November 16, 2008
As thrilled as we are to hear that X-thousand people came out in San Francisco and New York and Chicago for Saturday’s nationwide Proposition 8 protests, we’re even more impressed by the smaller cities and towns where a hundred people, or just a dozen, gay and straight, braved brutal climates, of both the environmental and the anti-gay varieties. It’s not easy to stand on a street corner and absorb the hate even when you’ve got 2,000 people on your side; we can’t begin to imagine what it’s like to do the same thing when your group numbers a few dozen — or just a few.
So, let’s look at a quick rundown of the best numbers I could find for the “big” protests, and then take a moment to appreciate some brave souls who took up the mantle of equality for all in places you might least expect anyone to do it.
The Big Protests: 2,000 People or More
New York - ? (I’ve heard everything from 4,000 on up.)
San Diego (20,000+)
Los Angeles (”12,000 is a conservative number”)
San Francisco 7,500 (various sources)
Seattle, Washington (3,000 to 6,000)
Washington, D.C. (5,000+)
Boston (+/- 4,000)
San Jose (2,000)
Chicago (2,000+)
Phoenix (2,000)
Salt Lake City (2,000)
Santa Rosa, CA (1,700+)
The Pretty Big Protests: 1,000 People or More
Sacramento (1,500)
Raleigh, North Carolina (1,400)
Dallas (1,200+)
Atlanta (1,200)
Philadelphia (”easily surpassed” 1,000)
Orlando, Florida (+/- 1,000)
Las Vegas (1,000+)
Long Beach, CA (1,000+)
Irvine, CA (1,000+)
Good Turnouts: Under 1,000
Minneapolis (700+)
Ventura, California (600)
Santa Cruz (500+)
Palm Springs (500+)
St. Louis, MO (500+)
Escondido, CA (+/- 500)
Good Turnouts Considering the Political Climate and/or Weather
Chico, California (500)
Pomona, California (400+)
Honolulu, Hawaii (+/- 400)
[A rally on Maui was also planned.]
Asheville, North Carolina (+/- 400)
Napa, California (400)
Boulder, Colorado (”hundreds”)
Oklahoma City (”hundreds”)
Madison, Wisconsin (”hundreds”)
Cincinnati, Ohio (”hundreds”)
Springfield, Missouri (”hundreds”)
Fresno, California (”hundreds”)
Boise, Idaho (”hundreds”)
San Antonio, Texas (”hundreds”)
Charleston, South Carolina (”hundreds”)
Lake Worth, Florida (”hundreds”)
Ithaca, New York (”hundreds”)
Portland, Oregon (”several hundred”)
Albuquerque, New Mexico (”a few hundred”)
Rochester, New York (”a few hundred”)
Detroit (200-500)
Albany, New York (300+)
Reno, Nevada (300)
Pasadena, California (+/- 300)
Olympia, Washington (+/- 300)
Charlotte, North Carolina (200+)
Syracuse, New York (+/- 200)
Modesto, California (+/- 200)
Fargo, North Dakota (+/- 200)
Wilmington, North Carolina (+/- 150)
Smaller Groups in Places That Should Surprise You
Anchorage, Alaska
Several dozen protested in downtown Anchorage Saturday afternoon. …
Alaska was the first state in the nation to constitutionally ban gay marriage, back in 1998, when voters approved the change by a more than a two-to-one margin.
Fairbanks, Alaska
About 25 gay rights advocates held up signs in front of Fairbanks City Hall…
Voters in Alaska approved a ban on gay marriage 10 years ago.
An Army wife organized the gathering in Fairbanks, which started at 9:30 a.m. and involved waving signs in front of passing motorists on Cushman Street.
One sign read, “Love is love.” Another: “Equal rights for all.” A man held a sign saying, “I am Sarah Palin’s gay friend.”
Kristen Magann, the organizer, described herself as heterosexual, happily married and a believer that sexual preference should not determine civil rights.
“I want to make this message heard,” she stated in an e-mail, “that all people no matter their sexual orientation should be allowed the same rights under the law.”
Bellingham, Washington
More than 100 people rallied on the corners of East Magnolia Street and Cornwall Avenue in Bellingham the morning of Saturday, Nov. 15, to protest California’s recent ban on gay marriage.
Chants of “It’s about love not hate,” and “Hey mister president, what do you say, don’t hate families because they’re gay” filled blocks of downtown Bellingham during the two-hour protest. …
The protesters in Bellingham were outside the Federal Building from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. A smaller group continued the protest outside the Bellingham Farmer’s Market after noon.
Vallejo, California
The ironic marquee of the Empress Theatre on Virginia Street served as an appropriate backdrop to a Proposition 8 protest Saturday night.
On one level of the marquee, the Empress Theatre advertised an upcoming gay and lesbian night, while one line below it advertised the Latter-day Saints Concert series.
The Saturday concert was what prompted about 75 people to gather in front of the theater chanting and demanding a return of same-sex marriage rights that the passage of Prop. 8 eliminated.
Fairfield, California
Solano County is the only Bay Area county where voters approved Prop. 8.
About 75 people showed up to a Fairfield rally organized by Fairfield High School student Crystal Nievera, 16.
“Not everyone voted yes on 8 (in Solano County),” said Nievera, who feared a small showing based on what her Facebook group told her.
The protesters met at Fairfield City Hall and marched to Solano County Municipal Court, where they would be more visible on busy Texas Street.
The young organizer invoked the spirit of slain Fairfield councilman Matt Garcia, a strong supporter of youth before he was gunned down in September at age 22.
“This is why today, I’m trying to make a difference,” Nievera said.
Tracy, California
Toni Pinck stood quietly next to Chauvin, holding a “No on Prop. 8” sign. Her son was married in San Francisco Aug. 15.
“I’m here to show support for people that are still fighting for their civil rights,” she said. “I wouldn’t have been able to vote for Proposition 8 if it weren’t for people who fought for the woman’s right to vote many years ago.”
Marina Martinez and Evelyn Iraheta, also Tracy residents, were married Oct. 24 in Stockton. They said they thought their neighbors were supportive of their marriage before Proposition 8 was introduced in June, until the “Yes on 8” signs began to appear. …
Salinas, California
Demonstrators also took to the streets of Salinas against Prop 8. The Salinas march happened to take place on the same day an event at Hartnell College called for the strengthening of families.
. . .
The latest returns in Monterey County show the Proposition 8 race was much closer, than Santa Cruz County. No on 8 collected 52% of the total vote.
Colton, California
Young gay students, middle-aged white and Latino couples and community activists came together Saturday on the city’s streets to protest passage of Proposition 8. …
“We are here because we need to remind people we live in a nation under civil law and Prop. 8 forces some to live according to the religious views of others,” said Randall Lopez, an organizer with the Inland Empire Human Rights Coalition, which held the local protest. …
On Saturday morning, about 30 people gathered in front of Colton City Hall to kick off the rally. …
Nicolas Daily, 19, of Redlands, who described himself as a gay black man, stood high on the steps urging the group to join him in singing “Let it Be” and “Somewhere over the Rainbow.”
“I honestly just want people to know this is not going to go away,” he said. “We are going to be out here until we get our rights.”
Idaho Falls, Idaho
Cherie Stevens, Mother of gay son: “We want our son to have the very same rights as his straight brothers.”
Cherie and her husband were among a group of 60 individuals at the Bonneville County Courthouse who all wanted to make their voices and opinions heard. They say our country was founded on the idea of equality and will now just take some time before this rings true for everyone.
