Marriage. What the judgement means, and where we go from here.

Lets go down the LA Times highlights of the 185 page judgment point by point, shall we?

Here's the link so you can read along:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-excerpts27-2009may27,0,1870790.story


On Proposition 8 as a constitutional amendment:
To get the ball rolling, the court defines its job: interpret the constitution. Like it or not, the constitution was edited by a legitimate majority. If we don't like the way our constitution looks, it is our responsibility to continue to edit it until we do.

On Proposition 8 violating the equal protection clause:
Only one judge disagreed with his peers to say that discrimination is occurring.

On complaints that it is too easy to amend the California Constitution:
Again, if we don't like how our constitution reads, it is up to us to make that happen.

On rights retained by same-sex couples under Proposition 8:
Here's where it gets a little more interesting. The court affirms that Civil Unions hold the same rights as Marriages under the law, and that people must continue to be treated equally whether they were 'civilly united' or 'married'. They're basically telling us that we are arguing over a WORD, and not the rights attached to that word.

On the state's obligations to same-sex couples:
"For the state to meet its obligations under the equal protection clause will now be more difficult, but the obligation remains."
This is my favorite part. This is where the court admits that creating a "heterosexual only" name for marriage makes discrimination harder to prevent. Now when an activity for "united" couples is held, they simply need to ask for a photocopy of your certificate, and can pick and choose whether or not they admit the ones that start with a "C" or an "M". This will all happen sight unseen. It is discrimination at its most removed. It's a lot easier to deny a 'nonconforming application' than to tell a gay person to their face that they're not welcome in your little club.

On Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown's argument that Proposition 8 took away inalienable rights:
Jerry Brown needs to go back to law school... Ouch.


So where do we go from here?
Now we're responsible for making sure that Marriage and Civil Union are treated equally, but we're calling them different things and making it easier for people do treat them differently.

I say we should put our money where our mouths are.
If Civil Unions are truly equal, and if religious people truly care so much about the word Marriage, then we should all stop asking for Marriage licenses down at the county courthouse. When you get ready to have your wedding at the Church of your choice, ask your local Justice of the Peace for a Civil Union License. It's the surest way to keep government out of your "marriage" and in the Civil business where it belongs.

I don't say this just to be an ass. I say it because I believe in equality, and I believe in efficiency.

I seem to remember a federal act that was passed back in the Nixon era. It was called the Paperwork Reduction Act. It created a system where government agencies were required to eliminate redundant forms in an effort to reduce paper usage. If you could say the same thing with one form, why have two?

Here we are in California with TWO state licenses, and TWO state certificates that grant the SAME damned rights. One of them is gender specific, and the other is a catch-all. Shouldn't we eliminate the one we don't need, simply for the wastefulness of it?

In light of this new law that the courts have upheld, I say we should truly get the government "out of the marriage business" for the sake of equality, and for the sake of efficiency.


Last year in August I married my Wife in a Church. We got two different certificates; the County marriage document, and the Church marriage document. Because of the way the law works, the State cannot dictate what the Church calls their document. The Church could call it a "Jello Pudding Pops are the Greatest Certificate" and the State couldn't do anything about it.

What I'm getting at here is this:

Whatever you believe, if you belong to an organization of people who believe as you do, be recognized as a Church. Exercise the rights that you have to what you believe in. Put some stock in your faith. If you want to be "Married", ask your group of faithful people to come together, create and witness your bond. The State will grant you a Civil Union, but YOU can call it whatever your heart desires.

Something has occured to me lateley regarding marriage rights, and it gives me hope for the future.

It occurs to me that the way things are progressing politically is reflecting not only public sentiment, but governmental priority. People vote for striaght marriage, the court turns it down on fairness grounds. People vote more strongly for striaght marriage only, and now there is a process by which our own constitution is being examined to see if we have broken our own laws by allowing the vote to proceed. Again, this is an exercise in fairness on the part of the government.

Regardless of religion, the government is charged with creating an environment where religions can get along peacefully. Part of that is treating them equally. The Constitution of the U.S. states that laws cannot be written that favor one religion over another. So if one church is allowed to conduct marriages, all must be free to do so. There are also laws concerning the equal protection of people based on other factors such as race, gender, and sexual orientation. Racial groups are no longer prohibited from marriage in this country, thank God.

