A!Commentary!on!the!Document!! Six!Consequences!.!.!.!if!Proposition!8!Fails!

Transcription

1 ACommentaryontheDocument SixConsequences...ifProposition8Fails MorrisA.Thurston 1 Ananonymously"authoreddocumenttitled SixConsequencestheCoalitionHasIdentifiedif Proposition8Fails iscurrentlybeingdistributedbyacoalitionofchurchesandother organizationsinsupportofproposition8,aninitiativeonthenovember2008california ballot.theintentofproposition8istooverturnthecaliforniasupremecourt sruling allowinghomosexualstomarry. Mostoftheargumentscontainedin SixConsequences areeitheruntrueormisleading.the followingcommentaryaddressesthoseargumentsandexplainshowtheyarebasedon misinterpretationsoflawandfact.myintentistobeofserviceinhelpingourchurchavoid chargesofusingfalsehoodstogainapoliticalvictory.idonotbelievetheseso"called consequences haveoriginatedatorbeenapprovedbychurchheadquarters;rather,i suspecttheyaretheresultofoverzealousvolunteerswhohavemisinterpretedcalifornialaw andthelegalcasesonwhichthesupposedconsequencesdepend.relyingondeceptive argumentsisnotonlycontrarytogospelprinciples,butultimatelyworksagainstthevery missionofthechurch. TheoriginaldocumenttextisinTimesRomanfont;myresponsesareinCalibriitalicsfont. Six Consequences the Coalition [in Support of Proposition 8] Has Identified If Proposition 8 Fails 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. Response:Thisisuntrue.CaliforniaEducationCode51890providesthat pupilswill receiveinstructiontoaidtheminmakingdecisionsinmattersofpersonal,family,and 1 MorrisThurstonreceivedhisundergraduatedegreeinpoliticalsciencefromBYUandhislawdegreefrom HarvardLawSchool.Herecentlyretiredasaseniorpartnerwithagloballawfirm,wherehespecializedin litigationandintellectualpropertylaw.heisalegalconsultanttothejosephsmithpapersproject,anadjunct professoratbyulawschoolandco"author(withhiswife)oftherecently"publishedbook BreatheLifeintoYour LifeStory:HowtoWriteaStoryPeopleWillWanttoRead. HeisanactivememberoftheLDSChurch. 1

2 communityhealth. Thefocusisonhealth.Thestatuteprovidesforcommunity participation,includinglecturesbypracticingprofessionalhealthandsafety personnelfromthecommunity.thingsthataretobetaughtinclude,forexample, druguseandmisuse,nutrition,exercise,diseasesanddisorders,environmentalhealth andsafety,aswellas familyhealthandchilddevelopment,includingthelegaland financialaspectsandresponsibilitiesofmarriageandparenthood. AnothersectionoftheEducationCode(51933)dealswithcomprehensivesexual healtheducationandhiv/aidsprevention.itprovidesthatinstructionshallbeage appropriateandmedicallyaccurate,shallteach respectformarriageandcommitted relationships, andshallencourageapupiltocommunicatewithhisorherparents abouthumansexuality. Therefore,noprovisionoftheEducationCoderequiresanyteachertoteachthat same"sexmarriageis justasgood astraditionalmarriage.teachersaretoteach respectformarriageandcommittedrelationships,andproposition8willnotchange thislaw 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. Response:Thisfalse consequence isbasedonthemisrepresentationofacasein NewJerseyinvolvinganassociationaffiliatedwiththeMethodistChurch.In consideringthatcase,itisimportanttorememberthatnewjerseydoesnotpermit gaymarriage,sothatcasehadnothingtodowithproposition8. WhatwastheNewJerseycaseabout?TheOceanGroveCampMeetingAssociation (OGCMA),aMethodistorganization,hadtakenadvantageofaNewJerseylaw grantingastatepropertytaxexemptionforapavilionintheseasidetownofocean Grovethatwasdedicatedforpublicuse.Notethatthecasedidnotinvolveincome taxexemptionsandnotethatthepurposeforgivingtheexemptioninthefirstplace wastorewardorganizationsforopeningtheirbuildingsandfacilitiesforpublicuse. Thepropertyinquestionwasaboardwalkpavilionopentothepublic. Bandsplay there.childrenskateboardthroughit.touristsenjoytheshade.it sevenbeenused 2 ItshouldbenotedthatArticle51933,byitsownterms shallnotapplytoaneducationalinstitutionthatis controlledbyareligiousorganizationiftheapplicationwouldnotbeconsistentwiththereligioustenetsofthat organization. Therefore,Churchschoolsarenotrequiredtoteachrespectforthebeliefsofothers,althoughwe shouldhopethatourseminariesandinstitutesteachsuchrespectnonetheless.indeed,thechurchhasrecently instructedusthataswedecideourownappropriatelevelofinvolvementinthiscampaignwe shouldapproach thisissuewithrespectforothers,understanding,honestyandcivility.(emphasisadded.) TheDivineInstitution ofmarriage, August13,2008, of"marriage. 2

