Update: 10/20/08. For all those who have commented and criticized this post and cited Morris Thurston in response, see this excellent response by Blake Ostler, also prominent LDS attorney. Listed below are the six consequences that the coalition for Proposition 8 has identified are likely to result if the proposition does not pass. In future posts, I will discuss several of these in greater detail:
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 already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)
Therefore, unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage is between any two adults regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
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. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
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.
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.
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 court held that municipal employees may not say: “traditional marriage,” or “family values” because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is “hate speech.”
6. It will cost you money. This 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). Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money – that will be spent on such legal battles.
And think of all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this time. Where will it end?
It’s your children, your grandchildren, your money, and your liberties.
Lets work together to protect them.
Join with us in walking precincts and phoning voters to vote Yes on Prop 8.
Here’s the problem, Guy — most of these “consequences” are false.
Let’s take them one at a time.
1) The entire section of the Education Code reads: “Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.”
There is nothing in the code about teaching anything about defining marriage.
What’s more, California law also states that any parent may remove their child from any class if they disagree with the material being taught.
2) This one is COMPLETELY false. If you read the May 15 Supreme Court decision, the justices say the EXACT OPPOSITE: “[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; 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.”
On top of that, it’s clear that churches have always had the right to discriminate against whoever they wish in terms of marriage. The church doesn’t allow anyone but those with temple recommends to be married in the temple (and until 1979, wouldn’t allow black people to marry in the temple), and Catholics won’t marry divorced people in their churches. Each church will be able to deny marriage to any couple they want.
In the case of the Ocean City, New Jersey beach pavilion owned by the local Methodist church, that facility was not a church but a public space used for dances, concerts, craft fairs and many other non-religious uses. The church chose to discriminate and lost its tax exemption — but only on that building.
3) That Massachusetts case with Catholic Charities had nothing to do with same-sex marriage. It was due to Catholic Charities unwillingness to obey Massachusetts’s anti-discrimination laws.
Besides, adoption agencies will always have the right to deny couples the right to adopt — but only based on their fitness as parents, not their sexuality. Gay couples who do adopt often adopt the toughest cases, the kids no one else will adopt. You would rather the kids with special needs languish in orphanages or foster homes rather than be with two loving dads or moms?
4) This might be true. After all, Bob Jones University had to allow mixed-race couples in student housing if they wanted to maintain their tax-exempt status. However, they could have chosen to forfeit that status and continue to discriminate if they wished.
But if you want public money, you have to obey public laws. Remain fully private and you can discriminate all you like.
5) Ridiculous. First, the minister in Canada was not preaching against same-sex marriage, but fomenting hate in general toward gay people. Besides, we have the First Amendment here. Ever hear of Fred Phelps? The “God Hates Fags” guy? ‘Nuff said.
As far as “family values” being hate speech, let’s see how that holds up on appeal.
6) Also ridiculous. Churches will be no more or less likely to be sued if Prop 8 passes.
I fully honor your right to hold your religious beliefs, but in terms of CIVIL equality, but only so far as it doesn’t impinge on other people’s rights to equal treatment under the law.
Ever read about the landmark case of Loving vs the State of Virginia? Do a google search on that.
At that time, the majority of people in some states in the USA believed that it was wrong for people of different races to marry. In fact it was illegal. But, despite what people thought about it, that darn ol’ Supreme Court got in there and abolished the laws that restricted inter-racial marriages. Overturned the will of the people. Our supreme court judges have a history of meddling in our affairs, don’t they?
The judge that sentenced the Lovings after they were found guilty of violating the states Racial Integrity Act (which banned marriage of a white person to any non-white person) said:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.”
Now, thanks to the Supreme Court, we can’t even vote to re-institute discrimination whether whether we want to or not.
Prop 8 is a direct attack on my family. You are trying to eliminate the right to marry of many of my relatives, friends and neighbors. Gay marriages don’t deny you any rights, and they don’t restrict your freedom. I am pro family. I support family values. My family is all inclusive and recognizes that all people are different. What right do you have to impose your brand of morality on me? Keep your hands off the state constitution.
I appreciate the thoughtful comments from Mistereks.
Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of (and from) association will provide ample protection for churches that are doctrinally opposed to same-sex marriage. You can’t force a minister to marry you and you can’t force a church to host your wedding and that won’t change if Proposition 8 fails, as I hope it will.
I agree with California’s 6 Episcopal Bishops who have said “we are moved to urge voters to vote “No” on Proposition Eight. Jesus calls us to love rather than hate, to give rather than to receive, to live into hope rather than fear. … We believe that continued access to civil marriage for all, regardless of sexual orientation, is consistent with the best principles of our constitutional rights. We believe that this continued access promotes Jesus’ ethic of love, giving, and hope.”
