Cardinal George Urges Catholics and Mormons to Defend Religious Freedom: Catholic News Agency

reports:

On Tuesday, Cardinal Francis George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, gave a talk to nearly 12,000 students and faculty at Brigham Young University in Utah. The cardinal dedicated his speech to exhorting the two faiths to defend religious freedom and their place in the public square.

“In recent years, Catholics and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have stood more frequently side by side in the public square to defend human life and dignity,” said Cardinal George on Tuesday morning.

The cardinal gave his presentation, “Catholics and Latter-day Saints: Partners in the Defense of Religious Freedom,” at a BYU forum on Feb. 23, at the school's Marriott Center. Receiving a standing ovation at the end of his address, Cardinal George is believed to be the highest ranking Catholic official to ever speak at the Mormon university. ...

Cardinal George also addressed the opposition that Catholics and Mormons have faced for their joint advocacy of human rights and dignity, citing the response from Proposition 8 opponents in California as an example.

more

Labels: Catholic Church, LDS, Proposition 8, religion, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 4:29 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The Price of Prop 8: Heritage Foundation

backgrounder:

Abstract: Supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry. Arguments for same-sex marriage are based fundamentally on the idea that limiting marriage to the union of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons. As this ideology seeps into the culture more generally, individuals and institutions that support marriage as the union of husband and wife risk paying a price for that belief in many legal, social, economic, and cultural contexts.

more

Labels: culture, gay marriage, Proposition 8

posted by Imapp Staff at 1:07 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN BEGINS ON CALIF. ANTI-DIVORCE INITIATIVE: Religion Clause

blogs:

The California Secretary of State announced last week that the proponent of an initiative petition to amend California's Constitution to ban divorce in the state may begin to collect signatures. The proposed amendment would still allow annulments, but would completely eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Proponents will need to collect the signatures of 694,354 registered voters to qualify the initiative for the ballot.

According to Huffington Post last month, the proponent, John Marcotte, introduced the amendment to mock the proponents of Proposition 8 who focused on protecting traditional marriage as a reason to oppose same-sex marriage. Last month, Cockeyed.com published an interview with Marcotte. Here is one exchange that gives the flavor of his remarks....

more

Labels: California, culture, divorce, gay marriage, Proposition 8

posted by Eve at 12:37 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

GAY MARRIAGE ON "TOP CHEF"

Apparently on Top Chef last night the "cheftestants" were asked to prepare dishes for an engaged couple's bachelor and bachelorette parties. One chef objected to the challenge because gay marriage has not been instituted in most states (including Nevada, where the show films this season). Although she did end up participating in the challenge, I'm still pretty interested in how the show has been handling this; you can read head judge Tom Colicchio's defense of both gay marriage and the recent challenge here. (He points out that in season 1, TC catered a gay wedding/commitment ceremony [I forget which].)

There's also a video on the Bravo site described as "Cheftestants take a stand against Prop 8."

ETA: Some contestants also had a problem with the fact that the challenge required the women chefs to cook for the bachelor party's men, while the men chefs cooked for the bachelorette party's women.

Labels: culture, gay marriage, gender, heteronormativity, Proposition 8

posted by Eve at 3:20 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

David Boies, A Man in Search of an Argument: Matthew G. Franck

blogs at Nat'l Review Online:

In today's Wall Street Journal, David Boies makes his case for overturning California's Proposition 8 (protecting marriage as it has existed throughout history) as contrary to the federal Constitution. If this represents the best he can do, he had better try again, for his argument is laughably bad. (Of course, it may still be good enough for Justice Anthony Kennedy—probably Boies' intended audience, come to think of it.)

Here I'll stick just to 1) the demonstrably false things Boies says, and 2) his preposterous straw-man arguments. There may be more examples in both these groups than I can document here, but these strike me as the most notable, taking them in the order in which they appear.

more

Labels: gay marriage, Proposition 8

posted by Imapp Staff at 7:39 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

HOW TO GET 63% OF AMERICANS TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE: Nate Silver

blogs:

...When USA Today asks whether gay marriage is a private decision, or rather whether government has the right to pass laws which regulate it, 63 percent say it's a private decision. This contrasts significantly with all other polling on gay marriage. The highest level of support gay marriage has received in the more traditional, positive-rights framing is 49 percent, from a ABC/Washington Post poll in late April. The average support is closer to about 41-42 percent. And indeed, this same survey organization, Gallup, last month released a poll that put the number of Americans approving of gay marriage at 40 percent. ...

The better argument against my interpretation of this poll is that it's contradicted by other evidence. Namely, last November in California, a state whose highest court had indeed ruled that gay marriage was protected by the state's constitution, some 52 percent of the electorate decided that they knew better, and that Adam and Steve would have to catch the next available flight to Burlington, Vermont.

But even though gay marriage had already become -- however briefly -- the law of the land in California, that wasn't how the debate unfolded on Proposition 8.

more

Labels: gay marriage, Proposition 8

posted by Eve at 3:30 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

THE STORM OVER THE MORMONS: Time magazine

feature:

Last November, Jay Pimentel began hearing that people in his neighborhood were receiving letters about him. Pimentel lives in Alameda, Calif., a small, liberal-leaning community hanging off Oakland into the San Francisco Bay. Pimentel, who is a Mormon, had supported Proposition 8, the ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage. And that made him a target. "Dear Neighbor," the letter began, "Our neighbors, Colleen and Jay Pimentel"--and it gave their address--"contributed $1,500.00 to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. NEIGHBORS SHOULD BE AWARE OF THEIR NEIGHBORS' CHOICES." The note accused the Pimentels of "obsessing about same-sex marriage." It listed a variety of local causes that recipients should support--"unlike the Pimentels."

