The ACLU, LAMBDA, and of course the ubiquitous Gloria Allred, among others have filed three lawsuits with the California Supreme Court seeking an injunction against its implementation. I have not read the entire petition, which you can see here: Proposition 8 Petition.
Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles — After losing at the polls, gay rights supporters filed three lawsuits Wednesday asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, an effort the measure’s supporters called an attempt to subvert the will of voters.
“If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it,” said Frank Schubert, co-chairman of the Proposition 8 campaign. “But they don’t. They go behind the people’s back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society.”
This is a critical flaw in the genderless marriage agenda. Voters will perceive this as as imposing a judicial dictatorship on the clear expression of the voter’s will; however, from a legal standpoint it is probably the only avenue they can take at this point. The gay-rights activists seek only to do in the courts what they remain unable to do at the ballot box.
The legal argument is essentially that the voters have approved a constitutional revision, rather than a more limited constitutional amendment:
Lawyers for same-sex couples argued that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision — not a more limited amendment, as backers maintained — because it fundamentally altered the guarantee of equal protection. A constitutional revision, unlike an amendment, must be approved by the Legislature before going to voters.
The state high court has twice before struck down ballot measures as illegal constitutional revisions, but those initiatives involved “a broader scope of changes,” said former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin, who publicly opposed Proposition 8 and was part of an earlier legal challenge to it. The court has suggested that a revision may be distinguished from an amendment by the breadth and the nature of the change, Grodin said
What are its chances? Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen doesn’t think much of the petition, but former justice Grodin disagrees:
Still, Grodin said, he believes that the challenge has legal merit, though he declined to make any predictions. Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen called the case “a stretch.”
I still think that direct involvement by this court is a dangerous proposition, not only for the rule of law, but for those sitting justices themselves. In 1986 California voters removed a former California supreme court justice, Rose Bird, for antagonizing the voters and their will over the death penalty.
Other legal experts think there is just too little current law to predict how the state supreme court might respond:
UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said his research found too little case law on constitutional revisions to predict how the state high court might resolve the question.
“There is very little law about what can be done by amendment as opposed to revision,” he said.
Of course both sides had differing opinions as well:
Jennifer Pizer, a staff lawyer for Lambda Legal, said the initiative met the test of a revision because it had far-reaching magnitude.
“The magnitude here is that you are effectively rendering equal protection a nullity if a simple majority can so easily carve an exception into it,” she said. “Equal protection is supposed to prevent the targeting and subjugation of a minority group by a simple majority vote.”
Glen Lavy, an attorney for the Proposition 8 campaign, called the lawsuits “frivolous” and “a brazen attempt to gut the democratic process.”
The San Francisco Chronicle has reported on the petition. Attorney General Jerry Brown vows to do everything he can to preserve the marriages already performed. The question in my mind is whether he will also do everything he can to uphold the people’s will as expressed at the ballot box:
And Attorney General Jerry Brown, who represents the state in court, said he would defend the legality of the thousands of same-sex marriages conducted in the 5 1/2 months leading up to election day – even though sponsors of Prop. 8 say the measure was intended to invalidate those marriages. That controversy is also likely to end up before California’s high court and could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
“It is my belief that the courts will hold that these same-sex marriages entered into are valid,” Brown said in a statement. He said he would defend Prop. 8 against legal challenges, but would also defend “the marriages contracted during the time that same-sex marriage was the law in California.”
A research institute at UCLA has estimated that 18,000 same-sex couples have married in California since the state Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing such marriages took effect June 16. In a victory statement Tuesday night, the Yes on 8 campaign asserted that from now on, “only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of when or where performed.”
Campaign manager Frank Schubert said Wednesday, however, that his organization has no plans to challenge any of those marriages in court. The question will have to be decided by “the court that created that problem” by refusing to suspend its ruling until after the election, he said, without describing how it might reach the court.
Prop. 8 would overturn the court’s 4-3 ruling May 15 that declared same-sex couples had the right to marry under the California Constitution on the grounds of privacy and equal protection. Backers of the measure made the court a focus of their campaign, accusing “activist judges” of thwarting the will of voters who had approved a similar measure as an initiative statute in 2000.
Three lawsuits were filed directly with the state Supreme Court on Wednesday, seeking orders immediately blocking enforcement of Prop. 8 and ultimately striking it down as a violation of fundamental rights in the California Constitution.
The plaintiffs are six unmarried same-sex couples and the advocacy group Equality California; another couple who married shortly after the May 15 ruling took effect; and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, joined by Santa Clara County.
The legal arguments are narrowly focused on state law, because gay rights activists nationwide know they haven’t a prayer in federal court; and, that a defeat in the United States Supreme Court could possibly deal a fatal blow to their political agenda:
Although their lawyers would not discuss their strategy publicly, each suit seeks to overturn Prop. 8 on the basis of state law and avoids federal constitutional claims that could send the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Gay-rights advocates have tried to keep such disputes away from the nation’s high court, out of fear that the justices would issue a nationwide ruling rejecting any right of same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution.
That leaves the plaintiffs with the difficult task of showing that Prop. 8, a state constitutional amendment, violates other, more basic provisions of California’s Charter. The court has almost always rejected such challenges to other constitutional amendments.
Some of the same legal organizations filing suit Wednesday offered similar arguments this summer to try to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot, but the court refused, while leaving room for a post election challenge.
The couples’ lawsuits contend Prop. 8 is so far-reaching that it is not merely a constitutional amendment but a revision, which requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to reach the ballot. Such a vote would be unlikely with the Legislature’s houses overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats.
Plaintiffs argued the measure offends constitutional principles by taking important rights away from a historically persecuted minority – gays and lesbians – while stripping judges of their power to protect that group.
“A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities,” said Elizabeth Gill, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups suing on behalf of the six unmarried couples. “Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiate such revisions.”
And, a major purpose of the direct initiative in California is to allow voters to overturn the poorly reasoned and legally unsupportable decisions handed down by renegade out of control justices sitting on the supreme court. The stark legal fact remains that this California supreme court made up the so called right to genderless marriage. The California Constitution does not say same gender couples have a fundamental right to get married. Neither does the California Constitution confer the constitutionally protected status of a suspect class to “sexual orientation” however that novel legal concept might possibly be defined.
Rather, the California supreme court without any California legal precedent or even federal legal precedent made up those rights out of whole cloth. They did that in direct contravention of the majority of California’s residents. Will they take on the electorate for another round?
Other analysis:
Thanks to JimD for this link:
The Volokh Conspiracy (also linking to a post by Kaimi Wegner)
Stephen Brainbridge also weighs in.
Messenger and Advocate 
November 6, 2008 at 8:17 am
More on the revision/amendment gambit, from Professor Eugene Volokh:
http://volokh.com/posts/1225923130.shtml
November 6, 2008 at 9:29 am
And, a major purpose of the direct initiative in California is to allow voters to overturn the poorly reasoned and legally unsupportable decisions handed down by renegade out of control justices sitting on the supreme court. The stark legal fact remains that this California supreme court made up the so called right to genderless marriage. The California Constitution does not say same gender couples have a fundamental right to get married. Neither does the California Constitution confer the constitutionally protected status of a suspect class to “sexual orientation” however that novel legal concept might possibly be defined.
Spare me the hyperbolic rhetoric about activist justices. The California Constitution doesn’t explicitly state that heterosexual couples have a fundamental right to marry. Nor does the U.S. Constitution. I guess “renegade” justices simply “made up” that one too.