The governement cannot allow a law to exist that explicitly contradicts another. It is the height of hypocrisy, creates any number of confusions and double-standards, and above all is just plain bad leadership. If for no other reason, the fact that the basic ability to lead is undermined should be enough to reverse hypocrisy.

But about my glimmer of hope; We have had two votes in this state on the subject of gay marriage rights. Both have shown the will of the majority. Most people don't agree that homosexuality is a good idea, and are willing to vote to limit the rights of that group. The courts, however, recognize homosexuals as a legitimate segment of the population. That means they should be granted the same protection that every other group enjoys. This is civil rights at its most basic.

The current legal action to overturn Prop 8 is based on the fact that the state constitution already has a section preventing this kind of targeted rights removal. This is not the slippery slope that I like to talk about, this is simple conflict of rules. Let's call them rule #1 and rule #2 for short.
Rule #1 says that rights cannot be removed from a single group without equal treatment for other groups.
Rule #2 say to remove a right from a single group.

In order for rule #2 to stand, rule #1 has to be repealed first. That takes the slippery slope and turns it into a vertical drainpipe, the kind that ordered society would be flushed through if equal protection laws were repealed.

And so Prop 8 creates a situation that can't last. When it is finally repealed and equal protection is re-established, something else may start happening. We may see similar laws in other states begin to be repealed. It may be that California will set the standard for reform on this issue not by having a unified and tolerant population, but by recognizing and purging its own hypocrisy. Very hopeful indeed.



As an afterthought, let me make clear my personal positions on this issue.

I am Christian, and I believe that homosexuality is a detrimental behavior when considering eternal issues. Basically, when it comes to heaven, being gay doesn't help. This should not come as a shock, and is a generally understood Church position.

I also am an American, and I recognize that my Church is not the only one allowed to practice in this country. No matter how much I may think that my Church is right, I have to allow other churches who disagree to pursue their ideas of what they think is right. I have to allow people who disagree with me the right to pursue their own ideals.

I also believe in hard facts. The fact is that a community of people who by their very nature are not disposed to reproduce, well that community will not be long for this world. I won't live to see the day when the Gay Rights movement literally dies out, but it may happen. The only way to maintian a viable population would be through recruitment. This can take many forms, but the two that come to mind are accepting outcasts, and active efforts to conversion.

Outcasts coming together is how the modern Gay Community was created in the first place. So many people being individually persecuted across the board for one unifying reason, and they created a community to support each other against it. It just so happens that churches and their members have historically been the ones spurring this opression, and so we have two groups at odds with each other. This kind of conflict is good for no one.

If we do the easy thing and continue to deny gay rights, continue to allow discrimination to be swept under the rug, we have simply continued to oppress a group that is only galvanized by oppression. We will continue to be wrong.

If we do the most progressive thing I can think of at this moment and go so far as to create a "Church of Homosexuality" for lack of a better term, and give it all the rights and protections of a church in this country, we may end up making the conflict bigger.

I have seen talk on the internet from people who predict another civil war. They are so adamant about their position, and so convinced that the other side has their destruction in mind. Will it take Abe Lincoln revisited to enforce tolerance by force of arms? Is it tolerance that is needed, or simply an absence of outright opression?

Slave owners in this country used direct fear and force to keep slaves in line. Later, White Southern Extremists used public lynchings and burnings to acheive similar opression over free men in general. Similar extremists today have beaten, killed, and discriminated against gays. Our ancestors granted freedom to their slaves only when staring down the long barrel of defeat in the Civil War. Will we truly have to again kill our neighbors before we can make a place where people can live without fear of reaction to sexuality?

When I think about these topics I am reminded of my own code of behavior. It is specific and pretty easy to understand, but difficult to practice. I find no need to demonize homosexuals. Within my Church there is work being done on positive ways to integrate homosexual tendencies into the Christian behavior model that prohibits acting on it. Concerning those who are not members of my Faith, I find no need to pass extra legislation at all. The current laws already prohibit sexual misdeeds against people. If two people already committed to a homosexual life want to spend their lives together as a family, who am I to judge them wrong under the law? Who am I to forbid secular bonds to secular people? What real harm can come from the example they set?

