handled any differently between same-sex or oppositie-sex couples? If one partner is a biological parent of a child and the other is not then the biological parent enjoys those rights. If neither of them are biological parents then the Court considers all of the facts and decides the custody issues, just as it does when opposite-sex divorce cases involve children where neither are the biological parent. I am not impressed by the assertion that “In a same-sex marriage between two females, the court is forced to determine who is in the role of the mother first, then apply the law as if the other partner were the man”. First, why? There’s no man in the equation so why must the Court try to find one and, Second, so what? The Family Court’s entire function is to resolve such disputes between two parties that cannot otherwise be resolved between themselves. That’s why the Judge gets the big bucks! Contrary to the author’s assertion that: “Having a separate institution allows greater flexibility and responsiveness to deal with issues that are largely same-sex specific” I think the Court is more than capable of resolving these “issues” without depriving same-sex couples of the basic civil or human right to marry if they so choose.

Argument 4: I would say that no one is "hurt" (by gay marriage) unless they permit themselves to be. The author asserts that: “Taken as a whole, the societal consequence is that I must view marriage in a way that I don’t believe that marriage is.” This is patently un-true. We are all free to view marriage as we please. Since Prop 22 was overturned there have been many same-sex marriages performed in our State. Does the author view those marriages as valid? I would guess he/she does not. So what will change in that perception if Prop 8 is defeated? Not a thing. The author goes on: “Just as most do not believe that polygamy is marriage, and most would not want it to be called marriage, I don’t believe that same-sex unions are marriage. Forcing me and my family to change that definition hurts my belief in marriage as an institution.” The author’s “belief” can only be “hurt” if he/she gives others that power over it. Marriage “as an institution” is not changing; all we did when we overturned Prop 22 was to affirm that all persons in the State have a basic civil or human right to participate in that institution. The author and all others who feel somehow threatened by this should work on not giving others so much power to impact their personal sensibilities. If the fact that same-sex marriage will be taught as marriage as long as it is legal somehow “hurts how you raise your family” perhaps you should stop ceding so much of your child’s education to the State. I happen to believe in Creationism. When the State teaches my child about evolution, it doesn’t “hurt how I raise my family” it simply challenges me, as a responsible parent, to educate my own children above and beyond what ever State-mandated curriculum they are force-fed in public schools. In short, as a parent I rise to the occasion, I do not, as the author seems to prefer, sink to and become mored in any self-imposed limitations.

5. The “precedent” in California is that same-sex marriages are lawful and that prohibiting them is unconstitutional. To the degree that we are discussing a State Proposition, what has been otherwise decided at the federal level is not pertinent. You’ll note that U.S. DOMA (Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419) does not prohibit States from permitting same-sex marriages, it merely affirms that such marriages will not be recognized at the federal level and that non same-sex marriage States need also not recognize them. The question of whether or not, in light of existing federal and other-State DOMA laws, our same sex marriages represent true equality in this area can be left for another time. But since this is a California Proposition, what’s been decided in other States is likewise not pertinent. California’s same sex-marriages have been determined to be lawful in California. That’s all the “precedent” that California attorneys need concern themselves with.

6. So if I understand the author on this one, despite that a right has been deemed by the Court to be “a basic civil or human right of all people” (as marriage has); if we subsequently deny a person that right it’s not discrimination because the person seeking that right isn’t the right gender? The Court specifically stipulated “all people”. Are gays now to be considered “not people”? And this approach is not discriminatory how, exactly?

7. The government is most assuredly NOT “in place to give me (or you or anyone else) rights”. The government is merely one method we employ to help to guarantee the rights which we reserve to ourselves as sentient human beings in a civil society. Our human and civil rights originate not from any necessarily flawed social construct such as “government” but, rather, from our creator. Our human and civil rights are perfect and unbridgeable. It’s only when some of us decide to attempt to misinterpret these rights that they become muddled and flawed. All humans have the right to not be enslaved, yet puny mankind got that all muddled and it took a Civil War, an Emancipation Proclamation and a 13th Constitutional Amendment to finally get that corrected, at least in this great nation. Through these acts the government, didn’t “give us” these rights; it was simply the tool we used to apply them properly. Our State Supreme Court got it right when it said: “[T]he right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people." This finding is exceedingly accurate and, thus, for government or any aspect of government, to attempt to deprive anyone (straight, gay, asexual or bi-sexual) of the right to marry is to deprive them of a basic civil or human right. To do so is patently unconstitutional. The author erroneously asserts that “Here, the same rights exist under both the civil union framework and the marriage framework”. This is patently untrue. Lawful California opposite-sex marriages are recognized, acknowledged and respected *as a matter of law* in all 50 states and at the federal level, not so lawful California same-sex marriages. Until both types of California marriage are equally recognized, acknowledged and respected *as a matter of law* in all 50 states and at the federal level the “same rights” clearly do *not* exist between the two. The author states: “I do not believe that the role of the government is to sanction my lifestyle or anyone else’s.” This is correct. Thus when we, through government “sanction” marriages in one lifestyle and not in another, we are practicing discrimination. The author goes on to say: “If the government seeks to end all marriage benefits that is fine.” On this we firmly agree. If, through government, we cannot respect both types of marriage fully and equally as a matter of law, then government should be decidedly out of the marriage business altogether.