If your marriage had just been disenfranchised, what the hell would you do? In the 19th century, our people fought tooth and nail for our right to engage in nontraditional marriages that went against the moral and religious views of the rest of society.
As Charles W. Penrose put it in 1884,
November 6, 2008 at 9:47 am
If your marriage had just been disenfranchised, what the hell would you do? In the 19th century, our people fought tooth and nail for our right to engage in nontraditional marriages that went against the moral and religious views of the rest of society.
Technically, I believe the church was fighting for the right to nontraditional cohabitation.
November 6, 2008 at 10:09 am
Steve M #2
What you conveniently omit is the fact that man/woman marriage has been construed for decades if not longer as a fundamental right, through a well established history of case law. It meets the constitutional definition of a fundamental right:
Traditional man/woman marriage is objectively and deeply rooted in our nations history, etc. etc. Same-sex marriage is not.
That fact, coupled with the utter absence of California or even federal constitutional precedent for what the CA supreme court did, makes four of its justices activist. They usurped the legislative authority and that of the voters who previously had spoken quite clearly on this subject. You speak as if none of that even matters. There is nothing more fundamental or protected than the idea that the people are the true sovereigns–not four out of touch justices on a supreme court.
Your polygamy analogy is so far off base, it doesn’t really merit discussion. I would point out, however, that ultimately the Church did comply with what the law required.
November 6, 2008 at 10:16 am
I don’t know what I think of the revision argument–I haven’t read the case law and so my opinion would be pure speculation. I have noticed some interesting artifacts however. Witness exhibit A:
That is the California Court’s opinion in In re Marriage Cases.
Exhibit B–The text of Proposition 8:
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Note that Prop 8 does not overturn the designation of gays as a suspect class, nor does it invalidate the equal protection problems that the court identified. Read together, it seems that the only way to give gays equal status under the law with proposition 8 in place is to deny opposite sex couples the word “marriage.” This is consistent with the text of the amendment, as it only has permissive, not mandatory, language.
Could Prop 8 be responsible for destroying marriage in California? It’s a possibility…
November 6, 2008 at 10:22 am
Nate W #5
You raise an interesting question. One to which I don’t know the answer. It will be fascinating to see how the court deals with this. One observation I have is that apparently the same issue was raised with the court before the election, and the court refused to take action at that time.
If, as the petitioners claim this was a revision as opposed to an amendment, why on earth let it go before the voters with the very real possibility that it would impact the court’s newly created fundamental right and suspect classification?
Wouldn’t the more prudent course have been for the court to take out the proposed amendment at that time? Either it was or it wasn’t a revision vs. an amendment at the time it was initially challenged. Why put the state, the voters, and those who have been married since mid May through all of this hoopla, angst, and deep division when they had the chance and legal authority to take it out before the election?
I don’t know what the court will do. But, I have pondered your observation about the suspect class and equal protection (albeit court created) and I have no good answer.
November 6, 2008 at 10:45 am
Guy:
The court’s reasoning was that the issue wasn’t ripe. As both you and I know, the court’s procedures don’t always allow them to take the prudent course.
November 6, 2008 at 11:21 am
[I fixed it Mark]
Guy: One observation I have is that apparently the same issue was raised with the court before the election, and the court refused to take action at that time.
I have read elsewhere that the court doesn’t like to do that sort of thing unless the issue involves and extremely egregious violation of some sort, like turning in fraudulent signatures, or something along that order. Otherwise, the court gives the voters the chance to vote the issue down themselves, rendering any further action by the court moot.
I’ve said all along that grafting language already determined to have been unconstitutional onto the constitution in order to magically “heal” its unconstitutionality is an extremely stupid move, and if the courts do invalidate prop 8, they will have done the right thing.
November 6, 2008 at 11:32 am
Mark N #8
I’m not so sure. If CA voters had agreed to “constitutionalize” religious, racial, or gender discrimination say in voting or some other well grounded fundamental right–yes,I would agree with you. And, in fact the Federal Courts would weigh in. But, for this right, on this battle, with the legal or complete lack of constitutional precedent as there is here, I think the court is over reaching.
November 6, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Guy,
You’re forgetting that tradition is not absolutely dispositive when it comes to fundamental rights and equal protection. Otherwise Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education would have been incorrectly decided.
They usurped the legislative authority and that of the voters who previously had spoken quite clearly on this subject.
The gay community had already sought to protect its right to marry through normal democratic processes. The democratically-elected California legislature twice put a gay marriage bill on the Governor’s desk, and he vetoed it both times, saying that he wanted the gay marriage issue determined judicially rather than legislatively.
Your polygamy analogy is so far off base, it doesn’t really merit discussion. I would point out, however, that ultimately the Church did comply with what the law required.
Why doesn’t the polygamy analogy merit discussion? If the argument is so easily dismissed, then go ahead and say why.
And on the second count, the Church didn’t put a stop polygamy until over 1,000 men were convicted and imprisoned, its leaders were in hiding, and the temples were about to fall into the government’s hands. The institutional Church had been brought to its knees, and teetered on extinction. Even then, after President Woodruff issued the manifesto, we continued to practice polygamy until the early 20th century.
It’s not like we simply lost in Reynolds v. United States and then said, “Well, it was fun while it lasted.”
November 6, 2008 at 12:21 pm
And Guy, you still haven’t responded to my earlier point that heterosexuals’ right to marry is not explicitly enumerated in either the California or U.S. Constitution. Further, neither document specifically lists suspect classes (race, gender, or otherwise). That being the case, then why do you think it’s persuasive to point out that “[t]he California Constitution does not say same gender couples have a fundamental right to get married. Neither does the California Constitution confer the constitutionally protected status of a suspect class to ‘sexual orientation'”? How are you not being disingenuous?
November 6, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I totally disagree, why does it effect us if Gay men get married? I totally thought that proposition 8 would be defeated, and now I am sad to hear that it passed. I think that there should be a law suite against the measure, because I don’t think that proposition 8 is constitutional.
Though proposition 8 pretty much assuredly passed, there is still a slight chance it didn’t, keep updated on the progress of proposition 8 at http://utahchemicalengineering.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/proposition-8-results/
November 6, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Why doesn’t the polygamy analogy merit discussion? If the argument is so easily dismissed, then go ahead and say why.
As I pointed out in Post 3, the Mormons were not asking for legal recognition of their polygamous marriages. They were just being asked to be allowed to cohabitate without any legal penalties.
Prop 8 does not eliminate the right of gay couples to cohabitate. Ergo, your analogy of the struggle for gay marriage to the struggle for polygamy is flawed.
November 6, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I am a returned missionary and BYU graduate. I am also a gay man with an adopted son. My son was a former student of mine and when his mother suddenly died, I was able to step in and become dad. He was also Mormon. I am raising him Episcopalian.
The tolerance that I see in the church is mostly limited to a few wards in urban areas. My best friend’s brother, a bishop in the San Diego area) gave $2500 to the yes people and confessed to his brother that he was pressured by the stake president. This alone should be reason to revoke the tax exempt status of the church.
However, I think I am most baffled by a church that was founded on the principle of non-traditional marriage only 150 years ago to turn so against SSM. Joseph Smith received the revelations on “Celestial Marriage” that allowed him to marry girls as young as 16. The irony is laughable!
Of course, I understand the bigotry that has existed in such tracts as “To the One” that promotes violence against homosexuals and Spencer Kimball’s writings on forgiveness to have laid a strong foundation for the principle of bigoted activity and insensitivity to those “peculiar people” that are a different “peculiar” than straight, white Mormons.