Pimentel, a lawyer and a lay leader in the small Mormon congregation in Alameda, is markedly even-keeled. Yet the poison-pen note still steams him, even though in May the California Supreme Court validated Prop 8 as constitutional. He is bothered less by the revelation of his monetary contribution, which he stands by, than the fact that the letter's author didn't bother to find out that every other Saturday for 15 years, he or someone else from Alameda's 184-member Mormon ward has delivered a truckload of hot meals to the Midway Shelter for Abused and Homeless Women and Children--one of the organizations the Pimentels allegedly wouldn't support. "The church does a lot of things in the community we don't issue press releases about," he says. "And when people criticize us, we often just take it on the chin. I guess you could say I'm not satisfied with the way we're seen."

Across the country, that's the dilemma facing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. With 13 million members worldwide (by its own count), the LDS is the fourth largest church in the country, the richest per capita and one of the fastest-growing abroad. The body has become a mainstream force, counting among its flock political heavyweights like former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid, businesspeople like the Marriotts and entertainers like Glenn Beck and Twilight novelist Stephenie Meyer. The passage of Prop 8 was the church's latest display of its power: individual Mormons contributed half of the proposition's $40 million war chest despite constituting only 2% of California's population. LDS spokesman Michael Otterson says, "This is a moment of emergence."

But that emergence has its costs. Even as Mormons have become more prominent, they have struggled to overcome lingering prejudices and misrepresentations about the sources of their beliefs. Polls suggest that up to half of Americans would be uncomfortable with a Mormon President. And though the Prop 8 victory was a high-water mark for Mormon political advocacy, it also sparked a vicious backlash from gay-rights activists, some of whom accused Mormons of bigotry and blind religious obedience.

more

Labels: LDS, Proposition 8, religion

posted by Eve at 2:49 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Behind the Scenes of Proposition 8: Sonja Eddings Brown

blogs (Brown was the Deputy Communications Director and spokesperson for the Proposition 8 Protect Marriage Campaign):

...In the past week, I was tasked to find a location in Los Angeles where Protect Marriage might be able to offer comment when the California Supreme Court handed down its decision on Proposition 8. This may surprise you, but the Protect Marriage campaign was not welcome anywhere in Los Angeles following last November 4th’s election. Perhaps this does not surprise you. Either out of fear, or fear of appearing supportive of our odd tradition of marriage, facilities like the Museum of Tolerance, The Bonaventure Hotel, City Hall, Marriott Hotels, Hilton Hotels, or any hotel would not welcome Protect Marriage for fear of retaliation or protests. We feared using these locations as well because of the great potential for sabatoge. Calling City Hall, for instance, was a dead end for a democratic cause like Protect Marriage. Not only did Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa support legalization of gay marriage, but also the entire Board of County of Supervisors and virtually
everyone in City and County government. How helpful do you believe City Hall would be in facilitating a Protect Marriage press conference? When the Office of City Permits was contacted to schedule an event, our calls were not returned, our requests ignored.

Fortunately, a principled owner of the elegant Santa Ann Doubletree Hotel felt differently, and that is why Los Angeles Protect Marriage press conferences, for safety reasons, and out of necessity, were held in Orange County. Security was necessary, police protection was required, but our work was completed.

Seven months later, the environment in Los Angeles this week remained the same. The Los Angeles Press Club, whose express mission is to host public press conferences, didn’t return our calls. Dialing hotels in the San Fernando Valley was equally fruitless. Two prominent hotels, which shall remain nameless, agreed to host us, and then later in the day delivered polite phone calls, declining. A hotel north of the San Fernando Valley actually had one member of its catering staff call and offer us any room of our choice, and another member of their catering staff call and state that unfortunately, nothing large enough was available to accommodate Protect
Marriage.

more

Labels: California, culture, gay marriage, Proposition 8

posted by Imapp Staff at 12:24 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

TED OLSON, DAVID BOIES, AND US: Jonathan Rauch

at Independent Gay Forum:

Though anti-gay-marriage forces won on Prop 8 in California, their victory came at a steep price: the vote served as a wake-up call to millions of straights who are sympathetic to SSM but who, until then, had been content to sit on the sidelines. After Prop 8, straights took ownership of the SSM cause as never before. I think history will show this to have been an important change in the political dynamic, perhaps a landmark.

more

Labels: culture, gay marriage, Proposition 8

posted by Eve at 12:03 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

ANOTHER PROP 8 FALLOUT: THE CHILDREN: Doc Guley

at the San Francisco Chronicle:

I found out the ruling was handed down on Tuesday when a colleague friend of mine logged onto SFGate and said, on a shuddery exhale, "Huh - so they didn't divorce me. Am I supposed to be grateful?" As the day passed, I learned that her elementary-school-aged son had been furious for weeks that the state could even consider taking such a violating step against his moms. Then I found out from another professional friend that her three kids (also all young elementary-school aged children) asked tearfully in the car, "Are we still married?"

more

Labels: adoption, children, gay marriage, Proposition 8

posted by Eve at 1:43 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

THE GOOD NEWS IN TODAY'S CALIF. MARRIAGE DECISION: Andrew Koppelman

at Balkinization:

I agree with Mary Dudziak’s smart post on today’s California Supreme Court decision upholding Proposition 8, which abolished same-sex marriage in that state (though it did not retroactively nullify marriages already validly celebrated). If anything, she has understated the pro-gay valence of the opinion: the Court held that a broader restriction on same-sex couples’ rights might well have been invalid, and that same-sex couples in that state continue to have a constitutional right to have their relationships recognized. Like Vermont (which has since enacted marriage by legislation without court prompting) and New Jersey, California is constitutionally required to provide domestic partnerships with all the same rights and obligations as heterosexual marriage. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation remains unconstitutional. In short, most of the holding of the Court’s earlier marriage decision remains untouched by Proposition 8.

more

Labels: gay marriage, Proposition 8

posted by Eve at 4:52 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

QUICK TAKE ON THE CA. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DECISION: Mary L. Dudziak

at Balkinization:

An initial take on the California Supreme Court decision today upholding Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage. (I will revise later if needed after a more careful read of the court's very lengthy opinion.) My bottom line: opponents of same-sex marriage may have won the battle, but lost the war.