I welcome your responses.

Re: PROP. HATE

John_B — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:58:24 -0000

Your communications are fine, Will. It's my cognition that could sometimes use a tune-up!

Re: PROP. HATE

wswaim — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:38:26 -0000

John: Sorry: For a guy whose job is communication, I didn't make clear my point (vis-a-vis religion and American law)--which is this: Prop 8 attempts to create a legal distinction among citizens, a distinction that is based only (only) on an appeal to religion. (Or maybe religion and prejudice.) I was trying to say that THAT's what's likely to be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment. There's no other reason to strip a class of U.S. citizens of their right to lawful union.

Re: PROP. HATE

Dave Wielenga — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:03:25 -0000

THAT'S funny!

Re: PROP. HATE

howardx — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:23:48 -0000

point taken john, i will now refer to xtianity as "iron age myths" instead of "bronze age"

Re: PROP. HATE

Greggory — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:02:47 -0000

YOU TALKED TO YOUR DAUGHTER ABOUT THIS?! Haven't you seen the commercial? That's the nightmare scenario! It's happening already! The Yes on 8 camp is right! The fabric of society! Ahhhhhhhhh!

Re: PROP. HATE

Nicki — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:18:38 -0000

Dear Will,

Your thoughts are interesting, and I agree that some individuals supporting PROP 8 don't understand the full implications of the Amendment, but my husband has extensively studied and written on the matter. We firmly support PROP 8 and appreciate open and respectful discourse on the matter. I think you may be interested in these excerpts from a recent blogpost that go beyond the base arguments being tossed around :

ARGUMENTS
1. Different Goals: Traditional marriage is a bestowal of rights. These rights are given in hopes of providing social good. In this instance, the social good that these rights are given are (to name a few):
a. The right of a child to be brought up and know his/her biological parents,
b. encourage the optimal situation for child rearing (social science consistently shows that this is a home with a mother and father),
c. bridge the male-female divide,
d. help children to develop the positive aspects of their respective genders, and finally,
e. providing a socially acceptable means of responsible sexuality and reproduction.

Admittedly, traditional marriage as a whole fails to live up to these ideals, despite this, it has the potential to live up to these ideals and commonly does. At its core, same-sex marriage cannot meet the same goals that traditional marriage has espoused. Specifically, it cannot encourage parentage by biological parents of different sex, nor can it bridge the male-female divide. This is not to say that same-sex marriage cannot have benefits of its own. It is merely to show that the goals must, by definition, be different.

2. Specificity: As discussed above, providing for a separate institution, such as civil unions allows for the law to seek social goods that could come from civil unions. These goals include among others:
a. fostering relationship stability,
b. when procreative powers are used, it provides for more stability in the lives of children than they would otherwise have.
c. providing a framework for more responsible sexuality
While some may agree with civil unions, and others would dispute them is a debate for another day. The point to this is that civil unions allow for a legal framework that addresses fundamentally different goals than marriage does in a more specific way.

3. Muddled Legal Framework: Family law is based on certain presumptions specific to traditional marriage. The addition of same-sex marriages into the legal framework brings with it challenges. How does the law deal with divorce issues for same-sex couples? Issues that arise more frequently would be tied to child custody issues such as biological parenting rights, surrogate parenthood, and artificial insemination. For example, in Massachusetts, gay couples are having to spend much more money to divorce because the established laws and cases are difficult to apply, causing further litigation. For example, for traditional marriage, most child custody issues are decided presumptively in favor of the mother. In a same-sex marriage between two females, the court is forced to determine who is in the role of the mother first, then apply the law as if the other partner were the man. Additionally, what about the situations where one partner gives birth, while the other provides support, but is not the biological parent; under the current law, the biological parent is at a great advantage. Having a separate institution allows greater flexibility and responsiveness to deal with issues that are largely same-sex specific.