Missoula, Montana
Jamee Greer took charge of a sizable crowd that united and protested Saturday in favor of gay marriage rights, a group pulled together in Missoula by the Internet and text messages.
He gave the group its marching orders, announcing the rules of the road, as the protesters carried signs and prepared to march from North Higgins Avenue to the Missoula County Courthouse.
“This is about basic human rights and civil rights not being met here at home in Montana,” said Greer…
In Missoula, Brian Cook wore a picture of his 21-year-old gay son, Andrew Sullivan-Cook, who was in Dallas marching with Join the Impact protesters. “I’m here, not only in support of my son’s rights, but it’s simply the right thing to do,” said Cook. “Even if my son wasn’t gay, I’d be here.”
Cook said his daughter, and 15-month-old grandson, would be marching in Dallas alongside his son.
Grand Forks, North Dakota
About 65 people are gathered in front of Grand Forks’s Town Square this afternoon to protest the passage of Proposition 8 in California…
The group first came together at about 12:30 p.m. in front of Grand Forks City Hall. The protest is part of a nationwide event in 300 cities, according to jointheimpact.com. The Grand Forks event is scheduled to run until 3:30 p.m.
At about 1:30 p.m., the group left their spot in front to move to Town Square at the corner of DeMers Avenue and Third Street.
Denton, Texas
Horns were honking for several hours early Saturday afternoon, supporting about 120 gay rights activists with signs and flags who were protesting the recent approval of California’s Proposition 8. …
There were many supportive honks throughout the afternoon, said John McClelland, president of the Stonewall Democrats of Denton County, a gay and lesbian political organization.
Duluth, Minnesota
Jack Harnstrom and Jon Hill have been partners for 14 years, but when California was set to vote on banning same-sex marriages, the Duluth residents raced to Palm Spring, Calif., to be wed.
Their wedding ceremony was Nov. 3, a day before California voted to take away that right. On Saturday afternoon, the couple joined about 75 others at a gay rights rally against California’s Proposition 8 at Lake Avenue and Superior Street in downtown Duluth.
Kalamazoo, Michigan
More than 120 people lined the street in front of the Federal Building Saturday afternoon to protest the recent passage of a California ballot proposal banning same-sex marriage.
Signs reading “Stop the Hate” and “Equal Rights for All” attracted honks as passing motorists showed support. The crowd stretched nearly a full block along West Michigan Avenue.
Lansing, Michigan
They were among about 100 people who attended the rally in front of MSU Auditorium.
Organized by MSU Alliance of Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgendered and Straight Ally Students, the protest was one of hundreds that took place Saturday nationwide.
Peoria, Illinois
Among the nationwide turnouts Saturday was a gathering of about 40 people at the corner of Main and University streets in Peoria. The group protested the decision that affected an estimated 18,000 California couples seeking the legal distinction. …
“This is a more conservative area, and we know that. Everybody knows someone who is gay. A lot of times it’s just not talked about. But we still participate in the homeowners’ associations, or neighborhood watch groups. … We buy Girl Scout cookies from neighbors’ kids.
“I do what I can to support my neighbors and their families. Why not support me and my family, my relationship?”
Champaign-Urbana, Illinois
University students and Champaign-Urbana families took to the streets Saturday to protest the recent passing of Proposition 8 in California which bans gay marriage. …
The event in Campustown was sponsored by the Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Resources and was organized by Brooke Elliot, senior in Education, and Virginia McCreary, graduate student.
Elliot said they planned a protest on campus because many people were not able to get to Chicago for its protest. …
About 80 protestors stood on the corners with colorful signs. Some cars driving down Green Street honked in support of the cause.
At 1 p.m. the protestors had a moment of silence which was broken by a car honking in support of the protest. The protestors then marched down Green Street to Fourth Street and back again shouting their message and waving their signs.
The protestors were met with little resistance.
On two occasions, groups of students walking past the protestors made remarks in opposition of the protest.
One worker at Potbelly Sandwich Works opened the door as the protestors were walking past and said, “Good job guys!”
South Bend, Indiana
Every time a car honked, they cheered. A group of about 20 people stood at the corner of Main Street and Jefferson Boulevard in downtown South Bend on Saturday, waving signs in support of same-sex marriage. …
“It sets a precedent,” said Mandy Studdard, who helped organize the South Bend rally. “People say ‘If the rest of the country doesn’t want this, why should we have it here?’ We’ve got to set a different precedent. That’s not how it’s supposed to be.”
Jackson, Mississippi
About 50 people protested in Jackson outside the state capitol…
“[W]hen people see protests happening around the country, they’ll understand that this isn’t just an issue that’s happening somewhere else, this is an American issue happening everywhere, because it affects all of us,” organizer Brent Cox said.
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
A mixed group of students and local activists marched in protest today as part of a national day of action against the passage of California’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Nearly 100 students and residents joined for a march from the drill field around campus and back chanting slogans, bearing signs and waving and cheering at passing cars.
“We’re in southwest Virginia, we want to improve the LGBT community’s visibility and we want people here to know we exist,” said organizer Tami Grossman.
Greenville, North Carolina
About 35 people gathered in front of Greenville City Hall on Saturday afternoon to protest voter passage of California’s Proposition 8, a referendum that reversed a state supreme court ruling allowing gay marriage. …
The group protested peacefully and without incident, displaying signs and flags representing gay pride. They sang songs of protest, led by Georgia Winfree, of the group Someone’s Sister, then marched together along Fifth Street where an occasional passing car honked in response.
Macon, Georgia
In Macon on Saturday, more than 50 advocates for Join the Impact, an international organization supporting equal rights for people who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, protested the California Proposition 8 vote outside City Hall.
Protesters waved signs reading “What Would Martin Do?” “Fight the H8” and “Would You Rather I Marry Your Daughter?” …
“Today’s protest is a small piece of the puzzle,” said Alex Webb, organizer of the Macon rally. “This started off as an online movement and has become a national and international phenomenon. There are people in London standing with us right now … standing with us against our treatment as second-class citizens, standing for equal rights for all.”
Buffalo, New York
150 people came out on a cold and rainy Saturday afternoon to show support for same-sex marriage and solidarity with gay and lesbian people in California. …
Protesters gathered at the corner of Elmwood Avenue and Bidwell Parkway with signs that advocated equality under state marriage laws for all people. The event began at 1:30pm and also featured remarks by local activist Kitty Lambert and New York State Assembly member Sam Hoyt.
White Plains, New York
Standing on the steps of City Hall, more than 70 gay men, lesbians and their supporters yesterday protested a California vote banning same-sex marriage and called for all states to provide civil marriage “equality.” …
A steady stream of drivers crawling across usually crowded Main Street honked their horns in support of the crowd. Many drivers yelled out “Yes” and “Way to go” or waved their fists in solidarity. For at least the first hour of the demonstration, no passers-by said or did anything in opposition to the gay-marriage cause.
“Westchester is a very, very affirming place to live,” said Scott Havelka of Rye Brook, interim executive director of The Loft, a gay community services center in White Plains, which supported the rally.
Burlington, Vermont
About 100 supporters of marriage equality for same-sex couples stood in a steady drizzle outside Burlington City Hall on Saturday to register their disappointment with the outcome of the Proposition 8 vote in California Nov. 4.
Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force field director Robyn Maguire rallied the crowd, insisting that Vermont could do better than California.
