Prop 8 does discriminate
Original post made
by Pat, Danville,
on Oct 16, 2008
Danville Mayor Candace Andersen's Letter to the Editor printed in the paper Oct. 3 stating "Under California state law the rights and privileges are essentially the same" between "marriage" and "civil unions" is wrong. When you're married and your spouse is sick or hurt, you get into the ambulance or hospital room with no questions asked. In everyday life, and especially in emergency situations, domestic partnerships are simply not enough. Only marriage provides the certainty and the security that people can count on in times of greatest need.
Also marriage conveys immediate tax benefits that domestic partnerships do not. As domestic partners (which we were) if I died tomorrow my partner of 21 years would have to pay inheritance tax on the home we bought together six years ago. However, as a legally married couple (which we now are) he will automatically be granted full title without having to pay a cent.
David and I got married at San Francisco City Hall on June 25, then celebrated the blessing of our vows July 24 in a deeply moving religious ceremony at St. Timothy's Episcopal Church where I both worship and work. This ceremony was attended by 200 friends and members of our parish, many of whom said it was one of the most wonderful expressions of love they had seen in years. I find it ironic that the cover of the issue with Andersen's letter had a bold red headline, "Love of a Life."
If the mayor believes her statement, "I do not believe that anyone in our community should be discriminated against based upon his or her sexual orientation," then she should VOTE NO on Proposition 8.
Pat Parr, Associate for Music Ministry, St. Timothy's Episcopal Church
Like this comment
Posted by Jeff S.
a resident of Danville
on Oct 23, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Jack - I do not understand why you think that your interpretation of God's rules should be what all Californians follow. I personally believe that a marriage between two men or two women should be just as valid, under the law, as a marriage between a man and a woman. But, you believe that your beliefs are more valid than mine and that the laws of our state should reflect your views only.
Even though same sex marriage is now legal in California, neither you, nor your family, nor your house of worship need to worry about participating in such marriages. I believe that the current situation is optimal for all of us to appreciate our First Amendment freedoms.
And, if you claim that "Marriage is also defined by God as the union of a man and a woman," I would like to know where God is quoted as saying that. I think that you will have a very difficult time finding the reference.
I am no student of the Bible, so I have to rely on the research of Vaughn Roste, the son of two Lutheran pastors, who holds degrees in theology and music from two different church institutions:
Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).
Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).
A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man's wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.
If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).
A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).
If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).
Women marry the man of their father's choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).
Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).
The value of a woman might be approximately seven years' work (Gen 29:14-30).
Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).
Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).
Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).
I also wonder why to protect marriage, the Pro-8 people say that the people that are allowed to marry under the law must be limited. On the other hand, to protect freedom and liberty, the very cornerstones of our nation, we must spread them throughout the world. "We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind," George W. Bush, Speech, November 6, 2003.
Like this comment
Posted by David
a resident of Danville
on Oct 29, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I figured I'd split this in 2 since it would have been too long to continue with the post directly above...
Regarding Tom's Post above: "Is the Prop8 crusade running out of money?
Wow. I cannot imagine why anything less than desperate finances would motivate such a move -- it is certain to alienate a whole lot of relatively neutral people who don't like to be threatened -- or to have other people threatened. Prop8 is already behind in the polls of any sample size -- do they really want to drive away those "swing" voters in the middle?
It's a "shakedown" worthy of Tony Soprano and his, uh, Family. Has it really come to this, crusaders? Your true colors are coming out, and they're the same as the Crips and Bloods? "
Tom, I enjoy reading your posts. They make me think of things from a different point of view. I saw the following posting recently, and I'm wondering how you feel it differs from what the "Crusaders" are doing. After all, ,this is not about going after companies, but it is about going after people personally.