3 fordebatesandcivilwarre"enactments. 3 Itwasalsoavailabletobereservedfor marriageceremoniesbypeopleofanyfaith.nevertheless,theogcmawantedto prohibitagaycommitmentceremony(notamarriageceremony)frombeingheldin thepavilion.thenewjerseyrealestatecommissionruledthatifogcmaintendedto claimapropertytaxexemptionforabuildingopentothepublic,theycouldnot discriminate.seeninthislight,itwasasensibleruling.implicitintherulingisthat thegroupcoulddiscriminateiftheyceasedtoclaimapropertytaxexemptionfora publicfacility.itisimportanttonotethatthisrulingpertainedonlytothepavilion, whichconstitutedamereonepercentofthepropertytheogcmaowned.thetotal amountofadditionaltaxassessedwas$200.theogcmacontinuestoreceivea propertytaxexemptionfortheremaining99%ofitsproperty. 4 ThiscasehasnothingatalltodowithanyMormon,Catholicoranyotherchurch s chapelorsanctuarythatisusedforreligiouspurposes.ithasnothingtodowithany church sincometaxexemption.tomyknowledge,themormonchurchhasnever soughttotakeadvantageofapropertytaxexemptionsimilartothenewjersey exemptionandlikelyneverwould. TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtrulingongaymarriagecannothaveanyfederaltax consequences,andthecourtsonotedexplicitlyinitsdecision.thesupremecourt alsonotedthatitsrulingwouldnotrequireanypriest,rabbiorministertoperform gaymarriages,whichshouldbeself"evidentbecauseofthefirstamendment s guaranteeoffreedomofreligion. 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. Response:Anothermisrepresentation.Tobeginwith,itshouldbenotedthatCatholic CharitiesinBostonwasnotforcedtocloseitsdoors indeeditisstillveryactive.(see itswebsiteatwww.ccab.org.)rather,catholiccharitiesvoluntarilyceasedproviding adoptionserviceinmassachusetts.accordingtothebostonglobe,catholiccharities electedtocloseitsdoorsinprotestoverthelegalizationofgaymarriagein Massachusettsandbecauseitwasreluctanttoundertakealawsuitthatmightbe lost. 5 3 ExaminingtheConsequencesofProp8 athttp://mormonsformarriage.com/?p=33. 4 See GroupLosesTaxBreakOverGayUnionIssue, NewYorkTimes,September18, See CatholicCharitiesStunsState,EndsAdoptions, BostonGlobe,March11,2006.CatholicCharitieshad beenprocessingasmallnumberofgayadoptions,despitevaticanstatementscondemningthepractice.when CatholicCharitiesannounceditsintentiontorefusetocontinuetoplaceorphanswithgayparents,several membersofitsownboardresignedinprotest. SevenQuitCharityoverPolicyofBishops DeploreEffortto ExcludeSame"SexAdoptions, BostonGlobe,March2,

