I received this letter via email today. It saddens me that some people would fight for "tolerance" by not tolerating others and their beliefs.
Dear family and friends,
I had a very disturbing experience yesterday that I would like to share with those of you that live outside of California (or outside of the San Francisco Bay Area).
This weekend we have Stake Conference. Our Stake Conference always begins with a Stake Temple Session on Friday or Thursday night. Early Friday morning I received a call from the second counselor in our bishopric to let me know that there would be numerous protesters outside the temple, and to remind everyone to stay calm and to drive carefully. The beautiful Oakland Temple is located right across the bay from San Francisco, very close to the city of Berkeley.
Apparently the opposition to proposition 8, the amendment that seeks to make marriage in CA between a man and a woman again, has realized the deep involvement of the church and begun to protest right outside of the temple and harass temple patrons. The fastest way to get to the temple from our house is to take the 680 freeway, but the exit is a bit tricky. The off ramp is extremely short and straight uphill. You then make an almost blind left turn, an immediate right and another left into the parking lot. As we approached the off ramp, I realized there would be trouble. There was a backup onto the freeway from cars stalled on the off ramp. As we moved forward inches at a time, we realized this was due to a large group of loud protesters who were standing on both sides of the street, yelling, screaming and waving signs. When we got to the top of the off ramp, ready to make our turn, one protester jumped out right in front of our car. It took my husband all his self control to carefully maneuver around him to the left and proceed to the temple. I tried not to listen to all they were shouting at us, but I was shaking as I got to the temple front door.
Several of the sisters, especially the ones driving on their own, were crying (which made me snap out of it and go into Relief Society President mode to comfort them). Later, as I was sitting in the perfect quiet of the chapel, I couldn't help but think of Lehi's dream, and the people who mocked the Saints from the big, spacious building but "we heeded them not." It was a truly surreal experience, I'd never thought that I would have to go through an angry crowd to get to the temple. As we left late at night, the protesters had dispersed, temple security (who all looked very large and Tongan) stood by the gates. I never saw a single police man.
Please pray for those of us in California fighting for prop 8--it's getting kind of scary out here!
~Susanne
For something truly horrifying, check out this link about how people are trying to personally attack any Mormom who has donated to Prop 8 -
http://www.asoftanswer.com/2008/10/21/targeting-mormons-on-proposition-8/#comment-5050
This issue has clearly divided our State. One side is mainly following their beliefs by educating people, volunteering to call voters, and having peaceful rallies simply waving signs. The other side has more than enough examples of how they attack their opposition, screaming obscenities, illegally destroying property such as Prop 8 signs, and encouraging people to look up "dirt" about them online and use it to attack them. As a religious person, I try to follow the example of Jesus Christ. How would He fight for what He believes in? On the other hand, which tactics do you think Satan encourages?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
One side is right, and one side is wrong. How can you tell?
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Day One Recap
Yesterday marked the first day of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the lawsuit in which a lesbian couple is suing the state of California over their inability to marry after Prop. 8's passage.
The case is anticipated to be the watershed decision that will more or less set the precedent for gay marriage - it will likely hit the Supreme Court eventually, meaning its decision will have nationwide ramifications. If you want background on it, hop over to protectmarriage.com - they've got a bunch of valuable information, and they'll be updating their site more frequently and in depth than I'll be able to here (I'll do what I can, though). You can also follow them on Twitter at @protectmarriage.
Yesterday began with a victory for the Yes on 8 side: the United States Supreme Court stayed the order of Judge Vaughn Walker that would have allowed for streaming video of the courtroom proceedings. The stay is in effect until tomorrow (Wednesday) at 4 p.m. Eastern / 1 p.m. Pacific, at which time a decision on whether or not to broadcast the trial via YouTube is expected.
Although I'm all for transparency, after seeing the retaliation that hit so many Yes on 8 supporters during and after the campaign, I think televising the proceedings is a horrible idea. Justice won't be blind; people won't be able to be completely honest for fear of what will follow their truthful testimony. I understand how the No on 8 side wants their emotional appeal to pull weight... but, again, justice is supposed to be blind. After all, didn't Aristotle say "The law is reason, free from passion"? The court's role is not to made emotionally based decisions. They are to look at a scenario and decide how it fits into the laws of the land, whether or not it is permissible according to the framework of the Constitution. Granted, with judicial review, court cases have come to supplant the laws of the land via precedents... but that's a post for another day. (Er, rather, one I already wrote...)
Suffice it to say, I really, really can't stand activist judges. I don't care what you think is best - I care that you use your experience in interpreting the Constitution. Ugh. When I was a journalist, believe you me, I had opinions aplenty about the goings-on of the communities I covered, but I had the self-restraint to leave my ideas out and simply report on what the decision-makers had to say because I knew people didn't care what I had to say. It wasn't my job! If only judges (and the mainstream media) could exercise such restraint...
*Stepping off soapbox*
Okay, so, back to Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The Wall Street Journal's law blog had an excellent post recapping the day's events. The trial kicked off with three testimonies from the No on 8 camp - two lesbian women and a gay man - that reflected their legal team's strategy: place the case on par with the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Their lawyer Ted Olson called marriage a "basic civil right" that Prop. 8 sought to take away.
(No matter that gay marriage was only legal in California because the courts improperly overturned the people's vote from Prop. 22... just sayin'...)
Then the Yes on 8 side got its turn, with the legal team arguing that marriage rights for same-sex couples undermines the "pro-child institution" aspect of marriage, redefining marriage's very nature to be a private relationship between two adults that's based on love. This chips away at the parent-child bond and will likely lead to an upswing in divorce rates.
