Annuling the 18,000?

Some of the organized groups supporting the ban on "same-sex marriage" have filed legal briefs asking the California Supreme Court to annul the 18,000 "same-sex marriages" that were performed during the brief interval of time wherein they were legal.

Serious thought about this issue makes me glad I am not a judge. Nevertheless, I feel it correct to apply the same dispassionate analysis to the question that I have to all Prop 8 issues in this blog.

Ban supporters argue that Article 1 Section 7.5 is as clear as it is brief: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This sentence is currently Constitutional law. It's direct and straightforward application directly supports the argument for annulment of the 18,000 same-sex unions.

On the other side...those 36,000 people entered into those unions at a time when it was perfectly legal to do so. Their actions broke no laws when they were taken. I am not a lawyer, but I have friends who are, and they tell me it is quite rare in jurisprudence for a law to be made retroactive.

There may be legal reasons, stratagems, or tactics that compel this request by ban supporters. I can find no statement to that effect, which may be understandable given the current order of battle. Absent that explanation, the request feels vindictive and punitive to me.

Generally, our culture expects victors to act magnanimously, and that is my natural inclination. So why do I feel so conflicted over this issue?

Maybe it's because the battle isn't over yet.

A Tyranny of the Majority?

As the fight over same-sex marriage in California continues, one term I hear thrown around often is "tyranny of the majority". Opponents of Proposition 8 use it to cast same-sex marriage opponents as unjust and oppressive.

"Tyranny" is a strong word. It most often describes government by a single person who illegally seized power and used it in ruthless, harsh and cruel ways to impose his will and maintain his position on those he governed. When listing the great tyrants of history, who questions the qualifications of people like Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Josef Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Hipparchus, etc.?

So, was the vote that passed Proposition 8 tyrannical? Are the millions of voters who said "yes" ruthless, harsh, and cruel? Did they seize power illegally and use to impose their will on those they governed?

I hope you will pardon the rhetoric, but it does make the charge of "tyranny" seem rather absurd.

Voting yes on Prop 8 was no arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power, no despotic abuse of authority. It was the simple exercise of the franchise available to all non-felons over the age of 18 who will bother to register. The election was free and fair, performed in compliance with all applicable laws. Every one of the millions of votes cast had the SAME weight, the same value. Neither side had any unfair advantage; the playing field was level, the referees impartial.

SO, tell me again how casting a "yes" vote for Prop 8 makes me, and the 7 million others like me, tyrants?

As an ultimate test, I ask the opponents of Proposition 8 this hypothetical question: If the election results had gone your way instead of mine, would you accept my stapling of the "tyrant" label to your forehead?

Enough of the slander already.

Tazing Attorney General Moonbeam

I have zero problem with the fact that California's Attorney General, Jerry Brown, has a personal opinion about "same-sex marriage" and the legality of Proposition 8.

I have zero problem with the fact that he is disappointed that Prop 8 passed and that he wishes it hadn't.

I have a huge problem with the fact that he has chosen to violate the oath of his office and use its power to attempt to persuade the California Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8 and nullify the will of the people in a free and legal election.

Prop 8 is no longer Prop 8--it part of the CONSTITUTION of the State of California. Brown's primary legal and moral obligation in the office of AG is to uphold and defend the Constitution. If Jerry Brown can't do that, and chooses instead to pursue a course of public advocacy for his personal opinion, he should have the integrity to resign the office first.

Itoldyaso

I'm not above an "Itoldyaso" when I feel I called the shot sufficiently right. In the face of withering fire from my conservative friends during the campaign, I predicted that Obama would, after running for office from the left, actually govern the country from the center-right.

According to The Politico Network, Mr. Obama has, to date, disappointed and dismayed the far left by surrounding himself with a center-right Cabinet. The national director of the Progressive Democrats of America seems so distressed he sounds like he thinks Obama is pitching a shutout: “He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment.”

Among Obama's recent actions that are heartening (to me, at least):

1. Instead of immediately rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 per year, he now says he will simply let them expire on schedule in 2010.

2. Instead of ending the war on is first day in office, he has stated he will begin to “design a plan for a responsible drawdown.”

