Proposition 8: Legal Ramifications

Here you go, Marissa!

Here are some examples of the legal ramifications possible if Proposition 8 is NOT passed. These are just a smattering of what I have read. These examples are true stories which illustrate how the government is already interfering with our rights of free speech and religious freedom. Please note that, in these examples, churches, schools, and individuals are not violating hate speech laws or even insulting those who choose homosexual relations. These incidents involve people who are simply expressing their opinions about a behavior. Stories like these show how even disagreeing with the ACT of homosexuality could cost you a fortune or put you in jail.

From “When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash” by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

“Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.” www.npr.org

In other words, adoption agencies who believe children should be raised by both a mother and a father will have to change their policies or close their doors; religious or other private schools that do not allow same-sex couples will loose funding, or close their doors; and anyone who disagrees with homosexuality could lose their employment or be sued.

And then of course there are the changes you’ve probably already heard:

"Because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners." www.protectmarriage.com

"By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” (Polygamy being the most likely.) www.protectmarriage.com www.weeklystandard.com

Even if you don't believe gay marriage is wrong, do you really want your tax dollars going to frivolous law suits against individuals just trying to practice their religion? Each of the religions supporting Proposition 8 have made it clear to their congregations that their involvement on this issue, "neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people." www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom

Though gay marriage advocates will tell you same-sex marriage won't affect you, it inevitably will. Even if it doesn't affect you personally, there are people you know who will suffer (like me) if this proposition is not passed. A yes on 8 does not take anything away from those who wish to practice homosexuality, but a no on 8 will negative consequences on traditional marriages, children, and our freedoms.

Yes on 8!

Furthermore, if you don't live in California, and think this Proposition doesn’t affect you, think again. Lynn Wardle, Executive Council of the International Society of Family Law explains, "It is the open strategy of same-sex marriage advocates to use federal law to force all states to recognize same-sex marriage if any state legalizes same-sex marriage and to impose same-sex marriage upon federal programs," He said, "It is a very serious matter to propose to use federal authority to force unwilling states to recognize same-sex marriage. This presents a threat to the authority of each state to regulate family relations." www.magazine.byu.edu

Thanks for reading!