EQUAL STATUS vs. CONSEQUENCES
The issue over legitimizing gay marriage is not one of equal “rights” – because California law insures that “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits…as married spouses”. (California Family Code §297.5.)
It is, instead, a question of equal “dignity”. Proponents of gay marriage do not want homosexuals to feel like “second-class citizens” as a result of not being allowed to use the familiar and highly favored designation of “marriage”. (Again, being treated like second class citizens is not the issue – there are plenty of legal protections to keep that from happening. It is the feelings of gay couples that are the concern.) Proponents of gay marriage believe that civil decency (and Jesus) requires us to be compassionate, loving and tolerant of homosexual relationships, which they say requires us to extend to them full acceptance, equal dignity, and identical status.
Virtually everyone would be willing to grant “equal status” – if it did no harm. The problem is, there are devastating consequences for doing so, which proponents of gay marriage refuse to consider. For them, “feelings trump consequences.” The following material will evidence that granting equal status to gay marriage will irreparably damage: marriage, families, parenting, children, morality, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, majority rule, separation of powers, states’ rights, and America . We cannot allow this effort to “not hurt people’s feelings” lay waste to so many institutions, principles and rights.
20 Reasons to vote YES on Prop 8:
to protect MARRIAGE
Prop 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. Marriage is an institution which pre-exists both church and government, and is the foundation of all known civilizations and societies. History shows us that marriage is an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself – which is why the state has a compelling interest in preserving and protecting it. Central to the state’s interest in marriage is the procreation and rearing of children. Marriage advances the state’s interest in ensuring the birth and rearing of children in the setting most likely to ensure their well-being and protection, and providing the next generation the training and attributes necessary to sustain a civilized society. Hence, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special privileges and have been held to important obligations, by force of law, all aimed at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared.
Advocates of gay marriage tend to see marriage as a ceremony between individuals, primarily to ratify their affections. Contrary to what gay activists assume, the state does not endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn for society. Society gets no benefit from redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships — only harm. Legalizing gay marriage will transform the meaning, expectations and practices of marriage as a social institution – in essence destroying marriage as we know it – in a reckless social experiment with numerous destructive consequences.
There already are disturbing social impacts where gay marriage has been legalized. The experience of European countries that have legalized gay marriage demonstrates that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage erodes the already weakened stability of marriage, family and children. Research shows that marriage is weakest, in nations where support for gay marriage is strongest, and that there is a direct connection between gay marriage and illegitimacy. As scholar Stanley Kurtz concluded, “If gay marriage were imposed here by a socially liberal cultural elite, it would likely speed us on the way toward the classic [European] pattern of less frequent marriage, more frequent out-of-wedlock birth, and skyrocketing family dissolution. In the American context, this would be a disaster.” (The Weekly Standard 9, No. 20 (February 2, 2004): 26-33.)
to sustain THE POPULATION
To sustain the population we need a birth rate of 2.1 children per woman. Countries that have legalized gay marriage have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. The Netherlands , Sweden and Canada all have birthrates around 1.6 children per woman, and are losing population.
to protect FAMILIES
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and serves as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. Traditional families, with an involved mother and father, provide a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that children will be able to form a clear gender identity, grow up understanding the proper human relationships between a man and woman, a mother and father, and a husband and wife, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of gay marriage will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Gay marriage gives a confusing message, totally marginalizes marriage and family, and fails to prepare children for heterosexual marital relationships – thereby destabilizing the basic unity of society – the family.
to protect MOTHERHOOD & FATHERHOOD
In some countries it is already considered discriminatory to honor mothers and fathers due to the fear of embarrassing children who have single parents, lesbian mothers or homosexual fathers. Since legalizing gay marriage will create more officially sanctioned families without mothers or fathers, it is certain to fuel the current effort to eliminate all references to mothers and fathers in our society under the guise of discrimination.
to protect CHILDREN
Children Need a Father and a Mother. The research is overwhelming – children always do better in families with a mother and a father. The two most loving moms cannot be a dad, and the two most loving dads cannot be a mom – and children need both. A loving and civilized society always comes to the aid of fatherless and motherless families. But a loving and civilized society never intentionally creates permanently fatherless and motherless families as a matter of law and public policy. Gay marriage powerfully teaches that (1) men and women are interchangeable, (2) a child does not need a mother and a father, and (3) those who believe otherwise are bigots.
