What is Proposition 8?
In the year 2000, over 61% of California voters passed Proposition 22, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman. Earlier this year, four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, legalizing same-sex marriage. On November 4, Californians will vote on an amendment to the state constitution that says “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” These are the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000.
Many churches and organizations are strongly against legalizing same-sex marriage which would make it normal and equal in value in the law and in our society. This would have profound effects throughout society, including the limiting of the rights of churches to preach and act upon their beliefs and values.
Because this is a moral issue, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is encouraging all Californians to vote for Proposition 8.
What Proposition 8 is Not
Proposition 8 is NOT an attack on gay couples and does not take away the rights that same-sex couples already have under California’s domestic partner law. California law already grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple. Gay people have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else.
Why Vote YES on Proposition 8?
-
It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.
-
It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.
-
It protects our children from being taught in public schools that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.
What You Can Do
On June 20, 2008, the First Presidency of the Church distributed a letter about “Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families,” announcing the Church’s participation with the coalition. The letter, which was read in sacrament meetings in California, asked that Church members “do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment.”
Members of the many churches and organizations that are participating in the Protect Marriage Coalition, including members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are calling friends, family and fellow citizens in California to urge support of Proposition 8 to defend traditional marriage.
Members of the Church in Arizona and Florida will also be voting on constitutional amendments regarding marriage in their states, where coalitions similar to California’s are now being formed. It is expected that virtually all states will be voting on this issue in the near future.
Because the outcome of Proposition 8 will have a major impact on the whole nation, the Church is readying members in other states to help phone California voters and encourage them to vote Yes on this critical issue.
Learn more from these Web sites:
- Preserving the Divine Institution of Marriage (www.preservingmarriage.org)
- The Family: A Proclamation to the World (Issued by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve)
- Protect Marriage Coalition (www.protectmarriage.com)
- The Divine Institution of Marriage (on the LDS Newsroom site)
- NPR: “When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash” (Read how religious liberties are being challenged and lost.)
- Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender Attraction” (on the LDS Newsroom site)
In the video below, young adults from California discuss their involvement in preserving traditional marriage.
Segments from a Church broadcast to Californian Church members addressing the Church’s doctrine of marriage and the Protect Marriage Coalition:
Two good videos from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council:
- Video 1
- Video 2
Update, March 28, 2014: See also “Same-sex Marriage” in Gospel Topics on LDS.org.
Please also update this post to reflect the same initiative happening in Arizona with Proposition 102. http://www.yesformarriage.com/
I assumed when I subscribed to the RSS feed I would be notified of LDS talking about new media. Since this doesn’t seem to be the case, I have unsubscribed from the feed.
One of the great things about this post is the way it provides resources that we can put on our own blogs, including links and videos to embed. The new media is the battleground today for moral issues like this. Since this is LDS Media talk, it seems like a perfect fit. Thank you Larry.
Here’s an observation nobody else seems to have made. Where is THOMAS S. MONSON’s name on this list of donors? Why hasn’t MONSON put any of his own cash on the line, after directing all LDS members to do so? In fact, you can’t find any of the LDS First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve listed as donors, whether for or against Proposition 8. The Los Angeles Times has provided a helpful search engine, including not only large donations, but small ones down to $100. Here’s a link to that search engine: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-metro-prop-8,0,2463893.htmlstory
Try it for yourself! To make it simple, run a search by just entering “UT” in the state field, and you’ll get a full listing of donors from Utah, both for and against Proposition 8. Not one member of the LDS First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve appear. If your money needs to be sacrificed, why not theirs? It’s not as if they’re trying to avoid appearing to take a particular side on the issue.
Is it possible to have a copy of those videos? Are you planning to put them on youtube?
Thanks
To Nick,
I also made a contribution, however I am not listed, for reasons unknown. I’m ok with that, I just want to help make a difference for our children’s future.
I encourage you to contribute as well. Whether we receive recognition for our various contributions is not necessary. The future of our society, our children’s society, depends on this issue. Whether it’s voting to protect marriage in California, Arizona, or Florida or for a Constitutional Convention to be called in Connecticut. Connecticut needs their voters to call for a Constitutional Convention so steps can be taken there to put a marriage protection ammendment in place. This issue is imperaitve and is reaching across our country. I encourage anyone who can contribute to do so.