Not surprisingly, most of the media coverage focuses on the No on 8 side. If you want to hear more on the strategy and perspective of the Yes on 8 legal team, General Counsel Andy Pugno is blogging - click here to read his post from Day One.
This is going to be an interesting ride, my friends. Let's just hope and pray that right will prevail - and even if it doesn't, well, let us at least leave a record of where we stood. I don't care if the Sean Penns of the world think we're on the wrong side of history. It's not their opinion that matters. The family is a critical institution established by God. It's the bedrock of every society - not to mention of the eternities. We must defend it with all we've got, because if it crumbles, so too will our society.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
A Conversation on Facebook
This issue is tearing people apart. Here is a conversation I had just today. You be the judge of who is right and who is wrong for yourself, not for me or anyone else.
This vote is about telling California how you feel about the issue, not forcing anyone else to believe what you believe. I'm posting this hoping that it will help others realize that we need to stop fighting over this. When all is said & done, on November 5th we will go back to being family, friends, neighbors, etc... We are going to have to follow the law, no matter what it is. Let's not lose friends over this. Make sure that you fight for what you believe in, but not in a way that is hurtful to others. And those of you getting offended - STOP. We all have had different experiences, and therefore we all have different viewpoints. That's what makes this world such a beautiful place.
My friend Joe -
{Posts article on publishing the names of Mormon's who have contributed to YES on 8 and targeting them - read article HERE} Calling all Mormons! TEACHING YOUR CHILDREN TO DISCRIMINATE IS NOT IN THE BOOK OF LATTER DAY SAINTS!
Me -
Tolerance does not mean to condone one's actions. No one's rights are being taken away if Proposition 8 passes. On the other hand, if it doesn't pass, many rights will be taken away from God fearing people. For more information go to my blog www.preservingmarriage.blogspot.com. The way that I am being treated as a Mormon is certainly an indication of how things are to be if Proposition 8 doesn't pass. How do you justify being intolerant while screaming that you demand tolerance? I am voting YES on Proposition 8, no matter how many names you sling my way. It's the right choice in my opinion, and I have the right to vote however I'd like.
Joe -
Prop 8 does take away my right to marry. I can't control who I'm attracted to. Being gay IS NOT A CHOICE. So why should a complete stranger be given the power to dictate if I can marry the person I fall in love with? A COMPLETE STRANGER HAS THE POWER TO DESTROY THE POSSIBILITIES OF ME STARTING A FAMILY! By posting the list of Prop 8 contributors is not intolerance at all. It's simply stating a fact. There is nothing about me spending my life with someone that needs to be "tolerated". You say it as if a homosexual needs to have the permission of a heterosexual to get married. WTF? And the way youre being treated for being a Mormon isn't shit compared to how I've been treated my entire life for being gay. We spent 4 years along side each other at PHS & you can vouch that I was called some horrible names. Please read Stephanie Brodyy's message on my way. There are only 14 words in Prop 8 & not a single word is about schools or churches.
Me -
You have the "right" to marry...The law just dictates to whom. I am subject to those same laws, so in fact, we have the same rights. Having the temptation of same-sex attraction may not have been your choice, but it was your choice to act upon it. I know that will be hurtful to you, but I'm sorry...that's what I believe.I would fight to the death for your freedom to act as you choose. But when it comes to the morality of my state, I will fight to the death to protect the traditional family. You have domestic partnerships, which under CA Family Code 297.5 grants you all the rights as spouses. So, we must ask, why do you need it to be called marriage? For social status? It is not marriage. To me and millions others, marriage is the sacred union between MAN & WOMAN. It is how God designed it to be the best for relationships and for children to grow and be nurtured. Society has all but obliterated that. Now it is "uncool" & "bigoted" to want to try & keep that definition sacred. The reason I put the word right in quotation marks is because I don't think it's a civil right to be able to marry. My friend Blaine put it this way - "I personally respect a persons right to believe how or what they may but they may not always do what they want. Which brings me to another point: What is a right? Our founding fathers had specific ideas in mind when they established the Bill of Rights. A right was something that you could do without fear of legal consequence. However, rights are not absolute. Our Bill of Rights were things that people could do but government or society was not required to provide you with the means to practice that right. For example, you have freedom of speech but society and the government are not required to provide you with a radio station to exercise that right. You have freedom to bear arms but fellow citizens are not required to buy you a gun. You have freedom of religion but the nation is not required to build you a church. That's why medical care is not a right. Others would have to pay for you to receive it. That's why it's not in our Constitution. The same thing could be said of the government buying you a house." I think there is a hidden agenda here. No, the words "children" & "schools" are not in the words that will be added to the constitution. But we are talking about CA law here. If the law defines marriage as a union between and 2 people, regardless of gender, then according to CA Education codes 51890 & 51933, homosexual marriage will be taught in school. It's interesting to me that all the organizations that are claiming that it won't change anything in schools (ACLU, Anti-Defamation League, Equality for All) have fought very hard in Mass. so that it was taught in schools. Do they think that children in Mass. should be taught different in CA? Or are they LYING?
Joe -
Ok so just so the Mormon Faith isn't tested I will fake an attraction to a woman, lie to her about the love, start a family that I wouldn't want, live a miserable life & break her heart when she realizes I don't love her. ALL IN THE NAME OF KEEPING MARRIAGE SACRED. Honestly Heather...think about what you are suggesting. I AM NOT ATTRACTED TO WOMEN. So becuase of an uncontrolable emotion I'm supposed to suffer a life of solidarity just because your faith says so? You're following your faith blindly & taking down anyone that tests, challenges or thinks otherwise. And no matter the cost. I've lost friends because I'm gay. I've been ridiculed because I'm gay. I have family members who don't talk to me because I'm gay. Not because I ACTED upon my attactions but for the simple fact of who I am attracted to. Not only are you forcing your faith onto people that aren't Mormon but you're blantantly disregarding THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH & STATE.