Importantly, in today's ruling (PDF), the court did not take up the basic question of whether there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution, but rather the more narrow question of whether Proposition 8, which overturned the court's earlier ruling that there was such a right, was a constitutional amendment or a constitutional revision. Amendments are proper subjects for voter initiatives in California. Revisions, which are more fundamental changes, must go though a state constitutional convention. The court found that Prop. 8 was an amendment (and so was proper), rather than a revision. To get there, however, the court narrowly interpreted Proposition 8. ...

The court carved out space for the rights of same-sex couples protected in the Marriage Cases, emphasizing: "among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage — albeit significant — that has been removed by this initiative measure." (emphasis added). Taking into account the "actual limited effect of Proposition 8 upon the preexisting state constitutional right of privacy and due process and upon the guarantee of equal protection of the laws," (emphasis added), the court found Prop 8 not to be a constitutional revision.

more

Labels: gay marriage, Proposition 8

posted by Eve at 4:47 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

CA Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8: GayPatriotWest

blogs:

I believe the justices made the right decision this time. The decision was 6-1. Now, the issue is developing a strategy to repeal the state constitutional provision defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And to do so in a manner which respects those who favor that definition. ...

Basically, this means the state will still recognize same-sex relationships, but will not call them marriages.

more (and more here)

Labels: California, gay marriage, Proposition 8

posted by Imapp Staff at 4:35 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Mapping the Future of Gay Marriage: MapScroll

blog:

Yesterday, same-sex marriage in Iowa was rendered legal by that state's Supreme Court (two days after it was made legal in Sweden ). The United States seems inexorably headed towards marriage rights for gay couples - but how long will it take to get there across the board? Nate Silver has an answer. Based entirely on his hard work at fivethirtyeight.com, here is the future of gay marriage in the US:

[Sorry, I can't insert the map; click here to see it and read the rest of this post --Eve]

The years indicated are those by which a gay marriage ban would be defeated by voters in a given state, according to a regression model designed by Silver. (Again, all the math and hard work is Silver's; I just made the map.)

How did Silver come up with these results? Here's the explanation:

I looked at the 30 instances in which a state has attempted to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage by voter initiative. The list includes Arizona twice, which voted on different versions of such an amendment in 2006 and 2008, and excludes Hawaii , which voted to permit the legislature to ban gay marriage but did not actually alter the state's constitution. I then built a regression model that looked at a series of political and demographic variables in each of these states and attempted to predict the percentage of the vote that the marriage ban would receive.

It turns out that you can build a very effective model by including just three variables:

1. The year in which the amendment was voted upon;
2. The percentage of adults in 2008 Gallup tracking surveys who said that religion was an important part of their daily lives;
3. The percentage of white evangelicals in the state.

These variables collectively account for about three-quarters of the variance in the performance of marriage bans in different states. The model predicts, for example, that a marriage ban in California in 2008 would have passed with 52.1 percent of the vote, almost exactly the fraction actually received by Proposition 8.

more

Labels: gay marriage, New England, Proposition 8, religion

posted by Eve at 1:59 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

GAY MARRIAGE AND THE FUTURE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: Maggie Gallagher

at Real Clear Politics:

...But the Vermont same-sex marriage bill was a breakthrough in another way which has received zero attention in the press. For the very first time, a legislature has formally acknowledged that gay marriage poses a serious threat to the religious liberties of Vermonters who disagree with the government's new definition of marriage. And the gay marriage movement has permitted -- if not exactly trumpeted -- that legislature to enact some imperfect yet substantive religious liberty protections, instead of the fake religious liberty protections generally offered to deflect voters' attention from the real issues at stake.

Same-sex marriage is quite different from bans on interracial marriage in one powerful respect: It asks religious Americans to surrender a core belief -- no, not Leviticus (disapproval of gay sexual acts), but Genesis -- the idea that God himself made man male and female and commanded men and women to come together in a special way to image the fruitfulness of God.

Many religious people and groups will bow to, if not exactly endorse, the power of gay activists. Witness Rev. Rick Warren, who on "Larry King Live" this week came very close to recanting his support for Proposition 8. Rick did not quite do so. What he did, instead, is what many good people will do in the face of the massive campaign of intimidation and harassment designed to silence Christians and others of good will who support marriage: He dodged. Rick said, more or less: I am not now and never have been an anti-gay marriage "activist."

Let me be clear. I have enormous respect for Rick Warren. What has happened to Rick, who did nothing more than speak from his pulpit to the members of his own church on Proposition 8, is what lies in store for many good men and women. The deal they will be offered by the government and the culture dominated by same-sex marriage is: Mute your views on marriage so you may continue your other good works. Many good and brave people, to preserve their ability to save lives in Africa or to protect the poor in this country, will take that deal.

I'm not here to criticize him or them -- merely to point out the underlying power of the movement that can get a Baptist minister to recant about marriage on national television.

more

Labels: gay marriage, Proposition 8, religion, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 1:57 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Winning By Losing on Prop 8: Jeff Amestoy

in the Washington Post:

The California Supreme Court will uphold Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage passed by the state's voters in November. It is a decision that progressives ought to welcome. ...

Yet, as difficult as the likely outcome of the case will be for those of us who support gay marriage, the court's rationale will almost certainly strengthen a fundamental tenet of the progressive movement: the right of ordinary citizens to maintain authority over their state constitutions.

Early 20th-century progressives had a deep distrust of state judicial authority for the very good reason that many decisions were antithetical to a more just and humane society. The relative ease with which Californians -- and residents of other states -- can amend their state constitutions owes much to the "direct democracy" reforms led by progressives.

When Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive candidate for president in 1912, proposed the recall of state court decisions to enable "the people themselves" to decide constitutional issues, he was responding to our democracy's inherent tension between judicial authority and democratic legitimacy. And when Larry Kramer, the preeminent progressive scholar of "popular constitutionalism," criticized William Rehnquist's Supreme Court, he noted, "The Supreme Court is not the highest authority in the land on constitutional law. We are."

Unfortunately for supporters of gay marriage, the most pronounced demonstration of popular constitutionalism in recent years has been the adverse response of voters to judicial decisions advancing the constitutional claims of same-sex couples. The idea that judicial authority is not ultimate constitutional authority can be particularly unsettling when citizens choose to amend their state constitutions to limit rather than expand rights.

more

Labels: Proposition 8

posted by Imapp Staff at 7:25 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

KEN STARR'S PROP 8 SUPPORT RAISES QUESTIONS ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM: Malibu Times

reports:

More than one hundred Pepperdine University School of Law alumni say their educations have been devalued by former White House prosecutor Kenneth Starr's simultaneous positions as dean of the university's School of Law and as lead attorney for Proposition 8, the November ballot measure voters passed banning same-sex marriage that is being challenged in court. The alumni have called for the university to issue a written statement distancing itself from Starr's affiliation with the measure.

Their dismay has brought to light the controversy of whether universities should take action regarding their educators' public involvement in high-profile cases.

more

Labels: Proposition 8

posted by Eve at 5:09 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Catholic Bishops Revealed as Key in Marriage Battle: Bay Area Reporter

reports:

From California to Maine, Catholic bishops are increasingly taking on public roles on behalf of what LGBT activists call a "politicized" U.S. Catholic Church. Aiding the faith leaders in their campaign against same-sex marriage is the Knights of Columbus, a tax-exempt fraternal beneficiary society known as the church's "strong right arm."

And nowhere is the full impact of the Knights of Columbus' efforts felt than in the fight against awarding same-sex couples marriage rights.

In what turned out to be the largest total contribution from a single organization, $1.4 million of the Yes on 8 campaign's coffers came from the tax-exempt Knights of Columbus, based in New Haven, Connecticut. The Catholic Church operates its legislative efforts through the little understood entity, of which nearly all Catholic bishops and priests are members.

But the church's involvement in repealing same-sex marriage rights in California has been largely obscured by the intense public and media attention Mormon leaders received last year for their efforts to pass Proposition 8. After voters passed the anti-same-sex marriage constitutional amendment in November, LGBT protesters rallied outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' temples throughout the state rather than Catholic churches. Campaign finance reports indicate that while California's Conference of Catholic Bishops, as an organization, did not contribute to Prop 8, money did come nationally from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which contributed $200,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign. The minuscule amount belies the fact that Catholic officials played just as a substantial role as their Mormon counterparts in the anti-gay campaign. ...

Harry Knox, the religion and faith program director for the Human Rights Campaign, said the community must engage in dialogue with representatives from the Knights of Columbus.

"The Knights of Columbus do a great deal of good in the name of Jesus Christ, but in this particular case, they were foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression," Knox told the B.A.R. , referring to its role in the Prop 8 campaign.

Knox noted that the Knights of Columbus "followed discredited leaders," including bishops and Pope Benedict XVI. "A pope who literally today said condoms don't help in control of AIDS," Knox said Tuesday, shortly after the pope's comments were released.

Catholic officials, however, have deliberately cloaked their actions in opposing marriage equality from public view.

Case in point, San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer, who quietly reached out last summer to Mormon leaders he had met while stationed in Salt Lake City to ask them to become involved in the Prop 8 campaign. It wasn't until after the election that the archbishop's letter surfaced. ...

A key component of the Catholic Church's strategy has been the Knights of Columbus.

Obscure Catholic group

On its Web site the group proclaims itself as "the strong right arm of the Catholic Church."

To LGBT activist Jerry Sloan, the group is "an obscure and uniquely tax-exempt insurance company acting under the guise of a fraternal order."

Classified by a 19th century IRS code as a 501(c)8, the fraternal beneficiary society is able to operate as a tax-exempt organization providing "$70 billion in force" worth of life insurance to its members, according to Patrick Korten, vice president of communications and past grand knight of the organization.

According to the IRS Web site, a 501(c)8 is unlike other 501(c) nonprofit organizations. It is not required to abide by the non-discrimination clause required by Congress for other nonprofits. Rather, one IRS qualifier for the tax-exempt code states, "membership must be limited." Like the priesthood, the Knights of Columbus membership is restricted to Catholic men. Among those men are "almost every, if not all, bishops and most priests," explained Korten.

Besides providing life insurance to members, Korten told the B.A.R. that the purpose of the organization is to promote and lobby for the social issues important to the Catholic Church, including opposition to stem cell research, abortion, gay rights, and assisted suicide. ...

"I think it is fair to say the Knights of Columbus have been involved in virtually every one of the 31 states that have had referendums," on same-sex marriage, Korten said.

Korten also said the organization opposes civil unions.

"We support the church on that," Korten said. "And quite simply because the [heterosexual] family is the most important fundamental unit of society. A mother and a father is unquestionably the ideal. The purpose of the church is to provide the optimal environment in the begetting, raising, and education of children."

more

Labels: Catholic Church, civil unions, Proposition 8

posted by Imapp Staff at 1:08 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Proposition 8's Embers Smolder: Neil Munro

at National Journal:

The surprise passage on November 4 of California's Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, continues to reverberate in the Golden State and nationwide among activists on both sides of the marriage question. Indeed, one of the consequences of the vote is that it has sharpened the debate over what exactly marriage stands for in the 21st century.