4 LDSFamilyServicesstilloperatesinMassachusetts,asitdoesinCalifornia.Thereare severaldifferencesbetweenldsfsandcatholiccharities.ldsfsdoesnottake federalorstatefunds;catholiccharitiesdoes.ldsfsfacilitatesonlyvoluntary adoptionsandpermitsthebirthmothertoapprovetheadoptiveparents.catholic Charitieshandlednon"voluntaryadoptions(wherethestateseizesthechildren)and normallydidnotaccommodatebirthmotherapproval.catholiccharitieshad contractswiththestateandwas,ineffect,actingasanagentofthestate.ldsfs doesnot.todate,ldsfamilyserviceshasneverbeenforcedtoplaceanychildren withagaycouple,andhasneverbeensuedfornotdoingso. IfthissituationeverfacesalegalchallengeinCalifornia,itwillnotmatterwhether Proposition8passesbecauseCaliforniaalreadyhasonitsbooks(andhasforseveral years)lawsgrantingdomesticpartners(homosexualandheterosexual)thesamecivil rightsasmarriedcouples.thisisapointthatmanypeopleseemnottounderstand. HereisthelanguageofjustoneCaliforniastatute: Registereddomesticpartners shallhavethesamerights,protections,andbenefits,andshallbesubjecttothesame responsibilities,obligations,anddutiesunderlaw,whethertheyderivefromstatutes, administrativeregulations,courtrules,governmentpolicies,commonlaw,orany otherprovisionsorsourcesoflaw,asaregrantedtoandimposeduponspouses. 6 Therefore,thepassageorfailureofProposition8willhavenoeffectontheplacement oforphanswithgaycouplesincalifornia 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. Response:ThisclaimrelatestoanexperienceatYeshivaUniversityinNewYork.Gay studentswereeligibleforuniversityhousing,buttheirpartnerswerenotabletojoin thembecausetheydidnothavemarriagecertificates.itshouldbenotedthatyeshiva University(despiteitsname)ischarteredasanonsectarianinstitution,enablingitto receivestateandfederalfunding.thenewyorkcourtfoundthatyeshivawas discriminatingagainstthestudentsbasedontheirsexualorientation nottheir maritalstatus.therulingwasbasedonnewyorkcitynon"discriminationlaws. 8 California sexistingnon"discriminationlawsgiveallregistereddomesticpartners, whetherheterosexualorhomosexual,therightofequalaccesstofamilyhousing.to date,however,nocaliforniaprivatereligiousschoolhasbeenforcedtocomplywith DomesticPartnerAct,CaliforniaFamilyCode,Sections297and297.5(a). 7 Itseemshighlyunlikelythatacourtwouldrequireachurch"affiliatedadoptionservicethatdoesnothave contractswiththestate,doesnotacceptstateorfederalfunds,anddoesnotdoinvoluntaryadoptions,toplace childrenwitheithergaycouplesorunmarriedheterosexualdomesticpartners.butifacourtissoinclined,itwill notmatterwhetherproposition8passesorfails. 8 ExaminingtheConsequencesofProp8 athttp://mormonsformarriage.com/?p=33. 4

5 thislaw.neitherthepassagenorthefailureofproposition8willhaveanybearingon thelawrelatingtofamilystudenthousingincalifornia. ThegaymarriageproblemwillnotariseatBYUandotherChurchuniversitiesbecause engaginginhomosexualactivityisaviolationofthehonorcodeandisabasisfor expulsionfromtheuniversity.theseruleswillnotbeoverturnedmerelybecause Californiarecognizesgaymarriages,anymorethantheyhavebeenbecause Massachusetts,CanadaandmanyEuropeannationsrecognizethem. 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. Response:Ofcourse,anyonecanbe sued foranything,butnoministerhasbeen convictedofacrimeincanadaortheunitedstatesforpreachingagainstsame"sex marriages.theowenscase,onwhichthisstatementisbased,wasbroughtwell beforegaymarriagewaslegalincanadaanddidnotinvolveaminister,butaprivate citizen.inthatcase,amannamedhughowensproducedbumperstickersandtook outanadthatdepictedtwostickfiguresholdinghands,coveredbyacircleanda slash,alongwithareferencetoapassageinleviticusthatsaysthatamanengaging inhomosexualactivity shallsurelybeputtodeath.theirbloodshallbeuponthem. 9 Thelowercourtruledthatthisamountedtohatespeech,butthedecisionwas overturnedonreview.thecurrentcanadianlawonhatepropagandaexcludesany speechifitisspokenduringaprivateconversationorifthepersonutteringthe speech isattemptingingoodfaithtoestablishbyargumentanopiniononareligious subject. 10 Thus,evenministerswhopreachagainstsame"sexmarriagesinCanada havenoriskoflegalliabilityorgovernmentfines. ThiswouldneverbeanissueintheUnitedStatesbecausewehavefarmoreliberal freedomofspeechandreligionlawsthandoescanada. 11 Therehavebeennohate speechlawsuitsinmassachusetts,whichhasbeenagaymarriagestateforfour years. ThedescriptionoftherecentCaliforniacaseisanotherfabrication.ThiscaseisGood NewsEmployeeAssociationv.Hicks,whichwasdecidedbeforetheSupremeCourt legalizedgaymarriagesandsoit,too,hasnothingtodowithproposition8.the plaintiffsinthatcasewereevangelicalchristians(nothomosexuals)whopostedflyers aroundtheofficesoftheoaklandcommunityandeconomicdevelopmentagency 9 Leviticus20: CanadianParliament BillC"250,whichbecameeffectivein AnyonewhohaswalkedthegauntletofstreetpreachersatGeneralConferencewillappreciatetheliberality ofourfreespeechlaws. 5