Me -
In case you can't tell, I've researched this THOROUGHLY. You just see it as an opportunity to have a wedding just like anyone else. I wish that was all this was about, because frankly, I wish you could. I would be there to support you even. But this is about SO MUCH MORE! There are many ways that both sides could be happy. We don't have to change the legal definition of marriage to have equality.Now, I know that I probably won't change your mind, and I'm damn sure that you won't change mine, so let's just agree to disagree, like I thought we had before. Instead I find you passive aggressively calling me out on Facebook. I'm sorry that Mormon's have hurt your feelings. That is NOT our intent. It is an unfortunate consequence of 4 activist SF judges denying the will of the people and forcing us to have to take a stand.I love you, and I'm sorry that I see things much differently than you. I will abide by the will of the people as it is decided on November 4th. I am voting YES on Prop 8.
Joe -
Heather I haven't addressed any of my postings to you. I've simply posted things that reflect my life. It is my page afterall. If you're part of a "religion" that funds political legislation then that's on you. And that point alone should be questioned more. Why are you so poised to protect the sanctity of marriage but you throw THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH & STATE right out the window? I would never think about forcing any of my beliefs or views on any of my friends let alone a complete stranger. So why isn't the same expected from you? Oh that's right because you're religion says so. Anytime anyone's religion is tested (ESPECIALLY THE CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS) the opposition is seen as secular & divisive. Your vote for Prop 8 isn't a vote to protect marriage. It doesn't need any protection. Marry the man you love. It's not like my marriage will affect yours in any way. And if it does. Then you have some serious praying to do. A vote for 8 is simply a vote to promote discrimination.
Me -
So when you write "Calling all Mormons" you're not talking to me? How many Mormon friends do you have on Facebook? (You don't need to even answer that...it's rhetorical.) I also saw that you pointed out to Stephanie that I am Mormon. This all leads me to discern that you were addressing me.What part of Proposition 8 forces my beliefs on you? The California people should be able to decide how we want marriage defined, not the courts.I notice that you didn't address any of my points...you just simply start ranting discrimination again. I have clearly pointed out that this has nothing to do with discrimination. We both have all the same rights. NOTHING will be taken away.I don't agree with your lifestyle. That doesn't make me a bad person. You are not a bad person either. WE NEED TO STOP ATTACKING EACH OTHER OVER THIS!!!!!!!!!!!You are passionate, and I am too. We understand each other's views. We still disagree. Let's call it a day on this one.
Joe -
Deal! Good night!
I'm glad that ended well, and I hope and pray that we can still be friends. We have been pretty good at staying friends for this long so far, so I think we have a chance. Just remember to treat each other with respect and how you would like to be treated. We're going to have to work together one way or the other after this is all done. Don't do anything you would regret. Thanks.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
WHY I'M VOTING "YES" ON PROP 8, OR A NOTE BY A NEONATE LAWYER
WHY I'M VOTING "YES" ON PROP 8, OR A NOTE BY A NEONATE LAWYER
That is why I support Proposition 8.
First, let me premise this post by stating that I’m not a raging, elephant-riding Republican or an unschooled, bible-bashing automaton (if you are either of these, I apologize if I offend). I've been around the proverbial block on the issue of free exercise. During my undergraduate studies, I chaired a regional committee on Constitutional autonomy in education. In 2003 and 2006 I wrote and published articles on the clash of First Amendment liberties and secular doctrine.[1] I worked under the leading counsel on First Amendment rights at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington D.C. I'm not saying my views are more legitimate than anyone else's, I just want to clarify that I’m not spouting blindly on the subject.[2]
Now let’s all get one thing straight: religion will be affected by a redefinition of marriage. Both liberal and conservative scholars admit that the outcome of Proposition 8—whether passed or rejected—will dramatically shape the First Amendment landscape.[3] The basic premise of the debate pits First Amendment rights of free exercise against Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of equal protection. And legal scholars betting on the outcome predict universally that free exercise will lose the fight.[4]
I am not arguing that if Proposition 8 doesn’t pass, churches will be silenced at the pulpit or forced to change their religious creed. But when free exercise and equal protection collide—and they will—free exercise will get the short end of the stick. Marc Stern, a contributing editor of “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts,” explains: “[N]o one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them. Same-sex marriage w[ill], however, work a sea change in American law. That change will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in some ways that are today unpredictable.”[5]
Take education, for instance.[6] In Massachusetts, the state Supreme Court—not a vote of the people—redefined marriage just as occurred in California. In 2007, a Massachusetts elementary school began teaching kindergarten and first grade children about same-sex marriage using a book which told the story of a prince who “lived happily ever after” with another prince. (*I’m not commenting on the quality of the story here, just the legal outcome*). Some parents requested that their children be allowed to opt-out of such instruction until the seventh grade. They did not challenge the use of the book as part of the school’s curriculum. When the school district refused to let the children opt-out, the parents sued in federal court.