“We want Vermont to reclaim its role in this important civil rights issue,” Maguire said. “It’s been eight years and it’s time for us to move forward. Now more than ever does Vermont matter.”
Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Gay marriage proponents united Saturday in grass-roots protests around the country — including one in Market Square. …
“It’s a matter of equality,” said Forest Stone, a Portsmouth resident, as she stood in the rain Saturday among nearly 100 other sign-touting, umbrella-gripping demonstrators.
Like dozens of others, Stone and her 6-year-old daughter Annalie both held bright signs facing traffic in front of the North Church, while some people in passing cars encouraged the efforts with honks and shouts.
The Protest That Touches Us the Most
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada
“We’re small but mighty,” said protest organizer Jennifer Rowe today.
Rowe, along with Amanda Zuke, Kyle Cardoza, Liz Laplante and two other concerned citizens, gathered outside Sault Ste. Marie’s Civic Centre to protest the recent adoption of California’s Proposition 8, outlawing same-sex marriage.
“We’re here to show our support for those in the United States who are fighting to get same-sex marriage recognized and for human rights across the board,” Rowe told SooToday.com. …
“The battle may have been fought and won in Canada to allow people to marry whoever they want, but being respected just as another human being is still a problem,” said Rowe. “There’s still a long way to go in some cases.” …
Rowe says she’s already started planning something to happen locally in support of Join the Impact’s fight.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Arizona, California, Canada, Civil Rights, Florida, Free Speech, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Marriage, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Proposition 8, South Carolina, Texas, United States, Utah
August 30, 2008
Feel free to distribute this post in its entirety, anywhere and everywhere, as long as you include a link back to The Lavender Newswire.
Chino Blanco suggested Googling “Six Consequences If Proposition 8 Fails” — “the six totally false talking points that the ‘Yes on 8′ campaign is trying to use to fire up their target voters.”
I found it, and, after I stopped laughing, grabbed it off a Wrong-Wing blog, and decided to answer each “consequence” here.
Six Consequences Big Lies
If the Freedom-Haters Are Spreading
About Proposition 8 Fails
1. Children in public schools will be taught that both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are okay.
The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)
Therefore, if the definition of marriage is changed, children will be taught that marriage is a relation between any two adults. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
This is a lie. The California Education Code will not be changed by the defeat (or passage) of Proposition 8.
The entire text of Proposition 8 (PDF) reads as follows:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. 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.
The anti-gay forces are counting on voters not to read the California Education Code for themselves — so we’ll be happy to read it for them.
The section of the California Education Code (§51890) cited defines a long list of terms as used in Chapter 5.5. Comprehensive Health Education, a.k.a. the Comprehensive Health Education Act of 1977.
Citing the need for “an adequate health education program in the public schools,” this chapter focuses on education about, and prevention of, “the abuse of alcohol, narcotics, and tobacco; emotional instability; forced marriage; self-medication; dental caries; nutritional disorders; suicide; and accidents,” as well as “fostering in students an understanding of their role in protecting the environment, and in safeguarding themselves from other health and safety dangers which may be posed by hazardous substances.”
There is only one reference to marriage in §51890, and it is this:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects: …
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
In addition, a section of the Code the pro-8 forces conveniently neglect to cite, §51914, specifically prohibits arbitrary changes to the comprehensive health education program without extensive input and review:
51914. No plan shall be approved by the State Board of Education unless it determines that the plan was developed with the active cooperation of parents, community, and teachers, in all stages of planning, approval, and implementation of the plan.
And: §51890 itself mandates “community participation” — defined in §51891 as “the active participation in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of comprehensive health education by parents, professional practicing health care and public safety personnel, and public and private health care and service agencies” in “all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system”:
(3) The community actively participates in the teaching of health including classroom participation by practicing professional health and safety personnel in the community.
Yet all of the above is moot, because the California Education Code already requires schoolchildren be taught respect for all committed relationships.
You read that right. It’s in yet another chapter and section the anti-gay forces fail to cite, §51933, Chapter 5.6. California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Act, Article 2. Authorized Comprehensive Sexual Health Education:
51933. (a) School districts may provide comprehensive sexual health education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the appropriate courses. …
Not “must,” mind you, but “may.” Note also the word “elects” in the first sentence quoted immediately below; whether or not to “offer comprehensive sexual health education” is left entirely to the discretion of the school district:
(b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all of the following criteria:
(1) Instruction and materials shall be age appropriate.
(2) All factual information presented shall be medically accurate and objective.
(3) Instruction shall be made available on an equal basis to a pupil who is an English learner, consistent with the existing curriculum and alternative options for an English learner pupil as otherwise provided in this code.
(4) Instruction and materials shall be appropriate for use with pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities.
(5) Instruction and materials shall be accessible to pupils with disabilities, including, but not limited to, the provision of a modified curriculum, materials and instruction in alternative formats, and auxiliary aids.
(6) Instruction and materials shall encourage a pupil to communicate with his or her parents or guardians about human sexuality.
(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.
Thus, the California Education Code will not be changed by the defeat of Proposition 8. The Code already includes the very thing the anti-gay forces are trying to make you think looms on the horizon.
On a related note, the anti-gay forces really hope you won’t read Chapter 5.6 in full, because it annihilates the argument that comprehensive sex education (including accurate information about contraceptives) cannot exist in harmony with “abstinence-only” teaching:
(8) Commencing in grade 7, instruction and materials shall teach that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only certain way to prevent unintended pregnancy, teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, and provide information about the value of abstinence while also providing medically accurate information on other methods of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. …
Dropping down past points 9 through 12(a)-(c) (which deal with accurate information about pregnancy prevention, sexually transmitted diseases, what to do with an unwanted baby, and the age-appropriateness of materials used for grades earlier than 7), we come to 12(d):
(d) If a school district elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, the school district shall comply with the following:
(1) Instruction and materials may not teach or promote religious doctrine.
(2) Instruction and materials may not reflect or promote bias against any person on the basis of any category protected by Section 220.
Note the “if” and “elects” again.
(Also note the prohibition of religionist materials — another reason the anti-gay forces don’t want you to read this chapter.)
Section 220 cited above reads:
220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.
In other words, you can’t promote bias against anyone in public schools — including, but not limited to, gay people… and religious people.
The radical religionists really hate the fact that we’re legally protected from hatred here in California, just like they are.
They also hate the fact that California prohibits forced religious instruction on public school students — while claiming that California is forcing pro-gay “instruction” on those same students, which it doesn’t.
Also of interest is §221 (same link as the last one above), which destroys the oft-repeated lie that religious institutions will be forced to teach that “gay is OK”:
221. This article shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.
2. Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
This is a two-fold lie. There are two issues here: 1) allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in church-owned facilities, and 2) religious officiants performing same-sex marriages.
They want you to think your “pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi” is going to be forced to perform marriages that are in direct conflict with your church’s beliefs.
Issue 1: Same-sex marriages in church-owned facilities.
Let’s get the obvious out of the way first: It’s highly unlikely that a same-sex couple would want to get married in a facility owned by an organization hostile to equal rights — just as, say, a Muslim couple would want to be married in a place where the pastor preaches that Islam is evil. Which is probably why we’ve never heard of a Muslim couple suing a Christian church for denying access to a church hall (or a Christian couple suing a synagogue, or a Jewish couple suing a mosque, etc., etc., etc.).
Now, to the point: If the facilities are “open to the public,” then yes, the owner could be sued for refusing to allow access to same-sex couples — or anyone else for that matter.