Thank you,
Stephanie
Stephanie, I’m delighted to hear that you’ve chosen to protect marriage by contributing to the fight against Proposition 8. That is, after all, what Proposition 8 seeks to do—destroy over 11,000 existing marriages in the State of California.
http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2008/10/13/daily35.html
re: Proposition 8
“Heterosexual Values” are not “Fear”
“Natural Law” is not “Spiritual Law”
State protected activism in the K-4 classroom is deviant Social Policy.
Force-fed Same Sex Orientation in the home is perverse activism.
California Schools with Web Servers –
http://www.slocoe.org/resource/calpage1.htm
School District Superintendents and Board of Education Presidents always welcome input.
http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2008/10/13/daily35.html
All the Noise, Noise, Noise!
No matter how loudly and often supporters of same gender marriage attack proponents of traditional marriage, the simple irrefutable fact is that same gender marriage and traditional marriage are not identical, and never will be. Period. Regardless of what happens in the California election.
And no matter what proponents of traditional marriage say, opponents will scream its opposite. I am amazed at the sheer volume of hateful and intolerant comments made by opponents of Proposition 8. To me, this speaks volumes about where bigotry, discrimination, and hate truly exist – in the hearts of people who express themselves with such rage and venom, regardless of their political or sexual persuasion.
So what really is the core issue? Is it equal rights? Is it social acceptance of homosexuality? And what about the children?
Equal Rights
In the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George overturning the voter approved statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman, he stated that “California . . . in recent years has enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation under which a same-sex couple may enter into a legal relationship that affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple.”
Furthermore, in that same opinion, he also wrote, “from the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman . . . and the marriage statute adopted by the California Legislature during its first session clearly assumed that the marriage relationship necessarily involved persons of the opposite sex.” Hmmmm . . .
The California Family Code, in Section 297.5, paragraphs a, b, and c (which are identical, except for the references in parentheses) clarifies the legal rights and responsibilities of registered domestic partners are entitled to in California. “Registered (and former registered, and surviving registered) domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses (and former spouses, and a widow or widower).
California’s voter information guide contains arguments and rebuttals for both sides of the argument. In the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Proposition 8, opponents wrote, “California statutes clearly identify nine real differences between marriage and domestic partnerships.”
What are these differences? Be specific people, don’t just throw up a smoke screen, wave your arms, and cry foul. If you want to solve the equal rights problem, say exactly what the specific needs are so that legislation can be passed that will provide the specific liberties being sought. Equality California is a leading organization founded in 1998 to pursue equal rights for homosexual people in California. The organization’s website states that, “In the past 10 years, Equality California has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation. In the past decade, EQCA has successfully passed more than 45 pieces of civil rights legislation for the LGBT community – more than any other statewide LGBT organization in the nation. Most sections of California law prohibit discrimination based on a long list of protected classes, including sexual orientation, gender and gender identity. LGBT Californians are protected from discrimination in securing employment and housing, accessing government services and participating in state-funded activities. LGBT people are also protected under the state’s hate crime law.” This organization, and many others like it, is not going to go away, so it is safe to assume that they will continue to pursue equal rights for LGBT individuals in California until true legal equality is achieved. No problem. It’s already in process.
Social Acceptance of Homosexuality
Opponents of Proposition 8 claim that they are not looking for societal acceptance of homosexuality, they simply want homosexuals to be free to marry the person they love. If true equality under law can be achieved for both traditional married couples and civil unions between same gender couples, and if there are only nine differences that remain to be legislated, then the discrimination argument can be resolved equitably in the near future. Same gender couples can then truly receive all the benefits and responsibilities of traditionally married couples in every respect EXCEPT in name. Will that be acceptable to the LGBT community? If so, then let’s settle this mess and get on with other pressing business. If not, then it reveals the lie about what is opponents of Proposition are really seeking – societal acceptance of homosexuality. And on this subject, the people have every right to vote and determine what society should accept or not accept without being called a bigot or homophobe.