4. It Does Hurt, and it Can Hurt me in the Future: One of the strongest arguments against the protection of traditional marriage is the question “How is the marriage of Janice and Janet going to hurt the marriage of Brady and Nicki?” The reason why it is a strong argument is because in reality it won’t hurt me or my family directly. However, that is not to say that it won’t hurt us indirectly. Taken as a whole, the societal consequence is that I must view marriage in a way that I don’t believe that marriage is.

Just as most do not believe that polygamy is marriage, and most would not want it to be called marriage, I don’t believe that same-sex unions are marriage. Forcing me and my family to change that definition hurts my belief in marriage as an institution. I am not a bigot for believing that the role of a mother and the role of a father are essential in the lives of the children they create.

I recognize that many of the arguments against same sex marriage are “doomsday” or “slippery slope” arguments are not applicable now and are largely given for dramatic effect. Despite this, I do not wish to huddle with the people that agree with me and try to persuade my children that “real” marriage, as has been in effect for centuries is acceptable while “new” marriage is only acceptable to our belief system in certain circumstances. This truly does hurt how I raise my family. Whether the schools teach it, or society teaches it, same-sex marriage will be taught as marriage as long as it is legal.

5. Precedent: As an attorney, I look first to precedent. Currently, three states allow same-sex marriage (California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts). To my knowledge, 26 states have passed constitutional amendments protecting marriage and 19 have passed statutes, totaling 45 out of 50 states with some form of marriage protection. California and Connecticut both had laws protecting marriage that were overturned despite wide margins supporting those laws when passed. Additionally, federal law defines marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman. That being said, precedent isn’t everything, so let’s go on.

6. Different Actors in the Legal Relationship: At its core, marriage is a legal union, just as a partnership, an LLC, or corporations are legal unions. The choice of which legal union is applicable depends upon the actors and the rights that are sought. Here, the actors are fundamentally different. While the rights may even be identical, the actors are different, thus a legal difference in name is appropriate—not discriminatory.

7. Rights, not Acceptance: I don’t believe that the government has the job to tell people to like me. I believe that the government is in place to give me rights. Rights to do things without government intervention, and in some cases, like marriage, the right to do things with the help of the government. Here, the same rights exist under both the civil union framework and the marriage framework. With that in mind, seeking to change the name of those rights is a play for acceptance and not a play for rights. I do not believe that the role of the government is to sanction my lifestyle or anyone else’s. If the government seeks to end all marriage benefits that is fine. Changing marriage to something different in hopes of lending credibility and acceptance extends beyond the role of government.

CONCLUSION
These are just a few of my thoughts on the subject. I hope that they are received in the proper context and that they are not perceived as being bigoted. In sum, my support for Prop 8 comes down to 1) a belief that a father and a mother in a committed relationship meet the social goals of marriage, 2) same-sex marriage has different actors and goals that can be addressed more effectively under a different legal identity, and 3) seeking acceptance by changing the meaning of accepted terms is not the role of the government.

Re: PROP. HATE

John_B — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:50:42 -0000

Well, howardx, I did preface my comment with the phrase "assuming he is referring to Christianity" but perhaps you overlooked that part.

But even had I not so prefaced my remarks, your comment would still be somewhat ill-advised since the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament...which, when combined with the New Testament, is generally acknowledged to form the basis for Judeo-Christian law and beliefs) began to be compiled right around the time the Bronze Age ended...or about 1200 BC.

In any case we base our legal decisions only to a lesser degree upon (what I now understand you to mean) Judeo-Christian law and beliefs. The predominant method of arriving at legal decisions has far more to do with case law than with the belief systems that formed the basis for our legal system. Thus, if you dislike current case decisions, I would urge you to find fault not with Judeo-Christian law and beliefs but, rather, with the concept of legal precedent.

Thus it is your elected Judges, who establish, and then follow, precedent in the law, that you should take issue with. They periodically run for election and re-election.

I would encourage you to study their rulings and then vote accordingly.