If you think we (the collective gay community) are just a bit angry, you haven’t begun to understand the issue.
You are dead on when it comes to educated people not wanting to be associated at all with the church. I wrote the church at 3am on Nov. 5 and asked to have my name and my son’s name removed from the records already. I will also be asking all my Mormon acquaintances/enemies (no longer to be called friends or family) to look my son in the eye and explain why they have a right to destroy his family.
Our one hope will be, as the years pass and Jesus doesn’t come in glory to judge the living and the dead, thinking human beings will have to reassess their beliefs and hopefully will have room for a belief system that is not exclusive, but inclusive.
November 6, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Where’d all the comments go?
November 6, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Hi Mark,
Not sure what happened. Somehow everything ended up in the spam folder. I’ve restored them.
Thanks!
November 6, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I was starting to wonder if I had dreamed the whole thing! 😉
November 6, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Re #13,
As I pointed out in Post 3, the Mormons were not asking for legal recognition of their polygamous marriages. They were just being asked to be allowed to cohabitate without any legal penalties.
What’s your source on that one?
Mormons contended that they had the right engage in plural marriage, not cohabitation. The statute under which George Reynolds was convicted in Reynolds v. United States stated, “Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single . . . is guilty of bigamy” (emphasis added). The Mormons argued that his conviction for marrying two women–not for merely cohabiting with them–was unconstitutional.
It was not until the mid-1880s that Mormons were prosecuted for unlawful cohabitation. That was a response to the difficulty prosecutors were having in securing bigamy convictions, which required proof of separate marriage ceremonies. Since Mormon marriages were performed in secret, this proof was difficult to come by. (Source)
So I’m afraid you’re mistaken, JimD. We did claim the right to engage in plural marriage, in the full sense of the term.
November 6, 2008 at 11:37 pm
In a June 23 Spiegel Online interview, Justice George refrained from speculating whether a marriage initiative would be constitutional, instead he emphasized that a voter proposition about marriage would not remove the protected status for gays and lesbians that resulted from the court’s ruling:
SPIEGEL: If a majority of Californians vote to ban gay marriage in a referendum in November, does your decision lose its meaning? Or are they just overturning the word “marriage?”
Ronald George: If this amendment to the constitution passes, it would prevent gay people from being married, but it would not remove this protection that we put in our analysis. … We’re saying that if you look at a classification of gay people, you must treat it just as if you are classifying on the basis of the color of their skin or their religion. And that is probably the most important thing in the whole ruling, even though the population’s attention understandably has mostly been on the “M word” of marriage.
November 7, 2008 at 6:43 am
Guy Murray, how worrisome should it be that the attorney general who will defend Prop. 8 in court is Jerry Brown?
November 7, 2008 at 9:12 am
Steve M #10
When it comes to creating new fundamental rights, newly protected constitutional classes and the like, tradition is in fact dispositve. It is called legal precedent, stare decisis, and you know all the terms and legal theories. In short, I simply reject what you so readily accept. The CA supreme court created out of whole cloth a supposed new fundamental right and protected class–neither of which had constituional precedent in CA, let alone anywhere else. It made it up. I don’t recongized any court’s authority to do this. This is a question answered only by the legislature or the people. And, the people have now twice spoken. Just because a renegade batch of supreme court justices creates a new fundamental right and protected class, does not mean they actually exist. I do not recognize the CA supreme court’s authority to do what it did.
We’ve been down this road before. They are’t the same–never were, never will be.
Again, polygamy did not have to do with the fundamental definition of marriage. And, even polygamy was still practiced between men and women–not same gender participants. Arguably the early Mormons had much stronger equal protection and due process arguments since they were a religous minorty–long recognized as a legitimate constituionally protected class.
But, you can–and court’s legitmately did–get to that fundamental right without re-writing and making up entirely new theories of constitutional construction. The CA supreme court’s constitutional interpretation has been rejected by the vast majority of appellate courts considering this same issue.
What are you suggesting that gay-marriage is only a fundamental right in now MA and CT? All 48 other states engage in constitutionally impermissilbe discrimintation? Are you serious? If so, where are the federal courts? Why are they not strking down marriage definition statutes and state constitutional amendments across the country?
Mark N #17
Sometimes I wish I were dreaming.
Steven B #19
Sounds like he’s just disqualifed himself from further participating on any future judicial consideration of this issue.
John Mansfield #20
Possibly worrisome. I like Jerry Brown, and have voted for him in the past. But, frankly he’s wrong on the family and man/woman marriage. He’s caught up in the popular political frenzy of many of my progressive sisters and brothers, pushing genderless marriage on all of society by way of judicial fiat. And, in the process ignoring the direct constitutional mandate of a majority of voters–not once but twice.
But, giving him and his office the benefit of the doubt–let’s see how he responds. If he contiues to flout the voters direct mandate–well, he will have to stand for reelection some time. And, there are likley ways to have him disqualified–though I’d have to research that.
November 7, 2008 at 11:43 am
Let me weigh in as a lawyer, and as someone who has read two of the petitions filed with the Supreme Court (ignoring Gloria Allred’s, thank you very much).
A major point here is that the equal protection clause is supposed to give judges the ability to protect minorities from the “will of the people.” As one of the petitions points out, it is “countermajoritarian.” The Court is the place of last resort for minorities to obtain protection from an oppressive majority. If a Court finds that a measure is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause, and the majority can then take the identical measure and then have it adopted as an exception to the equal protection clause, then the whole concept of equal protection is eviscerated.
The legal arguments are compelling. If you want to carve out an exception to the equal protection clause for gays and lesbians, that’s a revision to the fundamental construct of the Constitution and the separation of powers — not an “amendment,” which Courts have defined as something that is “within the lines” of existing Constitutional principles and should further the purposes of those principles. But I can’t imagine the Court having the courage to actually invalidate Prop 8.
November 7, 2008 at 11:54 am
Steve M., your post #18 proves too much. The government–by convicting Reynolds based on his second “marriage”–implicitly assumed that Reynolds’ polygamous relationship was a “marriage” for the purpose of the statute.
The issue–both before and after Reynolds–wasn’t what Mormons were going to call their relationships, or what they could persuade the government to call them. The issue was whether they could engage in them at all. George Reynolds–and the Mormons generally–weren’t asking asking for preferential tax treatment. They were trying to stay out of jail.
November 7, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Re Guy,
I think we’re just talking past each other, and I don’t think we’re ever going to come to a consensus.
You claim that the California Supreme Court bucked stare decisis and created a new fundamental right and suspect class out of nowhere. I don’t think that’s a fair reading of the court’s decision. The Court relied on numerous precedents (including both Loving v. Virginia and Perez v. Sharp) in holding that same-sex couple’s right to marry falls under the traditional fundamental right to marry–which is not qualified by such caveats as “to a member of the same race” or “to a member of the opposite sex.” Further, sexual orientation is similar to established suspect classifications in numerous respects (e.g., like race and gender, sexual orientation is immutable; like ethnic minorities and women, gays have been historically subject to persecution; like other minority groups, gays have traditionally lacked the political power to protect their rights and interests through normal political processes). I think you far overstate the gap between precedent and the Court’s decision.
Simply saying that precedents such as Loving (which dealt with the right to marry) and Brown (which dealt with equal protection and the “separate but equal” argument) are inapposite does not make it so.
Again, polygamy did not have to do with the fundamental definition of marriage.