Let the voice of the people decide! But separate the two issues – equal rights and societal acceptance. Opponents KNOW that if the issues were separate, they would FAIL. Many people are just plain disgusted with and tired of hearing about gays and homosexuality. They object to being told, “It’s going to happen now, whether you like it or not.” Thus, opponents focus the spotlight on the “fairness” and “equality” arguments, and sweep the issue of societal acceptance under the carpet. Yet the societal acceptance is insidious. It has the real potential to create problems that are just beginning to be seen in places that have legalized same gender marriage.
The Future
All over the Internet, you can read articles claiming that proponents of Proposition 8 are using scare tactics and outright lies about its implications on children to win its passage. In researching this subject, I found that there have been many efforts over the years to pass California laws having to do with the promotion of homosexuality in our schools. Some few have passed, but the majority failed. I am surprised that few have publicly observed that the failure of most of these measures to pass was likely related to California’s recognition at the time that marriage was between a man and a woman. In other words, that definition, which became California law when voters passed it overwhelmingly in 2000, was an important bulwark in the legal defense of striking down proposed legislation that would mandate same gender education of our young children. That fence has been blown down now, as it were, by the May 2008 judicial fiat. If Proposition 8 does not pass, will the proposals for new legislation mandating exposing our children to increased education about LGBT issues cease? What does history already show? Any rational adult will recognize that if anything, such efforts will ONLY INCREASE, and find greater likelihood of passage. Scare tactics? We are talking about the future of our children here.
To those who say that children in schools will not be affected by the defeat of Proposition 8, I say, what makes you a prophet? After the recent catastrophic global economic meltdown, former financial demigod Alan Greenspan has now admitted a fundamental error in his beliefs about the issue of deregulation in our banking and financial system that was a major factor in the economic collapse. OOPS! That mess has been totally devastating to millions of people, and will take years to clean up. We are all affected, and will be for many years to come. The multitudinous ramifications of legalized same gender marriage won’t be fully understood or visible for years, but by then it may be too late to prevent major problems that can affect everyone in California. To even think otherwise is to be blind to real life. Take a look at what is already happening where same sex marriage was legalized years ago, and you can see some of the harbingers.
Discrimination, which is often used to mean unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice, is wrong. But the word discrimination also means to discern qualities and recognize the differences between things. By this definition, we all discriminate every day as a necessary part of making decisions. And recognizing the qualities and differences between traditional and same gender marriage should not mean that we are all forced to equalize them. Some allowances should be made for the differences. In this regard, California already has the most tolerant and non-discriminatory laws regarding same gender couples that can be found anywhere in the U.S. Proposition 8 will not change this. If there are more laws that need to be passed to provide true equality, then let’s get them out in the open, deal with them, and stop the arm waving and name calling. California has already proven that it is willing to provide equal rights. We can maintain this tradition without redefining marriage for everyone just because a tiny fraction of the population really, really wants to.
I believe we need to be tolerant, respectful, non-discriminatory, sensitive, and loving towards those of same gender persuasion (see, no name calling or rage), but without accepting same sex unions as being socially equal to the institution of traditional male-female marriage. That’s why I will vote Yes on Proposition 8.
Nick, it sounds like you dont entirely agree with prop. 8. I suggest you read “A Proclamation for the World”—(“Una proclamación para el mundo”) and then pray about it. You will get your answer… Plus, this country is going to the pits thanks to the liberalness of its inhabitants. Where have all of our morals gone? That’s so sad…
Nick,
It appears we have different purposes, different beliefs.
My desires in supporting Proposition 8 are due to the following:
• Fact – We live in a democratic republic where the Founding Fathers set up a government for the people, which is to be governed by the people. When the California judges recently turned over a law that was previously passed by a majority of the people, the judges usurped the people’s right to govern themselves. There is a legal process for changing laws and that process should be followed by all citizens. Judges are to interpret the current laws that are in place and not redefine them. These judges were stepping out of bounds.