Re: PROP. HATE

LB_City_Girl — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:23:09 -0000

Indeed, the careful reader will note that I was somewhat off topic.
For the record, I could not agree more with either of you!

Re: PROP. HATE

howardx — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:18:50 -0000

john thanks for reminding me that the JUDEO christian law and beliefs you reference didnt start till the birth of christ. silly me thinking the jews had anything to do with it.

Re: PROP. HATE

John_B — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:01:57 -0000

Will, I'm all for getting the State completely out of "the marriage game". In fact I'm for getting the State out of almost every "game" it's currently botching (which is pretty much every "game" it's inserted itself into). Through your comment you make my precise point; those who choose to marry are exercising their religious freedom. Whatever flavor religion or faith or belief system they happen to prefer doesn't matter because the 1st Amendment makes no distinction and is very clear on the matter. Thus in my, admittedly amateur, opinion Prop 8 is prima facie unconstitutional and even if it passes I believe that the California Supreme Court will strike it down just as it did Prop 22.

I dispute with you, however, that:

1. American law is "based solely on an appeal to religion". American law derives heavily from English Common Law which, in turn, is based predominantly in Judeo-Christian law and beliefs. Thus, like it or not, our law is, indeed, inextricably linked with religion. I don't believe that this is what howardx meant in any case. What he intimates is that we base our legal decisions, in 2008, on what he alleges to be "a set of Bronze Age myths". Assuming he is refering to Christianity, this is a foolish idea since the Bronze Age ended some 1200 years before Christ even came on the scene.

2. The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with whether or not American law is supposed to be based upon an appeal to religion. All the religion clause of the 1st Amendment does is prohibit Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. As previously demonstrated, American law and religion are so inextricably linked that a certain amount of appeal to, or influence from, religion is unavoidable.

Re: PROP. HATE

howardx — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:28:46 -0000

im getting tired of the right rolling this out every 4 years to ensure themselves a better turnout from the myth worshippers, i hope we can get this settled this time so we arent arguing about it again in 2012. i hear once obama gets elected we are all going to become gay anyways so it may be a moot point.

Re: PROP. HATE

wswaim — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:28:45 -0000

Thanks, Gina. I think LB City Girl misunderstands your point (and mine) about money and Prop 8: passing the prop (i.e., banning gay marriage) would limit the cash gays and lesbians have been spending on their weddings. I address my problems with that calculation in the story.

And HowardX raises precisely the point I do: that American law isn't supposed to be based solely on appeal to religion. That's what the First Amendment is about. I'm all for a solution I didn't outline in the story: get the state completely out of the "marriage" game. "Marriage" becomes a purely religious term--like, say, "baptism." The state licenses only civil unions for everybody, gay or straight. You want a wedding--a "marriage" ceremony--you go to the county, get a license for a civil union and then find someone who will marry you. But marriage is no longer a legal construct; civil union is.

Re: PROP. HATE

John_B — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:34:56 -0000

Melissa: As mentioned, many feel strongly that the Bible represents the Word of God (on this matter and all others) and thus they desire that their State's laws remain as closely aligned with that Word as possible. Nor is this approach without precedent since the Founders themselves attempted to assure the very same thing where our US Constitution was concerned...a close alignment and agreement with Judeo-Christian values and beliefs.

To minimize the importance of this belief to such people is, in my opinion, no more appropriate than it is to minimize the importance of the belief that same-sex couples should be able to be “married” and not simply “domestically partnered” under the laws of their State.

The belief of each group is no less valid simply by virtue of their divergence or disagreement. The belief of one group should be considered no less important or significant than that of the other.

Wisely, however, the Founders were not prepared to mandate their own beliefs at the federal level. They often cautioned that to diverge from these beliefs would be to risk the loss of the blessings and support of God as they defined Him, but they felt strongly that a free people *must* be guaranteed the right to worship freely, or to not worship at all if such was their choice.

The challenge, of course, arises when we involve the “State” and, for this reason, the Founders wanted to assure, as best they could, that as a nation we did not lapse into a theocracy, wherein the “State” sponsored one particular religion that all citizens would be required to adhere to and be guided by…thus the "religion clause" of the 1st Amendment and the basis of my personal objection to Prop 8.

In our nation, as well as in our State, people are free to follow and to practice whatever type of faith or belief system, or none at all, that they choose (assuming no creature is being criminally victimized, of course).

