Prop 8

For those of you who have not been following my recent Facebook discussions, this post is in response to an ongoing conversation about Prop 8.

Nathan, Joseph, I post this here in that it is too long to post on Facebook.

I am now going to address what I believe the majority of your arguments seem to have been about, and in addition a few that have been brought up tangentially by Joseph's other posted links. The bolded part at the beginning of each entry is the argument that I am addressing.

1. The passage of Prop 8 does not discriminate against the LGBT community. Prop 8 is simple and clear: it eliminates the rights for same sex couples to marry. It would write discrimination against one group of people--lesbian and gay people (incidentally a protected class in California)--into our state constitution.
2. If Prop 8 does not pass, our children will be taught about homosexuality in schools. There is not even ONE word about education in Prop 8, and no child can be forced against the will of their parents to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Frawley has ruled that this claim is "false and misleading". Incidentally, one of the most conservative newspapers in the state, the Orange County Register, has also said that this claim is false. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/marriage-sex-protection-2174926-california-state And lawyers for the Department of Education have also stated that this claim is false.
3. A Massachusetts case about parents' objections to school curriculum will happen here. In contrast to Massachusetts, California parents and given the absolute right to remove their children from school and opt out of any curriculum regarding health and family instruction that they do not agree with. Why bring up a case that is irrelevant here due to laws that California has that Massachusetts does not?
4. Four activist judges... "Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens." I quote this directly from www.noonprop8.com as I believe I could not state it better myself.
5. The definition of marriage. This discussion regards political issues, not religious. We are not a country that is centered on religion. While many citizens are religious, our policies are not determined by that. This is law. And by law in California sexuality is a protected class, and they cannot therefore be denied anything based on that difference. Even something so simple as that title of marriage. Because you say nothing is being denied but that title. The title is. By denying that we are writing discrimination into our state constitution.
6. Plessy. Plessy v. Ferguson separated everything. Schools, restaurants, places of worship, marriage. Everything. Everything was kept separate because of an irrational fear and in some cases a religious argument that it was for the better. Brown was the case that overturned it. And yes, Brown did directly have to deal with education, but it overturned Plessy on the whole. I don't remember the last time I wrote down my place of worship or favorite restaurant on my resume.
7. Churches might lose their tax exempt status. This derives from a flase connection to a case in New Jersey regarding a Methodist Church. Considering that is the case that occurred in a state that does not allow the gay right to marry, so it has nothing to do with Prop 8. The New Jersey case "the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA), a Methodist organization, had taken advantage of a New Jersey law granting a state property tax exemption for a pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove that was dedicated for public use. Note that the case did not involve income tax exemptions and note that the purpose for giving the exemption in the first place was to reward organizations for opening their buildings and facilities for public use. The property in question was a boardwalk pavilion open to the public. 'Bands play there. Children skateboard through it. Tourists enjoy the shade. It's even been used for debates and Civil War re-enactments.' it was also available to be reserved for marriage ceremonies by people of any faith. Nevertheless, the OGCMA wanted to prohibit a gay commitment ceremony (not a marriage ceremony) from being held in the pavilion. The New Jersey real estate commission ruled that if OGCMA intended to claims a property tax exemption for a building open to the public, the could not discriminate. Seen in this light, it was a sensible ruling. Implicit in the ruling is that the group could discriminate if they ceased to claim a property tax exemption for a public facility. It is important to note that this ruling pertained to only the pavilion, which constituted a mere one percent of the property the OGCMA owned. The total amount of additional tax asserted was $200. The OGCMA continues to recieve a property exemption for the remaining 99% of its property. This case had nothing at all to do with any Mormon, Catholic or any other church's chapel or sanctuary that is used for religious purposes. It has nothing to do with any church's income tax exemption. To my knowledge, the Mormon Church has never sought to take advantage of a property tax exemption similar to the New jersey exemption and likely never would. The California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage cannot have any federal tax consequences, and the Court so noted explicitly in its decision. The Supreme Court also noted that its ruling would not require any priest, rabbi or minister to perform gay marriages, which should be self-evident because of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion." (quoted from www.mormonsformarriage.com)
8. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees may not say: “traditional marriage,” or “family values” because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is “hate speech.” Of course, anyone can be 'sued' for anything, but the fact remains that no minister has been convicted of a crime in Canada or the United States for preaching against same-sex marriages. Remember also that in the US we have far more liberal laws regarding freedom of speech and religion laws than in Canada. The description of a California case that I have heard brought up is again, irrelevant. Good News Employee Association v. Hicks was decided BEFORE the California Supreme Court decision, so it has nothing to do with Prop 8. Nathan, you yourself said that "The real problem occurs when you have a homosexual couple request a marriage ceremony in a church whose doctrine does not allow such a marriage to take place. The church obviously says no, and the couple who already knew what the answer would be, files a discrimination lawsuit." (quoted, Nathan) "If a minister can be sued for discrimination for refusing to marry a gay couple, then his right to worship is forfeit." (quoted, Joseph) California law prohibits this, so what is the problem?
9. The choice to be a homosexual/heterosexual. Homosexuality is not only a choice. Where yes, a person technically has the choice of the person they choose to partner themselves with, they do not choose their basic instincts regarding who they are attracted to. As not all people subscribe to the same religious doctrine, it is not necessary or relevant to use one religious doctrine to define all people's actions or moral compass.
10. Threat to marriage. As I see it, the biggest threat to marriage is divorce. With a 48% divorce rate I think we might have bigger things to worry about.
    
