Proposition 8

I would like to discuss some of the arguments in support of Proposition 8. Proposition 8 is a measure going on the California ballot which, if it passes, will overturn the current law allowing same-sex marriages. This post is based on the arguments in the video found here.


I feel this is a very important issue in the upcoming election, so I have addressed each point that is made in the video. I want to expose this video for the complete lie that it is, with the hopes that someone might be able to see through the false claims and make an informed opinion. My commentary follows each point.


“If Proposition 8 fails, there’s a whole bunch of consequences. Did you know that churches that rent out their facilities for marriages could be forced to allow same sex marriages on their properties?”

The “forcing” of churches to allow same sex marriages on their property would only occur if churches were already renting out their property. If this did happen, it would only be as a result of current state anti-discriminatory laws that prohibit the refusal of services based on sexual orientation, not based on the passing or failing of Proposition 8. As it is, there have been no court cases one way or the other, so the argument is purely speculative. Churches that do not rent out their facilities will not be affected at all by Proposition 8.

Religious and state marriages are two different entities. Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists all enjoy the right to marriage, both religious and state-recognized. Is there a problem with Christian churches being forced to marry Muslims on their property? Have Muslim Mosques been forced to allow atheists to marry? People of all different spectrums of life are able to share the right to marriage without conflicting with the beliefs and values of others. Why should same sex marriage be any different?

“Because the California Supreme Court has made same sex marriage a fundamental right, legal defenses based on religious freedoms are less likely to succeed.”

Again, this argument is purely speculative. The video provides no examples of this happening since the imposition of gay marriage. And what religious freedoms do they fear will be lost, specifically? Why do people have such a hard time differentiating religious freedoms from state law?

Somehow people seem to fear that the passing of gay marriage is going to destroy religious tolerance. The people who believe this tend to think inwards. They think that everything revolves around them, and that people should adjust to their way of thinking, and never the other way around. They can’t comprehend that not everyone believes the same things as them, and that not everything has to be about them. This is what religious freedom is all about. You are free to your own religious belief, but your religion should not interfere with the law. Your beliefs are protected by the Constitution of the United States, and so are mine, even if they are completely different.

This particular point is really more about scaring people than presenting any kind of logical argument.

“If Proposition 8 fails, religious adoption agencies may be forced to place children in same sex marriages, or discontinue providing adoption services altogether. That’s what happened in Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, after its courts imposed same-sex marriage.”

Gay marriage and the right of homosexuals to adopt are two different concepts. Catholic Charities was not forced to place children in homosexual households as a result of the gay marriage ruling in 2004, but of the state law passed in 1993 requiring that gay couples be allowed to adopt children. Catholic Charities stopped their adoption practices in 2006 not as a result of the gay marriage ruling, but due to pressure from 4 arch-bishops to gain a state exemption of the law requiring gay parents to be allowed to adopt. After this failed, Catholic Charities discontinued its adoption services.

“Based on past experience, those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds will be increasingly labeled as intolerant, and subjected to legal penalties or social ridicule. It’s already happening in the debate over Prop 8. Some who support traditional marriage are having their careers threatened. This won’t be limited to California as its powerful influence is felt across the country.”

Again, there is no solid evidence to this vague statement. Who is having their career threatened?

If my religion believed that your religion’s institution of marriage was wrong, should I have the right to decide that your group should not be afforded the right to a legal, state-recognized marriage because it conflicts with my way of thinking?

“Did you know that nearly all public schools in California provide education about health and sexuality? If prop 8 fails, children will be taught that marriage is between Party A and Party B, regardless of gender.”

So, what you’re saying is that if gay marriage is legal, children will be allowed to know what it is? And your point?

“Children will be taught that same-sex marriages are the equal of traditional marriages. There will be serious clashes between the public schools and parents, who desire to teach their children their own values and beliefs.”

Schools are already required to teach children about tolerance based on sexual preference, and this was in place before gay marriage was legal.

As it states in the California Educational Code:

220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.

If parents don’t approve of the education their children are receiving at the public school, they are free to enroll them at a private school that better fits with whatever kind of beliefs they want to raise their children with. Schools will only teach what is allowed by state law, not what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ based on someone’s religious beliefs. Just as now, students learn about roe vs. wade; that it is legal to have an abortion. That does not mean the school is teaching them that it is right or wrong to have one. That responsibility belongs to the parents.

“If Proposition 8 fails, it will affect everyone. For example, the change of the legal definition of marriage could narrow personal liberties. Some have already been lost. Like photographers, who prefer not to photograph gay weddings, and doctors, who prefer not to perform artificial inseminations of gays, even when there are other willing doctors.”

This point is un-related to Prop 8. Whether or not same sex marriage is legal, there are still gay couples who will have parties and hire photographers or want to adopt children, or be artificially inseminated. Public businesses that refuse to work with gays will be going against anti-discriminatory laws that are already in place, not the legalization of same sex marriage. Any doctor or other public business that are told not to discriminate is because of current state laws; this will not change whether or not the legal definition of marriage changes.

On the "Preserving Marriage" website, it states “Proposition 8 will not hurt gays and lesbians.

In California, the law provides for marriage-related benefits to be given to civil unions and domestic partnerships. Proposition 8 does not diminish these benefits.”

If Proposition 8 does not diminish marriage-related benefits from homosexual couples, why is their commercial advertising against the ideas of gay couples being afforded the right to a wedding ceremony, or the right to have children?

“It’s been said, the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. You see, although the argument of redefining marriage is couched in happiness, or equal rights, it’s really about gaining control; forcing all of us to give up the very foundation of speech, and religious freedoms on which this country was founded."

As much as you'd like to believe, the religious freedoms on which the foundation of this country are based do NOT allow persons of one religious spectrum to dictate the personal liberties and religious beliefs of others. Religion and the state are two separate entities. You cannot tell someone that they are encroaching upon YOUR personal liberties while in the same breath demand that THEIR personal liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution be taken away.