Social conservatives say that the victory reinforces the traditional notion of marriage, that it is an institution intended to couple mothers and fathers to their kids, not just adults to each other. Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, puts it this way: The vote was "a huge victory for the idea that there is something special in the union of husband and wife that can create new life and connect children to their mother and father." Her institute is a nonprofit group that opposes gay marriage; its motto is "strengthening marriage for a new generation."

Frank Schubert, manager of the Protect Marriage -- Yes on 8 campaign, agrees with Gallagher's view: The state constitutional amendment was needed because marriage is "the one institution that binds men to women and creates a bond between the sexes that is bigger than the individual, to raise future generations."

But gay advocates, and many heterosexuals, do not see marriage as only an institution for raising children, although a significant percentage of gay couples do have kids. A 2005 study of Census Bureau surveys by the Williams Institute, a pro-gay research group at the University of California ( Los Angeles ) School of Law , found that more than 39 percent of same-sex couples ages 22 to 55 are raising children.

Sara Beth Brooks was the lead organizer of a march in San Diego on November 15 that drew 20,000 people to protest the outcome of the Proposition 8 vote. "A marriage is two people committing to loving each other and is defined differently by every single person," she said. "That's the core difference between us and our religious opponents."

These days, legally and socially, "we don't draw any distinctions" between married couples with children and those without, said Evan Wolfson, the founder and executive director of Freedom to Marry, which describes itself as a gay and nongay partnership working to win marriage equality nationwide. Once same-sex marriage is accepted across the board, he said, there won't be any need for a term to distinguish gay or straight couples who marry to raise children from those who wed to love and help each other.

Passage of Proposition 8 reversed a May 2008 decision by the California Supreme Court that established gay marriage in law. The victory was a surprise to many gay-rights activists and liberal groups that campaigned against the initiative. Polls taken in the fall had shown the proposition losing handily, and it was opposed by the editorial boards of many state newspapers; by a number of businesses, including Google; and by most major politicians, among them Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The initiative was simple in its language: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California ." It passed 52 percent to 48 percent.

Many gays and lesbians considered passage of Proposition 8 a personal rebuke by their neighbors, said Richard Thompson Ford, a Stanford Law School professor who writes widely about discrimination and civil rights. The fight over same-sex marriage "is in large part about social esteem and acceptance, and so the loss is particularly disappointing," he said. Also, many activists see same-sex marriage as a civil right, akin to racial equality, and tend to view opponents as bigoted, Ford said.

Jennifer Pizer, the senior counsel and marriage project director for Lambda Legal, married her partner in California while the state court decision was in force. She was stunned by Proposition 8's passage. "It is deeply personal.... This was about targeting a particular group, so people feel very vulnerable that other people voted to say that gay people are unequal and don't deserve the same rights. It's profoundly hurtful, insulting, and unfair, ... a vote to say that our love and lifelong relations are unworthy. That's a profoundly hurtful personal rejection and judgment.... It breaks people's hearts. How can people do that to other people?"

The depth of these emotions helps -explain the backlash against the vote by gay groups. It ranged from the quiet hurt felt by many to the public anger expressed by thousands of protesters and even harassment of donors to the pro-Proposition 8 cause.

The marches after the vote were organized quickly, almost spontaneously, online by Amy Balliett, an Internet-marketing expert in Washington state. On November 10, she sent an e-mail to 10 friends calling for street protests on November 15. The reaction, she said, was "so fast it was insane." By the end of the day, her website, JoinTheImpact.com, had 10,000 visitors. Three days later, it had 50,000. By the sixth day, the site was getting 50,000 visits per hour, she said. "It crashed our server, and the next day we crashed another server." On November 15, about 4,000 people attended the march in New York City , perhaps 10,000 total in San Francisco and Los Angeles , and 1,000 in Minneapolis and Las Vegas . Smaller protests were held in many other towns and cities. The biggest turnout, somewhat surprisingly, was in San Diego , where as many as 20,000 people marched. Balliett said that many gay couples -- including many with children -- live in the suburbs around the middle-class California city and that attendance was boosted by heterosexuals who also believe that marriage is for loving adults. They are "our straight allies," Brooks, the lead organizer, said.

The marches were not intended to be angry protests but peaceful requests for equal rights and respect, Brooks said. "There's a movable middle [of voters], and they need to be engaged," said Balliett, who also helped organize a "Light Up the Night" candlelight vigil on December 20 and another national protest on January 10. During the vigil, participants in cities around the country passed out fliers to Christmas shoppers that listed the rights that gays do not have. Balliett said that her next major goal is to deliver a petition with 2 million signatures to the White House by the end of February. It calls for repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which says that states can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Established groups, such as the D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign, had to rush to catch up with Balliett's Internet campaign. But, she said, the funding and extensive networks of supporters provided by the national organizations were vital to the success of the demonstrations.

The atmosphere at Balliett's marches differed from the wave of irate protests immediately after the vote, which included angry crowds in downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco . Churches, especially Mormon churches, were picketed, and some Proposition 8 supporters were assaulted and their signs vandalized, according to Gallagher and other initiative supporters. Some donors to Proposition 8 reported receiving death threats and envelopes containing powdery white substances that turned out to be harmless. Some initiative opponents searched online databases to identify donors to the Yes campaign, and then boycotted their businesses. Scott Eckern, artistic director for the Sacramento-based California Musical Theatre, who had contributed $1,000 to Yes, resigned after gay groups called for a boycott of the theater.

A leader of this militant faction is Fred Karger, who founded Californians Against Hate. "Marriage is for two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together," not just for binding parents to kids, he said. His group uses the Web to identify and harass donors to the Yes campaign to deter them from supporting similar ballot initiatives in the future. "That is my goal.... We're chasing them now, and they don't like it," he said. "They better get used to it."