3. He as changed his mind about taxing the "windfall" profits of large oil companies (which ought to hearten everyone whose retirement savings are partly invested therein).

Juan Cole, who runs a prominent anti-war blog called Informed Comment, echoed the view I expressed in an earlier post in this blog when he said of Obama, "But overall, my estimation is that he has chosen competence over ideology, and I'm willing to cut him some slack.”

During the campaign, I constantly warned my friends on the right to believe no campaign promise by any candidate. I also said that politicians run on the extremes in the primaries then move toward the center during the campaign. If elected, they govern by orbiting the center where most of the country's citizens actually live, politically speaking.

Of course, the performance of this new government remains to be seen, but I'm genuinely hopeful. So, my conservative friends, all hope is not lost. Yet.

Remember, Itoldyaso.

Just Say No...To Mobs

This full-page ad ad appeared in the New York Times today. It was signed by a number of prominent scholars, politicians, and religious leaders in response to the targeted violence by Proposition 8 opponents against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Click here to learn more about the organization behind the ad and add your name to the list of signatories if you wish.

A Grand Strategy

Fareed Zakaria hits the bulls eye again in this article about the changing world and a compelling need for a new "grand strategy" that is FAR different than any the United States has attempted to execute in the past.

We may still be the lone superpower on the planet, but our waning influence no longer allows us the luxury of acting as though we were.

Zakaria eloquently expresses why the "rise of the rest" of the growing nations, especially, China, India, Russia, Brasil, et. al. now compels us to pursue a world where fully functional alliances and partnerships are the rule instead of the exception.

Want one example? Think about the many hundreds of billions of dollars the federal government is about to throw at our economy to keep it afloat. There are only two ways to accomplish that: either print more money (and fuel hyper-inflation) or sell U.S. bonds and notes to someone. That someone has to be China, which recently passed Japan as the single largest holder of U.S. government debt on the planet. We had better learn to get along with the Chinese.

Highly recommended reading.

A Right to Conscience?

Word out of Washington that in the final days of his presidency, Dubya may expand the right of doctors and other health care workers to refuse to perform any medical procedure that violates their moral conscience. Procedures such as abortion and artificial insemination are at the center of this debate.

Opponents argue that such an expanded law would sacrifice patient care quality on the altar of the doctor's/nurse's/other's religious beliefs. Health care managers argue that an expansion of the law would invite chaos if any health care worker could refuse to perform any part of their job as a conscientious objector.

My take on this debate is purely practical: it seems to me that there must be enough doctors and other health care workers who have no objection to abortion, artificial insemination, or other controversial medical procedures to provide them to anyone who wants one.

I doubt that forcing a doctor to perform a procedure to which he/she has moral objections is good for patient care quality. Whenever I undergo a medical procedure, I want the doctor to be on MY side, rooting for me all the way.

If a patient wants a certain procedure performed, just choose a doctor/hospital who will do it gladly and professionally. Even if you succeed in legally forcing a doctor to act against his/her conscience, why would you trust yourself to his/her care?

Mormons and Guilt

For many people, guilt and religion seem to be joined at the hip. Both the Jewish and Catholic faiths occupy positions of preeminence in the pop culture ratings of guilt factories, but take my word for it--Mormons are probably not far behind.

I have a little problem with that. Allow me to explain.

People of faith are often, by nature, people who care about their own performance relative to religious standards. That is an intrinsically good thing. It can also be a very bad thing when the guilt someone is feeling is false. In my opinion, false guilt is a plague within the Church. It can fill one with negative, debilitating feelings that are not easily resolved. Those feelings can make life miserable and make the sufferer unable to function or serve effectively in the Church.

When it comes to guilt, what is the difference between the genuine item and the fake?

Two things are requisite to invoke feelings of guilt:

1) A moral standard against which actual behavior is measured.
2) A moral compass that performs this measurement and informs our brain and heart of the results.

Almost every sane person of accountable age has a working moral compass. Those who do not (including the very young and the mentally ill) are not held accountable for consequences of their faulty moral compasses. We often refer to this compass as a "conscience", and read about it in Moroni 7:16. "For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God."

If one's moral compass is working as designed, where does false guilt find its root? It rises from the application of a false moral standard.