That one doesn’t even pass the straight face test. Polygamy has everything to do with the fundamental definition of marriage.
And, even polygamy was still practiced between men and women–not same gender participants.
Are you arguing that polygamy reinforced, rather than challenged, “traditional marriage”? I would argue that same-sex marriage bears a much stronger resemblance to traditional marriage than does polygamy. SSM replicates traditional family structure–two parents presiding over their children. Polygamy is a direct affront to that notion, which is why it was so offensive to the rest of 19th century society.
Arguably the early Mormons had much stronger equal protection and due process arguments since they were a religous minorty–long recognized as a legitimate constituionally protected class.
As I mentioned above, I think you understate the similarity of sexual orientation to other suspect classifications.
But, you can–and court’s legitmately did–get to that fundamental right without re-writing and making up entirely new theories of constitutional construction.
What you’re really saying is that the Court adopted a theory of interpretation that you disagree with.
If I took an extremely strict constructionist view, I might argue that the Constitution does not grant a right to privacy or a right to marry (for gays or straights), because those rights are not explicitly enumerated in the text. But I imagine you wouldn’t accept that theory.
The point is that there are multiple theories of constitutional interpretation, and while you may disagree with that employed by the Californian Court, I think you overstate its radicalness.
And in any case, by conceding that neither the California nor Federal Constitution explicitly grants heterosexual couples a right to marry, but that the courts had to “get to that fundamental right” by interpreting the constitution(s), you undercut one of the arguments made in your original post: That because “[t]he California Constitution does not say same gender couples have a fundamental right to get married,” gays should not possess that right.
What are you suggesting that gay-marriage is only a fundamental right in now MA and CT? All 48 other states engage in constitutionally impermissilbe discrimintation? Are you serious?
I didn’t say that. The California Supreme Court was interpreting its own constitution. What MA, CT, or the other States say about their own state constitutions isn’t really relevant, much less dispositive.
Re JimD,
The government–by convicting Reynolds based on his second “marriage”–implicitly assumed that Reynolds’ polygamous relationship was a “marriage” for the purpose of the statute.
That logic is pretty tortured. The whole point of anti-polygamy legislation, and Reynolds and its progeny of cases, was that the Latter-day Saints’ plural marriages were deemed to be invalid and undeserving of the protections of the state. Mormons were imprisoned and disenfranchised for entering into these plural marriages. Polygamous marriages may have constituted “marriages” for the purposes of the statute, but they certainly did not constitute “marriages” as that term was generally understood in the law–polygamous marriages were neither recognized by the government nor entitled to the rights, benefits, and protections associated with lawful “marriage.”
So if you’re trying to argue that by convicting Reynolds for entering into multiple marriages, that the government implicitly recognized his second marriage as valid–or at least as fitting the definition of “marriage”–I think you’ve stretched law and logic too far. Anti-polygamy legislation stamped out Latter-day Saints’ polygamous marriages because they were an affront to the accepted and protected definition of marriage under the law.
With all due respect, gentlemen, I don’t think we’re going to be changing each other’s minds any time soon. Feel free to respond to my comments and get the last word in, but I think I’ve debated SSM at M&A one too many times.
November 7, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I can’t imagine the Court having the courage to actually invalidate Prop 8.
Let’s hope for a surprise, then.
November 7, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Steve, you write: The whole point of anti-polygamy legislation, and Reynolds and its progeny of cases, was that the Latter-day Saints’ plural marriages were deemed to be invalid and undeserving of the protections of the state.
Actually, the whole point of antipolygamy legislation was to stop the polygamous lifestyle, destroy the institutions that encouraged it, bar people who believed in it from entering the country or participating in the political process, and incarcerating people who continued to practice it.
Prop 8 just doesn’t compare.
November 7, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Guy, I appreciate what you’ve stated about the will of the people, not just because the will of the people ought to be obeyed, but because in this instance they are corrrect. The statistical facts surrounding the two lifestyles make clear that homosexual activity is unhealthy to the participants and society in general. On the other hand, traditional family structures of monogamous man/woman relationships are foundational to healthy communities.
The endorsing or validating/rewarding of good behavior and punishing or not rewarding of bad behavoir is the only reason for civil law to be written. Modifying behavior by discipline is done from the earliest stages of human experience. My concern is that a very vocal minority citizens are asking for the gerneral population to *approve* of what is a perversion of good and beneficial human behavoir.
November 7, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Brad, you are an idiot. If we use your rational, then we should outlaw black families from having children and punish them too. Their tract record is horrible when it comes to raising healthy families. We should also outlaw mormon families as the Utah suicide rate among teens is one of the highest in the nation and Utah county is the pill popping capitol of the west. The drug problem is also very high and the divorce rate is climbing. There is no evidence to support that a monogamous gay relationship is any less healthy than a straight one. In addition, all the studies are showing that children raised in gay homes are well adjusted and happy.
Just accept that you are a bigot and join a skin head group already/
November 7, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Please Don, settle down and look at reality. You make a lot of claims but not one really relates to reality. Black families where the father and mother stay together are statistically just as successful and any other race, the key is life long, mother and father family units. The statistical information would suggest that your mythical “monogamous gay relationship” is very rare. The average gay man in his life time will have somewhere between 3-6 hundred sexual encounters–THATS 3-6 HUNDRED. Common sense and nature speak out plainly against this lifestyle of death except where ultra political correctness and moral relativism has robbed the common sense out of people. Fear of being called a bigot and idiot is more than some can bear so they go along.
People are not born gay, it is not to be equated with race or gender and it’s an insult to do so. It seems to be commonly stated as such [that gayness is genetic], but no study conclusively proves it and in fact the thousands of people who “were” gay but now are not do conclusively prove that it is not like race or gender.
You call me names for speaking out truth. I say what I say for good of people, because to endorse this lifestyle as ok, is like saying, “go ahead, live the gay lifestyle, die an average of 20 years earlier than the average straight person, struggle to be happy and find meaningful lifelong relationships, suffer physical and mental abuse that go along with it”
You may say that my actions are an act of hate, but that is turning the world up side down by calling good evil, and evil good.
November 8, 2008 at 12:35 am
Good thing the federal constitution couldn’t be amended like the california constitution or mormons may have donated to overturn Brown v. Board of Education because it was an argument based on equal protection. Mormons are bigots. Plain and simple.
November 8, 2008 at 1:31 am
Not only are people born Gay, but a whole host of other mammals are, as well. For example, 8% of male sheep; rams, as it were, are gay. Giraffes are especially flaming, engaging in homosexual acts more often than the ones you prefer. Then, there’s the Bonobo chimps, but we will not go into them here. Birds are also not only, occasionaly gay, but mate and raise young as adoptive parents. Remember the Penguins in central park?
Further, the only known predictor of increased rates of gayness in men is the number of sons a woman has previously had. So, larger families leads to more gay sons. You can see where this is leading. Shall we talk about the studies that closely correlate homophobia with homosexual tendencies? I thought not.
One more point 3-600 sexual partners? Are you out of your mind, Brent? A study that came out in September said that straight and gay men had about the same number of partners. Where did you get your “facts?”
November 8, 2008 at 6:29 am
djinn”
I suppose the biggest problem with trying to conduct studies on animal behavior to establish some point about human homosexual behavior is that it requires the scientist to annoy the animals so unfairly. Always trying to get those beasts to declare the real reason for choosing alternative lifestyles. None seem to ever articulate their reasons adequately enough to justify any valid conclusion. Very frustrating.