No matter what, we need to be civil to each other. We will still be neighbors after this election is come and gone. Regardless of whether Prop 8 passes or doesn't, we will all still be trying to navigate the vicissitudes of life to the best of our ability. We will all want the best for our families, regardless of how they are defined. I hope that we can figure out a way to reach out to those who hold different beliefs from us, and find a way to work together on those things that we do agree on.
I apologize that I'm not tech savvy enough to post this as a hyperlink, I'll post the text below the web address.
How YOU can defeat Prop 8 and preserve marriage equality.
Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:00:07 PM PDT
Over the weekend, we asked you for money. You responded in a record-setting way, and for that, you have my thanks, and the thanks of everyone who believes in equality before the law.
Today, I will be asking you for something else: your time. I'll get to exactly how in a minute--but before I do, I want to tell you a story.
It's a story about two weddings. Please join me below the fold.
hekebolos's diary :: ::
On one beautiful weekend in September, I took a trip from Los Angeles to Northern California. My first stop was Grass Valley, where my mom's cousin was holding her stateside wedding reception after getting married over the summer in Italy.
Even though my mom and I are not members of the Mormon church, plenty of our relatives on her side are--and it was, indeed, a festive occasion, and a happy one for my first cousin once removed, who was finally able to celebrate having found love after a couple of instances where she thought she had found the one, only to have him take advantage of her and leave her in the end.
Even though much of my extended family is traditionally conservative, in large part owing to religious reasons, they know that much of my life is spent actively campaigning for Democratic causes, but I am still more than welcome, and our conversations are always pleasant and civil.
The next morning, I left to drive to San Francisco for another wedding: this time, it was that of my good friend Brian. Now, I'm sure that many of you know the Brian I'm talking about: none other than Brian Leubitz, the founder of Calitics. He too was celebrating having found the love of his life. The same festive atmosphere. The same love. The same desire to share a life together, and to enter into a binding contract with one another. The only difference is that Brian's love is another man.
And yet, because of that last fact, certain groups are investing craploads of resources into making sure that the happy scene I saw in San Francisco never happens again.
As a matter of fact, the No on Prop 8 folks told me recently that the "Protect Marriage" campaign has raised $30 million dollars--over half of it from the Mormon Church. Now, I have nothing personally against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They most certainly have the constitutional right to worship in their own way. They have the right to minister in whatever way they see fit and to marry whomever they see fit in their churches based on any qualifications they choose. And they will be well within their rights.
But when the church and its members invest millions of dollars in an attempt to write discrimination into my state's constitution and divorce my friend Brian against his will, there will be hell to pay.
So what am I asking you to do?
Some distributed research.
There is a list of a bunch of Mormon donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign (in case that one goes down, here's a mirror with slightly worse formatting.
Here's what I'm asking for:
This list contains information about those who are big donors to the Yes on 8 campaign--donors to the tune of at least $1,000 dollars. And, as you can see, there are a lot of them. It also indicates if they're Mormon or not.
If you're interested in defeating the religious right and preserving marriage equality, here's how you can help:
Find us some ammo.
Use any LEGAL tool at your disposal. Use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to...shall we say...less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious. If so, we have a legitimate case to make the Yes on 8 campaign return their contributions, or face a bunch of negative publicity.
There are a crapload of donors on this list--so please focus on the larger ones first. $5,000 or more is a good threshold to start with.
Feel free to use Lexis-Nexis searches as well for anything useful, especially given that these people are using "morality" as their primary motivation to support Prop 8...if you find anything that belies that in any way...well, you know what to do.
If you find anything good, please email it to:
equalityresearch at gmail dot com.
Here's the bottom line for me: if someone is willing to contribute thousands of dollars to a campaign to take away legal rights from some very dear friends of mine, they had damn well make sure their lives are beyond scrutiny--because I, for one, won't take it lying down.
This one is for Brian and the millions like him all across the nation.