False moral standards come in many forms, and can produce feelings of guilt that are entirely unnecessary and futile. These false standards can include:

- the arbitrary opinions and expectations we allow others to impose on us
- our self-delusional efforts to create and maintain a "perfect" outward appearance to others
- traditions of our religious culture wrongly interpreted as doctrines or commandments from God

Allowing such false standards to fill us with false guilt is worthy of the rebuke the Lord delivered in D&C 30:1--"...you have feared man and have not relied on me for strength as you ought."

I believe there is one, and only one, legitimate moral standard for behavior for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That standard is obedience to the commandments of God as they are delivered to us by His prophets, seers, and revelators, and administered by the legitimate chain of priesthood authority down to the local level. Doctrine & Covenants 59:21 supports this view: "And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments." The guilt resulting from failure to control one's behavior to conform to this standard is absolutely legitimate, and should become a mainspring for sincere repentance. The Apostle Paul contrasted legitimate guilt with false guilt in his second epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 7 verse 10: "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death."

It seems to me that living in conformity with the one legitimate moral standard we have as members of the Church should be, must be, can only be a full-time job. I submit that any time and effort we spend attempting to satisfy any false standard detracts directly and proportionately from the legitimate process of becoming spiritually mature. And that, it seems to me, is exactly what the Adversary desires.

As we seek to eliminate false guilt and focus our time and energy on achieving legitimate spiritual growth, I believe it is essential to hearken to living prophets. To that end, I offer the following:

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve taught, "The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation."

Elder Russell M. Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve taught, "I hope it goes without saying that guilt is not a proper motivational technique for leaders and teachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We must always motivate through love and sincere appreciation, not by creating guilt...Still there are those who experience some feelings of guilt as a consequence of their service in the Church. These feelings can come when our time and attention are being torn between competing demands and priorities. As mortals, we simply cannot do everything at once. Therefore we must do all things “in wisdom and order” (Mosiah 4:27). Often that will mean temporarily postponing attention to one priority in order to take care of another. Sometimes family demands will require your full attention. Other times professional responsibilities will come first. And there will be times when Church callings will come first. Good balance comes in doing things in a timely way and in not procrastinating our preparation or waiting to fulfill our responsibilities until the last minute."

Finally, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf taught, "True repentance blesses our lives with the effects of the Atonement: we feel God’s forgiveness and His peace, and our guilt and sorrow are lifted away; we enjoy the influence of the Spirit in greater abundance; and we are better prepared to live with our Heavenly Father. Once we have truly repented, Christ will take away the burden of guilt for our sins."

Pursuing legitimate spiritual growth is far too important for any of us to waste any time trifling with false guilt based on false standards.

As always, God provides us with genuine love and value while the Adversary offers only a shadow and a sham. May we turn unto true light and life.

El Coyote Update

This was the scene at the El Coyote Mexican Cafe in Los Angeles shortly after Prop 8 passed. Protesters, angered by the results of the free and fair election, took it upon themselves to try to deny the restaurant's owners and its 89 workers (many of whom are gay) a living because one of the owners exercised her legal right to vote and to contribute a whopping $100 to a political cause.

Well...this is the scene now:


The restaurant, family owned and operated since 1931, is still in business. My son and his friend joined a group for dinner there on Saturday night. They reported that the place was PACKED, the food was delicious, and that there were a number of men sitting at tables silently smiling into each others eyes.

Oh, and for the record, my son's dinner companion is indubitably FEMALE. :)

A Bit of Wisdom from Babylon

From Dale Carpenter, a No on 8 supporter, writing at "The Volokh Conspiracy":

"Here's my advice to righteously furious gay-marriage supporters: Stop the focus on the Mormon Church. Stop it now. We just lost a ballot fight in which we were falsely but effectively portrayed as attacking religion. So now some of us attack a religion? People were warned that churches would lose their tax-exempt status, which was untrue. So now we have (frivolous) calls for the Mormon Church to lose its tax-exempt status? It's rather selective indignation, anyway, since lots of demographic groups gave us Prop 8 in different ways — some with money and others with votes. I understand the frustration, but this particular expression of it is wrong and counter-productive."