Just imagine the photo ops that accompany this kind of contrived thinking. I can envision a huge herd of sheep staging a protest march down Santa Monica Boulevard, advocating for recognition of their right to equal protection under the law.
November 8, 2008 at 6:32 am
How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.
November 8, 2008 at 7:19 am
Jim, you seem to have missed the point. 8% of male Rams cannot be used for stud because they will not breed with female sheep. Rather, they choose other rams. No one needs to ask the Ram why it’s behaving that way — that’s just the way it is. They’re gay. They were born that way. This behavior can be observed throughout the animal kingdom. It is not a difficult concept. It’s not an alternate lifestyle for the animal. It is how it behaves.
November 8, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Animals are not born gay, they will hump anything, male or female–what ever opportunity is close by. Most of the excitement about watching animals to prove human “gayness” is out of place because the animals are usually engaging in an act of domination or even ownership-far from the monogamous committed relationship that the gay community wants us to believe about itself. Dogs will hump a leg, cat, toy stuffed animal, and although it’s common, it’s still unnatural non beneficial behavior.
djinn, I’ll linke a few sites with statistical reports, although I’m getting the idea you’ll discount them. As far as the threat to link homophobia with homosexual tendencies, go ahead. I’ll admit, I could live a life of homosexuality, if my environment encouraged it, I’m no different in my genes and fallennesss than any other man, I have the physical ability to engage in sex with another man. So, feel free to link it, it’s still a behavior practiced by some, not an essential human right issue, like skin color or sex.
November 8, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Our forfathers wrote in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence; That all men are Created Equil; that theyn are endowed, by their Creator, with certin unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Does not then mean that Gays & Lesbans should be not be allowed to marry the man or womon of their choosing to Pursue their Happines as Hetrosexual couples.
November 8, 2008 at 1:36 pm
The real problem for Brad is that he takes the bible to be the literal word of God. Of course, that is as far as it has been translated correctly. For the correct translation, we will rely on a man with a 3rd grade education to look into a hat and dictate the “real translation” to his faithful (well, as it turns out, not so faithful) friend. It’s amazing that the God who created the universe whispered into the undereducated man’s ears in King James style English. That crazy God, what will he/she think of next?
But I digress…
You see, if Brad accepts that we are born gay, then he has to actually think about the ramifications of the knowledge. What kind of god creates a creature so flawed that his very essence and deepest desires to love and connect with another person are the very thing that will damn him for eternity. This is not a God of love or compassion, but a spiteful and demented god that is not worthy of worship. However, once you start to unravel the thread of brads “testimonial Sweater”, he is left bereft and defeated. He does not have it in his heart to believe that there is beauty and mystery in God’s creation. His world is one in which only Mormons are correct. He cannot entertain that there is any flaw in that thinking or everything his family and culture hold true will be put in question.
Jesus said you can’t put new wine in an old bottle. I suspect that new wine in Brad would burst his container in a way that “all the kings horse’s and men” would be able to fix.
Also, while it is true that the some “straight” men could entertain a tryst with another man, most would not fall in love. The vast majority of straight men do not entertain ideas of man to man sexual contact. They are content to live the measure of their creation. This is not about sex, it is about love, connection, and finding someone to share this crazy life with. For what ever reason, God created me in such a way that puberty delivered a very special package that made me different from most other men.
Brad, you are a bigot and a homophobe and those are choices. Me being gay is not. The only choice I have in the matter is whether to open my arms to God’s blessing of my gayness and live my life open and out loud.
When I stand before my creator I will able to say that I lived without fear and was true to myself. I will be able to say that I always stood on the side of human dignity and equality. I will be able to say that I dedicated my life to those less fortunate (I have worked for over 20 years in the inner city with children of poverty. I will be able to say that when a child was orphaned and discarded by his family that I took him in, clothed him and fed him and raised him to love himself, others, and God (He is now my son) . And since 1 out of ever 10 lines deals directly with the physical poor and the call from God for us to respond to them, in luke it is every sixth line and in James it is (in one form or another) every fifth line, I feel that I am following what God wants of us. By the way, Jesus never mentions homosexuality and Paul mostly mentions it in terms of prostitution and pagan temple rights.
And since we are on the subject, have you read what Paul says about a women’s role in the church? He mentions the gay thing, but harps on the female role. And even though Mormons have done a pretty good job keeping women “in their place” they still are not following the Bible in this regards. In the end…there are so many holes in Mormon theology and thinking that it’s not even worth taking on.
I urge all you Mormons to focus your attention on the poor, needy and outcast and let my people free. We will all be better for it.
November 8, 2008 at 1:42 pm
A correction…
It should read “1 out of every 10 lines in the New Testament”
And the research for that was done by Ronald Rolheiser and published in his book “The Holy longing, The Search for A Christian Spirituality”
A great book if you ever read non-Mormon texts on spirituality
November 8, 2008 at 3:54 pm
djinn, I guess I am much more familiar with the biology of mammals than you can afford to give credit for. If you’re interested in mammalian biology, I am quite familiar with the discipline at the college level. The bits you’re trying to score some points with make rather poor substantiation for arguments about human sexuality, from the standpoint of animal biology. In fact, the level of ignorance about the subject that it indicates make you case look pretty ludicrous.
Facts are that in domestic sheep, the animals have been inbred and cultured for many thousands of years. So any kind of natural or instinctive behaviors are virtually non-existent, having been modified by selective breeding for many generations.
Rams that develop the habit of attepting to mount inappropriate mates are generally considered by sheep breeders to be a good candidate for the featured ingredient of your favorite mutton recipe. They’re not considered “gay” sheep — rather, they are generally regarded as behaviourally defective, and are quickly culled from the herd.
Is this supposed to be a model for our treatment of humans who engage in homosexual behavior?
November 8, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Hi Silverpicker, the phrase “pursuit of happiness” doesn’t compel the government to endorse homosexual union as a wholly equal and beneficial status to traditional marraige. The fact is that the activist nature of a very small minority [of possiblly 2-3% very loud and organized] has as is now being witnessed has not been satisfied with tolerance, but demands approval. You cant expect tolerance of contrary views as Don Wilson shows without being called names and spoken of as some backwards 3rd grader following numbskull.
The state is under no compulsion to recognize any group for it’s behavior by force of Constitutional law. The “gay” citizen has equal right to pursue the same happiness as any other citizen in the U.S.
By the way, the state has no obligation to endorse heterosexual marraige if it is not in the best interest of society–it just has because it is so. This far into the history of human existence it is traditionally understood to be a deserved right, but I am not arguing that.
Don, I’m no Mormon. I believe that you are certain that you were born the way you are, because in the circumstances and environment you experienced that shaped you as a person were not under your direct control. The statistical facts dont support you assertion, and I’ve searched for a conclusive study and cant find one–one that is respected. The heavier wieght is that those multiple thousands who’ve left the gay lifestyle who at one time gave the same testimony as you about being born that way. This would be like the black man changing the color of his skin wouldn’t it?
Don says: “Brad, you are a bigot and a homophobe and those are choices. Me being gay is not.”
Why do you call those choices? I was born that way cant you see.
then,
Don says:”The only choice I have in the matter is whether to open my arms to God’s blessing of my gayness and live my life open and out loud.”
I cant help but to say that when you say “open my arms”, that this isn’t just a euphemism for “ignoring the offense and the guilt that comes with it” and call it God’s blessing it. People of all stripes, [self confessed believers I’m talking about] do this all the time. I’ve been guilty also.