I believe that anyone who chooses to have his or her union to another "solemnized" is following their faith or belief system and, thus, should be seen to be freely exercising their “religion” and it is patently *unconstitutional* to make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Unfortunately the US Supreme Court has thus far declined to hear any challenges to US DOMA (Public Law No. 104-199, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996) and for that reason the current law of the land is that neither the federal government nor any individual State is required to respect or to honor a same-sex marriage from another State that permits them.

Those who choose to not live in a State that permits same-sex marriage have the freedom to reside in a State that does not do so and those who choose to not live in a State that does not permit same-sex marriage are, likewise, free to live in a State that does.

With the clear exception of the ill-considered US DOMA law, I believe this is precisely how it should be.

Re: PROP. HATE

LB_City_Girl — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:31:30 -0000

Gina, I would think that an increase in the sale of marriage licenses actually has the potential to raise a lot of money for the government, not cost it a lot of money.

Re: PROP. HATE

GinaC — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:47:49 -0000

Will,

Thank you for this article! I loved the interview with your daughter. I also completely agree with your friend who did the bumper stickers saying Prop 8 will cost California millions. Money is all that seems to matter to most. Here's another reason why: My father is a retired minister, has a master's in theology, and is a Christian to this day. He also worked on LA's skid row with homeless people for 25 years. He has argued for decades that the reason many (certainly not all) Christians choose moral issues on which to focus (i.e., abortion, gay marriage) is because it doesn't cost them a dime. And they get to sit around and feel better than other people (my words) and feel like their work is done. But why are they focusing on these moral issues instead of actually doing what Christ asks of his followers? Well, it costs money to feed the hungry and take care of the poor and no one wants to give up their hard-earned cash. But, my father argues, it is when you escape materialism that you can live a life that's rich with God's love.

Although I no longer a Christian, I am still deeply influenced by the teachings of Christ and my parents. They taught me that the greatest commandment is love. They taught me I had a moral obligation to love my neighbor, feed the hungry, and take care of the poor. Surely Christ would not be behind the hate of Prop 8.

Respectfully,

GinaC

Re: PROP. HATE

howardx — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:29:48 -0000

is anyone up to explaining to me why we should be basing any legal decisions in the year 2008 on a set of bronze age myths?

Re: PROP. HATE

John_B — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:42:10 -0000

Melissa: As mentioned, many feel strongly that the Bible represents the Word of God (on this matter and all others) and thus they desire that their State's laws remain as closely aligned with that Word as possible. Nor is this approach without precedent since the Founders themselves attempted to assure the very same thing where our US Constitution was concerned...a close alignment and agreement with Judeo-Christian values and beliefs.

To minimize the importance of this belief to such people is, in my opinion, no more appropriate than it is to minimize the importance of the belief that same-sex couples should be able to be “married” and not simply “domestically partnered” under the laws of their State.

The belief of each group is no less valid simply by virtue of their divergence or disagreement. The belief of one group should be considered no less important or significant than that of the other.

Wisely, however, the Founders were not prepared to mandate their own beliefs at the federal level. They often cautioned that to diverge from these beliefs would be to risk the loss of the blessings and support of God as they defined Him, but they felt strongly that a free people *must* be guaranteed the right to worship freely, or to not worship at all if such was their choice.

The challenge, of course, arises when we involve the “State” and, for this reason, the Founders wanted to assure, as best they could, that as a nation we did not lapse into a theocracy, wherein the “State” sponsored one particular religion that all citizens would be required to adhere to and be controlled by…thus the "religion clause" of the 1st Amendment and the basis of my personal objection to Prop 8.

In our nation, as well as in our State, people are free to follow and to practice whatever type of faith or belief system they choose (assuming no creature is being criminally victimized, of course).

I believe that anyone who chooses to have his or her union to another solemnized is following their faith or belief system and, thus, should be seen to be freely exercising their “religion” and it is patently *unconstitutional* to make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Unfortunately the US Supreme Court has thus far declined to hear any challenges to US DOMA (Public Law No. 104-199, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996) and for that reason the current law of the land is that neither the federal government nor any individual State is required to respect or to honor a same-sex marriage from a State that permits them.

Those who choose to not live in a State that permits same-sex marriage have the freedom to reside in a State that does not do so and those who choose to not live in a State that does not permit same-sex marriage are, likewise, free to live in a State that does.

With the clear exception of the ill-considered US DOMA law, I believe this is precisely how it should be.