Obama's Dream Cabinet

Jacob Weisberg, writing in Slate.com, has captured my thoughts, hopes and dreams about the dominant personality traits within an Obama administration.

I'm an unabashed elitist when it comes to political power in the Executive Branch, and it's clear that Weisberg is too. I'm beyond tired of having a president who sounds like a ten year-old at every (rare) press conference, and who values personal loyalty above brains, ability, and character.

I am optimistic that Obama has the intellectual firepower and leadership skills to feel comfortable filling his cabinet with very smart people who will not check their reasoned, principled positions at the door.

If Obama starts "rewarding friends and backers, playing congressional politics, seeking diversity, and appeasing industry and interest groups", his stock will go down with me.

Sir Elton Weighs In

Elton John had an interesting comment on California's recent Prop 8 battle. Speaking of his long-time partner, John said:

"We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage."

"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.

"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

Now, if we can just get Cher to say the same thing, maybe all the fuss could end. :)

Top Mormon Leaders Call for Civility in Public Discourse

Today, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released the following statement regarding California Proposition 8 and the election aftermath.

SALT LAKE CITY 14 November 2008 Five months ago, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent a letter to members of the Church in California, encouraging them to join the millions of other Californians from many religious denominations, ethnic groups and political persuasions in a broad coalition to defend marriage as it has been defined for millennia.

During the election campaign, both sides of the argument on Proposition 8 had ample opportunities to express their viewpoint. The result was conclusively in favor of traditional marriage. More than 40 states in the United States have now voted to protect traditional marriage, either directly or through their elected representatives.

Today the First Presidency issued this statement about the democratic process:

"Since the people of California voted to reaffirm the sanctity of traditional marriage between a man and a woman on November 4, 2008, places of worship have been targeted by opponents of Proposition 8 with demonstrations and, in some cases, vandalism. People of faith have been intimidated for simply exercising their democratic rights. These are not actions that are worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation. The end of a free and fair election should not be the beginning of a hostile response in America.

The Church is keenly aware of the differences of opinion on this difficult and sensitive matter. The reasons for this principled stand in defense of marriage have already been articulated elsewhere. However, some of what we have seen since Californians voted to pass Proposition 8 has been deeply disappointing.

Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues. People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal. Efforts to force citizens out of public discussion should be deplored by people of goodwill everywhere.

We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few that are further polarizing our communities and urge them to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other."

"Gay Rights" and "Civil Rights"--Same Thing?

Many opponents of Proposition 8 have characterized the current "gay rights" movement as being virtually identical the the civil rights movement that began in the 60s involving Americans of African heritage. Are they really the same thing? I think this is an important question, because if they are then I've got some serious soul searching to do.

The struggle for African American civil rights sought to bring basic personal protections to people who had never had them before. We're talking about things like being able to drink from a public water fountain, eat lunch at a diner, sit in any seat on a bus, getting an education at a public school, voting, getting a job, even walking down the street without getting firehosed.

Prop 8 had nothing to do with fundamental personal rights like those mentioned above. "Gay" people have long enjoyed the same fundamental personal rights anyone else does. And when it comes to civil rights for "gay" couples, the law (specifically, the California Domestic Partnership Act of 2005) declares that registered same-sex domestic partnerships shall have civil rights that are absolutely equal to those granted heterosexual marriages. And those rights are eminently enforceable in the courts.

So, opposing Prop 8 had nothing to do with obtaining new civil rights. How can you obtain something you already have?

Opposing Prop 8 WAS a demand to society for a new privilege, not a new right. That new privilege was redefining the word "marriage" to include the behavioral choices of "gay" people.

Who decides what the legal meaning of a word that affects our entire society should be? How can you decide such a question fairly? It seems to me the only possible way to do that is by voting. The most fundamental concept of governing in our democratic republic is "the consent of the governed".

A civil right is a vastly different thing than the definition of a word. To me, "gay" rights is almost a misnomer. I am not aware of any civil right I now have under California law that a "gay" person does not also have.

California law says that "domestic partnerships" and "marriages" have identical civil rights. The fact that my "domestic partnership" is legally called a "marriage" does not affect any "gay" couple's civil rights in any way. Nor does it grant me any new or different rights beyond those "gay" couples already have.