Mistereks – churches and other organizations are ALREADY being sued for this! Doctors cannot refuse service to gays any longer on grounds of religious beliefs. Ministers are being sued for refusing to marry same-sex couples. Even a simple photographer was sued for refusing to photograph a gay couple’s wedding. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?! You claim nothing will happen if this proposition will pass. And yet all around us, California is turning against itself in this battle. What do gay’s have to lose? Only a simple piece of paper stating marriage. They still retain all the rights of a married couple as domestic partners. What does everyone else risk? Their very way of life.
http://conservativeculture.com/2008/05/christian-photographer-guilty-of-refusing-gay-wedding
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/08/18/news/sandiego/z610a19d73f733d1a882574a9005cec65.txt
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/apr/07041905.html
Morris Thurston received his undergraduate degree in political science from BYU and his law degree from Harvard Law School. He recently retired as a senior partner with a global law firm, where he specialized in
litigation and intellectual property law. He is a legal consultant to the Joseph Smith Papers Project, an adjunct professor at BYU Law School and co‐author (with his wife) of the recently‐published book “Breathe Life into Your Life Story: How to Write a Story People Will Want to Read.” He is an active member of the LDS Church.
Here’s what he has to say:
“An anonymously‐authored document titled “Six Consequences the Coalition Has Identified if Proposition 8 Fails” is currently being distributed by a coalition of churches and other organizations in support of Proposition 8, an initiative on the November 2008 California ballot. The intent of Proposition 8 is to overturn the California Supreme Court’s ruling allowing homosexuals to marry.
Most of the arguments contained in “Six Consequences” are either untrue or misleading. The following commentary addresses those arguments and explains how they are based on misinterpretations of law and fact. My intent is to be of service in helping our Church avoid charges of using falsehoods to gain a political victory. Relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church.”
He then goes on to take apart these six misleading “consequences” … please download the PDF and read for yourself:
http://mormonsfor8.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2008-09-responses-to-six-consequences-if-prop-8-fails-9-17-2008.pdf
My concern in the California education code is actually 51933.
(a) School districts may provide comprehensive sexual health education, consisting of age-appropriate instruction, in any kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, using instructors trained in the appropriate courses.
…skip to (7).
(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.
This code leaves it open for schools to teach any age they define as “age-appropriate” and material they deem “appropriate.” And the best line “teach respect for marriage.” How do you teach respect for marriage? Are you tested at the end of the course if you respect same sex marriage? What if you fail? What if there was a code that said schools may teach the existence of a supreme being as seen appropriate? I would want that in there either.
We do have the liberty to take our kids out of school. What expense is that to families? What if you’re a two parent working family, what if the parents can not teach their children at home. What if it’s a one parent household. This is clearly easier said than done.
Governments should have stayed clear of the marriage business years ago. They’re actually telling us (I hope it’s clear l live in California) an advantage to same-sex marriage is more money for the state. They’re making money off this sensitive issue. Marriage is more than about money or a tittle. It’s something sacred I want my children to hold sacred when they decide to Marry.
We’re not attacking, we’re trying to preserve and defend something we beleive to be as old as humans. Please stop throwing the word “hate” out there. I have no hate for gay couples, they can lead their live as they chose. I believe the greatest gift we have is free agency. Gay couples in California already have all the rights married couples have (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). And I would fight for gay couples to have that in other states.
Sarah Asplin, a recent law school graduate and former president of the law students association (2007-08, UC Davis School of law) said the following to TV cameras on the day of her lesbian wedding in Calif. “The decision that gave us the right to marry today in fact was even more sweeping than just giving marriages. What it effectively did was it gave gays and lesbians protection under the law that will extend to other areas of the law such as employment and other contexts and so it is actually an even a bigger deal than it seems on its face. It’s not just about getting married its about all sorts of ways that we can protect people in our community.” Her words confirm a new generation of homosexual activists clearly understands the implications of the Calif. Supreme Court ruling handed down last May allowing gay marriage.
Judging from Ms. Asplin’s comments, if Prop. 8 fails there will be more than 6 consequences and it won’t be long before our freedom will stop at the state line. I fear we have never been closer to seeing our founding father’s words fulfilled when they warned that immorality would bring our freedom to a screeching halt. Please Vote YES on Prop. 8 to protect traditional family values and preserve our freedom.
Christopher N. Sagasaki claims that ministers are being sued for not marrying people? That is ridiculous! The Pastor of the church I grew up in would not marry people who were living together and only married people who had been divorced on a case by case basis.
Catholic Priests often do not marry people of other (even other Christians) faiths to a Catholic. Ministers, Rabbis, etc. have never *had* to marry anybody!
Please, get your facts straight and stop spreading lies and half-truths.
[...] The “Six Consequences”: [...]
Unless otherwise referenced, I researched all of these items via Google:
#1: 2005- David Parker in Massachusetts wanted prior notification of same sex education in his child’s Public School. This was a kindergartner, receiving a book that included homosexuality in marriage, with no prior notice that these subjects would be introduced. What was the School District’s answer? “Same Sex Marriage is legal in Mass., so it’s okay to teach it without notification or consent from parents.” What was his reward for defending his rights as a parent? Check it out, very interesting.
#2: See #’s 4 and 5 below.
#3: March 2006- Boston’s Catholic Charities halt all adoption work. State law would require them to consider same sex couples equally against heterosexual couples. Archbishop Sean O’Malley: “Sadly, we have come to a moment when Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Boston must withdraw from the work of adoptions, in order to exercise the religious freedom that was the prompting for having begun adoptions many years ago”. The article continues, “Gay rights groups criticized the decision”. Hmm, criticized for exercising their right to practice what they preach.
#4: Early 2000’s- Yeshiva University, New York City. 2006- University of Hawaii. 1970’s to 1980’s- Bob Jones University: A private institution chose to reject interracial marriage based on interpretation of Biblical principles. According to Wikipedia, this institution had its tax exempt status revoked by the IRS. It did go back and forth in the courts ending in 1983 at the Supreme Court.
#5: The same Wikipedia article referenced in #4 above mentions the Bob Jones University case as a starting point for grounds to remove tax exempt status from Christian broadcasters who do not support gay rights. Could this affect item #2 as well?
#6: ACLU’s website: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/. Read all of the areas that the ACLU has stated they have and will defend.
Here’s my take: Will these things happen in California if the vote strikes down the effort to amend the state constitution? I hope not, but heck, I don’t know.
I feel that my quick research has discovered a few instances where the consequences identified by the 6 statements HAVE occurred in other places. Maybe it’s a stretch, but I think it could happen in California, too.
It’s really too bad that you don’t really understand that there’s no real connection between same-sex marriage and most of the issues you discuss about. The same jurisprudence that required equal marriage is going to mean that it will be a violation of the California Constitution to treat Registered Partners differently than married couples, even if your bigoted little amendment passes. If you actual believe all of this stuff will happen then you’re pretty dumb. If you think writing bigotry into the Constitution will change the outcome of any of the above things you’re equally stupid.
P.S.- Greg, Wikipedia is a great resource for a lot of things, speculation as to the future direction of 14th Amendment Jurisprudence is not one of them. Also, I’m sure you realize that the Bob Jones decision deals with the Federal Constitution and the (Federal) Civil Rights Acts of 1963. Marriage in California is governed by the California Constitution and California Law. The Rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution cannot be abridged by the California law.
Well I have heard and my grandparents saw all of the things you are talking about when they were taken to the concintration camps in Germany under the Nazi’s. Intered were all the religious persons, h0m0sexuals, Jew’s and many other minorities that didn’t agree with the political views of the Third Riecht.
Respecting the rights of minorities is the way the US Constitution was written. What is good of some is good for all. If you continue to deny rights to one group along will come another group and deny you rights.
The result NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHTS.
What one group has all groups should have or none should have. It cannot be both ways.
Vote NO on Prop 102 in Arizona, Prop 8 in California and Prop 2 in Florida.
Is this the best proponents of prop 8 could come up with? It makes me doubt that there is any legitimate reason to deny marriage to gays.
Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country so I think marriage is doing just fine there. My brother lives in Massachusetts and he says nobody seems to care much, he thought it would be a big deal but it doesn’t seem to be.
Homosexual unions are Fundamentally Different than traditional marriages, even as men and women are fundamentally different from one another (and I’m not just talking body parts). The social dynamics of a heterosexual relationship (coupled with the correct plumbing) comprise a unique union between two individuals. The dynamics of same-gender couples (and accompanying said parts) bespeaks of an entirely different type of social institution. Let’s not confuse the two.
Going down this road would be like saying we are no longer going to have “men” and “women.” We are just going to have “women” (OR “men” if you prefer). Why not, this resolves issues for transgender persons…right? Wrong…I can hear you think it. Why should either group give up their identity? And those specific characteristics that make them Different (although the majority of the body is the same-heart, lungs, eyes, mouth, etc) is what seperates the two. Are they seperate? Yes. Are they Equal? They should be.
The same with homosexual unions. They are uniquely different from heterosexual marriages. The two should not be confused.
Taking this view, with my view of eternal marriage (and same-gender unions being the antithesis of this), the voice of God through his prophets, and the confirmation through the Spirit, I am voting Yes on 8. As a matter of fact, I already have.
The Lord has said that his ways are not our ways nor his thoughts our thoughts. I firmly believe that by not heading the words of the Lord on this matter, there will be major repercussions for our overly sexualized society.
Yes on 8!
how dare you do research!
John:
How are the dynamics of same-sex couples different from that of heterosexual couples? I’ve spent time with plenty of committed couples and families, and I have to say that I have yet to see a difference. Except maybe during football season.
In his rebuttal, Thurston offers no guarantees that the six consequences he allegedly debunks will not happen. He can only tell us what the laws say.
Unfortunately, he fails to take into consideration the interpretation of laws that can and will be made by individuals, whether they be teachers, school administrators or judges.
In essence, what Thurston manages to give us is simply a list of alternate consequences. So the question must be, “what consequences have arisen in other states where same-sex marriage is allowed?”
In those few venues where laws have been passed allowing for same sex marriages, we have already seen some of the consequences. Empirically speaking, the evidence seems to favor the proponents of Proposition 8.
In one example, the laws in Massachusetts do not “require” teachers to teach same-sex marriage, but neither does it prohibit them from doing so. Therefore, it is taught as being equal to traditional marriage in at least one location because school administrators there have interpreted the law as allowing it. And no parental notification is required in the laws before broaching the subject in schools, therefore none is given.
Folks, these are all lies. My church sent out this crap also and it took me a couple weeks of research and contacts to determine it is all lies. An LDS lawyer named Kurtis Kearl has authored what purports to be a “Rebuttal” to my “Commentary on ‘Six Consequences.’” Far right religious leaders need to stop hijacking our faith. The local press was shocked when I shared with them with regards to the same old fear and smear campaigns being again conducted aimed to raise the far rights base to go vote in general as the GOP numbers are depressing as of right now to most conservatives (Washington Post today ran the same editorial).
http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf
And as you can imagine, Kurtis Kearl already had to write a rebuttal to all of the people comng out with non factual claims supporting their ignorant arguments that have no merit – check that out also:
http://kvnuforthepeople.com/?p=3062
Over 40 lawyers and law professors from some of the most prestigious law firms in the USA just signed a document that essentially agrees with everything Thurston said in his rebuttal to the “6 Consequences…” document.
Find it here:
http://www.cachevalleydaily.com/photos/LawProfsProp8Statement.pdf
The 6 Consequences of Prop 8 For the Mormon Church
(Whether the proposition passes or fails)
1.) Members Divided
The church has been weakened from the inside, as the mandate to support Prop 8 has taken a toll on Mormon congregations across the nation, dividing many families and long-time friends. Many church members who are against Prop 8 have felt ostracized, feel disgust that their tithing money is used to support Prop 8, and have felt uncomfortable attending church meetings.
2.) Few Friends, Many Enemies
Ask people of foreign countries what they think of Americans and you will not hear them say many flattering things. Similar to the rest of the world’s view of the United States thanks to Bush’s foreign policies, the Mormon Church will be left with the reality of having few friends and many enemies among non-Mormons and other organizations. One can’t help but feel sorry for the difficulties that future missionaries will face when trying to get people to listen to their message.
3.) Civil Rights – Reputation Worsened
Before the Mormon Church even jumped in to this election, it was already regarded by most outsiders of having an abysmal track record when it came to civil rights because of their history of not granting timely equality to African Americans and women. Pushing so hard on not granting marriage equality to another minority group will worsen this reputation.
4.) Wasted Money
The Mormon Church has spent tens of millions of dollars on the “yes on Prop 8” cause. Much of this money comes from the money that members have paid in. There have been many reports that a large portion of this money went to pay salaries of the few men who ran the Prop 8 campaign and many people feel like this money could have been spent on something more worthwhile like fighting poverty.
5.) Secret Truths Revealed
Before this election, most non-members knew very little about the Mormon Church outside of the Word of Wisdom and its history of polygamy. However, during this election, the casual viewer of popular message boards will learn many false rumors about the Mormon Church. However, they can also learn many of the somewhat secret truths that the Mormon Church doesn’t publicize. Even long-time members may be learning some of the controversial aspects of Mormon history for the first time.
6.) Still No Solutions
Once the dust has settled from this election, the Mormon Church will be left in the same predicament it was in before the election; without any real solutions for its present and future gay members and their families. As the rest of the world moves quickly from a “just being tolerant of gays” mindset to a civilization that accepts gays as complete equals, the Mormon Church will either have to change doctrine or be viewed by others as an even more fringe cult. It makes one wonder whether entering the political arena by pushing Prop 8 is just delaying the inevitable and that these 6 consequences will be the result of a major miscalculation by church leadership.