They lost. In a 47-page opinion, the First Circuit held that the parents’ right to choose traditional marriage education for their child was not protected by the First Amendment because same sex marriage was permitted by Massachusetts law.[7] Free exercise could not justify legal exemption where due process and equal protection rights were in play.[8]
A similar outcome is not only possible in California, but likely. California’s Supreme Court has already mandated same sex marriage under the law, and unless voters amend this law in November, the court decision stands. California schools would be authorized to teach the same sex tenets of California policy.[9] And it is not difficult to imagine a same sex curriculum under the Education Code which requires schools to teach children about marriage from kindergarten forward.[10]
When First Amendment rights are pitted against Fourteenth Amendment due process, somebody will get hurt. This is not a Chicken Little prophesy. It is a legally-recognized fact.[11] (For a brief note on the sham security blanket of the “In re Marriage opinion, see footnote 12).[12]
A collision of First Amendment and equal protection rights is not the only consequence of redefining marriage. If the California court’s “In re Marriage” decision stands, the American system will have failed. Our three-branch institution is governed by the “separation of powers” principle. Each governmental branch—executive, legislative, and judicial—has a distinct and constitutionally-limited role which “checks and balances” the others. The legislators make the laws. The executive enforces the laws. The judiciary makes sure the laws square with the Constitution. For the system to survive, the branches must play by these rules.
The “In re Marriage” decision was a check-and-balance mess. The California court stepped into distinctly legislative territory when it redefined marriage as between “any two people” in direct contravention of California voters. This definition was not an interpretation of existing law, it was the invention of a statutory right. Whether you’re liberal or conservative, gay or straight, the system isn’t working right.
Some same sex marriage supporters compare the current conflict to the civil rights movement. A poorer comparison does not exist. (I lie. Comparing Prop 8 to the Potato Famine of 1845 would be pretty bad.) This is not a civil rights issue. Wait. Let me say that again. *This is not a civil rights issue.* Civil rights are implicated when a “fundamental right” protected by the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment is restricted. There is no fundamental right to gay marriage.[13]
An important distinction must be made here. Common usage of the term “rights” conflates two distinct legal meanings: those rights that are specially provided for under the Constitution (e.g., free speech), and those rights that exist simply because no law has been passed restricting them (e.g., the right to use a cell phone while driving). The latter type of right is not protected under the law and is subject to potential regulation. The former type is protected and cannot be withheld; however it must be constitutionally-derived.[
Many of you reading this are Mormon, and I make a final note to you here. There are some of you who are up in arms—nay, outraged—that the church would dare enter the secular arena and preach politics from the pulpit. It offends your very soul that General Authorities are discussing the weighty affairs of government. To you, this entire situation just feels plain wrong. Your feelings are not misplaced. This situation is so wrong, it violates the founding principles of our nation. But the error is not on the church’s part, it is on the state’s. By authorizing the reconstruction of a markedly religious rite, the judiciary has violated Establishment Clause principles which prohibit government interference with religious faith. In effect, the state has shoved the church into the middle of the civic street, and we are trying to drag ourselves back onto the sidewalk again.
I support the right to believe. I support equal rights. And I endorse apportionment of the rights and liberties provided by our Constitution to every citizen—gay, straight, religious, or agnostic.[22] That is why I support Proposition 8.[23] It's not because I don't love my gay friends. It's not because I think people who believe differently than I do are bad. It's just that as a rights-respecting American citizen, I am not willing to override basic principles of Constitutional liberty.
...And now I'm stepping off my soap box. Respond at will. (For the sake of sanity and limitless-word postings, I'd ask that you direct your comments to this post on my blog at http://gr8prop8deb8.blogsp
[ENDNOTES]
[1] If you’re really that curious (please don’t be): Carolyn A. Deverich, "Establishment Clause Jurisprudence and the Free Exercise Dilemma: A Structural Unitary-Accommodationist Argument for the Constitutionality of God in the Public Square," 2006 BYU L. Rev. 211 (2006); Carolyn A. Deverich "Saving Grace: Deterrents to the Secularization of American Law," 17 PreLaw Review 71 (2003).
[2] I also don't mean to sound like an arrogant, elitist snob. For the record, I still can't tie my shoelaces without singing the bunny song.
[3] Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel of the leading First Amendment law firm in the country noted that “[t]he impact of [the same sex marriage debate] will be severe and pervasive. This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations. …[T]he church is surrounded on all sides by the state [and] church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it’s easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter.” quoted in Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston,” The Weekly Standard, Vol. 11, Issue 33 (May 15, 2006), available at http://www.weeklystandard.
[4] As law professor and gay marriage scholar Robin Wilson puts it, “If the courts treat [same sex marriage] as a ban on racial discrimination, then there’s not much likelihood that any religious claims will survive.” Nationally-recognized gay civil rights advocate and Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum agrees, noting that the clash between free exercise of religion and sexual liberty is real, and when the two conflict, “[one] ha[s] a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” Both Felblum and Wilson are contributing editors of the recently published book, “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts” (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers 2008).
[5] “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts” (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers 2008).
[6] I use education as a counterargument to Morris A. Thurston’s contention that Prop 8 supporters are lying when they cite school curriculum as a target for the same sex marriage fallout. (Thurston’s article is available at http://www.mormonsformarri
[7] Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008), available at http://www.ca1.uscourts.go
[8] For my legally-minded friends who prefer an in-depth breakdown: The Parker court analyzed the parents’ First Amendment claims under U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Wisconsin v. Yoder, which views due process and free exercise rights “interdependently.” 406 U.S. 205 (1972). Under the Yoder approach, the First Circuit looked to whether the school’s curriculum imposed a “constitutional burden on the[] [parents’] rights, or on those of their children.” Finding no parallel between the Yoder plaintiffs’ “unique and demanding religious way of life that is fundamentally incompatible with any schooling system” and the Parker parents’ religious objection to mainstream law, the court held that the parents had “no constitutional right to ‘direct how [the] public school teaches their child.’” In short, there was “no federal case under the Due Process Clause which has permitted parents to demand an exemption for their children from exposure to certain books used in public schools.”