A Press-Enterprise article from late July (linked below) sums it up:
David Cruz, a professor of law at USC, an expert on sexual-orientation law and president of the International Lesbian and Gay Law Association, said religious institutions might be required to allow their meeting rooms or halls to be used for same-sex weddings if the religious groups already rent their facilities to the public. There has never been a court ruling on the matter, so the law is unclear, he said.
If a court does rule there is a requirement, it would be based upon long-standing state law that prohibits public-accommodations discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not on the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling, he said. A religious group that does not rent out its facilities to the public would not be affected, because the facilities would not be considered “public accommodations,” he said.
The solution: Don’t rent your church hall to the public.
The real bottom line: Whether your church gets sued for its discriminatory practices or not has absolutely nothing to do with Proposition 8.
Issue 2: Religious officiants performing same-sex marriages.
To require any church to perform any civil marriage is unconstitutional — that is, it violates the United States Constitution.
No church can be forced to perform any marriage. The Catholic church will not, and cannot be forced to, perform a marriage for a non-Catholic couple, nor for a divorced Catholic (a Catholic whose previous marriage was annulled by the church, yes, but not a civilly divorced Catholic). The same goes for every other church — and applies to secular officiants as well (i.e., an atheist officiant cannot be forced to perform a religious ceremony).
Here’s one of many examples of such empty fearmongering, and the facts that render it an utter lie:
Group warns Inland pastors about same-sex weddings
A Sacramento-based conservative legal group arrives in Corona this week to warn local pastors that they might be sued for refusing to host same-sex weddings, and to advise them on how far they can go in supporting a ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage.
Constitutional-law experts say the state and federal constitutions’ guarantee of religious freedom clearly allows clergy to decline requests for same-sex matrimonies. Supporters of same-sex marriage accuse the group of misleading pastors to increase support for Prop. 8, the November ballot initiative that would bar same-sex marriage, and to raise money for the organization. …
[The Pacific Justice Institute] is using the specter of pastors being forced to perform same-sex weddings in its fundraising appeals.
“If you believe, as I do, that no government should be allowed to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies that contradict God’s Word, I’m asking you to say ‘I do’ by offering PJI a one-time, tax-deductible gift,” a June 25 letter says.
The letter says that same-sex couples have already threatened two pastors with lawsuits for refusing to marry them. [PJI president Brad Dacus] declined to identify the churches.
Well, that’s convenient. Why not identify them? Why not show us all proof of their “persecution”?
Shannon Price Minter, legal director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, the lead counsel in the case that led to the May 15 California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, said any lawsuit against pastors for refusing to perform same-sex weddings would be futile. He said he strongly supports the right of clergy to decline to perform same-gender weddings.
“They’re trying to scare people,” Minter said. “There’s not a shred of truth in their assertion. It is so clearly established in law that clergy and religious organizations have absolute discretion on which marriages to perform and what is within their religious faith. That is one of the most solidly established principles in law.”
Some religions have strong restrictions on divorce, second marriages and interfaith marriages, and — just as with same-sex marriages — government cannot interfere with those teachings, Minter said.
Jennifer Rothman, an associate professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and an expert on constitutional law, said the state has always allowed clergy to choose whom to marry, and will continue to allow clergy to adhere to their religious teachings on the matter.
Of course, right-wing “scholars” — like John Eastman (see the full P-D article) — still warn that that it “it is unlikely that a court would force clergy to marry same-sex couples,” but it “isn’t impossible.” Nothing is “impossible” — but it would take a repeal of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What’s more (and before the righties start whining about “activist judges”), that little thing about “free exercise” was clearly explained in Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment — yet declared, in a broader context, that the Free Exercise Clause “withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions there by civil authority.”
The only way to “force” any clergymember to do anything against the tenets of his or her church is by way of a consitutional amendment to strike the Free Exercise Clause from the First Amendment, or to repeal the First Amendment altogether.
That isn’t going to happen, and the righties know it.
The bottom line: Religionists don’t want the government running their churches (which the government can’t do anyway, and the religionists know it), yet think churches have the right to run the government.
Now, if you want a real slippery slope that will threaten religious freedom in the United States, then a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (state or federal) is the way to go.
First, forcing the government to declare which marriages are legal and which are not based on the religious ideology of any one group restricts the religious freedom of every other religious group. That means if, say, Catholics could force the government to abide by Catholic doctrine, all non-Catholic marriages would be null and void. (Sure it’s a stretch, but according to the radical righties, nothing’s “impossible”… right?)
Second, if the righties want to argue that marriage is a “sacred” religious institution, they run the risk of invalidating their own authority to perform legally-recognized marriages.
In a discussion of a 2004 proposed (and failed) “compromise” amendment that would ban equal marriage in Massachusetts while providing for same-sex civil unions, Emory University law professor John Witte pointed out that “the debate could raise questions about whether it’s appropriate for the clergy to continue to act as agents of the state in solemnizing marriages (’Under the authority vested in me…’). They could be in a difficult posture to say they can do that but can’t act as agents of the state in performing civil unions.”
If the religionists are willing to give up their right to have their church marriages legally recognized by the state, then we can talk.
3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies 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.
This is a multiple-pronged lie. Starting with the second sentence first:
Catholic Charities of Boston did not “close its doors” at all; it is still very much in existence. See for yourself. Its Web site boasts:
As one of the largest providers of social services in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities responds to the needs of the poor and working poor, provides supportive services to children and families, and assists refugees and immigrants as they become active participants in their communities. We offer approximately 140 programs and services in 40 locations across Eastern Massachusetts, which allows us to help nearly 200,000 people each year.
Catholic Charities of Boston chose to end its adoption work (and only its adoption work) in 2006 — and not “because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts,” but because it refused to “comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.”
That law — passed by the the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1993 — had nothing to do with the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. (Nor did the ruling in Adoption of Tammy, in which the court ruled that a lesbian couple could adopt a child, based on the fact that “[n]othing in the provisions of the adoption statute, G. L. c. 210, precludes the joint adoption of a child by two unmarried individuals.” Not “two gay individuals,” but “two unmarried individuals.”)
Gay couples didn’t “win” the right to adopt via marriage in 2004; they were recognized as equal to all other unmarried adoptive parents, in 1993 — a decade before same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts.
What’s more: In reality, it was not pressure from the state but from the Vatican that triggered Catholic Charities’ decision to end its adoption work:
The controversy began in October when the [Boston] Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Over the last decades, the Globe reported, approximately 13 children had been placed by Catholic Charities in gay households, a fraction of the 720 children placed by the agency during that period.
Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state’s antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state’s four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.
But, on Feb. 28, the four bishops announced a plan to seek an exemption from the antidiscrimination laws. Eight of the 42 board members quit in protest, saying the agency should welcome gays as adoptive parents.
That day, [Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities of Boston] and [Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley] met with [then-Governor Mitt Romney] in his State House office to make their case for an exemption, but Romney said he lacked the authority to do so. Hehir and O’Malley left the State House feeling that nothing could be done soon for their cause. The bishops had considered launching a court challenge, but Hehir said he and O’Malley realized it would cost “too much time and energy” — without any certainty of victory.
“It became clear our options were narrow,” Hehir said.