We disagree on the scriptures express view on homosexuality. If it offended God ever, it does still, or else He would not be reliable since He’d be changeable.
November 8, 2008 at 5:42 pm
When it comes to multiple partners, this is not a gay man issue. It is a man issue. I think you can hardly discount the numbers of partners straight men are having as seen in the huge success of the sex trade. Perhaps, the Mormons own prophet is a good example of what I’m talking about…even though he legitimized it through his own man made religion.
“In the group of Smith’s well-documented wives, eleven (33 percent) were 14 to 20 years old when they married him. Nine wives (27 percent) were twenty-one to thirty years old. Eight wives (24 percent) were in Smith’s own peer group, ages thirty-one to forty. In the group aged forty-one to fifty, there is a substantial drop off: two wives, or 6 percent, and three (9 percent) in the group aged fifty-one to sixty.”
“The teenage representation is the largest, though the twenty-year and thirty-year groups are comparable, which contradicts the Mormon folk-wisdom that sees the beginnings of polygamy was an attempt to care for older, unattached women. These data suggest that sexual attraction was an important part of the motivation for Smith’s polygamy. In fact, the command to multiply and replenish the earth was part of the polygamy theology, so non-sexual marriage was generally not in the polygamous program, as Smith taught it.”
November 9, 2008 at 4:04 am
[…] Proposition 8 Challenged in Court Messenger and Advocate – November 6, 2008 […]
November 9, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don’t give up
The Governor doesn’t seem to think that there is anything at all about having made this a constitutional amendment that prevents the CA Supreme Court from yanking back out if it wants to.
November 10, 2008 at 11:58 am
the Edmunds anti-bigamy law did invalidate plural “marriages” established before its passage- but it had explicit provisions.
Prop 8 is not so clear.
November 10, 2008 at 10:09 pm
I’m horrified. People are gay. So are sheep. The fact that sheep breeders don’t like it is beside the point; though I suppose for some percent reading this blog it is exactly the point, because as far as I can tell you wish to throw away human homosexuals exactly the same way Jim Cobabe mentions Sheep homosexuals are culled. Fun times for all.
Besides, the scriptures are nowhere near as anti-gay as their reputation. Don’t you guys actually read the Bible?
1. Jesus never mentioned the issue.
2.
Mark 14, Peter, James and John have all abandoned Jesus….51 ¶ And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
52 and he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
What was happening here?
3. David and Jonathan: Samuel 20:40-41
40 And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad, and said unto him, Go, carry them to the city.
41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
Do you guys actually read the Bible? I find it difficult to believe.
November 10, 2008 at 11:32 pm
What was happening here?
There’s always the JST version to look at:
And there followed him a certain young man, a disciple, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him, and he left the linen cloth and fled from them naked, and saved himself out of their hands.
According to Bruce R. McConkie’s “The Mortal Messiah”, Book 4, “From the fact that Mark alone tells about the young man who was accompanying Christ as he was led away captive, and who himself escaped arrest by fleeing naked as his captors tore from him his sole article of apparel, a loose linen garment—this has led to the universal assumption that Mark himself was the young man.”
1. Jesus never mentioned the issue.
I think it’s fair to say that Paul certainly did. So I guess it comes down to whether or not you can find a way to discount Paul’s words.
Prop 8 has certainly made a mess of things. The fact that nobody can really state what it means for those same-sex couples already married just goes to show that it wasn’t really all that well thought-out. For that reason alone, the CA Supreme Court ought to do away with it.
November 10, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Here’s the latest from California:
Lawmakers join call to overturn Prop. 8
November 11, 2008 at 11:27 am
Guy,
I rather enjoy seeing the “no-on-8” people pretending that such things as abnormal behavior in animals justifies human acts. It doesn’t even seem to be an apt parallel. Human sexuality is largely based in interpersonal and social interaction, and has very little to do with biology. To attempt to make the case for “gay” sheep demonstrates how little understanding there really is coming from advocates for certain human behavior.
(I note that whenever we attempt to survey sheep with questions about their sex life, they keep consuming the survey forms. We suspect that only libertine sheep with loose morals will even respond to such surveys anyway. Most of the other sheep just tend to blush and bleat their embarrassment to even be approached with questions about their private sexual behavior.)
I personally don’t have much invested in this argument. I cannot tell whether or not the deviant sheep actually consider themselves “gay”. Nor do I care what vanishingly small numbers actually enjoy the deviant behavior. Endless argument will never settle this issue.
If you would entertain ideas about how people are injured by this political and social and legal movement, I would take it far more seriously. Hurting other people is always serious. I am mentally torn about deciding what is the right thing. In the absence of any other compelling argument, I would certainly be filled with confusion. And I would feel bad about causing harm to come to any other creature, because I recognize that they are all just like me, confused and miserable creatures just living out their lives the best they can.
Only confidence in inspired counsel moves me to act. Left to my own thoughts, I would never have voted yea or nay on this issue.
November 11, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Hi Mark N, regarding your last post, is this a case like the one that inspired William F. Buckley to have famously said he’d rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard?
I think so, and I’d hope a revolutiion would ensue if they exibit such unwise leadership. This is the smarter than thou crowd who only are “serving” themselves as they play the liberal intellectualism card.
November 11, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I’d hope a revolutiion would ensue if they exibit such unwise leadership.
Maybe we’ll get calls from Utah, urging us to get our guns, and letting us know who to shoot first. It’ll be interesting.
November 11, 2008 at 6:30 pm
So, is Prop 8 an example of how the Church is going to encourage us to call people to repentence and preach the gospel in the last days?
We know that heaven is going to be fairly stratified when we get there, but the American ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness seem to be out of harmony with what we envision post-mortal life will be like. Which, of course, shouldn’t be surprising in the least. We’ve all been taught that the world and the Church are going to be taking increasingly divergent paths as time goes on, but I’m not sure that attempting to use earthly governmental power in order to maintain a closer unity of those paths is really the way to go.
Are we going to preach the gospel of honey, or the gospel of vinegar?
November 11, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Hi Mark N, I guess I’m guilty of using inflammatory language when I say “revolution”. I dont mean it in the literal meaning of the word–where arms are taken up. The issue at hand isn’t that desperate yet, but tyranny is to be opposed, ala Jefferson.
Just to be clear, I’m not arguing for any official church activism, just for the individuals [as citizens] be such salt and light so as to call the government to account for it’s God given authority to rule. Also to be clear, I’m not trying to make a case for majority rule–pure democracy. The democratic republic system where the people elect their leaders does provide recourse by vote which ought to make itself known by a revolution at the ballot box. This type of revolution could possibly be incited by the legislators taking the voice of the people away.
Squeaky hinges get the oil, evidence of this is seen in the very vocal, very minority crowd against prop 8 energizing the movement and pressing the whole issue. One news report showed a handful, maybe 75 marchers, and they were covered on the 5,6,7, and 11 o’clock news on all the major networks. I’ve seen more than that at abortion protests, with absolutely no tv coverage. Something more is going on here, a movement to hijack truth is turning good and evil up side down–thus the need for salt and light. I dont think the prop 8 supporters are even close to being agitated yet.
November 12, 2008 at 8:26 am
I dont think the prop 8 supporters are even close to being agitated yet.
I’m not sure that the “yes on 8” people have any understanding of just how much pain and hurt the passage of Prop 8 has inflicted around here. I almost get the feeling that to some, their participation in the Prop 8 campaign wasn’t anything more that a fight for an abstract concept, whereas for those affected by the passage of Prop 8, it is not an abstract thing at all, but a very real slap in the face.