6 promotingtheir GoodNewsAssociation andcallingonthosewhoreadtheflyerto preserveourworkplacewithintegrity withrespectforthenaturalfamily,marriage andfamilyvalues. Inotherwords,thisgroupwaspromotingtheideaofriddingtheir workplaceofgaypeople ablatantlyhomophobicmessageandhighlyoffensivenot onlytoseveralgaypeoplewhoworkedtherebuttoheterosexualco"workersaswell. Thesupervisorsremovedtheflyers.TheGoodNewspeoplesued,claimingtheirrights offreespeechwereviolated.thecourtfoundthattheagencywasentitledto eliminatetheworkplacedisruptiontheflyerswerecausingandnotedthattherewere manyotherwaysforthisgrouptopromotetheirmessagewithoutresortingtosuch offensivetactics. Thiscasedoesnotholdthatmunicipalemployeesareprohibitedfromsaying traditionalmarriage or familyvalues andithasnothingtodowithgaymarriage, orministerspreaching,orproposition8.indeed,thecourtspecificallyfoundthat thereweremanyotherwaysforthesepeopletogettheirmessageoutwithout disruptingtheworkplacebycreatinganatmosphereofpersecution. 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 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. Response:Theargumentconcerningcostisfallaciousandcalculatedtoengender fear.inactuality,thenetfiscaleffectofproposition8willbeaninfluxofrevenueto Californiabecauseoftheanticipatedincreaseinmarriageceremoniesandtherelated boontotheeconomy.thechangeinthedefinitionofmarriagewillnotbringa cascadeoflawsuits becauseheterosexualandhomosexualregistereddomestic partnersalreadyhavealltherightsofmarriedcouplesincalifornia.noneofthe lawsuitsalludedtointhisparagraphhasanythingtodowithgaymarriage. TheweddingphotographercasewasinNewMexico,astatethathasnogay marriagelaw.themedicaldoctorcasewasincalifornia,butwasbasedonour existingnon"discriminationlawsandwouldnotbeaffectedonewayortheotherby thepassageofproposition ItmightbeinstructivetoincludethefulltextofrelevantpartsoftheCalifornia sunruhact,whichgoverned themedicalcliniccase.thesewillnotbechangedbythepassageofproposition8.theyare,andwillcontinue tobe,thelaw. Cal.Civ.Code.51(b):Allpersonswithinthejurisdictionofthisstatearefreeandequal,andnomatter whattheirsex,race,color,religion,ancestry,nationalorigin,disability,medicalcondition,marital status,orsexualorientationareentitledtothefullandequalaccommodations,advantages, facilities,privileges,orservicesinallbusinessestablishmentsofeverykindwhatsoever. 6