11. Marriage as a religious ceremony. As I have stated, marriage was not, historically speaking, originally a religious ceremony. Even among Christian cultures it was not required for a religious official to oversee the union until 1545 and the Council of Trent. Until that point marriage was purely, a personal matter. If we are going to the origins of marriage, should we not go back to that? Also, marriage exists both as a religious ceremony and as a legal document. It is not always both. Where one might be recognized by the church and not by the state, it might also happen in the reverse. What Prop 8 is choosing to redefine is a legal definition of marriage, not a religious one. But it is choosing to use a religious point to view to try and define a legal contract.
12. "When it comes to religious freedom vs anti-discrimination, religious freedom looses. THAT is wrong. That is taking our rights away." (quote, Joseph October 21 @ 9:13pm). You claim the religious freedom is more important, even if it infringes the right of others. I think not. Your right to worship as you please should not interfere with an individual's right to live as they please. It's that simple.
13. "The definition of marriage among judeo-christian religions has existed LONG before that same society to which you referred, so how far afield do you want to go?" (quoted, Nathan October 22, 6:34am). You claimed that the roots of marriage were religious. They are not. If you choose to go onlyu far enough back to prove your point you leave out the real origins of the institution of marriage."The definition of marriage among judeo-christian religions has existed LONG before that same society to which you referred, so how far afield do you want to go?" (quoted, Nathan October 22, 6:34am). You claimed that the roots of marriage were religious. They are not. If you choose to go only far enough back to prove your point you leave out the real origins of the institution of marriage. As Sean has provided for me there is mention of marriage both outside of and predating the Christian institution. "Epic of Gilgamesh: tablet 2: Enkidu and Shamhat leave the wilderness for Uruk to attend a wedding."
    
14. "I do claim inconsitency because there are currently other people in the USA that ask for their "rights" to marriage to be recognized. Why should your redefinition be accepted and theirs rejected?" (quoted, Nathan October 22, 9:46am) I claim that the reasoning of these four California Supreme Court Judges was sound, and not made in haste nor was it a rash decision, take a look at the reasonings they gave.
    

• "The flaw in characterizing the constitutional right at issue as the right to same-sex marriage rather than the right to marry goes beyond mere semantics." p. 53, from In Re Marriage Cases.
• "Because the right to marry refers to the right of an individual to enter into a consensual relationship with another person, we find it appropriate and useful to refer to the right to marry as a right possessed both by each individual member of the couple and by the couple as a whole." FN34, p. 53
• "In undertaking this inquiry, we put to the side for the moment the question whether the substantive rights embodied within the constitutional right to marry include the right to have the couple’s official relationship designated by the name “marriage” rather than by some other term, such as “domestic partnership.”" (p.54)
• There the high court, in describing the scope of the “liberty” protected by the due process clause of the federal Constitution, stated that “ ‘[w]ithout doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’ ” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714, italics added [“to marry” italicized by Perez], quoting Meyer, supra, 262 U.S. 390, 399.) The Perez decision continued: “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714, italics added.)
• "As plaintiffs maintain, these high court decisions demonstrate that even when the state grants ostensibly equal benefits to a previously excluded class through the creation of a new institution, the intangible symbolic differences that remain often are constitutionally significant."
• "Second, particularly in light of the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay persons, there is a very significant risk that retaining a distinction in nomenclature with regard to this most fundamental of relationships whereby the term “marriage” is denied only to same-sex couples inevitably will cause the new parallel institution that has been made available to those couples to be viewed as of a lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of secondclass citizenship."
• "Under these circumstances, we conclude that the distinction drawn by the current California statutes between the designation of the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the designation available to same-sex couples impinges upon the fundamental interest of same-sex couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples."

• You asked for a outlining of the fallacious arguments you have used, and so I will give them.
• The first is called "An Appeal to Belief": something is not true simply because you believe it to be so. A religious doctrine is one such basis when used as an outline for a legal discussion. And the fact that a majority of people may agree with you does not make that claim necessarily true. Also here I will add "Appeal to Common Practice", the fact that something is done and is commonly done does not make it right on the basis of that. This has also been called "Appeal to Tradition".
• "Begging the Question" you imply that the fact that it has been done this way means that it is inherently right. It's a circular argument, saying that it's wrong because it has been prohibited, and it has been prohibited because it is wrong.
• "Division". The qualities and attributes of the whole should not be be attributed to each part. In this case you say that because civil unions and marriage have the same legal rights that they are the same. While yes, they are both a part of something known as partnership recognized by legal status and they may be in most ways equivalent, that fact does not make them equal.
• "Questionable Cause". However many cases you bring of how you think this will harm our families, children, religious institutions, or rights (though as I have laid out, many of them happen to be not relatable anyway), they are not necessarily logically linked. Simply because these events may be commonly associated with gay marriage and the right to do so does not mean that one caused the other.
• Slippery Slope". You say yourself, if we consider this redefinition why should we not reconsider them all. This "what would be next" line of thinking is a fallacy.

Cited sources include: Responses from California Supreme Court Judges, www.mormonsformarriage.com, and www.noonprop8.com. Also used, as you have noted was the wikipedia article on marriage. This was used as an outline of the historical background of marriage. If you would like me to cite other sources on this matter, I can if you so desire or require. I did not feel it necessary to cite the entire article, just the portions I was using.