However, something else occurred on November 4th, 2008. A Constitution was amended to single out and TAKE RIGHTS AWAY from a group of people. This did not happen in Iraq, Iran, North Korea or the Sudan or any of the most repressive regimes this world knows. This happened in California in our United States. Of this step backwards we should be profoundly ashamed and embarrassed.
There are several reasons this was wrong, there are several reasons to doubt the legitimacy, even the legality of this new amendment that is now an ugly scar on our California Constitution... There is the irony that the religious organizations that funded the Pro-Proposition 8 campaign chose to use their money to perpetuate blatant lies. (Isn't lying one of the big "thou shalt nots.." in the Ten Commandments?? ) If this is something that people feel compelled to vote against because they believe that the Bible is to be used as a weapon, something with which to judge, then fine. But consider this quote:
"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."
It was one of the arguments used by the Defendants in a case called Loving v. Virginia in 1967 to try to defend the anti-miscegenation (prohibiting interracial marriage) laws in this country. See, they used scripture and Biblical arguments to fight that "abomination" too. (see Genesis 28:1, Leviticus 19:19, Deuteronomy 7:2-3; Jeremiah 13:23...now you may look at these and find them ridiculous foundations for the anti-miscegenation cause...but they were used because religious leaders interpreted them as prohibiting interracial marriage)
Legally speaking, marriage is a contract. Denying two consenting adults the right to enter into that contract due to their gender is discrimination and it goes against the Constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded.
Marriage is a sacrament in the church and as such the church has the right to refuse to recognize a gay marriage in the church. And the church will not lose its 501(c)(3) tax exempt status if it does not recognize gay marriage. Separation of church and state protects the church (the citizens)more than it protects the state. That is a function of how the Constitution was drafted - to protect the citizens from their government - and in the Constitution there exists the Establishment Clause and there exists the 1st amendment - which ensure that (1) the government shall not establish a religion and (2) people in this country are free to worship as they see fit. If the IRS revoked tax exempt status from a church for refusing to recognize gay marriage - it would violate these tenants of our Constitution...and I would be just as outraged at that injustice as I am at the one the citizens of California have chosen to visit upon a minority group in an action that should - in this day and age - be unthinkable.
That said, the same separation between church and state protects citizens of this country from having a religion and religious beliefs - even those of the majority - forced upon them.
I won't even go into the lies that were perpetuated about "children being forced to learn about gay marriage in school" using distorted and misrepresented examples from Massachusetts.
It is a sad, sad day when religious organizations that preach love, understanding, and integrity would feel it necessary to desseminate lies toward the purposes of denying a group of people rights. Why could these institutions not be honest in their reasons for opposing gay marriage rather than disseminate lies? Why not just run commercials that tell the truth about their beliefs and opposition - that some religions believe that this lifestyle is an abomination and that they believe God has said it is a sin? Why not be honest?
And if we are amending the Constitution to protect marriage - then why not amend the Constitution to refuse recognition of marriages where one spouse has committed adultery either before marriage or outside of the marriage? Wouldn't that actually protect marriage? Why not have that amendment on the next ballot? It's even in the Ten Commandments... that may be a harder sell though wouldn't it - because it would be seen as extremist, intolerant and theocratic... hmmm...
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
- Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia
Oh, I know the argument here - that the "fundamental to our very existence" takes gay marriage out of the equasion b/c they can not procreate naturally. By that logic though, couples unable to bear children for biological reasons should not be able to marry...
- Mildred Loving July, 2007
"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.
- Mildred Loving July, 2007