Karger's group has targeted the Mormon Church, and he prompted California 's Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate the church's role in the campaign. Official reports posted online in January showed that the church itself spent almost $190,000 in "in kind" contributions in support of Proposition 8, in addition to substantial personal donations from Mormons around the country. Some gay-rights sources, who looked at the affiliations of large individual donors, say that collectively, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormons are formally known, contributed as much as half of the $40 million spent in support of Proposition 8. Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group based in Colorado , was another large contributor, at $657,000.

The post-initiative fight has now moved to the California courts. Lambda Legal and other gay-rights groups have asked the state Supreme Court to reject the vote as an improperly conducted revision of the state's constitution. The seven-judge court will hear arguments on March 5, and it is to rule within 90 days. It is the same court whose May 2008 ruling struck down a 2000 ballot initiative -- Proposition 22 -- that in statute barred same-sex marriage. California Attorney General Jerry Brown, meanwhile, has asked the justices to overturn the results of the initiative but on different grounds. In a 111-page brief, Brown said, "The amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification."

The prospect of a winner-take-all ruling pushed Proposition 8's supporters to ask the court to invalidate as many as 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples licensed in the months between its ruling in May and the November 4 vote. "Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions, or exclusions," according to a brief that supporters submitted to the court. Proposition 8 managers had downplayed the significance of these marriages before the November vote. However, their continued acceptance "would pose a difficult new legal problem [by] recognizing some but not all same-sex marriages," Andrew Pugno, the Proposition 8 campaign's top attorney, told National Journal.

Lambda Legal's Pizer and her allies argue that if voters can freely use ballot initiatives to take away rights from minorities, then the state will fall into "mob rule. We are a state of countless minorities... [and] each of us can be part of a vulnerable minority," she said.

Pugno said that if the court were to accept Pizer's argument, it would be imposing a "judicial oligarchy" over citizens and their constitution. "Constitutional rights are established by the majority will of the people," he said.

Gay-marriage opponents say that this fight would go away if homosexuals would be satisfied with civil unions. Such unions have been offered as a compromise in California and other states, Maggie Gallagher said, but gay-rights advocates increasingly oppose them as an apartheid-like demotion of gay and lesbian relationships. This rejection, she said, is a predictable consequence of
the effort to apply the "bigot" label in law to those who see child-rearing at the center of marriage. "This leads not to live-and-let-live tolerance, which is most people's goal, but the use of the law to repress people's views and to marginalize people who disagree with you... in a zero-sum clash," Gallagher insisted.

"The word 'marriage' needs to be used to describe all relationships of two people who are loving and committed to each other," countered Brooks. "To deny that semantic attachment to our relationships is the exact same thing as denying an African-American person the right to attend the same schools as a white person."

"I could support some version of partnership benefits, but not if they're going to endanger marriage," Gallagher replied. "I don't know how you persuade young men and young women that children need a mother and a father if that idea is viewed as racist."

Patrick Fagan, director of the Center for Family and Religion at the D.C.-based Family Research Council, a social-conservative group opposed to gay marriage, said that people should help gays and lesbians who feel rejected by the Proposition 8 vote. "You can accept the person... [and] the dispositions that are there," but such empathy does not require approval of gay behavior or gay marriage, he said. The institution of marriage has already been damaged by the sexual revolution among heterosexuals, he said, the fallout from which has negatively affected children in "any outcome which we measure -- education, health, crime, happiness, suicide, rape, abuse -- because in every single one of them, marriage plays a central protective role."

Balliett, the Internet organizer, contends that gay marriages can play the same protective role for kids and adults as heterosexual marriages. "I can't promise we will jump on the [conservative] bandwagon against divorce, or for more tax breaks [for families].... That's a fight this entire nation needs to make," she said. "But if you want the [gay and lesbian] community involved in that, they have to have the right to get married first."

In the end, it may be society's increasing acceptance of marriage as an alliance of love, and not for parenting, that will carry the day. "To my way of thinking, marriage is really the greatest celebration of a lifelong commitment that two people make to each other that is born out of love," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for same-sex marriage. "The obligations [of marriage] are to one another.... Those are the only obligations that we're talking about."

link (subscribers-only)

Labels: gay marriage, Marriage, Proposition 8

posted by Imapp Staff at 1:47 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

A GAY-MARRIAGE SOLUTION: END MARRIAGE?: Michael A. Lindenberger

at Time magazine:

When a Jewish boy turns 13, he heads to a temple for a deeply meaningful rite of passage, his bar mitzvah. When a Catholic girl reaches about the same age, she stands in front of the local bishop, who touches her forehead with holy oil as she is confirmed into a 2,000-year-old faith tradition. But missing in each of those cases — and in countless others of equal religious importance — is any role for government. There is no baptism certificate issued by the local courthouse and no federal tax benefit attached to the confessional booth, the into-the-water-and-out born-again ceremony or any of the other sacraments that believers hold sacred.

Only marriage gets that treatment, and it's a tradition that some legal scholars have been arguing should be abandoned. In a paper published March 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle, two law professors from Pepperdine University issued a call to re-examine the role the government plays in marriage. The authors — one of whom voted for and one against Proposition 8, which ended gay marriage in California — say the best way out of the intractable legal wars over gay marriage is to take marriage out of the hands of the government altogether.

more

Labels: gay marriage, privatizing marriage, Proposition 8

posted by Eve at 1:37 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

WILL/SHOULD THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ABOLISH MARRIAGE?: Katherine Franke

blogs:
...So is marriage more than a word? Did the justices of the California Supreme Court simply not “get it” when they asked why Prop 8 didn’t just deny same sex couples a word, a label, the nomenclature of marriage? The plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case insisted that the fight is not simply over a word. It is a fight for dignity and respect. They claim and indeed insist that denying the label marriage to the unions of same sex couples is an insult, a degradation, and a dignity harm. Yet to do so is to take for granted that marriage is something sacred, something to be honored and something that dignifies those who earn its blessings. It is to argue from within a normative universe whose values you take for granted and embrace. And it is to base your legal arguments on the legitimacy of those values - the recognition of the harm alleged in the Prop 8 case depends on it. ...