Dale Carpenter puts the entire matter into perspective:
The most egregious abuse of [examples of the ‘collision’ of … ‘equal treatment for same-sex couples’ and ‘the freedom to exercise religious beliefs’] to undermine gay marriage is the Catholic Charities case, which involved the application of a 1989 antidiscrimination law. That dispute arose because the Catholic Church objected to complying with the law for the first time only after gay marriage was permitted in the state. It was a fortuitously timed conflict for gay-marriage opponents given that the state legislature was at that very moment considering a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
As for California, all unmarried prospective parents are subject to the Uniform Parentage Act — the scope of which is far too complex to detail here (as we always say, we’re not lawyers), but which is summarized nicely here and here.
You can read the entire California Family Code (particularly §7600-7606), or get up to speed with the HRC’s summary of California adoption law as it pertains to gay and lesbian parents:
Permits single GLBT individuals to petition to adopt? Yes.
California law states that an adult related to the child, a person named in a deceased parent’s will, a legal guardian, or a person with whom the child has been placed for adoption is permitted to petition to adopt. CAL. FAM. CODE § 8802.
California Family Code §8802
Permits a same-sex couple to jointly petition to adopt? Yes.
Permits a same-sex co-parent to petition to adopt partner’s child or child of the relationship? Yes.
In 2003, the state Supreme Court affirmed that a same-sex co-parent can petition to adopt his or her partner’s child or child of the relationship. (Sharon S. v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 554 (Cal. 2003))
“[P]rior to adoption of the current domestic partnership law, the California Supreme Court had permitted a child to have two female parents, upholding the adoption by one woman of her female partner’s biological child in Sharon S. v. Superior Court.” [Joanna Grossman, “The California Supreme Court Considers Three Broken-Up Lesbian Partnerships, And Finds, In Each, That A Child Can Have Two Mothers,” FindLaw, September 6, 2005]
“Petitioner Sharon S. and her former domestic partner, Annette F., had a child by artificial insemination, and both women reared the child. Annette F. was the biological mother. When the couple parted ways, the Sharon S. petitioned for independent second-parent adoption, but the Annette F. petitioned to block the proceedings. Last month, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in favor of the Sharon S. See 73 P.3d, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 699. It held that (1) termination of a birth parent’s rights is not a prerequisite to adoption; and (2) second-parent adoptions are valid under California’s adoption laws.” [Lesbian & Gay Lawyers Association]
Registered domestic partners can use the state’s stepparent adoption laws to adopt each other’s children or children of the relationship. (CAL. FAM. CODE § 9000(b))
California Family Code §9000-9007
Details: The state regulations do not address whether sexual orientation is a considered factor in adoption decisions. CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 22, § 35181.
Bottom line: Gay couples (and singles) are already eligible to adopt in California. There’s nothing in Proposition 8 — pass or fail — that would change that, or increase the potential for lawsuits against adoption agencies (religious or secular) that violate state law by discriminating against prospective parents solely on the basis of sexual orientation.
4. Religions that sponsor private schools and which provide housing for married students will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine, or lose tax exemptions and benefits.
This is unsubstantiated and unprecedented projection. Since the benefits of California’s domestic partnership law were expanded in 2003 (and went into effect in 2005), unmarried couples (gay and straight) registered as domestic partners gained the right to family student housing on public campuses. The question is this: Since this new benefit went into effect, has any private religious school in California been “required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine” in the past three years?
In all the research I’ve done on this subject, I have yet to find a single case of a private religious school (in California or elsewhere) being “forced” to house a legally-married same-sex couple.
As for the possibility of a religious school (or any other religious institution) losing its tax-exempt status because of discriminatory practices, that would be wonderful (there’s a good reason Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status for denying admission to applicants who dated outside their race: BJU was wrong, no matter how “deeply held” BJU’s religious beliefs, and taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize discrimination) — but in reality, the chances of that happening are remote.
To the religionists I say: Go talk to your California tax attorney if you’re worried about losing your right to leech off the taxpayers in California — or, better yet, move to a state where anti-equality discrimination is not only legal, but encouraged. Virginia is rather pretty, and well-suited to religious bigots.
Finally, you won’t lose your federal exemption — the IRS doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages any more than you do, so it doesn’t care if you discriminate against us. (You’ll have to worry about that only after we’ve achieved full marriage equality on the federal level, or when Congress finally includes “sexual orientation” in federal antidiscrimination law.)
In any case — and this is really getting old, fast — the bottom line is that Proposition 8 will have no effect one way or the other on existing state law (which already prohibits discrimination based on both sexual orientation and marital status) or federal law (which offers no protections for LGBT Americans, and does not recognize same-sex marriages).
5. 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.
This is a lie, combined with irrelevant fearmongering. I could sue Pat Robertson for hate speech right this minute (anybody can sue anybody for anything, especially in California), but I wouldn’t win. His hate speech (and everyone else’s) is completely protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. There are yelling-fire-in-a-theatre exceptions (e.g., inciting violence), but Fred Phelps will still be free to scream “God hates fags” all he likes.
In fact, ministers will still be free to tell their congregations how to vote on ballot initiatives like Proposition 8, without worrying about losing their federal tax-exempt status. (The only kind of politicking preachers can’t do in an official capacity is promote specific candidates. That’s why bully-pulpiteer James Dobson spun off “Focus on the Family Action” from Focus on the Family; Dobson is quite open about its purpose: “Focus on the Family Action is a new cultural action organization that is completely separate from Focus on the Family, legally. It has been created by separating out of Focus on the Family those activities which constitute lobbying under the IRS code…”)
Next, what happens in Canada is irrelevant — so irrelevant that I’m not going to bother trying to figure out which case(s) are being cited (or if they ever existed). Canadian law has zero effect on U.S. law. And, as evidenced by the United States’ overwhelming refusal to catch up with its northern neighbor in the civil-rights department, the U.S. isn’t even influenced by Canada.
But, again — no matter how many times I have to repeat it — Proposition 8 has no impact on existing hate-crimes laws (there are no specific “hate speech laws”).
6. It will cost you money. A change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits. 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 have to be spent on legal fees.
This is a lie, combined with unsubstantiated and unprecedented projection.
We’ll gladly get to “the money” in a moment. But first: Nobody’s redefining marriage except the anti-gay forces.
The California Constitution was interpreted correctly — and anyone who claims it wasn’t is just plain wrong. I’ve quoted Glenn Greenwald’s plain, simple, and excellent explanation of the facts before, and it’s well worth quoting again:
California’s marriage ruling —
what it means and what it doesn’t mean
No rational person can criticize the Court’s decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of — and contempt for — how the law works.
As the Court made clear, whether someone believes that “marriage” should include same-sex couples is completely irrelevant. It is equally irrelevant whether one believes that the U.S. Constitution can be read to require same-sex marriages. There is one issue, and only one issue, that matters here: are the provisions of the California State Constitution, in light of how they have been interpreted by that state’s Supreme Court in prior decisions, violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal institution of “marriage”?
To be able to answer that question, one must have read and understood the key cases on which the Court relied, such as Perez v. Sharp (1948), Brown v. Merlo (1973) and numerous others. For reasons I’ve written about before, anyone who criticizes the Court’s decision without reference to California constitutional law is engaged in rank sophistry or, to use a more familiar term, pure “judicial activism” (i.e., judging a constitutional question based on one’s preferred outcome rather than the requirements of binding constitutional law). Put another way, those who criticize the Court here of “judicial activism” without bothering to familiarize themselves with relevant California constitutional law are themselves engaged in the purest, and lowest, form of “judicial activism.”