Like this comment
Posted by Lynne: Concerned Parent
a resident of Danville
on Oct 30, 2008 at 9:38 am
Hi Tom Cushing, the real rkay, Kelly, David, Jeff, Kathy, et al.,
I have enjoyed reading this discussion for a few weeks and I see merit in arguments on both sides of the issue.
As a parent, I am concerned about the public school's rights and responsibilities to teach my children about gender issues (should they really trump my parental rights?).
Have you seen the article below? If providing homosexual couples the right to have their marriages recognized and validated by the state means that the state will no longer recognize my parental rights in deciding what and how my children are taught about gender issues, then I will be voting Yes on proposition 8.
Yes: Other side's hypocritical argument
October 27, 2008
By John Maxfield
Orange County Register
It is simply amazing how the "No on Prop. 8" campaign is unwilling to stand up for what it believes. For a week now the campaign has said one thing; yet it believes something else.
What do I mean? Well, the "No on Prop. 8" campaign maintains that, if Proposition 8 fails, kids will not be exposed to same-sex marriage instruction in school; yet it maintains that gay marriage is a fundamental right. Huh? If gay marriage is a fundamental right, then it should be taught in school. Can you think of another fundamental right that is not taught in school? The campaign's dirty little secret? They know gay marriage will be taught in school and they are desperate to say anything so that we don't figure it out on our own.
In an effort to make sure we don't figure this out, they have now paraded the state education chief, Jack O'Connell, out to say that schools don't have to teach about marriage. Sadly, Mr. O'Connell hasn't told the whole truth. According to California Education Code Section 51933, if a school decides to teach a comprehensive sex education class to K-12 graders (and which school district doesn't?), "Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships." Thus, marriage is taught in California schools.
Moreover, the California Safe Schools Coalition asserts that children will be taught in class about homosexuality and gender identity (read confusion). Please note that many of the members of the California Safe Schools Coalition are also supporters of the "No on Prop. 8" campaign, including the California Teachers Association, the ACLU (which actually argued in the Massachusetts case that the court should require the teaching of same-sex marriage in schools) and numerous other gay and lesbian organizations.
Interestingly, according to the coalition's Web site, the Capistrano Unified School District, Escondido Union High School District, Monterey Unified Peninsula School District, Palm Springs Unified School District, San Francisco Unified School District and the Ventura County Office of Education are all members of this coalition.
According to the coalition's Question and Answer Guide on California's Parental Opt-out Statutes, the coalition asserts that parents do not have the right to notice about and to opt their children out of diversity education programs that include discussions of sexual orientation or other controversial topics.
The coalition describes how a school district can develop a plan that will preclude parents from opting out of such teachings. According to the coalition, so long as the purpose and content of these diversity programs are "carefully articulated" and do not include sexually explicit content (i.e. discuss the human reproductive organs and their functions), parents are not entitled to prior notice and the opportunity to opt their children out.
In essence, the coalition's reasoning is precisely the same reasoning successfully used against the parents in the Massachusetts case where a federal appeals court held that the parents could not opt their kindergartner out of a class discussing tolerance of gay marriage. According to this reasoning, if Prop. 8 fails, same-sex marriage will be taught in schools.
We don't need to look any further than our own state to see how this will work. The implementation of this coalition's goals is already in progress in a charter school in Hayward. According to the Pacific Justice Institute, parents of a kindergartener at the Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science were shocked to see a poster announcing that "Coming Out Day" was to be celebrated at the school Oct. 23. The school chose not to tell parents ahead of time. The school is celebrating Gay and Lesbian History Month. During this celebration, the parents have noticed several posters promoting families, all of which depict only homosexual families.
Gay marriage will be taught in schools if Prop. 8 fails. Why doesn't the "No on Prop. 8" campaign come clean and say what it really believes will happen if Prop. 8 is defeated? If the campaign is so confident in its position that gay marriage is a fundamental right, then why lie? Now ask yourself: do you really want to support a campaign of this type of hypocrisy? If the answer is "no," then just vote "Yes" on Prop. 8.