The more likely outcome of the case is that a majority of the Court (a larger majority than in the Marriage Cases) will hold that Prop 8 merely amended, not revised, the California Constitution, because the equality rights of the plaintiffs were not substantially diluted by the language of the proposition, rather they were merely denied the label, a word. This outcome would present us with a political challenge that some, though I’m afraid not most, of the lgbt community might seize - taking a step outside the universe that reveres marriage. In this scenario, the disestablishment of marriage would not be the consolation prize, but rather the affirmative goal of our political and legal projects. I’ve blogged before about the virtues of disestablishmentarianism when it comes to marriage. On this view, “marriage equality” is a thin conception of justice, indeed.

Here’s my worry: we lose the Prop 8 case and then the lgbt community raises and spends $50 million to pass a proposition repealing Prop 8 next November. As Richard Kim groaned at a forum at which we both spoke in December, “$50 million for a word!” In these times, that’s an awful lot of money spent to gain the jurisdiction of a word that leaves out many, many people in our community who are in need of health insurance and other forms of security. Lisa Duggan put it well at the same forum: “When you get laid off, marriage won’t help you.”
more

Labels: privatizing marriage, Proposition 8

posted by Eve at 1:33 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The New Blacklist: Maureen Mullarkey

in the Weekly Standard:

Strange times we live in when it takes a ballot initiative to confirm the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Stranger still when endorsing that definition through the democratic process brings threats and reprisals.

In November, the San Francisco Chronicle published the names and home addresses of everyone who donated money in support of California's Proposition 8 marriage initiative. All available information, plus the amount donated, was broadcast. My name is on that list.

Emails started coming. Heavy with epithets and ad hominems, most in the you-disgust-me vein. Several accused me, personally, of denying the sender his single chance at happiness after a life of unrelieved oppression and second-class citizenship. Some were anonymous but a sizable number were signed, an indication of confidence in collective clout that belied howls of victimhood. New York's Gay City News asked for an interview because I was "one of only four New Yorkers who contributed more than $500."

I ignored the request, trashed the emails, and forgot about them. But the West Coast bureau chief of the New York Daily News did not forget.

more

Labels: Proposition 8

posted by Imapp Staff at 3:35 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Preserving Marriage in Substance, Not Just in Name: Ryan T. Anderson

at National Review Online:

Should the state treat marriages the same way it treats baptisms and bar mitzvahs — as purely religious practices properly left to religious institutions? That’s what some are now arguing. If the state didn’t create marriage, they reason, then religion must have; and the state shouldn’t endorse sectarian religious beliefs. But their argument is profoundly flawed.

This can of worms is in the news because of the debate generated by California’s Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment enacted last November to restore to the law — after its invalidation by California’s supreme court — the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Legal scholar Doug Kmiec (who initially endorsed the proposition) now argues that it “is oblivious to the differing faith practices of our citizens.” “Marriage is of religious origin,” he claims, and “it should remain there.” He observes that “some faiths accept same-sex relationships and others profoundly object.” And he argues that “as a matter of religious freedom, both must be accommodated.” His solution is to “separate state and church,” which, he insists, can occur only if the state “employs non-marriage terminology for all couples” — gay or straight — while religious institutions continue using the term “marriage” however they see fit.

Kmiec’s proposal has gotten some traction. In oral arguments last Friday in a challenge to Proposition 8, Justice Ming W. Chin referred to Kmiec’s argument, asking the lawyers on both sides of the case whether his solution would be acceptable. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times ran an editorial endorsing the idea:

The argument frequently raised against same-sex marriage is that marriage represents a special bond, traditionally and biblically reserved for a man and woman. But under this approach, religions and other belief groups could continue to sanction marriage in accordance with their definitions, and the state could concern itself with the civil rights and responsibilities of two people who decide to share life, home, family and the remote.

Kmiec and the editors of the Times join a long series of activists who insist on
framing the same-sex marriage debate as a clash between civil liberties and religion. But that’s not what it is. This debate is about the substantive differences between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage, whatever they are called. The question is whether the substance of the traditional institution should be endorsed both by voluntary associations (including houses of worship) and by the state as the ideal union of adults and the ideal environment for childbearing and childrearing.

Much more than share a television remote, spouses play a crucial public role in any healthy society. Much more than the private union of consenting adults, marriage is vitally important for the well-being of our nation’s children. That’s why Kmiec’s characterization of marriage is unsound. While he is right to note that the state did not create marriage, he is wrong to claim that religion did. Marriage exists as a natural, pre-political, and pre-religious institution based upon human nature and its
fulfillment.

more

Labels: Marriage, privatizing marriage, Proposition 8, religion

posted by Imapp Staff at 2:11 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

GAY MARRIAGE VS. DEMOCRACY: Steve Chapman

at Reason:

You can catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar, the adage goes. But advocates of same-sex marriage have a deal for the citizens of California: all the vinegar they can drink. ...

The nice thing about the referendum option is that once gay-marriage supporters constitute a majority, they can promptly amend the constitution to their liking--as I hope they do. But it is hard to win voters to your side while telling them they have no legitimate say on the issue.

more

Labels: Proposition 8

posted by Eve at 12:06 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

MARRIAGE REVISIONISM: Dale Carpenter

in the Washington Blade:

On March 5, the California Supreme Court heard arguments about whether Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state, is valid. Even if you oppose gay marriage, and even if (like me) you support it but question last May’s decision declaring a right to it, there’s good reason to invalidate Prop 8. That’s because the root issue in the case is deeper than same-sex marriage. It goes to the heart of what it means to live in a democratic polity whose decisions are both substantively and procedurally bounded by a constitution.