Re: PROP. HATE

JDL — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:35:32 -0000

This Prop 8 article was personal and illuminating . It did not professedly teach, or preach - but it made me smile and think.

Re: PROP. HATE

Melissa — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:03:45 -0000

John: I'm really a sucker for catchy slogans. BUT and with all due respect, I don't understand for instance, why laws that don't apply to your "Biblical constructionist" friends need to "suit" them. They are free to live their lives the way they always have. I mean, it's like petitioning to demolish a person's house because it just doesn't suit you.

So, I know it's your friends right to support prop 8 but in the end, why do they care about a harmless law that has no effect on them? I mean, everything else aside how could this possibly have any sort of impact on their life? Think about how your friends' moral obligations (?) could hurt gays who are married or plan to be.

And if it really does for some reason bother them, I agree that they should probably move if the law passes.

Re: PROP. HATE

br123martin — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:30:26 -0000

Ecclesiastical Proclamation
Universal Life Church Monastery:

Ecclesiastical Proclamation of Canon Law All humans have an inalienable right and duty to practice their own peaceful religious traditions. However, religion should not contradict the reality of creation. "Why does God give us instincts and then set all the rules in opposition?" asks John Milton of Kevin Lomax in the movie The Devil’s Advocate. This question poses a dilemma for many believers. We are told that what separates humans from all other forms of life on earth is that we are endowed with free will. Given the choice to yield to our instincts, or consciously deny our primal instructions, the laws set forth in whichever holy book we might follow often prescribes a model of behavior that demands sacrifice. The theory of evolution is now academically accepted as the most believable explanation for the variety of life on earth. For argument's sake, we shall accept the Vatican's position that if evolution occurred, it may very well have been under the impetus and guidance of “divine intelligence.” Thus we assume that animals, endowed with neither free will nor conscience, evolved in accordance with creation’s design. How then can we explain the existence of homosexuality observed and documented in over 500 species of animals?

Christian dogma holds that the function of sexuality is procreation and any aberration is perverse and unnatural. Such is the placing of gods over humanity, the placing of junk science over reality, and the placing of belief over knowledge. Zoologists have observed, in a wide variety of species from dolphins to orangutans, a consistent frequency of homosexual behavior. Take for example New York’s Central Park Zoo's male penguin couple that raised their young together, making headlines around the world. If animals behave instinctively in response to stimuli and not out of a socially constructed code of conduct, would it not stand to reason that we, their evolutionary cousins, might possess a similar biological imprint? We may not be willing to abandon ancient traditions and practices, but we can adapt them to our new understanding of the universe. It is difficult to reconcile this evidence through deductive reason and rational thought with the condemnation of homosexual behavior found in antiquated and archaic Scriptures. In our search for truth we must not shy away from intellectual honesty and scientific evidence that causes us to question hitherto unquestioned belief. Would a loving God create something, and then condemn it?

None of us can ignore the primal instruction of Creation. Moreover, why did Jesus avoid any utterance on the subject? Nor can we ignore the apparent biblical gay relationships of Ruth and Naomi or David & Jonathan. Clearly, we have wavered from the path of legitimate search, transition, and discovery. We as a people differ on the story of our origins, but these divisions, worsened by our quarrelsome, arrogant nature, now imperil our future and the future of earth. All religions must adapt to unfolding knowledge about the universe we live in, without rejecting deep spiritual connections to human history and the natural real world that we are a part of today.

Today the Board of Directors issues this Ecclesiastical Proclamation; All persons with love for one another have a religious and constitutional right under the 1st Amendment of the United States, to the Sacrament of Marriage. Such is invoked under natural, primal, and religious law. Given this understanding, we hold that it is a denial of religious rights by the United States government to restrain our ministers from their constitutional right to perform the ritual of the Sacrament of Marriage to consenting adults, regadless of sexual design.

Our campaign on the “Road to Jericho” will include instituting legal action against all entities of government within the United States who traverse the First Amendment by refusing the rights of Holy Sacrament as offered to heterosexual couples when denied to homosexual couples.

Adopted and Approved: Thursday, April 12, 2007 Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse Board of Directors
http://blog.themonastery.org/2007_07_01_archive...

