If Proposition 8 Fails

The Coalition behind Proposition 8 has published six consequences it asserts will happen if the voters reject Prop 8:

1. "Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage."

The California Education Code section 51890 does require that "public school...pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of...marriage and parenthood..." It seems this language will result in children being taught that same-sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage, and to that I am unalterably opposed. The Coalition got this one right.

2. "Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public."

Section D, page 117 of the California Supreme Court Majority Opinion, as published on the court's website, does say, "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)72." Since I am not an attorney, I am not sure what that may eventually mean, though it does not seem to me to indemnify any church from a lawsuit of any kind. As a layman, it seems to me probable that someone will attempt to sue churches over this issue. Absent evidence to the contrary, I agree with the Coalition on this one.

3. "Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there."

The Catholic Charities statement is a fact. Apparently, Massachusetts law required them to place children with same-sex couples. I do not know of any such law in California, but Massachusetts is clearly a precedent and the slope seems very slippery to me. I am unalterably opposed to placing children for adoption by same-sex couples.

4. "Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits."

This statement is believable to me. If such requirements were to occur, they would violate the constitutionally protected freedom of religion.

5. "Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California held that municipal employees may not say: "traditional marriage" or "family values" because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is 'hate speech'."

You can read about the referenced California case here, and yes, it was the Ninth Circuit. The case is a narrow one applied to municipal employees acting in their official capacity. Apparently, the case has been appealed upward. Again, I am not a lawyer, but if saying the words, "traditional family" or "family values" makes me a criminal, guilty as charged.

6. "It will cost you money. The change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g. photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors cannot now refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors).

I may be a bit neanderthal here, but I think the choice to refuse an elective service to anyone should be a right of the provider. However, I do have difficulty seeing how defending such suits will cost ME money. Once I give money to the Church, that money is no longer mine, but the Church's to do with as it thinks best. I generally don't give money to the Church with preconditions.

I think the Coalition is largely on target in its views in this piece. I hope the Coalition will take the high road in this campaign. Though I think I understand the Church's decision to join the Coalition, surrendering control of Church resources makes me nervous. Certain campaign tactics ought to be beneath any church-funded campaign, including name calling, lying, threatening, or fear mongering. The Church's official statements on this issue have been impeccably, rationally, and respectfully expressed and, for that, I am deeply relieved and thankful.

I am not sure I would want to remain a citizen of California should Prop 8 fail.