Well, it's getting late, and I think I've taken you on a winding path with all these thoughts. But if it made you think, then it was worth the trip. Wasn't it?

My own comments on Rights and Religion.

I am a Christian, and I have my own views.

There is a grim reality about the entire situation that is created by Prop 8 that most people don't even see. Fortunately for me, I am no longer angered by the whole ordeal. Mostly it's just because I don't usually get very angry over anything. A lack of blinding passion allows one to see most clearly.

Very few times before this has our government passed legislation on marriage that favors one religion over another. You may think to yourself that Prop 8 is favoring of religion in general and not one church over another, but you would be wrong. There are churches in this country, legitimate groups of faithful people, who believe that homosexual marriage is an appropriate and sacred thing. Now that heterosexual marriage is the only one recognized under the law, these churches have been discriminated against by the law.

Are we really ready for this kind of legal precedent?

What will happen if (or when) people decide that marriage must legally be "only until death do you part". You may think that won't affect anybody, but there happens to be a church of sigificant following who believes in marriage "for time and all eternity". If Prop 8 is allowed to stand, then no legal action will be able to stop a majority vote in favor of a time limit on marriage.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

When the definition of marriage is decided by majority vote, it will be the majority relgion that gets to enforce its will upon others. Then matters of faith become matters of law, and the idea of 'freedom of religion' will change to 'freedom of the biggest church'.

Is this the future you want to live in?
Are we really ready to force our neighbors to do as we dictate?

It's fine if you're on the winning side, but that could be said of quite a few nations of the past. Jews don't forget Egypt, or Nazi Germany. We as Christians would do well to remember Rome.

We are taught to "do unto others". We are taught to "love our neighbors". How can we stand by and allow ourselves to rule over the faiths of others? How would you react if a law was passed restricting your marriage? What would you do?

To every Christian who voted for Proposition 8 in California, or for something similar in another place, I say this to you:

We have given in to temptation. What we thought would give us strength and protection has created a great weakness and vulnerability, and the safety of our freedom to worship is in danger.
We have unjustly wielded power over our fellow man. Regardless of what we think about them and what they do, they are our neighbors. We have not shown them the love that our Savior taught us.
We must give up this unjust power.
We must ask our neighbors for forgiveness.

We must ask our God for forgiveness.

rights, religion, and love (imported)

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

rights, religion, and love



5:17 PM

Hope (imported)

Friday, November 07, 2008

Hope
Current mood: hopeful
Category: Life

There have been times when I despaired over what has become of our nation. The blind loyalty and unspeakable acts conducted under the current administration have bordered on facism.

The only reason I say boredered is because of the vote. True facists don't relinquish power.

Maybe now there will be a chance for calm, diplomacy, and justice. Maybe we will have a chance for the voice of the people to be heard above the din of angry mobs and rabble-rousers. Maybe now we can work to repair the damage done by our nation gone mad.

Our nation, our chance, our time, it is now.

Yes, we can.

4:49 AM

On Marriage and Equality... (imported)

Saturday, July 26, 2008

On Marriage and Equality...
Current mood: annoyed
Category: Life

I have one thing to say about this entire tooth-pulling, back and forth ordeal, so pay attention, and think about it.

A time may come when Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, Atheists, Independent Thinkers, and everyone else finally outnumber Christian voters in this country. When that time comes, the same legal precedent that protects a homosexual's right to marry as they believe fit, will be one of the few things protecting Christian rights to do the same.

I am Christian, I am free to do as I please under the law.

I am not free to re-write the law to deny rights to those who do not share my religion.

And neither are you.

6:13 PM

On Patriotism... (imported)

Saturday, July 05, 2008

On Patriotism...
Current mood: awake
Category: Life

I am America

I have rebelled against the will of kings,
I refuse to obey the dictates of fools.

I am a Patriot,
I will not bow to hypocrisy.

I fight the aggressor,
For better or worse.

I respect the rights of my neighbors,
My own are not diminished.

I rejoice in my successes,
admiring the great things I accomplish.

I recognize my failures,
weeping for all that is lost in the process.

I strive for peace in a world at war.
I stand for justice when others sit idly by.
I seek the truth.

I sing the song of freedom.

And so can you.

12:30 AM