Re: PROP. HATE

ulc.org — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:24:18 -0000

Universal Life Church Monastery Homepage
Friday, July 27, 2007
Ecclesiastical Proclamation
Universal Life Church Monastery:

Ecclesiastical Proclamation of Canon Law All humans have an inalienable right and duty to practice their own peaceful religious traditions. However, religion should not contradict the reality of creation. "Why does God give us instincts and then set all the rules in opposition?" asks John Milton of Kevin Lomax in the movie The Devil’s Advocate. This question poses a dilemma for many believers. We are told that what separates humans from all other forms of life on earth is that we are endowed with free will. Given the choice to yield to our instincts, or consciously deny our primal instructions, the laws set forth in whichever holy book we might follow often prescribes a model of behavior that demands sacrifice. The theory of evolution is now academically accepted as the most believable explanation for the variety of life on earth. For argument's sake, we shall accept the Vatican's position that if evolution occurred, it may very well have been under the impetus and guidance of “divine intelligence.” Thus we assume that animals, endowed with neither free will nor conscience, evolved in accordance with creation’s design. How then can we explain the existence of homosexuality observed and documented in over 500 species of animals?

Christian dogma holds that the function of sexuality is procreation and any aberration is perverse and unnatural. Such is the placing of gods over humanity, the placing of junk science over reality, and the placing of belief over knowledge. Zoologists have observed, in a wide variety of species from dolphins to orangutans, a consistent frequency of homosexual behavior. Take for example New York’s Central Park Zoo's male penguin couple that raised their young together, making headlines around the world. If animals behave instinctively in response to stimuli and not out of a socially constructed code of conduct, would it not stand to reason that we, their evolutionary cousins, might possess a similar biological imprint? We may not be willing to abandon ancient traditions and practices, but we can adapt them to our new understanding of the universe. It is difficult to reconcile this evidence through deductive reason and rational thought with the condemnation of homosexual behavior found in antiquated and archaic Scriptures. In our search for truth we must not shy away from intellectual honesty and scientific evidence that causes us to question hitherto unquestioned belief. Would a loving God create something, and then condemn it?

None of us can ignore the primal instruction of Creation. Moreover, why did Jesus avoid any utterance on the subject? Nor can we ignore the apparent biblical gay relationships of Ruth and Naomi or David & Jonathan. Clearly, we have wavered from the path of legitimate search, transition, and discovery. We as a people differ on the story of our origins, but these divisions, worsened by our quarrelsome, arrogant nature, now imperil our future and the future of earth. All religions must adapt to unfolding knowledge about the universe we live in, without rejecting deep spiritual connections to human history and the natural real world that we are a part of today.

Today the Board of Directors issues this Ecclesiastical Proclamation; All persons with love for one another have a religious and constitutional right under the 1st Amendment of the United States, to the Sacrament of Marriage. Such is invoked under natural, primal, and religious law. Given this understanding, we hold that it is a denial of religious rights by the United States government to restrain our ministers from their constitutional right to perform the ritual of the Sacrament of Marriage to consenting adults, regadless of sexual design.

Our campaign on the “Road to Jericho” will include instituting legal action against all entities of government within the United States who traverse the First Amendment by refusing the rights of Holy Sacrament as offered to heterosexual couples when denied to homosexual couples.

Adopted and Approved: Thursday, April 12, 2007 Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse Board of Directors
http://blog.themonastery.org/2007_07_01_archive...

Re: PROP. HATE

John_B — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:43:44 -0000

Melissa: With due respect, that's a very nice slogan and sound byte but a vast oversimplification of the motivation of many who are supporting Prop 8.

Are some proponents hateful? Certainly and sadly. Some but not, by any means, all and to paint every proponent of Prop 8 with that extremely judgmental brush is to practice the very same sort of intolerance to divergent viewpoints that you no doubt accuse them of practicing against you.

Many people, though (and some of these are extremely dear to me) are strict Biblical constructionists who feel that our own codified laws (such as our State Constitution, for example) should much more closely reflect what they believe to be the true word of God on this topic. They are not motivated by hate to *any* degree but, rather, by a love of their God as they define Him and a desire to adhere to his Word. Some are so commited to this belief that they intend to leave the State if Prop 8 fails and I would submit that they probably should do so.

That's really how our Republic was designed to work. The people in each State are free to craft the sort of place in which they desire to live, work and raise their families. As long as each State follows the US Constitution and any other federal laws that all States agreed to adhere to, they are otherwise free to make whatever laws they feel best suit them.

And better still, to *NOT* make laws (like this one) that don't.

Re: PROP. HATE

Melissa — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:12:05 -0000

No on 8= No on hate.