The California Constitution recognizes two types of changes: “revisions” and “amendments.” A “revision” can be enacted only through approval by two-thirds of each state house, followed by a majority vote of the people. “Amendments” can be enacted by simple majority vote of the people, without prior legislative approval. The harder process to enact a revision suggests that it is reserved for extraordinary matters requiring more deliberation and social consensus than an ordinary amendment. If Prop 8 was actually a revision, it cheated the constitutional design by going through the comparatively easy amendment process. ...

Critics will say that overturning Prop 8 would be unprecedented. And they’re right. But that is only because Prop 8 itself is unprecedented in California — or in any other state. To see why, forget about same-sex marriage for a moment.

SUPPOSE A MAJORITY of the people decide that Mormons are exercising disproportionate influence in the political system. So they change the state constitution to deny Mormons, and Mormons alone, the right to make contributions to ballot fights. Is this an “amendment” or a “revision” to the California Constitution?

Back to Prop 8. Under the California Supreme Court’s marriage decision, marriage is as important for gays as political speech is for Mormons. Additionally, discrimination against gays is as judicially questionable as it would be against religious minorities.

more

Labels: Proposition 8

posted by Eve at 1:07 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

VIEWING GUIDE FOR PROP 8 ARGUMENTS TODAY: Nan Hunter

notes:

As most readers of this blog probably know, the oral argument in the challenge to Prop 8 will be tomorrow - Thursday, March 5 - from 9 am to noon PST, and will be webcast live. If you, like me, don't have a three-hour chunk of free viewing time, you can watch it later at your leisure. ...

Fascinating substance aside, the outcome will turn on a pretty simple numbers game: which side will get to four in counting the justices it can persuade. Last year's decision granting marriage equality to gay couples was decided by a 4-3 majority. It's presumably a safe bet that the three who dissented will vote to uphold Prop 8. So the current case will be won or lost depending on whether the opponents of Prop 8 can hold all four of the justices they persuaded last year: Chief Justice George and Justices Kennard, Moreno, and Werdegar.

Especially in the spotlight will be Justice Kennard, who voted with the majority last year, but who also voted against hearing the petition of the Prop 8 opponents. No one knows whether the latter vote was motivated by a belief that the adoption of Prop 8 was so clearly valid that there was no point in hearing the case or by a belief that the challenge should have been filed first in the lower courts, rather than originally in the state supreme court.

UPDATE: The San Francisco Chronicle agrees, says to watch George and Kennard.

So, since there will (thankfully) be no color commentary by pundits to help us keep score while watching which justice says what during the argument, here is a visual guide to the players....

more

Labels: Proposition 8

posted by Eve at 5:44 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

PASSING PROP 8: Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint

in Politics:

When we signed our firm up to manage the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign to put the traditional definition of marriage—one man, one woman—into California’s constitution, Frank Schubert’s brother told him we had “no chance” to win the campaign. That view reflected conventional wisdom. After all, California is one of the most liberal states in the nation. It’s a state whose Supreme Court had just legalized same-sex marriage. A state where the Democratic nominee for president hasn’t had to aggressively campaign in nearly two decades. A state where millions of young, first-time voters were poised to go to the polls to send a message to George Bush and elect Barack Obama. And a state where for the first time in history, according to a major polling outfit, a majority of voters supported gay marriage.

This is the story of how conventional wisdom was stood on its head and how Proposition 8 was enacted by a 700,000-vote margin.

The Early Campaign Period
Schubert Flint Public Affairs signed onto the Yes on Prop 8 campaign right before the first of what would eventually total 18,000 gay weddings took place after the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. We immediately faced our first important strategic challenge: How to respond to the marriages? We decided to withhold criticism of the same-sex couples who were getting married (after all, they were simply taking advantage of the rights the Court had granted them), and urged all our supporters to refrain from demonstrations, protests or rallies opposing the marriages. This initial strategic positioning, later validated in qualitative and quantitative research, recognized that passing Proposition 8 would depend on our ability to convince voters that same-sex marriage had broader implications for Californians and was not only about the two individuals involved in a committed gay relationship.

more--and really interesting all the way through, regardless of your opinion of the outcome

Labels: Proposition 8

posted by Eve at 1:49 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

MAN SUES L.A. COLLEGE OVER ANTI-GAY-MARRIAGE SPEECH: Associated Press

reports:

A college student has filed a lawsuit saying a public speaking professor berated him in class for making a speech opposing same-sex marriage.

In the federal court suit filed last week, student Jonathan Lopez said that midway through his speech, when he quoted a dictionary definition of marriage and recited a pair of Bible verses, professor John Matteson cut him off and would not allow him to finish. He said Matteson also called him a "fascist bastard."

A student evaluation form included with the lawsuit lacks a score for Lopez's speech, and reads "ask God what your grade is."

more

Labels: freedom of speech, Proposition 8

posted by Eve at 2:46 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

TEACHERS' UNION, MEMBERS AT ODDS ON PROP 8?: National Public Radio

reports:

As California's legal and cultural conflict over same-sex marriage played out this fall, the state's teachers union put up $1.25 million to advocate against the gay marriage ban.

But at the same time, individual public school teachers in the state were giving more money to enact the ban than to defeat it, according to an NPR analysis of Proposition 8 contribution data recently released by the California secretary of state.

Teachers, aides and counselors in California public school systems gave about $2 to support the marriage ban for every $1 they gave to oppose it. The educators gave some $450,000 in individual contributions to advocates supporting the ban and about $210,000 to those opposing it, according to the NPR analysis. ...

On the other side of the debate, the California Teachers Association drew fire for its decision to help finance the opposition to Proposition 8 with $1.25 million of its members' money.

more

Labels: Proposition 8, schools

posted by Eve at 10:28 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT