More Evidence of the Consequences of Same-Sex Marriage

Parker v. Hurley (Massachusetts case):
Second graders in public school were taught about a prince marrying another prince. Parents sued the school for the right to be notified and the right to pull their children out of the instruction. Court ruled that parents had no legal right to object.

(It's odd that a school nurse can't even administer so much as an aspirin without a signed parental permission, but the parents' permission isn't only not required, the parents can't even object when their children are taught about same sex marriage in school.)

(Consider this: if children are forced to learn about same-sex marriage in schools, what will be taught when those children reach the age at which sex education classes are administered?)

North Coast Women's Care Medical Group v. San Diego County Superior Court (California):
A same-sex couple (women) sued a San Diego fertility clinic when a doctor refused to perform artificial insemination on one of the women because of the doctor's Christian beliefs. Even though there was another doctor willing to perform this elective procedure, the court ruled that anti-discrimination laws are more important than religious beliefs.

Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association, stated, "This case was never about discrimination against patients on the basis of sexual choices; it was about discrimination against healthcare professionals on the basis of their sincerely held ethical standards."

"Physicians of course must treat all patients with compassion and respect, regardless of the belief systems or sexual norms of the patients," Stevens said. "But tolerance is a two-way street: we must also respect the right of healthcare professionals to make decisions based on ethical standards. ... Even the American Medical Association officially affirms that 'neither physician, hospital, nor hospital personnel shall be required to perform any act violative of personally held moral principles.'"

Good News Employees Association v. Hicks (California):
The City of Oakland’s Gay-Straight Employees Alliance was openly allowed to attack the Bible and Christian beliefs in widespread city emails. When other employees attempted to refute the attack, they were threatened with immediate termination.

(This is a perfect example of the “tyranny of tolerance,” or the “paradox of tolerance” where one side demands that their behavior be tolerated and anyone opposed to it is not tolerated—they are sued or threatened with retaliation)

FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES, THIS PROPOSITION TO LIMIT MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA TO A MAN AND A WOMAN DOES NOT DEPRIVE THEM OF RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA!!! TOLERANCE IS SHOWN FOR THEIR LIFESTYLE THROUGH THE GUARANTEE THAT DOMESTIC PARTNERS WILL ENJOY ALL THE SAME “RIGHTS, PROTECTIONS, AND BENEFITS” AS MARRIED SPOUSES (Cal Family Code 297.5). TOLERANCE IS NOT SHOWN, HOWEVER, FOR THOSE WHO OPPOSE THIS LIFESTYLE! PROP 8 PROTECTS MORE THAN JUST MARRIAGE—IT PROTECTS THE FIRST AMENDMENT’S GUARANTEE OF FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, FREE SPEECH, AND FURTHER PROTECTS VALUABLE PARENTAL RIGHTS.

THINK ABOUT IT.

Proposition 8: Balance of Rights

Below is an analysis of some of the the actual legal rights that will be changed/affected as a consequence of Prop 8. Because of formatting limitations, it will be posted in several comments. I have not included “marriage” as a right itself for two reasons--(a) marriage has never been a civil or legal right in and of itself, and (b) it leads to circular reasoning; a fight for marriage is really a fight for the underlying bundle of rights, and part of that bundle of rights is what is addressed here.

The rights discussed below are those that are being materially affected because of the same-sex marriage issue. Some of the instances referred to have taken place in California; others are from Canada and Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legalized for longer than it has here. The experience there is very instructive of what follows changing the traditional definition of marriage.

Legal rights affected for same-sex couples in California if Prop 8 passes:

None. Domestic partners already “shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses in California. This is codified in the California Family Code section 297.5. No substantive legal rights will be granted to domestic partners in California if they are able to marry that they did not already have under Family Code 297.5. The phrase “same rights, protections and benefits” is pretty straight forward.

Some of the legal rights abridged/damaged/eliminated to everyone in California if Prop 8 fails (right to free speech, right to free exercise of religion, parental rights):

Freedom of Speech

This one is huge. The First Amendment to the Constitution grants certain freedoms against reprisal for what a person says. This is limited by the “hate speech” doctrine. Words that constitute “hate speech” (which has a constantly moving definition) or “fighting words” do not receive unqualified constitutional protection, or any protection at all in some cases. There have already been court cases in California abridging in material ways our constitutional freedom of speech as a result of the California Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal. For example, municipal employees cannot use the terms “traditional marriage” or “family values” when referring to marriage between a man and a woman. A court in California held that this would constitute hate speech, and municipal (and other government) employees can be sued for saying them. This is not just about being careful with what we say! To not even be able to say “traditional family” is just an example of the forthcoming dramatic and material attacks on freedom of speech. Since the issue is so new in California, this is only the beginning. If Prop 8 fails, more and more inoffensive phrases that have been part of American society since it was founded will be classified as “hate speech” and one of the great freedoms that makes America “America” will be further weakened. This is also an example of the paradox of tolerance than the opposition to Prop 8 espouses; the arguments against Prop 8 demand tolerance, but as we can already see with court decisions regarding free speech, this position does not grant tolerance of its own. This paradox says, “you must be tolerant of my lifestyle choice by allowing me to change the definition of marriage (which is about much more than just words), but I won't be tolerant of you when you express in words alone your own beliefs and values. I'll sue you.”

Right to Free Exercise of Religion

Whether or not a person is religious, as an American citizen or resident that person must appreciate just how important this issue is to our country. It was THE compelling reason behind the colonization and founding of this country! The inability to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience was what drove the pilgrims to leave Europe and come to this continent. Legalization of same-sex marriage severely erodes the right to the free worship of religion secured in the Constitution. To be clear, the constitutional cases that have addressed Freedom of Religion have distilled the doctrine essentially to unqualified protection of beliefs, but not of practices; some practices (like smoking peyote, animal sacrifice) are not protected. What is threated by the legalization of same-sex marriage is the ability to preach within a person's congregation what that person believes—no practices involved!!!

In Canada, a preacher was already prosecuted for preaching that homosexual practices were contrary to God's will. With what is already happening to freedom of speech, it is just a matter of time until this restriction on religion will also start hedging in this freedom in California. It gets worse. In essence, part of what the 5^th amendment does is guarantee the protections of the Constitution to the people and guarantee the government won't do anything to abridge them. A private person is not subject to the same standards; for example, a private person or organization can discriminate in their hiring practices with respect to age, gender, height, weight, whatever, whereas the government cannot, nor can an entity whose actions constitute governmental action. Whether or not the government is acting is a pretty liberal matter—when a private entity (person, organization, whatever) with even very limited types of government sponsorship takes an action, it can be said that the government has acted and consequently that private person or entity is held to the restrictions on the government.

This is where freedom of religion is seriously threatened by legalization of same-sex marriage: most churches are tax-exempt organizations; they have been granted exemption from taxes because the State of California and the Internal Revenue Service have determined that their operations are of a type that the government wishes to encourage through this exemption. This exemption leads to the legal argument (which has been successful before) that actions of tax-exempt entities should constitute the actions of the government, or that tax-exempt organizations should be held to the same standard as governmental entities. Under this argument, a church that is a tax-exempt organization, or a charity that has been granted tax exempt status, would not be able to preach according to its beliefs (in the case of the church) or conduct its charitable operation (in the case of a charity) in a way that spoke out against homosexual behaviors or practices. If a church that has a tax-exemption (and there are TONS; your family or your family's ancestors were probably members of one of these) says same-sex marriage is wrong, they can be sued and/or prosecuted for hate speech. Being tolerant of a person's lifestyle choice is one thing (which is why California allows for domestic partnerships and grants them the “SAME RIGHTS” as married spouses), but giving up the right to worship as you choose, to preach what you believe, in the name of “tolerance” or not being “discriminatory” is a whole different animal altogether. In fact, it makes tolerance a one-way street, which isn't consistent with the definition of tolerance at all.

The pilgrims who came over to America would climb out of their graves, die again, and then roll over if they could see what was becoming of the religious freedom they prized so highly in the nation they formed. And the threats identified above are only a minimal sampling of the multiple threats to the right to the free exercise of religion that have already manifested themselves in Massachusetts and Canada, and now in California.

Parental Rights

It has been asserted that the “children will be taught in schools that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage” argument has been debunked. The California Education Code section 51890 requires that public schools beginning in kindergarten must teach as part of their health education program about “Family health and child development, including the legal and

financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” Under this law, gay marriage would have to be placed on equal footing with traditional marriage. When school officials show up on the TV in commercials saying that children won't really have to be taught about gay marriage, they are making an empty promise. A law requiring it is already on the books; if the curriculum hasn't had time to add a section on same-sex marriage, or if the school systems are not uniformly following the law, that is a different issue entirely. For a school official to promise otherwise is to promise that the law will not be followed and that's not something you can count on. Especially not when things like the field trip in San Fran are taking place: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/first-graders-taken-san-francisco/story.aspx?guid={BE66F84A-F38F-4858-9A7B-DF325F3AC9A0}&dist=hppr.

The parental rights threat has already materialized in Massachusetts. http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713. Parents found out their daughter was being taught with same-sex marriage materials (a book about a child and two dads), and they asked that they be notified in advance and given the right to opt out of this type of teaching. They were refused. When the dad went to the school and said he wasn't going to leave until he was given an assurance of prior notice and a chance to opt his daughter out of that instruction, he was arrested.

This is an enormous abridgment of parental rights! It says, “your child will be taught this, you have no right to know about it beforehand, and you have no right to take your child out of it.” Where is the tolerance for parents' wishes and rights to direct their child's own education? Again, tolerance is not a one-way street!

The law regarding education on marriage is on the books in California. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell says, "I've seen the spots on the TV, and (legalized gay marriage) just isn't going to require any kind of teaching of personal relationships or lifestyle. That's just not an accurate statement or portrayal." But all public schools in California are subject to the California Education Code, and this Code requires children as early as kindergarten to be taught about marriage relationships; whether the provisions are being enforced or not is not relevant as long as the provisions are in force (still good law). How comfortable would you feel if someone encouraged you to participate in some behavior which was “technically illegal” but the law “wasn't being enforced”? And if same-sex marriage is legal and California Education Code 51890 stays on the books, there is nothing to stop more teachers from taking their kids on field trips to witness same-sex weddings. And parental rights to object to this or to be notified beforehand are in serious jeopardy, if they still exist at all.

The Balance:

Since domestic partnerships are already guaranteed all the “same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses, the fight to keep same-sex marriage is not about “rights.” It is about social acceptance and endorsement of this lifestyle.

The rights that will be further threated and eroded if same-sex marriage is legal include (but are NOT limited to) the right to free speech, the right to free exercise of religion, and valuable parental rights. Weighed in the balance, in terms of substantive legal rights, a YES vote on Prop 8 does far more to protect Californian's rights than it does to harm them. Domestic partnerships would maintain the “same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses, and this is guaranteed by California law.

Remember, tolerance is a two way street. As has been stated much more eloquently by a respected and accomplished legal scholar, “Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination." (Dallin H. Oaks, former dean of the Chicago Law School and former Justice of the Utah Supreme Court.)