Children Need Stable Home Environments. Homosexuals and lesbians are poor role models for children because of their lifestyle: Transient relationships: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. A study in the Netherlands, a country that has legalized gay marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be 1.5 years. Serial promiscuity: Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that “committed” homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year.
Legalizing gay marriage severs children from their right to know and be raised by their biological parents. Children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who gave them life, known as the “child’s bonding right.” Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one.
to protect PARENTAL RIGHTS TO TEACH THEIR CHILDREN VALUES
Prop 8 protects our children from schools promoting gay marriages.
California law requires teachers to instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage,(Education Code §51890.) and if the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional man-woman marriage.
Moreover, children will also be taught against their parents’ wishes that homosexuality is healthy and normal. In the Parker case the Parkers and the Wirthlins filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts to try to stop the indoctrination of their children about homosexuality in their school. They lost. On appeal the Court of Appeals ruled that parents cannot prohibit schools from promoting homosexuality – or opt their children out of such instruction — because “Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution,” and the state’s schools have the right to “educate their students regarding that recognition.” The U.S. Supreme Court just turned down their appeal. View a short video of the Parker’s story: (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713). Other parents will experience their own nightmare story everywhere that gay marriage is legalized.
In order to stop Prop 8, gay activists are spreading the lie in California that schools will not teach children about gay marriage. Yet in Massachusetts these same activists are petitioning judges to force schools to teach children about gay marriage. According to legal records (on file with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts in the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)), some of the very organizations who are funding and driving the No on 8 campaign in California have argued vociferously in Massachusetts that gay marriage should be taught in the public schools under the guise of “diversity,” and any attempt to prohibit such instruction – or to permit parents to opt their children out of it – must be stopped!
As further evidence of their intention to indoctrinate children about gay marriage, during the first week in October 2008, a first grade public school class in San Francisco was taken on a field trip to a lesbian wedding at City Hall. School officials said they wished to provide their five and six year old students a “teachable moment.” And a lesbian who teaches 8th grade sex education in Massachusetts told NPR that she teaches her children how lesbians use “a sex toy” to have intercourse. If anyone objects, she says, “Give me a break. It’s legal now.”
Not only will school children be taught about gay marriage if Prop 8 fails – it’s already happening.
to protect MORALITY
Promiscuity in marriage will become more generally accepted. Homosexual activists also claim that “monogamous” gay couples behave like monogamous heterosexual couples. The data refutes this claim. Many male homosexuals readily admit that monogamy and fidelity for them can mean something entirely different than what most accept the term to mean. Monogamy, especially for male partners (as lesbians are generally more faithful), can mean remaining “emotionally monogamous” as a couple while still having multiple sexual relations with other men, including casual encounters with complete strangers, even though still “committed” to their partner. Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. A Dutch study found that “committed” homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year. (AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.)
Homosexual activists have a political agenda: to radically redefine the institution of marriage. Homosexual activists admit that gay marriage is the “vanguard” for dethroning the institutional authority of traditional marriage. Their goal is not simply to make the definition of marriage more “inclusive,” but to deinstitutionalize marriage, and remake it in their own hedonistic image. Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, states, “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and … transforming the very fabric of society.”
Gay marriage would radically redefine marriage to include virtually any sexual behavior. Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, and the sole criterion becomes the presence of “love” and “mutual commitment,” or “mutual sexuality”, it is impossible to exclude virtually any “relationship” between two or more partners of either sex. It is anticipated that the demands for legalization of polygamy will also grow.