[9] Thurston’s uninspired argument suggests that it won’t be MANDATORY to teach same sex education in the schools. Well sure, Thurston. I agree. But once a school DOES start teaching same sex marriage, parents can’t do much about it.
[10] Cal. Educ. C., § 51890(a)(1), available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/
[11] I have a comment to those of you whipping out your copy of Morris A. Thurston’s “Mormon Myth” commentary (available at http://www.mormonsformarri
[12] Some same sex marriage supporters point to the language of the “In re Marriage” court as proof that traditional marriage citizens will not be impacted by a redefinition of marriage. Specifically, they quote the tail end of the argument which states, “[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.” “In re Marriage Cases,” 43 Cal.4th 757 (Cal. 2008). While I like that the court gives a shout-out to the traditional camp, this statement is mere “dicta”—the equivalent of a legal belch. It is not part of the court's actual holding, has nothing to do with the adjudicated issue, and is not enforceable in a court of law. It's just judges passing gas. So as for the argument that religion won’t be affected…it’s just a lot of wind.
[13]Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, (October 10, 2008) (slip op.) (Zarella, J., dissenting), available at http://www.jud.state.ct.us
[14] Of course, this raises the option of amending the Constitution to provide for a certain right. This is what a majority of the amendments to the Constitution do.
[15] Courts are clear that a restriction of “fundamental rights” is necessary to preserve our legal system. In short order, the courts have denied a “fundamental right” to smoke in public (Fagan v. Axelrod, 550 N.Y.S. 2d 552, 560 (1990)), to groom one’s hair (City of North Miami v. Kurtz, 653 So.2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 1995), to adopt (Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977)), or to receive public health care. The list continues, my space does not.
[16] See, e.g., Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); see also Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).
[17] See e.g., Andersen v. King County, 158 Wash. 2d 1, 65 (2006) (law limiting marriage to marriage between one man and one woman ‘‘does not distinguish between persons of heterosexual orientation and homosexual orientation’’); Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003) (Cordy, J., dissenting) (‘‘[t]he classification is not drawn between men and women or between heterosexuals and homosexuals, any of whom can obtain a license to marry a member of the opposite sex; rather, it is drawn between samesex couples and opposite-sex couples’’); cf. Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 359 (2006).
[18] Comparisons to the 1948 Perez v. Sharp case which compelled interracial marriage are not analogous for this reason. There, black citizens were not protected equally under the law because, unlike white men, they were not allowed to marry white women. Here, gay and straight citizens are treated identically under the law.
[19] That right, a two-word amendment to the California constitution, was designed to impose privacy restrictions on the disclosure of public records. See Bob Egelko, “‘... And Privacy’: How a Two-Word Amendment to the State Constitution in 1972 Led to the Legal Basis for Same-Sex Marriage in California,” California Lawyer (August 2008), available at http://californialawyermag
[20] In validation, Justice Ronald M. George explained that “the right to marry is an integral component of an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the privacy provision of article I, section I.” “In re Marriage Cases,” 43 Cal. 4th 757, 818 (2008).
[21] A note on equal protection and discrimination (for Nate, particularly). Some posit the theory that side-by-side marriage and civil union laws violate the equal protection clause because they “single out” the gay class. However, “the constitution does not, of course, prevent the legislature from dealing differently with different classes of people. It means only that classifications must be based on natural and substantial differences, germane to the subject and purpose of the legislation, between those within the class included and those whom it leaves untouched.” Eielson v. Parker, 179 Conn. 552, 566, 427 A.2d 814 (1980) (see Brown v. Merlo, 8 Cal. 3d 855, 861 (1973) (equal protection provisions permit legislation that singles out a class for distinctive treatment “if such classification bears a rational relation to the purposes of the legislation.”). A marriage statute purposed on the legal union of a man and a woman passes muster here. (See Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, (October 10, 2008) (slip op.) (Zarella, J., dissenting), available at http://www.jud.state.ct.us
[22] I am MORE than supportive of ensuring that same sex couples receive identical status as heterosexual couples under the law. But reclassifying "marriage" wholesale --an act that will legally do NOTHING to the current rights of gay couples under California law—is not reflective of the rights authorized by our laws. Rights that are authorized are available to all citizens. See the California Code which provides that “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provision or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” Cal. Fam. C. § 297.5.
[23] On the most fundamental level, these beliefs derive from my religious conviction in the words of our prophet, Thomas S. Monson. But that is fodder for another day.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
New York Times Ad Backstory and Interview
Meridian Magazine had this interesting article about the No Mob Veto ad placed in the New York Times recently. Link's at the bottom.
Violence and Religious Intimidation: No Place in Civil Society
Publisher's Note: Following are excerpts of a phone interview by Meridian 's Editor-in-Chief, Maurine Proctor, with Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, Chairman and President of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Last week The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expressed its thanks for a full page ad that recently ran in the New York Times http://www.nomobveto.org/images/nytad_lg.png decrying the violence and intimidation that has been directed toward it in the wake of California 's Prop 8.
The ad, written by Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, is a project of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a powerful and successful Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. Operating in both the courts of law and the court of public opinion, they represent people of all faiths and have stepped up for Anglicans, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Native Americans, Zorastrians and any religious groups whose rights are trampled in the public square.
Hasson, who is a Catholic, said, “I think most of my clients are wrong theologically, but I think we should defend their right to be wrong.”