7 IntheCaliforniacase,amedicalclinicthatprovidedintrauterineinsemination(IUI)to itspatients,refusedtotreatoneofthembecauseshewasalesbian.california s broadanti"discriminationlawsexpresslybandiscriminationbyanybusiness establishmentthatofferstothepublic accommodations,advantages,facilities, privileges,orservices. Thisstatutebansdiscriminationagainstindividual heterosexualsandhomosexualsalike,aswellasmarriedpeopleanddomestic partners.therefore,theclinichadtheoptionofeitherhavingadoctoronstaffwho wouldperformiuiservicesonanon"discriminatorybasis,orceaseperformingthe servicesatall. 13 Whetherweagreewiththisdecisionornot,thefactisthatthelaw uponwhichthisrulingwasbasedwillnotbeaffectedbythepassageofproposition8, sothereisno consequence ifthepropositionfails. Thegratuitouscommentconcerning activistjudges seemstobeframedasan appealtofearandparanoia.infact,however,today sjusticesonboththecalifornia SupremeCourtandtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcanhardlybecalled activist. SixofthesevenjusticesoftheCaliforniaSupremeCourtwereappointedby Republicangovernors;sevenoftheninejusticesoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt wereappointedbyrepublicanpresidents.mostlegalscholarswouldagreethatthey aremoderatetoconservativeintheirleaningsandhaveahealthyrespectfor constitutionalprinciples.thecaliforniasupremecourthasahighreputation throughouttheland.arecentstudyindicatesthatitsdecisionsareapprovedofand followedbyout"of"statecourtsfarmorethanarethedecisionsofanyothersupreme courtintheunitedstates. 14 RonaldM.George,thechiefjusticeoftheCaliforniaSupremeCourt,whowrotethe opinionforthemajorityinthemarriagecases,isajudicialmoderatewhowasnever consideredtobeanactivistjudge.hehasanoutstandingscholarlybackground (PrincetonandStanford)andworkedasaprosecutorimmediatelyaftergraduating fromlawschool.hewasappointedasuperiorcourtjudgeattheearlyageof32by RepublicanGovernorRonaldReagan.Thoughyoung,hequicklygainedareputation asfair"minded,insightful,hardworkingandtoughoncrime.hewaswidelypraised forhishandlingofthedifficulttrialofthehillsidestrangler,angelobuono.herosein Cal.Civ.Code51.5(a):Nobusinessestablishmentofanykindwhatsoevershalldiscriminateagainst, boycottorblacklist,orrefusetobuyfrom,contractwith,sellto,ortradewithanypersoninthisstate onaccountofanycharacteristiclistedordefinedinsubdivision(b)or(e)ofsection51,orofthe person'spartners,members,stockholders,directors,officers,managers,superintendents,agents, employees,businessassociates,suppliers,orcustomers,becausethepersonisperceivedtohaveone ormoreofthosecharacteristics,orbecausethepersonisassociatedwithapersonwhohas,oris perceivedtohave,anyofthosecharacteristics. 13 NorthCoastWomen scaremedicalgroup,inc.v.superiorcourt. 14 JakeDearandEdwardW.Jessen,"FollowedRates"andLeadingStateCases,1940"2005, 41U.C.DAVISL.REV. 683,694(2007). 7

8 theranksofjudgesuntilhewasappointedtothecaliforniasupremecourtby RepublicanGovernorPeteWilson. AsJusticeGeorgeconsideredthemarriagecases,thedecision weighedheavily on hismind.herememberedalongagotriphemadewithhiseuropeanimmigrant parentsthroughtheamericansouth.there,thesignswarning NoNegro or No colored left quiteanindelibleimpressiononme, herecalled.asajudicial conservative,itwouldhavebeensafestforhimtovoteagainstthepetitionersand avoidthebacklashthatheknewwouldcome.but,asheputitinaninterviewwith thelosangelestimes, Ithinktherearetimeswhendoingtherightthingmeansnot playingitsafe. 15 Thefunctionofjudgesistoevaluatecasesbeforethemandapplyconstitutional principlestoassurethatminorities,aswellasmajorities,receivejustice.in controversialcasestheyareboundtoangersomeportionoftheelectorateregardless ofhowtheyvote.theirunenviablejobistoignorepublicopinionandapplythelawas theyseeit.somedecisionsaresodifficultthatreasonablemindscandiffer.the SupremeCourtdecisioninthemarriagecaseswasthatsortofdecision.Nevertheless, fourofthesevenjusticesonwhatisconsideredamoderatetoconservativecourt agreedontheverdictthatwasrendered.thisdecisioncannotbewrittenoffasmerely thewhimof activistjudges. Conclusion Insummary,theargumentsusedin SixConsequences...IfProposition8Fails are false,misleading,andbasedonfaultylogic.almosteverylegalcasealludedtois misrepresented.thepassageorfailureofproposition8willnotaffectanyofthe scenariosposedbythisdocument;alloftheso"called adverseconsequences are illusory. 15 Same"SexCaseWeighedonChiefJustice,LosAngelesTimes,May18,2008, 8