TOLERANCE vs. ENDORSEMENT
For many years there has been unrelenting pressure from homosexuals to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic”.
Tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards, or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices, or insulating gay marriage from examination. Speaking on matters of public morality – including gay marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for a homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage. Working to protect marriage is not mean-spirited. It is the legitimate response of the majority of people who want what is best for individuals, children and our society – and therefore want to preserve the proven and essential institution of marriage. The many negative consequences that would result from legalizing gay marriage clearly provide strong reasons for preserving man-woman marriage.
GAY PARTNERS ALREADY HAVE SAME RIGHTS AS MARRIED SPOUSES
Prop 8 is not an attack on the gay lifestyle or gay partner rights. Proposition 8 is not an attack on the gay lifestyle and doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay or lesbian domestic partners. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits…as married spouses”. (California Family Code §297.5.) All laws on the books regarding domestic partnerships will remain intact. Gays and lesbians in domestic partnerships will continue to enjoy all the legal rights and benefits that married couples enjoy.
GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A “RIGHT”
The US Constitution does not grant any “right” to homosexual marriage. Nor does Congress, which in 1996 overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Nor do 44 states, all of which have passed legislation making it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. 27 did so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in California, Arizona, and Florida. 17 states took the extra step of banning civil unions or domestic partnerships as well. Justice Baxter in his dissent to the case legalizing gay marriage, emphasizing that “there is no deeply rooted tradition of gay marriage, in the nation or in this state,” and there is no constitutional right to same sex marriage.” (In re Marriage Cases,43 Cal.4th 757, 861-864.) There is no unrestricted right to marry whoever you want. A parent cannot marry their child (even if he or she is of age), two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia. That is why gay marriage is not a “right”.
TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE DOES NOT VIOLATE GAYS’ CIVIL RIGHTS
Gays claim that denial of marriage is a violation of their civil rights, equivalent to racism. There is absolutely no legal, social or historical logic behind this claim. As leading black activist, Niger Innis, (National Spokesperson for the Congress of Racial Equaility) states, “As the community that endured both slavery and segregation, African-Americans will always reject the lie that radical activists have a “civil right” to redefine marriage for our entire society. That’s because [the African-American community] – perhaps more than any other – understands in very real terms the consequences of family breakdown.… When marriage declines, children and society both suffer. Violent crime, youth crime, welfare dependency and child poverty track more closely with family disintegration than with any other social variable – including race and income level.”
To substantiate their racism argument, gay activists try to equate opposition to gay marriage with the old opposition to interracial marriage. But the equation is false. There is no comparison between sex and race. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women, for example, is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not. Those who wish to redefine marriage for the first time in Jewish, Christian or secular humanist history may offer any honest arguments they wish. But comparing the prohibition of gay marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is not one of them. Gay marriage is NOT a civil right. And there is no civil “right” to redefine marriage for all of society.
to protect CIVIL RIGHTS
The civil rights issue actually runs in favor of the 96% of the population who are not gay. Implementing gay marriage will trample upon their civil rights. For the first time in our history, America is faced with a powerful movement that defines its alleged “rights” in terms of the deprivation of the fundamental rights of others. As a result, the gay marriage movement is depriving other Americans of civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, including: freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion.
to protect RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
When rights for gay couples are expanded, freedom of religion is threatened as citizens are coerced to act against conscience and belief. If gay marriage becomes the law of the land state authorities will be required to treat opposition to gay marriage as “invidious discrimination,” “irrational,” or “motivated by hate.” “Civil-rights laws banning discrimination over sexual orientation [will] take priority over religious liberty in every case.” (Quote by Marc D. Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress.) Thus religious bodies retaining such “discriminatory beliefs” will be subject to a wide range of legal penalties precisely because their policies reflect those beliefs. The D.C. Court of Appeals, for example, has already ruled that “[the] compelling interest in the eradication of sexual orientation discrimination outweighs any … exercise of religion.” (536 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1987). And arrests have already been made for publicly opposing gay rights. (Startzell v.City of Philadelphia, 6 (E.D. Pa. Jan 18,2007). If courts and legislatures are not successful in forcing religious groups to accept gay marriage outright, indirect coercion through loss of tax-exempt status will prove just as effective. The chilling effect that either litigation or the threat of loss of tax status will have on religious liberty is real and immediate. Churches will also be pressured to compromise their beliefs or face loss of equal access to a wide array of government benefit programs and licensing regimes.