He said that the LDS Church did not ask the Becket Fund to defend it, nor pay for the ad, nor did they know about it before hand, but, he said, in a civil society we must be on guard to protect religious freedom.
Ad Language
“The way we thought we could do our part,” he said, “was to round up a coalition that was as broad as we could, from conservative Jews to Liberal Jews, from believers to non- believers, from supporters to opponents of Prop 8. In the ad, he wrote, “We're a disagreeable lot… Nevertheless, we're united in this: the violence and intimidation being directed against the LDS or “Mormon” church and other religious organizations—and even against individual believers—simply because they supported Proposition 8 is an outrage that must stop.”
The ad continues, “Of course, when a religious organization enters the public policy arena, it must be prepared for disputes. Religious groups can't claim some sort of special immunity from criticism. Nevertheless, there's a world of difference between legitimate political give-and-take and violent attempts to cow your opponents into submission. Violence and intimidation are always wrong, whether the victims are believers, gay people, or anyone else.
“Some of the violence is being stoked by public statements denouncing the LDS for merely participating in the debate at all-as if that were somehow illegal. The question isn't even close. Participating in ballot initiatives is legally different from politicking for candidates. It is perfectly lawful for charities, including religious ones. It is perfectly appropriate as well that all voices be heard. That is a basic point of democracy: the proper response to free speech you disagree with is your own free speech in reply, not attempting to coerce your opponents into silence.
“Regrettably some public voices have even sought to excuse the threats and disruptions simply as “demonstrations” that got out of hand. Perhaps that's true in some cases. Far too many, however, seem never to have been demonstrations in the first place, but more nearly mobs, seeking not to persuade, but to intimidate. When thugs send white powder to terrorize any place of worship, especially those of a religious minority, responsible voices need to speak clearly: Religious wars are wrong; they are also dangerous. Those who fail to condemn or seem to condone that intimidation are at fault as well. Consciously or not, they are numbing the public conscience, with endangers all of us.”
Twin Dangers
Hasson sees twin dangers if, as a society, we turn a blind eye to the intimidations leveled at the Latter-day Saints and other religious groups.
The first danger is that violence and intimidation directed toward a religion will come to be seen, not as an aberration, but as normal. “If we allow it, it will come to be seen as tolerable, a tolerable level of violence. It is disappointing that the anti-prop 8 media plays right along. A couple of pro-gay websites have been heroic and have said this is an outrage and should stop. However, many gay spokespeople have said, we have suffered at the hands of religious people over the centuries, you should expect some payback.”
He said that with 46% of Californians voting against Prop 8, and only about 5% of the population being gay, the intimidation could be coming from any quarter. “The point is that religious intimidation is not acceptable and we cannot let our society go there the way that Europe did when it tolerated pogroms against the Jews or the way some places began to tolerate terrorism in the 80's.”
The other danger would be that extreme fringe elements on the other side seek revenge for being so badly treated.
19th Century Parallels
Hasson said that you'd have to look to the 19 th century to see any kind of parallel to the violence that has surrounded Prop 8, which he considers a huge step backward.
What is little known, he said, is that in the 19 th century, the First Amendment with its freedom of religion clause did not apply to the States, therefore they could legally outlaw religion. Catholics often felt the brunt of this.
In Vermont it was a constitutional requirement that all office holders be Protestants. In the state of Massachusetts , the Congregationalist church was the official state church until 1832. In 1854 the Massachusetts legislature created a commission to investigate nunneries, among other things looking to expose the dungeons that were supposed to be secreted beneath them. A law was passed that only the King James Bible could be read in convent schools.
Riots broke out in Philadelphia in 1844 when groups, claiming that Catholics were a danger to the nation, broke into a nunnery, expelling nuns and orphans with blows and cursings, defiling graves and sacred objects, and burning St. Augustine's church to the ground.
A potent group called the “No Nothings” began to flourish in the 1850's, whose goal was to exclude Catholics and foreigners from any position of power.
Of course, the Latter-day Saints have their own stories of being driven, murdered, and persecuted in those times.
However, said Hasson, when the First Amendment started becoming a part of the states' laws in the beginning of the twentieth century, people thought those days were behind us. “These historical events,” he said, “are the closest analogy to the outrage that is being perpetuated in the name of Prop 8. This is not a happy development.”
A Declaration
The Becket Fund's New York Times ad ends with a stout declaration that says they mean business. As Hasson said, “We recommit to be in this for the long haul and to back up our words.”
The ad ends: “Therefore, despite our fundamental disagreements with one another, we announce today that we will stand shoulder to shoulder to defend any house of worship—Jewish, Christian, Hindu, whatever—from violence, regardless of the cause that violence seeks to serve. Furthermore, beginning today, we commit ourselves to exposing and publicly shaming anyone who resorts to the rhetoric of anti-religious bigotry against any faith, on any side of any cause, for any reason.”
If you would like to add your name to the ad, go to nomobveto.org So far about 2,000 people have added their names, including some groups, said Hasson, who have hounded the LDS Church theologically in the past.”
Hasson said, “I know we've pricked a few consciences in the gay community and let them see that what some of them are doing is counterproductive to their cause.”
