The Hidden Dangers of California's Proposition 8

The ballot for Proposition 8 in California used to read:

LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state.

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i737_07-0068_title_and_summary.pdf

It now reads:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/bp_11042008_pres_general/prop_8_titlesummary.pdf

If you were at the polls getting ready to vote and you read either of the above summaries of this proposition, what do you feel this proposition is all about? I’ll bet you’d say that it’s about allowing homosexuals to get married, right?

Well, it’s not about that. Really.

I don’t care what your stance or opinion is on allowing homosexuals to marry. It’s beside the point, and either side can argue until Doomsday for what they believe is right and still never agree.

Do the research.

I find so many people are just comfortable and complacent when controversial issues that could affect our lives rear their ugly heads. The common response is, “Oh, that will never happen!” Well, it HAS happened, and IS happening. People are not doing their research; they are depending upon what other people say or believe without researching the issue.

The issue, and therefore the problem with Prop 8, is what it means. So many people think that this proposition will mean granting or not granting marriage to same-sex couples, or putting same-sex unions on equal footing with marriages. And there are many people who, although may be against homosexual unions, do not see what the “big deal” is in granting these unions or calling them “marriages”. But that is not what Prop 8 is about, and therein lies the problem – and the danger.

California already has “domestic partnerships” under the Family Code in its constitution, stating that same-gender people entering into this union are afforded all the rights as if they were a spouse (I see nothing that limits or makes those rights any different than married persons). So they are not being denied the right to family health care, insurance, etc. So voting for Prop 8 takes NOTHING away from the gay agenda.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

In 2000, Prop 22 was passed by the California voters. It specifically spelled out a marriage to be between a man and a woman. This year (2008), this proposition was challenged in the California State Supreme Court. The court’s ruling is the reason why Prop 8 (identical to Prop 22) is now on the ballot again.

The court’s ruling on Prop 22 was not about same-sex marriage per se. It was about discrimination – and this is what is so important to know and what many people do not understand. Under the Court’s ruling, homosexuals as a group have been declared a "protected class" – which now gives homosexuals civil rights -- which means that they are now protected against discrimination. And therefore, on the grounds of discrimination, Proposition 22 was struck down.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

There is our danger. It's not about whether homosexuals can marry or not. The Court’s ruling has virtually seen to it that anyone who speaks against homosexuality or denies services to homosexuals could be prosecuted for hate speech and discrimination. Churches definitely fall under this new definition -- as do other things like letters to the editor, church schools, many adoption agencies, and perhaps even things like internet forums that are open for anyone to join. Even blogs.

I see the campaign against Prop 8 as an effort to silence most religions and to silence traditional family advocates. This is a push to actually legislate a new standard of morality on California – and possibly on our country as a whole. Oftentimes other states will look to California and what it does, and will then follow suit. And if the campaign against Prop 8 succeeds, it will cost us – ALL OF US -- our freedom of speech and our religious voices, because it will silence our voices under the law of discrimination.

Here is a list of results predicted by the organization "Family Leader Network".

Consider these consequences if Prop 8 fails:

1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage. The California Education Code (§51890) already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. Therefore, unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage is a relation between any two adults regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.

2. It will lead to more government intrusion into private lives. A photographer in Albuquerque refused to photograph a lesbian couple's civil union ceremony. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission fined the photographer $6000 even though there were other photographers willing to accept the business. And this in a state where same-sex marriage is still illegal.

3. It will lead to speech monitors. An employee at the City of Oakland was threatened with termination for using the terms “natural family, marriage and family values” while discussing a public issue with co-workers. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal backed up the district court saying administrative efficiency in a government office is more important than free speech. Today it's municipal employees; tomorrow … who?

4. Anti-discrimination regulations will become more important than religious beliefs. In Vista, California, a lesbian couple sued a doctor who refused to perform a requested artificial insemination because of the doctor's religious beliefs. Although another doctor offered to do the procedure, the California Supreme Court held unanimously that the “1st Amendment's right to the free exercise of religion does not exempt defendant physicians here from conforming their conduct to the … antidiscrimination requirements.” An elective procedure, no emergency involved, another doctor willing to do the procedure. Anti-bias laws will outweigh religion.

5. Churches will be sued over their tax-exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. While pastors, priests, ministers, bishops, and rabbis may not be forced to conduct such marriages themselves, they will be required to allow such marriages in their chapels and sanctuaries.

6. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has already closed its doors because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

7. Religions that sponsor private schools with married-student housing will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.

8. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages will be sued for hate speech and could be fined by the government. It has already happened in Canada, one of six countries that have legalized gay marriage. If a government agency such as the Alberta Human Rights Commission can stop a minister from teaching his church's doctrine about marriage, then it won't be long before everyone's free speech rights will be in jeopardy.
9. It will cost everyone more money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already decided adversely. Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today's activist judges), think of the money – your money, your church contributions – that will be spent on legal battles.

Think of a world where Human Rights Commissions – unelected bureaucrats with unfettered authority – are judge, jury, and executioner of anything they feel is antagonistic speech toward same-sex marriage and its practitioners.

Think of a world where the judicial system relegates long-held religious beliefs to second-class importance behind anti-bias laws and a newly-discovered protected class of people.

Think of a world where the public school system is required to teach values and beliefs to your children that may conflict with your own.

Think of the very real threat to your parental rights, your free speech, your freedom of religion.

And think of all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this time. Where will it end?

It's your children, your grandchildren, your money, and your freedoms.