Second, this “activist judges” line as the anti-gay crusaders use it is utterly meaningless, and always has been. Circuit and federal-court judges are appointed by officials elected by the majority of voters to represent the people. They are representing the people.
Ditto state legislatures.
Greenwald:
Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges “overriding” the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their “marriage” laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed “it is up to the state Supreme Court” to decide the issue.
As Greg said recently (regarding a survey gauging the mood of California voters): “If you don’t trust your representative, then find someone else and vote them to represent (notice the similarity between the words) your interests!”
If you want an example of a real activist judge, let’s talk about Roy Moore.
Third: The California marriage ruling was not made by a bunch of “activist judges,” but by an overwhelmingly conservative court — which did its duty properly, without attempting to inject the personal ideology of any of its members into its majority opinion.
Frank D. Russo, in discussing Republican legislator Robert Villines’ astoundingly ignorant reaction to the ruling — “I am very disappointed that the California Supreme Court, by the narrowest of margins, would allow their own personal partisan views to get in the way of their duty to uphold the rule of law by thwarting the will of the overwhelming majority of Californians who voted in support of Proposition 22. … I hope that once this constitutional amendment becomes law in November, the Supreme Court will resume its appropriate role of interpreting the law, and stop legislating from the bench” — blows Villines (and the “activist judges” idiocy) out of the water:
Since 6 of the 7 Justices are Republicans, appointed by Republican governors — including 3 of the 4 in the majority, this is either ignorant or just demagoguery. What is the partisan agenda of the Republican Chief Justice [Ronald] George who wrote the court’s decision and who was appointed by Republican Pete Wilson? Or that of Kathryn Werdegar, another registered Republican, also appointed by Wilson? Or that Republican Justice Joyce Kennard, appointed by that Republican Governor George Deukmejian? Or are these remarks directed at the sole Democrat on the Court, Carlos Moreno who voted with his three Republican colleagues for the decision?
The Court was doing its job in our system of government. They were interpreting the California Constitution. They had no more choice to decide this case the opposite way — or to duck it (judicial restraint as Dan Weintraub characterized one of the dissenters in this morning’s Bee) than they could have or should have in deciding that California’s laws 60 years ago against interracial marriage were unconstitutional or throwing out the repeal of the Rumford Fair Housing Law that the voters approved in a ballot referendum in the 1960s.
The fact that Proposition 22, passed in 2000 by 61% to 39% is not controlling as to the Court’s proper decision on the constitutional questions the court had to decide this last week. It wasn’t when the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 14 to make it legal to discriminate on the basis of race in deciding who to sell one’s house to — a very emotional and politically risky move for the court back then — for those who remember.
It’s a basic principle of law that when the state’s constitution conflicts with a statute — even one passed by the voters — that the constitution trumps the statute. Proposition 22 was a statute and the court would be shirking its duty if it followed an unconstitutional statute just for political reasons or expediency.
Maybe Villines and company are trying to make this into a partisan political issue — to throw red meat out to their base and whip up the vote in November. He probably spoke before reading the decision — as have most of those expressing an opinion — but at least he should get his facts right. And what he is pushing is not particularly the kind of rebranding our Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has in mind for his party. He is urging voters to reject any ballot proposition to overturn the Court’s decision. And he supports the Court. A position I believe most Californians will take in November.
As one of Russo’s readers commented: “When it’s a decision people like, they say the court is doing the right thing. When it’s a decision they do not like, suddenly it’s judicial activism from the bench.”
Fourth: Anyone who’s worried about lawsuits must be thinking of filing his own, since there is no historical precedent that the legalization of same-sex marriage has ever caused a “cascade” of any negative consequence — other than hysterical fearmongering from the anti-gay brigades.
Since the anti-gay folks want you to believe that using Canada as an example is relevant, let’s use a more realistic example, closer to home: Massachusetts. Has there been “a cascade of lawsuits” against religious institutions since marriage equality was legalized in 2004?
Well? Has there?
I won’t hold my breath waiting for someone to show me this “cascade.”
Fifth: If you’re worried about “your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees,” then perhaps it’s time to find a new church, one that won’t be using your tithing to file any frivolous lawsuits.
Finally, we’ll show you the money: The fiscal-impact estimate of Proposition 8 is clear. Passing Prop 8 would initially result in “potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments.”
On the other hand, defeating Prop 8 will save you money. Every tax dollar that flows into Sacramento from sources other than your income is one dollar less you have to pay in taxes used to run the state’s business.
Aside from the additional revenue from sales taxes, same-sex marriage is a boon to business and employment (you hear me? I said “jobs!”) — and our critically fragile economy needs the regular and ongoing adrenalin injections same-sex weddings provide.
We’re not talking millions here — we’re talking billions.
You can read lots of different articles about all that nice green stuff pouring into California’s coffers — here are just a few to get you started:
Experts see windfall from marriage ruling
Matthew S. Bajko, Bay Area Reporter, May 22, 2008
News Analysis: Gay Marriage Could Be Worth Billions For California
Peter Greenberg, May 30, 2008
Gay marriage a gift to California’s economy
Business is up for hotels, bakers and photographers as same-sex couples prepare to wed.
Alana Semuels, Los Angles Times, June 2, 2008
But I like the way Allan Acevedo, a sophomore at San Diego State, says it:
For many people who do not support marriage equality, one factor might help change their minds. In a speech given in San Francisco, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that he hoped the newly attained rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community would lead to an economic boom to California’s troubled economy. A recent study issued by the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law at UCLA estimated that gay and lesbian couples would spend close to $684 million in the next three years on wedding expenditures such as cakes, photographers, invitations, dresses, limo rentals, hotels and more.
Researchers estimate that more than half of California’s 100,000 same-sex couples will exchange vows during the next three years. Unlike Massachusetts, the only other state that issues same-sex marriage licenses, there is no residency prerequisite in order to be issued a license.* That means out-of-state dollars will be flowing into the California economy, which has in effect created a monopoly on same-sex marriages, an ideal economic condition for the state. Added on to this, New York has recently announced that it will recognize all out-of-state marriage licenses, further encouraging couples to take the plunge.
It’s estimated that 68,000 out-of-state couples will come to California specifically to wed. The researchers state that same-sex weddings will generate $64 million in tax revenues for the state, $9 million in marriage-license fees from all the counties in the state and create and sustain about 2,200 jobs. By some estimates, weddings and commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples generate $1 billion a year in revenue. PlanetOut, a media and entertainment company that conducts surveys, states Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender consumers earn 20 percent more than their straight counterparts on average, and spend about 10 percent more on nuptials.
These are no small numbers. Even conservatives who oppose marriage equality should stop and consider these figures when heading to the polls on November 4. …
Arguments focusing on fairness and equality might not tug on your heartstrings, but this estimated economic boost might reach your purse strings. Voting “no” on this unjust initiative will mean more than improving an unstable economy, it will mean furthering our society in allocating freedom to all facets of our civilization. Come November vote “no” on limiting marriage equality. It seems like a win-win situation to me.
(You want to know how much we spent on our wedding? Well, I won’t tell you, because it’s nobody else’s business — but I will say it was considerably more than we ever imagined it would be. Even “off the books” expenses were significant; for example, it was late into our reception when it dawned on me that we hadn’t thought about tipping the wait staff — so I emptied the contents of my wallet into the hands of a grateful [and gracious] banquet captain. While we didn’t come anywhere near the $35,000-average mark estimated by various observers, I know that if all gay couples spent what we did, we could singlehandedly bail California out of its economic crisis, with enough left over to fix all the potholes on the Bayshore Freeway.)