In my opinion, equating the Prop 8 fight with the civil rights movement that began in the 60s is a canard. I'll buy the argument that the Prop 8 fight was about respect, but I am not convinced it was ever about rights.

A Religulous Veneer

Just who (or what) is Bill Maher and why all the blogosphere buzz over his movie, "Religulous"?

Many people of faith are up in arms over the movie because of its portrayal of religion as something for the weak minded. On the other hand, secularists, atheists, agnostics and Dawkins/Hitchens fans are rallying to use this new "weapon" Maher has created in the debate over religion.

Even cursory searches turn up all sorts of opinions on Maher. The anti-religion side thinks they have a new lion...until someone makes a plausible case that Maher's arguments are simplistic, even childish, and turns up a 2002 interview in which Maher says he does believe in some kind of God but not in organized religion. On the other side, many religionists are thinking (but not saying aloud) that Maher's "expose" of all religions is valid except for the religion to which they happen to belong.

Both sides may be missing a couple of important points:

1) Maher's tactic in the movie was clear: find the easy, low-hanging targets, ambush them with a camera and microphone, then mock them. Not exactly a scholarly approach, which brings me to my second point.

2) Bill Maher is no more a philosopher than Rush Limbaugh is a politician. Bill Maher is an entertainer with a profit motive who knows how to make money by being controversial.

Maher is a satirist, and that is no crime. I think, as many others do, that there is much in organized religion that is easily mockable (yes, even some aspects of my own religious culture). But no one should treat Maher's work as a serious discussion of the issues. Getting all worked up over "Religulous" is a rather disproportionate response, kind of like putting on a Kevlar vest for a squirt gun fight.

And Bill? Well, Bill is laughing all the way to the bank.

Legal Challenges to Prop 8

If you want to understand the basics of the current legal challenge to Prop 8's passage, read on.

Article 18 of the California state Constitution provides that the Constitution can be changed either by "amendment" or by "revision". An amendment may be enacted by initiative with a majority vote, as Prop 8 was. A revision must first be passed by two-thirds of the Legislature before being submitted to the voters.

Why two different ways? The revision method is, under case law, reserved for a matter that "substantially alters the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution." Opponents of Prop 8 are arguing the Prop 8 did precisely that.

The court will decide.

The prima facie case can appear quite reasonable to a non-lawyer. But consider this: the court has repeatedly taken a VERY narrow view of the definition of a "revision". Amendment initiatives as dramatic as Prop 13 (limited property tax rates), Prop 140 (imposed legislative term limits), and the initiative that reinstated the death penalty in 1972 all failed to qualify as "revisions" in the eyes of the court. Especially noteworthy is the fact that the 1972 death penalty amendment directly limited the judiciary's power to declare fundamental rights.

There are also ample precedents in other states where the the court has rejected the type of challenge Prop 8 opponents are now presenting. The ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, “…only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” The rejection by the Court of Appeals was unanimous. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) --- P.3d----, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).

I am no lawyer, but I do know lawyers. None of them I have asked about this issue think the Prop 8 opponents have much of a chance of winning this legal challenge.

As the saying goes, "The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

What About the 18,000?

Indeed, what will happen to the 18,000 same-sex couples who were married during the brief period when it was legal for them to do so?

I suppose a court will ultimately decide what will happen. Some of the salient facts the court will, no doubt, consider are:

1. These people acted in good faith and in compliance with the law that was enforceable at the time of their marriage.

2. Proposition 8 carried no provision for retroactive application.

3. It is extremely rare for a court to apply a new law retroactively unless it contains a specific retroactivity clause.

I believe in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law. If I disagree strongly with a law, I may choose to become involved in trying to change it through legal means. But as long as it is the law, it is the law.

I will support whatever the appropriate court decides, even though I think some of the consequences of allowing those 18,000 marriages to stand would be detrimental to our society.

Prop 8 Protests--The Gift That Keeps on Giving

I have a sincere question: How do the Prop 8 protesters think their actions are going to help their cause?

Unless the protests are nothing more than a tantrum outlet for the negative feelings Prop 8's victory gave them, they must see some point or purpose in them. I'm trying to understand what that point or purpose is.