Anti-discrimination regulations will become more important than religious beliefs. Even without legalized gay marriages, gay couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them. Even “para-church” organizations such as schools, charities, adoption agencies and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:
Adoption services: In 2006, when the traditional man-woman definition of marriage was declared a form of “bigotry” by the Massachusetts courts, Catholic Charities preemptively stopped providing adoption services in Massachusetts because the State’s gay marriage law would have compelled them to facilitate adoptions by gay couples. The archdiocese was prepared to provide referrals for gay couples looking to adopt, but that wasn’t going to be acceptable to the state. (Catholic World News, Mar 10, 2006. See: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=42906 )
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University‘s Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned gay couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize gay marriage, but in 2001, the state’s highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City‘s ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls’ parents sued, saying the school was violating the state’s civil rights act that protected gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, California, refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she was in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs, and referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment. The woman sued under the state’s civil rights act, and the California Supreme Court held unanimously that the “1st Amendment’s right to the free exercise of religion does not exempt physicians from conforming their conduct to the … antidiscrimination requirements.” This was an elective procedure, no emergency involved, with another doctor willing to do the procedure. One court justice suggested that the doctor take up a different line of business.
Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee’s religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court indicated that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against gay couples.
Adoption services: A gay couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple’s application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. Because they refused to advertise homosexual California couples as potential adoptive parents, the largest adoption advertising company on the Internet can no longer advertise any couples from California as potential adoptive parents.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning gay unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple’s legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Wedding facilities: In Ocean Grove, N.J., a lesbian couple brought a complaint to the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights against a Methodist church for not allowing them to use a pavilion on the church’s beach-front property for their civil-union ceremony. The church had offered the couple use of its property and boardwalk for the ceremony, but not the use of places the church considered “worship spaces.” In January, an administrative judge with the Division of Civil Rights found against the church and stripped the pavilion area of its tax-exempt status for the church’s refusal to comply with the state’s sweeping anti-discrimination law. This will reportedly cost the church some $20,000 a year.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city’s marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. In Philadelphia the mayor’s office revoked the Boy Scouts’ $1-a-year lease for a city building. While these cases do not directly involve gay unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp.
Rights of religion and conscience are being trampled upon in the name of a brave new social, cultural and legal norm that denies the importance of mothers and fathers for children. Recognizing the importance of tax-exempt status to the viability of churches, some activists implicitly or even directly threaten them with the loss of their tax-exempt status if they don’t comply with their demands for social change. Some groups go so far as to file complaints with the IRS, occasionally leading to IRS investigations.
to protect FREE SPEECH
Lawsuits and legislation ostensibly in favor of human rights have led to tighter restrictions on religious “expression”, and even raises the specter of speech monitors. This begins to put everyone’s free speech rights in jeopardy.
Parochial schools: In England, a Catholic school has been prohibited from firing an openly gay headmaster, and parochial schools there are forbidden by law to teach that homosexuality is a sin.
Ministers: Pastors in Sweden were prosecuted for speaking out publicy about gay marriage based on their reading of biblical scripture. In Canada, one of 6 countries that have legalized gay marriage, A Catholic bishop in Calgary was the target of complaints filed with the Human Rights Commission because he issued a pastoral letter that urged Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage. (“Calgary bishop defiant about gay marriage,” Canadian Press, Mar.31, 2005.) And the Alberta Human Rights Commission recently took the draconian step of issuing a ruling forbidding a Christian pastor to make “disparaging” remarks about homosexuality — or even to repeat Biblical condemnations — for the rest of his life, thus prohibiting him from teaching his church’s doctrine about marriage. (“Government to Pastor: Renounce your faith!” WorldNet Daily, June 9, 2008.) A Human Rights Commission complaint was also filed against a Catholic priest for quoting from the bible, the Catholic Catechism, and papal encyclicals. (“Priest investigated for quoting Bible,” WorldNet Daily, June 5, 2008.)
Municipal employees: 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, and that municipal employers can completely censor the terms “natural family,” “marriage” and “family values” as hate speech. The court concluded that municipalities have a right to literally dictate what form an employee’s speech may take, even if it is in regard to controversial public issues. The court completely failed to address the concerns of the appellants with respect to the fact that the City of Oakland‘s Gay-Straight Employees Alliance was openly allowed to attack the Bible in widespread city e-mails, to deride Christian values as antiquated, and to refer to Bible-believing Christians as hateful. When the appellants attempted to refute this blatant attack on people of faith, they were threatened with immediate termination by the City of Oakland. The Ninth Circuit did not feel that the threat of immediate termination of employment had any effect on free speech.
If government recognizes gay marriage as a legal right, it is obligated to protect that right – and increasingly, that means silencing religious speech. This is underscored by two recent resolutions in San Francisco .
Churches: San Francisco denounced Catholic teachings on homosexuality as “insulting to all San Franciscans”, “‘hateful”, “defamatory”, “ignorant”,’ and more. Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the city and county board in 2006, was a response to the Vatican‘s ban on placing adoptive children in homosexual households. It called the Vatican a “foreign country” that attempted to “negatively influence existing and established customs.” Two Catholic residents of San Francisco filed suit, calling this an unconstitutional display of government hostility toward religion. They lost in the District Court, where a judge said that the Catholic Church was responsible for having “provoked this debate” and that elected officials were “merely exercising their free speech rights.”
Youth groups: One week after issuing Resolution 168-08, San Francisco passed another unanimous resolution against Teen Mania’s Battle Cry for a Generation rally. 25,000 teens had rallied against the sexualization of youth culture by advertisers and media, and the Board of Supervisors called this an ‘’act of provocation” by an “anti-gay”, “anti-choice” organization that wanted to “negatively influence” city politics. California Assemblyman Mark Leno, who is homosexual, said that “religious people may be few — but they’re loud, they’re obnoxious, they’re disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco.”
to protect MAJORITY RULE from MINORITY RULE
Proposition 8 does not interfere with gays living the lifestyle they choose. Gays can live as they want – but reciprocally, they should also not unilaterally have the right to redefine marriage for the other 96% of society. Furthermore, although 4% of the US may be gay, few of them are in committed long-term relationships, and if only 2% of those few who are in committed long-term relationships marry, than we would have destroyed the entire institution of marriage for millions of people and for generations to come, for the benefit of a very small handful of people. That is why America has “majority rule” – so there is no “tyranny by the minority”.
If gay marriage advocates want to change the definition and institution of marriage, they should have to put a ballot measure before the voters to do so, in order to have this vital matter be decided by the vote of the people. That’s how we do things in America . And we did that! In November 2000 over 61% of Californians voted in favor of Proposition 22 to reaffirm that only man-woman marriage would be valid or recognized in California . But what radicals can’t accomplish by legal means, they try to do by extra-legal ones. They went behind the backs of the voters and convinced four activist judges in San Francisco to redefine marriage for all of society. That violates the principal of majority rule, a rule which safeguards democracy. We cannot let that happen.
to protect MAJORITY RULE from ACTIVIST JUDGES
Over 61% of Californians voted to reaffirm that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California . However, because this language wasn’t put into the state Constitution when it was approved, four activist judges from San Francisco , in an unprecedented abuse of raw judicial power, arrogantly presumed to redefine the most fundamental institution of human society, and in the process trampled the democratic process and nullified the votes of millions of California voters.