One of the members of our stake is pretty much the bigwig of a Sacramento theater company that does millions of dollars in business each year. Given what he does for a living, many of the people he works with on a day-to-day basis are gay. He donated $1,000 to the “yes on 8” campaign, and since the donations over a certain amount of money are put in publicly accessible databases, his donation became known to those he works with, and the you-know-what has hit the fan. The people he works with feel betrayed, and they can’t imagine what he was thinking.
Google “Scott Eckern”. For the time being, he has become the West Coast Distributor of hatred, bigotry and intolerance.
Pressure on theater grows after artistic director’s gift to Prop. 8 campaign
It’s frightening that one’s job can be put on the line as a result of the actions one might take in support of his religious beliefs, but at the same time, I can understand why some high-profile people, such as Brother Eckern, are going to be treated this way. Would you want to continue to financially support someone who stabbed you in the back by donating to a cause you considered harmful to yourself and your family?
The genie is out of the bottle on this thing, and it’s way too late to be trying to put it back in.
November 12, 2008 at 11:25 am
Scott Eckern has resigned.
CMT artistic director quits in fallout from Prop. 8 support
25 years undone by a lousy $1,000 contribution.
Apparently, this is fairly big news throughout the theater world, and is not just local news. This is going to haunt Bro. Eckern for a while, I think. I hope this turns out well for him in the end.
November 12, 2008 at 4:34 pm
#54,
This is another reason that I will not support Apple or Google. I will not pay for an inferior product (in apple’s case) and have the proceeds go to tearing down the institution of the family the Prophet warned us to protect. Others may choose differently.
November 12, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Hi Mark N, interesting how the argument is framed. The bastions of “tolerance” are showing what their deffinition of tolerance is aren’t they. This degenerate crowd suffers from a case of mental/moral dishonesty. Their actions are dishonest and hateful yet anyone who’s vocal against them gets branded with those titles.
Woe to them who call evil good, and good evil.
November 12, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Mark N #53
Mark, it sounds as though you characterize all Yes on 8 as an uncaring monolith out to propagate hate, hurt and bigotry on their fellow man. Sounds to me like you’ve bought lock stock and barrel the mantra that if you voted yes on 8 or supported it in anyway that somehow makes you an unenlightened hateful bigot, denying some mythical rights that have been taken away. In my view that’s an absurd argument and conclusion.
The fact is that after proposition 8’s passage, our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers still enjoy all the constitutional rights and protections that California law can bestow on married couples.
No one is sitting in the back of the bus. No one is denied the right to vote. No one is being denied any substantive constitutional right in CA, or even in the U.S., that existed before May 15, 2008. If I’m wrong, please point out to me which right(s) specifically we’re talking about.
Like what, Mark? The preservation of a man/woman definition on marriage? The religious and moral belief that marriage is ordained of God reserved for men and women? Are those the abstract concepts to which you refer? Are these somehow non-protected beliefs now?
I think it’s just fine you have a differing opinion than I or others on Proposition 8; but, please don’t shove down my throat the idea that because I or others hold views different from yours, that I hate, I’m a bigot, intolerant and taking away rights. I don’t think that of you just because we have a different point of view.
November 13, 2008 at 9:03 am
Mark, it sounds as though you characterize all Yes on 8 as an uncaring monolith out to propagate hate, hurt and bigotry on their fellow man.
Sorry, that’s not my characterization, all I’m saying is that is how the gay community perceives it, and, as they say, perception is reality. A member of my stake who has worked for the last 25 years in Sacramento’s largest theater organization just resigned his job there because of the perception in the theater community (lots and lots of gay people there, you know) that he stabbed them in the back by making a $1000 contribution to the “yes on 8” people, and that his continuing presence in that job would damage theater arts in Sacramento because of the contention it caused. One can make the argument that it’s the gays in the theater community who are being unreasonable here, but their perception of the issue is the one that is going to carry the day, at least for the time being.
I have no hopes or desires for the Church to ever change it’s doctrinal stance on gay marriage. It certainly plays no part in my understanding of how the whole plan of salvation works.
All I’m saying is that now that the CA Supreme Court has decided this is an equal rights issue, that viewpoint is never going to go away. I fully expect that the world and the LDS Church are going to see themselves on rapidly diverging paths as more time goes by, but I have no expectations that our Church will be successful in using the power of the state to convert the general population to seeing and agreeing with our take on what is moral and what is not. The state has never really been the friend of the LDS Church, and it was only in the prior century, after we did away with polygamy at the point of a gun that we were able to obtain a semi-permanent truce with the state.
The Book of Mormon says that the best way to change hearts is by preaching the gospel: “And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God.” (Alma 31:5) He didn’t say that the best way to make the people choose righteousness over wickedness was by having a bare majority enforce it on the minority by means of the ballot box.
Prop 22 was bad law from the point of view of the CA Supreme Court, and it was extremely shortsighted of people to think that they could cure a bad law by sticking it in the Constitution. If the courts here overturn Prop 8, I won’t be surprised in the least. The Governor has signed on to that point of view, one-third of the legislature is urging the courts that it be done, and I don’t think the courts here are going to let the current situation sit and fester for a long time before they get involved in it again.
The legal “experts” can’t even say what the effects of Prop 8 on the existing same-sex married couples is going to be. When you put a change into the constitution that the so-called experts can’t even say what it means for those affected by it, what does that say about the wisdom of that change?
I’m just tired of the “I’m offended by this change, and I’m going to stop it” attitude on the part of Christians in general. I really don’t think they can stop it, and we need to learn to stop worring about the things we can’t change, and concentrate on the area where we can effect change, and that place is in our homes. The big hue and cry has been “my kids are going to be exposed to something to which I don’t want them exposed”. Well, it happens all the time, so the only thing we can do about it is to teach them correct principles, and hope that they’ll be capable of governing themselves accordingly, and then they’ll be able to go out and teach others correct principles, and so on and so forth.
The ballot box method of converting the world isn’t going to do it.
November 13, 2008 at 9:34 am
Mark N. #58
Mark, thanks for your clarification. I can agree with this statement, as unfair as that perception is–an argument can be made that it is reality to them.
This is an extremely unfortunate incident. I appreciate you bringing it up in the links and comments you have made. If this is the reality of the gay/lesbian community is making from their perceptions–it is not only the wrong perception/reality, it is harmful to the democratic process. One should not have their job jeopardized because of their religious and political beliefs. This good brother should not have had to resign; but, the fact he did, and the fact there was pressure from the gay/lesbian community for him to do so speaks volumes about his good intentions and their bad ones.
This is an interesting position–certainly one with which I am prepared to agree; however, when asked by brethren whom we consider to be prophets, seers, and revelators to become involved in Proposition 8, I think that throws another dynamic into the equation, No?
Probably true, despite the incredibly poor legal decision it is turning out to be.
I would agree with you here as well.
Of course you know that the ballot amendment process started well before the CA supreme court came down with their poor decision in the marriage cases, creating new constitutional rights and a new protected class. Had the decision predated this process, it might have read a bit differently, I suppose.
I don’t know. It’s hard to say. There is so very little precedent for what the No on 8 proponents are asking, it is hard to believe the court will actually throw out a constitutional amendment–but given the court’s disregard for precedent, or lack thereof in making up new rights and protected classes, you could well be right.
I would agree with this; but, again, the other dynamic playing out here was a direct request by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to take some specific actions.