Since the anti-gay forces have proved their ignorance, and in many cases their pathetic lack of reading comprehension, let’s end this in a way they’ll be sure to understand: with the Bible.
It would be easy to merely repeat the 9th Commandment — “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Ex. 20:16) — but there’s another, far more appropriate “false witness” passage I like even better… and I’d like to send it to the anti-gay brigades on a great, big, gay greeting card:
Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:
Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.
. . .
Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause.
Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.
. . .
Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
— Exodus 23:1-3,6-7,9
* Massachusetts is in the final stages of repealing its 1913 law prohibiting the marriage of nonresident same-sex couples.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Education/Schools, Election 2008, Focus on the Family/James Dobson, Fred Phelps, Free Speech, Hate Crimes, Hate Speech, Homophobia, Marriage, Massachusetts, Parenting, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Random Stupidity, Republicans, SCOTUS
July 30, 2008
It’s no different in California — and it’s wrong:
Big money driving Ariz. ballot initiatives
So much for the “citizens” with this year’s batch of citizens initiatives.
For most of the nine initiatives planned for the November ballot, financial backing from individual donors has been scarce. The money has flowed almost exclusively from corporations, political committees and a relative handful of wealthy individuals. …
Initiative representatives counter that the disparity in campaign donations among business interests, political committees and regular Arizonans is nothing new.
But the divide is so pronounced this election cycle that it raises the question of whether Arizona’s direct democracy has become little more than a legislative vehicle for wealthy special interests. …
Bonita Burks had hoped to qualify for the ballot new state restrictions on motorists’ use of mobile phones while driving. But despite a series of high-profile accidents that focused public awareness on the issue, her petition drive stalled long before it collected the 153,000 valid signatures it needed. Some of that she attributes to a lack of campaign funding that forced her to rely on volunteer, rather than paid, signature gatherers.
“It made it difficult,” said Burks, whose Safer Road Arizona campaign reported just $1,050 in total donations. “Although it is a very important issue and I’m very passionate about it, we just didn’t have the dollars to make it happen this year.”
Even with a throng of volunteer signature gatherers, border-security activist Don Goldwater, too, failed to make the ballot with either of his immigration proposals.
“In the history of the state of Arizona, no citizens initiative has ever been done without paid signature gatherers,” Goldwater said. “If you’ve got the bucks, you can get the initiative on the ballot.” …
Stan Barnes isn’t too worried about where the money comes from for his Payday Loan Reform Act. The key is that it’s there. And it’s big.
“We’re not even trying to collect money from Arizonans who are not connected in some way to the payday-lending industry,” said Barnes, a lobbyist representing the campaign. …
I know money is power in this country, but that’s not the way it’s supposed to be. Currently in the midst of untangling the vast web of connections among the big-money donors — most of whom are out-of-state special interest groups with deep pockets — behind Proposition 8, California’s anti-marriage initiative, it’s clear to me that as soon as we win this battle, we need to work on stricter regulations regarding ballot initiatives in the initiative-crazy Golden State: who can donate, and how much — as well as additional reporting from 501c(3) organizations which take full advantage of their non-profit status to escape scrutiny.
We also need to make the names of all petition signers public — not for any nefarious means, such as harrassment, but to guard against fraud. It was only after KnowThyNeighbor.org published, online, the names on the 2005 anti-gay marriage petition in Massachusetts did some “signers” learn that they were victims of fraud.*
How many of the million-plus “signers” to the Proposition 8 petition were tricked into thinking they were signing an entirely different petition? How many signatures were forged? We’ll never know, as long as the State of California does not release this information to the public.
Finally, we need to put an end to what can only be called frivolous ballot measures. Did you know that Californians are being forced to vote on the same “parental notification” issue for the third time in two years — after sending the previous two propositions to resounding defeat?
As Proposition 8 itself goes, it will go down in flames — but you can bet that it will resurface in a new form every election cycle, for as long as the Radical Right has the money to keep putting it back on the ballot.
Voter initiatives in California have become a joke — and are in no way voter initiatives; as in Arizona, our “direct democracy” has indeed become nothing more than “a legislative vehicle for wealthy special interests.”
* Just a few examples of Massachusetts voters surprised — and outraged — to find their names on the anti-marriage petition:
Petition signer was misled
Last week my son told me that he’d just seen a list of those who’d signed the anti-gay marriage petition … I was surprised that my name was on the list. My daughter and her girlfriend, of 22 years, married in June of 2004. My family is 100 percent pro gay marriage. … The Web site states that thousands of signers may have been duped into signing, as I was. …
Residents charge petition fraud
Beverly resident Leslie Leathersich never signs petitions as a matter of personal principle, so imagine her surprise when a friend asked why she had signed a petition to change the state Constitution and ban same-sex marriage. … Leathersich joins five other Beverly residents who have filed affidavits saying their signatures were obtained fraudulently on the petition to change the state Constitution and ban same-sex marriage. …
Official denies signing petition
NORTHAMPTON - After a fruitless attempt to locate a petition that supposedly bears his signature supporting a ballot question to bar gay marriage, At-Large City Councilor James M. Dostal said yesterday he will concentrate his efforts on having his name removed from that list. …
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: California, Civil Rights, Election 2008, Marriage, Massachusetts, Proposition 8
July 15, 2008
Senate passes repeal of 1913 marriage law
The Massachusetts Senate today passed a bill that would repeal a 1913 state law that prevents gay and lesbian couples from most other states from marrying in Massachusetts.
The bill, which had the support of Senate President Therese Murray, passed with no objections on a voice vote. …
“There are very few laws on the books that I can say that I’m ashamed that they’re on the books,” said State Senator Mark Montigny, a New Bedford Democrat. … “This is a very simple law, contrived in shame, and it exists in shame and we ought to wipe it off the books,” he said.
“The 1913 law is a shadow, a terrible shadow. It represents a segregationist past that is best put to rest and put to rest quickly,” said Senator Harriette Chandler, a Worcester Democrat.
The law originated when lawmakers in many states were trying to prevent interracial couples from crossing state lines to marry. It fell into obscurity for decades. But it received new attention in 2004, when Republican Governor Mitt Romney invoked it after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts to prevent out-of-state gay and lesbian couples from marrying here and forcing their home states to consider recognizing Massachusetts marriage law. …
The bill now heads to the House, where Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi has already expressed support. Supporters said they expected the bill to pass the House and be signed by Governor Deval Patrick by the end of the month. “If that bill comes to me, I will sign it and sign it proudly,” Patrick said Monday.
Predictably, Kris Mineau is not happy. Awwwwwwwwwwwwww!
Related:
Massachusetts Lawmakers Likely to Repeal Antique, Anti-Gay, Anti-Miscegenation Law
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Civil Rights, Marriage, Massachusetts, Radical Religious Right
July 13, 2008
Tom of KnowThyNeighbor.org relates the story of his husband’s encounter with what may possibly be the most ignorant American on the continent — and certainly the most ignorant denizen of the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
Alex just went to Dunkin Donuts to pick up some iced coffee to bring back to our gallery. He parked our Jeep next to a car which sported a John McCain sticker. Of course our vanity plate reads, ” EQL MRG” which is lost to many, I must add, but not to the 70 year old man in the “John McCain” car. This elderly man got out, looked at our license plate and asked what it stood for. Alex responded, “Equal Marriage.”