In a strong dissent, Justice Baxter asserted that the majority of the court “violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error” by arrogating to itself the power to make a significant legislative policy judgment absent any clear constitutional directive. Justice Baxter noted: “But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will…and in doing so, oversteps its authority.” (In re Marriage Cases,43 Cal.4th 757, 861-864.)
Proposition 8 will reverse the court’s radical decision, protect the will of the people and restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the state Constitution.
to protect us from MORE GOVERNMENT
Government is already too much a part of our lives. Instituting gay marriage will make it considerably worse. Once a state government declares that gay marriages are a civil right, those governments will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against gay couples. Activists are expected to demand government oversight of virtually every segment of society, particularly schools, churches, and the workplace, to make sure that gays are given the respect and equality the law will require, and that no one speak ill of their lifestyle or marriages — which will be deemed to be punishable hate speech. Government will have to create new agencies and regulations and more bureaucrats to administer this “brave new world.”
to uphold FEDERAL LAW
In 1996 under President Bill Clinton Congress declared, “Marriage is the foundation of a successful society” and overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws. States should uphold that law.
to protect STATES RIGHTS
In July 2008 gay activists unveiled their backup plan for exporting the dismantling of marriage to the entire nation in the event that the voters of California vote to protect marriage in November. On July 15, the Massachusetts Senate approved a bill that would export gay marriage to other states. It would permit gay couples from states that do not recognize gay marriage to travel to Massachusetts for the sole purpose of obtaining a marriage license. The couples could then use their Massachusetts “marriage” as a tool for challenging their own states’ laws in court. The Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts have issued a statement against the bill saying in part that “Our legislature is attempting to impose the Massachusetts courts’ definition of marriage upon other states. Such action endangers the principle of state sovereignty that gives each state the right to govern itself and enact its own laws.”
to protect AMERICA
A defeat for marriage at the polls in California will embolden activists who have always planned to export their radical agenda to all 50 states – and basically install “European a-morality” (which many believe is “immorality”) throughout the country. A centerpiece of that agenda is taking away the basic rights of those who disagree with them – and those fundamental rights, of free speech, of free exercise of religion, and freedom of assembly, are what differentiate America from every other country. We need to protect American Judeo-Christian morals, and American freedoms – because no other country will.
to reduce CONFLICT
There is a broad consensus among legal experts that working through the countless details of defining the impact of the redefinition of marriage upon society will inevitably generate a flood of litigation for years to come. (“Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits…” San Francisco Examiner, April 7, 2008.) Legalized gay marriage will create an unprecedented level of legal confusion and invite a tidal wave of lawsuits in public accommodation law, employment law, and over government funding, with the only certainty being that they will challenge the workings of religious institutions like never before.
This great cultural and social battle is between two very different views of the institution of marriage. One will do what is best for children, all children; the other will not. One will bless children through the social norm of a mother and a father for every child, to the greatest extent possible; the other will denigrate that norm. One will preserve religious liberty for churches and for people of all faith communities; the other will not, but will instead be a powerful weapon against religious liberty. Gay activists will do this by branding everyone who does not believe in the rightness of gay marriage as bigots and treating their acts of conscience as unlawful discrimination, to be punished and otherwise suppressed. Traditional man-woman marriage will sustain the ennobling identities and statuses of husband and wife; the new order of marriage will destroy them and teach that men and women are interchangeable. One will preserve our liberty to enter into the vital social institution of man-woman marriage; the other, while promising “freedom,” will destroy that liberty.
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 gay 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?
We are engaged in a great cultural and social battle, testing whether “the sacred institution of marriage” can long endure, and whether America will be its home.
Vote Yes on Proposition 8!
– This piece was compiled by Ed Allebest