I think you raise some very good points in your clarification here Mark. I appreciate reading them, as you seem genuinely interested in a serious discussion about these issues. I particularly like your Book of Mormon reference–again, something with which I agree.
November 13, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I think it was unwise to throw our political support in with a pre-existing group whose honesty with regard to the “selling points” of Prop 8 were questionable. In one of the stories I’ve read on the web about Brother Eckern, it is claimed by Jeff Whitty in documenting a phone conversation with Brother Eckern about his support for Prop 8, that he “sensed that there was some real ambivalence, even regret, over this issue, not necessarily related to his future at California Musical Theatre… there was real ambivalence about the tactics of the campaign”.
I think the “Yes on 8” campaign played the fear card much more than was necessary and were less than fully honest in the way they portrayed the San Francisco school class’ field trip to their teacher’s gay wedding. A battle that can’t be fought fairly and honestly is probably not a battle worth winning.
November 15, 2008 at 8:46 pm
A coalition of civil rights groups yesterday filed a petition writ with the California Supreme Court to stop the enactment of Proposition 8.
From the writ petition:
I notice that Jewish and more Asian groups have also filed letters to the court expressing similar viewpoints (PDF).
November 15, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Steven B. # 61
Thanks for the links. I disagree with this statement, however. Racial minorities and their rights are not in jeopardy. They remain protected not only under the state constitution but also the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The California constitution, like all others, may afford greater protection in terms of constitutional rights, but may not afford lesser protection than that afforded under the U.S. Constitution.
Gay marriage is only a fundamental right now in two states, and has never been a fundamental right in any federal court. It is only a right in CT and MA by way of judicial tyranny against the majority of the citizens of those states. Two states do not a fundamental right make.
November 16, 2008 at 10:57 am
The point of the constitution is to guarantee rights. Not take them away.
After prop 8, the California constitution has a precedent in it that limits the rights of the citizens. In the legal record, there WAS a right for some citizens that was voted away by a majority.
So this DOES set a legal precedent. Other rights can be voted away by a simple majority. Doesn’t that give anyone pause for thought?
Also, has anybody thought about the few people who are born neither clearly man or woman (in a strictly physical sense)? This does happen in rare cases. Wouldn’t the wording of prop 8 then technically discriminate against these few people?
November 16, 2008 at 12:19 pm
[…] this angle up. Leonard Link: Proposition 8 Passage Generates Lawsuits and Battle Over Meaning Proposition 8 Challenged in Court Messenger and Advocate http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1225907782.shtml The Volokh Conspiracy – – This is my new […]
November 16, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Hi Samantha, I want to make several points for you to consider relating to your post.
I think you make many assumptions that are not universally agreed upon. First, there is not even 1 generally accepted study that’ll support the assumption that people are born gay[like skin color, race, or gender], yet this point is seldom challenged. The evidence of gayness being a behavior is overwhelming, which places this debate outside of the realm of a “fundamental” human rights issue and thus outside of the equal protection clause.
Along with that, your last statement ought not have any real impact on this debate since to make policy based on such rare instances wouldn’t be wise.
The only way there is a precedent is if the argument is framed within the equal protection clause [where it may actually wind up in some misguided way]. This would be a serious logical leap, opening up a loophole for a host of deviant behaviors being protected. Even then, it is not the civil magistrates duty to *endorse* and *approve* as good behovior any and every claim of some group claiming “fundamental” rights. The God ordained duty of government is to promote/reward good behavior and discourage/punish bad behavior. All law is one or the other. As to whether they relate to truth[how things really are] or not is debatable.
Finally, the founders did argue that when government did not rule wisely, that it was the duty of the people to overthrow such as that since that’d be a tyranny. In the present state, it’d be no stretch to view activist judicial activity as tyrannical. Also, if one looks at the history of the ballot proposition system, it is really a revolt of the people to protect themselves from bad leadership.[see the “no on 8’s doth protest too much” thread.
November 17, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Another shoe has dropped:
Brown urges state high court to hear anti-Prop. 8 suits
November 17, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Mark N
Thanks for this link. What General Brown should have done is challenge the validity of the petitions themselves, rather than urge the court to jump in with both feet. This is not the usual and customary practice, as I understand it for petitions to be heard by the court. It is unfortunate that the people of California are going to get only half heartened and luke warm representation by the attorney general’s office. The attorney general has actual conflict of interest, based on his unilateral re-wording of the introductory language pre-election. He should step down and have someone who is less or biased than he represent the people.
Also, here’s another link. Apparently even the Prop. 8 proponents are interested in the Court hearing the case. They are apparently quite confident in a favorable ruling. I haven’t see their legal authorities, so this will be very interesting to follow now–just from a legal standpoint regardless of the moral and other issues.
November 17, 2008 at 10:33 pm
[…] yours. A guy who didn’t even know that a Pit Bull was a Terrier. Thanks. From my second link… The legal arguments are narrowly focused on state law, because gay rights activists nationwide know … the so called right to genderless marriage. The California Constitution does not say same gender […]
November 18, 2008 at 11:06 am
[…] law about what can be done by amendment as opposed to revision, he said. From my second link… The legal arguments are narrowly focused on state law, because gay rights activists nationwide know … the so called right to genderless marriage. The California Constitution does not say same gender […]
December 9, 2008 at 1:43 pm
The courts have stepped in and decided many issues of “Freedom” and “Rights”. Most of these decisions when not clearly outlined by the constitution are based upon political correctness and/or moral opinion. If your a Christian Scientist you must still take your child to the doctor if the contract a deathly illness. If your a Mormon you can not legally have more than one wife at one time. You can not have sexual relations with a minor if you are an adult. I could go on and on and on. Pornography, Bigamy, Molestation, Homosexuality, Substance Abuse, etc. Any one of these issues could be argued as to be “Uncontrollable” A sickness for those that disagree and an understandable, acceptable way of life for those that do. I live in California and took time to vote on November 8th. If the proposition had failed you would not have seen it’s backers in court fighting to have it enacted. If you want the right for a man to marry a man then submit a proposition.
December 11, 2008 at 10:55 am
… they DID indeed use church property to tell everyone to blindly follow the prophet, give a percentage of your tithing to the cause…
I hate to quibble, but I’ve never heard any member of the Church put the donation aspect of it in those words.
No member of the Church, in my experience, would be asked to “give a percentage of your tithing”, because that would seem to indicate that one could reduce one’s tithing amount by the amount of the donation to the “yes on 8” cause, and that this would be perfectly fine from the Church’s point of view.
I don’t think so. I can’t imagine that any bishop anywhere in California would have told his ward members to donate to the pro-Prop 8 forces by taking it out of their tithing. Not gonna happen. Instead, they would have encouraged the membership to go above and beyond the call of duty by paying a full tithe and then donating whatever else they could spare to the “yes on 8” folks.
I hate to say it, but this is a red flag to me that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
December 11, 2008 at 10:58 am
Yes, now that I’ve read enough of the rest of your message, it’s clear: you’re lying, Ms. Arthur, plain and simple.
December 26, 2008 at 9:48 am
Mark N. Paul did mention “Arsenokoitai,” “arsen” meaning “man”; and “koitai” meaning “beds.” What this means is unclear. Martin Luther thought it meant Masturbation, the explicit mention of the word “man” excludes female behavior, etc. etc., etc.
Paul also thought women should stay quiet in church, and should cover their heads. Do you enforce those laws?
October 25, 2014 at 6:36 pm
[…] campaign ever fought outside of someone running for office. Immediately, the opposition filed three lawsuits protesting the […]