The man’s face got all twisted and he said, “I knew it, well that will never happen here!” Alex asked the man if he ever reads the newspapers. He said, “yes I do and all they keep writing about is that we will get to vote on it.” Alex said, “well I think I need to inform you that we have had equal marriage in Massachusetts for over 4 years now, and recently too in California.”
The man turned bright red, stomped his feet and while my dear husband witnessed this man’s reaction, Alex could not help himself but to add one more zinger…”it couldn’t be so bad if you havn’t even noticed!”
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Humor, Marriage, Massachusetts
July 11, 2008
PageOneQ sums up the jaw-dropping idiocy and appalling unfairness of Wisconsin’s anti-gay marriage law:
Wisconsin law: Gay couples can be imprisoned, fined $10,000
California, the second state to recognize same-sex couples’ right to civil marriage, became the first to extend that right to couples residing outside the state when its landmark Supreme Court ruling took effect in mid June. Most out-of-state couples, with the exception of those residing in Massachusetts and New York, know that their marriages will not be recognized when they return home.
For couples in Wisconsin, however, second-class citizenship may simply be the appetizer to the main course: Jail time.
In addition to an amendment voted into Wisconsin’s constitution in 2006 barring recognition of same-sex marriages, a law on the books prohibits its residents from leaving the state to enter a marriage that would not be legally recognized when they return.
Wisconsin statute 765.04(1) reads:
If any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state who is disabled or prohibited from contracting marriage under the laws of this state goes into another state or country and there contracts a marriage prohibited or declared void under the laws of this state, such marriage shall be void for all purposes in this state with the same effect as though it had been entered into in this state.
“The law has been around since 1915,” noted Fair Wisconsin’s Glenn Carlson of its age, “which was five years before women got the right to vote.”
Violation of this law opens up the possibility for a fine of up to $10,000, and up to nine months imprisonment, which Fair Wisconsin warned its members on the heels of California’s may ruling.
More, including links and a video, at PageOneQ.
Of course, Wisconsin’s right-wing gay haters are clamoring for enforcement of the old law, which is a relic of the same era of interracial-marriage hysteria in which a similar, anti-miscegenation law (preventing out-of-staters from marrying) was enacted in Massachusetts.
The Massachusetts legislature has decided it’s time to revisit that ancient law, still on the books, and appears poised to repeal it as early as next week.
Wisconsin, despite its more recent Prop-22-like assault on the rights of same-sex couples, is not a hopelessly red state; it’s purple, actually, saved in great part by the liberal oasis of its capital, Madison.
We hope some smart Wisconsin lawmaker wakes up soon, and starts the ball rolling to strike this pointless, useless, and discriminatory law from the books.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: California, Marriage, Massachusetts, Videos
Legislature to take up repeal of 1913 law shortly
The state legislature will likely take up a bill to repeal the 1913 law that prevents non-resident same-sex couples from marrying before the close of the legislative session at the end of this month.
Sen. Dianne Wilkerson (D-Boston), the champion of the legislation in the Senate, said she expects the repeal bill to come up for a vote in the Senate on Tuesday. She declined to say what she expected the vote count to be, but said she was optimistic the repeal bill would pass. …
Gov Deval Patrick, who has long supported repealing the 1913 law, said he looks forward to signing the repeal bill should it reach his desk. …
…[T]the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the constitutionality of the 1913 law in a 2006 decision in response to a court challenge from Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), but [State Rep. Robert Spellane (D-Worcester)] said the law has blatantly been used to discriminate against same-sex couples. …
The 1913 law prevents out-of-state couples from marrying in the Bay State if their marriage would be considered void in their state of residence. Legal experts differ on the original intent of the law, but many have argued that it was designed at least in part as a way to prevent interracial couples from coming to Massachusetts to evade anti-miscegenation laws in their home state. The state had not enforced the law in decades until shortly before same-sex couples began marrying in Massachusetts in 2004.
Then-Gov. Mitt Romney resurrected the law, using it to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples from out of state to prevent Massachusetts from becoming “the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.” … In response to GLAD’s suit challenging the law, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the 1913 law was constitutional, but said that states must expressly ban same-sex marriage in order for Massachusetts to deny residents of those states the right to marry. Currently couples from California, Rhode Island, and New Mexico may marry in Massachusetts. …
Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said the California decision helped bolster support for repeal within the legislature. “We’re thrilled that it’s looking very good right now, and we’ve talked to lots of legislators about it, and we’re finding a significant amount of support for the measure. I believe the support has been turbocharged since California won the right to same-sex marriage because by not being the only state in the nation, that made a difference,” said Isaacson. …
w00t! It’s about time! Good on ya, Mass!
More encouraging details at the link.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: California, Marriage, Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, Race/Ethnic Issues
June 21, 2008
Where does Barack Obama get the audacity to reiterate how much he does NOT value my equality? Where does he get off reiterating that HIS marriage is superior to MINE?
Obama And One-Man, One-Woman Marriage
Sen. Obama reminded us this week that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, something LGBT people might have easily forgotten over the course of the primary. …
Politico.com broke a story Wednesday that two Muslim women wearing head scarves were prohibited from sitting behind Sen. Obama at a rally, so as to prevent any unintended photo ops. The campaign issued a statement and contacted the women to apologize, but the message was clear: Obama can’t afford to seem too outside of the mainstream.
That sentiment also surfaced earlier this week when during an interview with ABC’s Jake Tapper, Obama uttered the words so cunningly crafted by the Christian right: marriage is between a man and a woman.
More precisely, Sen. Obama said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” shortly after being asked if he opposed same-sex marriage, to which he responded, “Yes.” This positioning is not new for Sen. Obama. He has uttered those words plenty — during a debate with Alan Keyes in 2004, on the Senate floor in 2006, even in his 2007 Human Rights Campaign candidate questionnaire.
But if LGBT people across the country bristled at the one-man, one-woman construction, they can be forgiven. After scouring the web, drawing upon memory and scanning my notes, this reporter cannot remember the senator using those words during the entire primary season from January right through until Sen. Hillary Clinton conceded the race to Obama on June 7. In fact, I don’t believe he has used them in any one of the 20-some Democratic debates.
Why now? Welcome to the general election say the pundits. One Democratic strategist and TV pundit who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity said the language is intended to send a signal to swing state voters that Sen. Obama isn’t the crazy liberal they’ve been told he is. …
That’s what I’ve been saying all along: Obama is no liberal.
…but any number of gays and lesbians would like a little respect too — especially those same-sex couples who are already married in Massachusetts and California. If you cup your ears and listen closely you can almost hear them grumbling, “Btw, Sen. Obama, marriage is no longer simply between a man and a woman. At least, ours isn’t.”
Damn straight — so to speak. Whatever happened to your deep and abiding respect for “states’ rights,” Barry? Apparently, even separate-but-equal is too good for us queers now, eh?
Surely, the LGBT folks associated with the campaign are working feverishly behind the scenes to find a work-around for that phrase — one with the added benefit of being accurate. Only time will tell whether they prevail. …
AFAIC, there’s nothing worse than selling out your own rights. Well, I’ll leave that to the LGBTs collecting a paycheck from Obama to work against their own self-interest — and mine. My conscience is clear.
One good thing about this article: At least The Advocate finally seems to be coming out of its Obama-induced stupor.
Obama himself, however, remains comatose on the issue of equality.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: Barack Obama, California, Election 2008, Homophobia, Marriage, Massachusetts