Is it to send a message that they are deeply hurt, saddened and angry over the election results? Well, I think the rest of the world pretty much had that figured out already. No rocket science there.

Is to send a message that they are not about to stop their fight for same-sex marriage rights? Well, I think the rest of the world pretty much had that figured out already, too. Anyone with a brain, anyway.

Are the protesters trying to gather some more converts to their cause? If so, maybe they should consider how attractive they appear on television and in the newspaper. The scenes in the media are so reminiscent of the 60s...and tend to give the "movement" that same cachet: a bunch of people who march, chant, and scream because they can't figure out an effective way to accomplish their goal. Some photos show protesters who appear to be rabidly wide-eyed and foamy-mouthed, although I imagine few of them actually are. But rabid people make for interesting news photos that sell more newspapers.

Then, consider the bonus public relations points you get for appearing to attack a church. Do you really think the centrist votes you need to convert in the next electoral challenge are going to be sympathetic to that kind of behavior?

How about this blog post on the L.A Times website from Tim B. on November 5: "I live in West Hollywood and was ruffed up by this mob on the way home from work tonight. My car was engulfed, I was shoved, my car hit and the mob rocked my car trying to tip it. I support equal rights for everyone, voted no on prop 8, BUT this kind of behavior does not foster understanding." I wonder if Tim B. will vote with you next time.

The smarter, cooler heads who led the official No on 8 Campaign are right: “We achieve nothing if we isolate the people who did not stand with us in this fight. We only further divide our state if we attempt to blame people of faith, African American voters, rural communities and others for this loss."

Oh, and one more suggestion. Get a spellchecker for those protest signs.

Blaming the Mormons for Prop 8?

The following facts might turn your head if you blame the Mormon church for the passage of Prop 8 in California:

1. Mormons make up about 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 Mormons out of a total population of approximately 34 million.

2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the "yes" vote. If one estimates that 250,000 Mormons are registered voters (the rest being children). If every single Mormon voter in California votes yes, they made up approximately 4.4% of the Yes vote and 2.2% of the total Proposition 8 vote. PROP 8's MARGIN OF VICTORY WAS OVER 500,000 VOTES. IF EVERY MORMON VOTER HAD STAYED HOME FROM THE POLLS, PROP 8 STILL WOULD HAVE PASSED EASILY.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated not one dime to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right, donated whatever they felt like donating.

4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million. The No campaign enjoyed a substantial money advantage.

5. African Americans in California overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. Haven't read about any protests at the NAACP offices.

6. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8. Are protesters headed to the MALDEF offices next?

7. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims – all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members. The Knights of Columbus were primary contributors to the Yes campaign. Are the protesters planning to send a delegation to the Vatican to let Pope know how they feel?

8. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have repeatedly asked members to treat others with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.

9. The Mormon church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church as always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it judges to be moral issues.

10. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse.

The fact is, we simply did what Americans do – we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.

Court Challenges to Proposition 8 Victory

My son drew my attention to the following statement, issued today by the general counsel for Protect Marriage.com. It is worth repeating here:

Statement By Andrew Pugno, General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com
November 05, 2008
Contact: (916) 608-3065
By Andy Pugno

“The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8.

This is the second time that California voters have acted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters’ decision.

The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity. Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself.

The right to amend California’s Constitution is not granted to the People, it is reserved by the People. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the reserved power of the People to use the initiative process to amend the Constitution. For example, when the Rose Bird Court struck down the death penalty as a violation of fundamental state constitutional rights, the People disagreed, and in the exercise of their sovereign power reversed that interpretation of their Constitution through the initiative-amendment process. Even a liberal jurist who vehemently disagreed with the People’s decision on the death penalty, Justice Stanley Mosk, nevertheless acknowledged the People’s authority to decide the issue through the initiative-amendment process.

It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, “…only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” The Court of Appeals of Oregon unanimously rejected the ACLU’s “revision” claim. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) --- P.3d----, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).

The coalition that has worked so hard for the past year to enact Proposition 8 will vigorously defend the People’s decision against this unfortunate challenge by groups who, having lost in the court of public opinion, now turn to courts of law to pursue their agenda.”