Family Leader has volunteered to collect stories of intimidation, hate mail, jobs threatened or lost for the Becket Fund. If you have such stories, write to Maurine Proctor at maurineproctor@familyleader.net
AbovetheHate.com
Meanwhile, national columnist Maggie Gallagher has written a letter to President Monson, that can be found at abovethehate.com which details some of the attacks against the Church, and then pledges:
We, the undersigned, utterly condemn and reject the ongoing unprecedented efforts to incite religious hatred and bigotry towards members of the LDS Church because, as American citizens, you have courageously exercised your core civil rights to speak, to vote, and to donate to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
We pledge to work with you and for you not only to protect marriage, but to protect the rights of all religious citizens, including the LDS Church, to participate freely (without threats of retribution or retaliation) in the political processes of this country in defense of the Judeo-Christian values—and the common good—we hold so dear.
So far this letter has received over 5,000 signatures including many of the top Evangelical leaders such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, Dr. Gary Bauer of American Values, Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptists Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and many more.
http://www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/081210violence.html
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Thousands protest against Mormon Church at Salt Lake temple
Opponents of a measure that banned gay marriage in California took their outrage to the spiritual hub of Mormonism on Friday.
More than 3,000 people swarmed downtown Salt Lake City to march past the LDS temple and church headquarters, protesting Mormon involvement in the campaign for California's Proposition 8. The measure, which defined marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, passed this week.
A sea of signs in City Creek Park, where the march began, screamed out messages including, "I didn't vote on your marriage," "Mormons once persecuted . . . Now persecutors," and "Jesus said love everyone." Others read, "Proud of my two moms" and "Protect traditional marriage. Ban divorce."Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and three openly gay state legislators, Sen. Scott McCoy and Reps. Jackie Biskupski and Christine Johnson, spoke out in support. At one point, the crowd took up the mantra made famous by the country's new president-elect: "Yes, we can!"
Then, the masses headed west, weaving between cars, waving at those who watched from windows in the LDS Church Office Building and shouting chants such as: "What do we want? Equality! When do we want it? Now!"Across the street on North Temple, a group of about 50 - the majority not LDS members - defended the church's support of the successful ballot measure. "The people voted," they shouted at the protesters. "YOU are intolerant!"
Others screamed: "Marriage is between a man and woman. You'll never be a man and woman!"
Some marchers offered heated arguments to the counterprotesters, others responded by kissing their partners. The romantic moments were greeted with cheers.
Thousands of people packed a Salt Lake City park and then paraded through downtown streets Friday night for a vocal but peaceful protest of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' participation in California's new ban on gay marriage.
An estimated 3,500 members and supporters of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community gathered at City Creek Park to speak out against the LDS Church for encouraging its members to support Proposition 8.
"We're here because we've been hurt, some of us very personally," said Jacob Whipple, who organized the protest as a show of solidarity with Californians who have been staging such events since Election Day.
"I would like to thank the (LDS Church) for what they've done," Whipple said. "They have helped awaken this spirit in the gay community. For way too long, we've been complacent in our own rights. ... Now we have this momentum."
It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.
Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.
While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.
Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.
Granted, none of us like, or should like, to be disregarded, to be silenced, to see a flawed argument prevail, or to endure a gratuitous discourtesy. But such circumstances as these seldom constitute that field of action from which meekness calls upon us to retire gracefully...
Meekness will permit us to endure more graciously the cruel caricaturing and misrepresentation that accompany discipleship, especially in the rugged last days of this dispensation. Remember the fingers of scorn in Lehi's vision which pointed and mocked at those who clung to the iron rod (see 1 Nephi 8:2633)? The mockers were not a small minority. And they were persistent and preoccupied in their scorn of the saints. You will come to see that preoccupation.
Meekness permits us to be prompted as to whether to speak out or, as Jesus once did, be silent. But even when the meek speak up, they do so without speaking down.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Press conference today and some other go-and-do's
Hey, all -
This email is a bit long and info-packed, but I felt it was worth passing along.
Of note is a PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY at noon in Santa Ana, at the Doubletree Hotel Ballroom (201 East MacArthur Boulevard, Santa Ana). If you can make it, by all means, go!!!
Also be aware that there will be a protest at the Newport Beach temple on Sunday. I mean, I don't think we should be counter-protesting - truly, I think that would be counter-productive - but I just wanted to give all a heads-up.
A friend of mine emailed me this morning about how perhaps it's the wrong attitude for us to say that we didn't do it alone. While it's true that many faiths banded together on this effort, we should keep our heads high in defending the work we've done instead of shrinking away from the critics or feeling injusticed. Of course those "fiery darts" would come - and let them! We know that they that be with us are more than they who are against us.
Stay strong, friends!
**************
Friends,
It is incredible how many are asking how they can besthelp to strengthen the ties we've developed in theAfrican American and other ethnic communities since our efforts in victory with Prop 8. As you can see the fight is not over, and one of the most critical things we can do at this point is to solidify the relationships with our new coalition.
Here are some things that we can do right now,without much effort. Will you please send this email to all you know? Notice this is now a national and international fight.
SEND A QUICK EMAIL TO GOVERNOR & STATE OFFICIALS IMMEDIATELY!!!
Nancy Kraemer who is involved with the Republican Headquarters and is very knowledgeable on this said we needto encourage ALL who can to email or write letters to ALL the State Assemblymen and State Senators encouraging them not to put into process the overturning of Prop 8.
She said even just an email saying "Do not overturn Prop 8" is good, as they don't read any full letters; they just take note if you're for or against. And to not just limit it to the Assemblymen or Senator who represents your area, but send it to ALL in the State....and there is an urgency in getting it done quickly..as always.
1. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger - governor@governor.ca.gov
2. Sam Annestad - State Senator -senator.aanestad@sen.ca.gov
3. Doug LaMalfa - State Assembly -assemblymember.lamalfa@assembly.ca.gov
4. Rick Keene - State Assembly -assemblymember.keene@assembly.ca.gov
Note that some, including an earlier email from me,are saying that we've lost momentum since 2000 when we received 61% of the vote on prop 22 and 53% on prop 8. At second glance we had 4.3 million votes in 2000. This year we added a million + to that number, 5.3 million. The opposition just had more involved on their side, which reduced the %.
MISSIONARY FEEDBACK
Missionaries are reporting the everyone in the Black communities are much nicer to them, rooting them on. One ofthe many blessings of the Black & LDS communities coming together on Prop 8.
SUPPORTING THOSE WHO STOOD WITH US
There are those who donated money or stood up publiclyin the media who are now being targeted by the opponents of traditional marriage. They are attempting to bankrupt businesses because some chose to vote differently. There are few things that I can think of that are more un-American than this tactic, while American tries to recover from the worst financial and economic crisis since the depression.
So we will stand with those who stood with us. As you find businesses that are being boycotted and picketed, please share them so that we can support them. We're asking that where possible, we make an extra effort to support these businesses to sustain them as they sustained us. Let's show our love and support with a visit to this targeted business:
EL COYOTE MEXICAN CAFE since 1931, family owned andoperated (City's Best Winner - 2007), 7312 BEVERLY BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CA 90036-2535. Reservations: 323-939-2255.
PRESS CONFERENCE - SANTA ANA
There will be a press conference held in Orange County in response to the nationwide attacks, boycotts, and intimidation of U.S. churches, businesses, and individuals associated with the effort in California and throughout the country to preserve traditional marriage. All who can attend are encouraged to do so, from all communities.
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14— Noon 12 P.M.
SANTA ANA DOUBLETREE HOTEL BALLROOM201 East MacArthur Boulevard, Santa Ana, CA
SCRIPTURAL DISCUSSION POINTS
Some have asked for scriptural references in relationship to homosexuality being a sin. Here are a few:
- Genesis 19:1-5, 24-25
- Leviticus 18:22
- Leviticus 20:13
- Daniel 11:37
- Deuteronomy 23:17
- Isaiah 3:9
- Romans 1:27
- 1 Corinthians 6:9
- 1 Timothy 1:10
- Jude 1
- See also Gen. 13: 13; Gen. 18: 20; Isa. 3: 9; Ezek.16: 50; 2 Tim. 3: 3; 2 Pet. 2: 10; 2 Ne. 9: 40.
ARTICLES ON THE DEMONSTRATIONS
- Democratic legislators ask state Supreme Court to void Prop. 8: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-marriage11-2008nov11,0,5162523.story
- In The Face of Hatred - Demonstration at L.A. Temple: http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html
- Playing the race card on gay marriage - The BostonGlobe: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/11/12/playing_the_race_card_on_gay_marriage/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed6
- Artistic Director of California Musical Theatre DrivenOut: www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/081113tactic.html
Much love and gratitude,
Marvin Perkins
www.BlacksInTheScriptures.com
“All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing”
For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com
Friday, November 7, 2008
LA Temple protest update
I got this via email this morning - I hope its author won't mind my sharing it with you, but he says it better than I could:
It's getting ugly in LA. Hopefully it will die down in a few days, but for now it's ugly. I received the following from a good friend who just got back from the LA temple grounds:
I was there...crazy...after i asked a cop if i could take down the mean signs...and he said he wouldn't stop me....i went about tearing signs down off the temple fence and got harassed for it...and two people tried to grab them out of my hands ...they kept blocking my path...trying to get me to stop pulling their hate posters down....one even physically put their hand on me to stop me...i finally dropped the signs and walked away..... they also put graffiti on the outside temple fence walls...they wouldn't let people drive out of the temple parking lot....they yelled, waved signs....flipped off the temple....sat in the middle of the road and wouldn't let cars go by.....i can't believe this!!! it started at 2 pm today...i didn't get there til about 7 pm...but when i left around 11 pm... they were still going....a fight broke out between a tongan girl and a no on prop 8 person...then the tongan mormons jumped in to protect her.....a girl got her nose bashed it....unfortunately i missed this part because i was running around the other side of the temple looking for my friend....after the people wouldn't leave me alone....no worries...i'm home safe....please pray for these people..they need help! sorry for all the rambles...just a little fired up...
Please pray for the members in California, and for the temples there. Threats are being made against both. (And it's not just California - I've heard that a protest is planned for the Salt Lake temple today, and protestors are going to target the Newport Beach temple on Saturday.)
In the mean time, while an angry mob gathered outside the temple, the Church issued the following statement:
It is important to understand that this issue for the church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage -- a union between a man and a woman. Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the church were and are simply wrong. The church's opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.
The Church has been unfailingly civil in the midst of this heated debate... a beacon of courtesy in a sea of heated rhetoric.
We truly live in interesting times. Proposition 8 was never about discrimination. We can love our gay and lesbian neighbors, respect them and wish the best for them, and still believe and comprehend that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It is a slippery slope to say, "If you don't agree with my political ideas, you are a bigot and we can't be friends." But that is essentially what the 'No on 8' crowd is saying. And it's not right, it's not fair, and it's not a good way to live in a democracy.
p.s. A couple of articles worth checking out:
Opponents of Prop 8 converge on Mormon Temple in Westwood, California: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/politics/local_elections&id=6493052
Two Arrested Near Los Angeles Mormon Temple in Anti-Proposition 8 Protest: http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=7808264&version=5&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1
An Evangelical rises in defense of the Mormons: What A Long Strange Trip It's Been: http://www.article6blog.com/2008/11/06/what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been/
For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com
Posts