• Fact – There are numerous scientific studies that state that children are best raised in a home with their committed and loving biological parents. Since by nature it requires both a man and a woman to conceive a child, this best relationship is a heterosexual marriage… Why would we as a society choose to lower these standards for children? Do we love children less today than we did in the last century? Marriage is an institution in which to provide a secure environment in order to nurture the next generation. Any union that has a different purpose should be called by a different name. Marriage is a lifestyle choice, not a civil right.
I encourage anyone who believes 1) that government should represent the people and not work against them; and 2) that traditional marriage benefits children and the natural perpetuation of our society TO VOTE YES ON 8 THIS TUESDAY.
–Stephanie
This may be helpful when people ask what the differences are between domestic partnerships and marriage in CA.
The nine differences cited by CA Supreme Court between domestic partnerships and marriage in CA mentioned by the Opposition to Prop 8 in the Voters Guide. #7 has to do with federal law. #8 is pretty much obsolete. #9 was overturned this May. It seems like 6 can be easily dealt with through the legislative process.
This is adapted from the text of the CA Supreme Court ruling on May 15, 2008. You can read the text at http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/. Accept the terms, choose CA Supreme Court Published Cases, then in the Natural Language Search enter S147999. Footnote 24 identifies the nine differences between domestic partnerships and marriage in CA.
1.Domestic part provisions require that both partners have a common residence at the time a domestic partnership is established. There is no similar requirement for marriage.
2.Domestic partnership legislation requires that both persons be at least 18 years of age when the partnership is established. Marriage statutes permit a person under the age of 18 to marry with the consent of a parent or guardian or a court order.
3.To establish a domestic partnership, the two persons desiring to become domestic partners must complete and file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State, who registers the declaration in a statewide registry. To marry, a couple must obtain a marriage license and certificate of registry of marriage from the county clerk, have the marriage solemnized by an authorized individual, and return the marriage license and certificate of registry to the county recorder of the county in which the license was issued, who keeps a copy of the certificate of registry of marriage and transmits the original certificate to the State Registrar of Vital Statistics.
4.Domestic partnership law contains no similar provisions for “confidential domestic partnership.” Marriage statutes establish a procedure under which an unmarried man and unmarried woman who have been residing together as husband and wife may enter into a “confidential marriage” in which the marriage certificate and date of the marriage are not made available to the public.
5.A summary dissolution of a domestic partnership is initiated by the partners’ joint filing of a Notice of Termination of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State and may become effective without any court action. A summary dissolution of a marriage is initiated by the spouses’ joint filing of a petition in superior court and becomes effective only upon entry of a court judgment.
Both the domestic partnership and marriage statutes provide a procedure for summary dissolution of the domestic partnership or marriage under the same limited circumstances. For both, the dissolution does not take effect for at least six months from the date dissolution is sought, and during that period either party may terminate the summary dissolution.
6.A proceeding to dissolve a domestic partnership may be filed in superior court even if neither domestic partner is a resident of, or maintains a domicile in, California at the time the proceedings are filed. A judgment of dissolution of marriage may not be obtained unless one of the parties has been a resident of California for six months and a resident of the county in which the proceeding is filed for three months prior to the filing of the petition for dissolution.
7.In order to protect the federal tax-qualified status of the CalPERS (California Public Employees’ Retirement System) long-term care insurance program, the domestic partnership statute provides that “nothing in this section applies to modify eligibility for [such] long-term care plans …”, which means that although such a plan may provide coverage for a state employee’s spouse, it may not provide coverage for an employee’s domestic partner.
This difference would exist even if same-sex couples were permitted to marry under California law, because for federal law purposes the nonemployee partner would not be considered a spouse.
8.The California Constitution grants a $1,000 property tax exemption to an “unmarried spouse of a deceased veteran” who owns property valued at less than $ 10,000.
Few people claim this exemption, because a homeowner may not claim both this exemption and the more generous homeowner’s exemption on the same property. The homeowner’s exemption is available to both married persons and domestic partners.
9.One appellate decision (Velez v. Smith in 2006) held that the putative spouse doctrine does not apply to an asserted putative domestic partner.
In contrast, on May 6, 2008 (Ellis v. Arriaga) the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three held that the Domestic Partner Act extends the putative spouse doctrine to domestic partners. The ruling also explained that in the above mentioned case of Velez v. Smith, Smith filed a notice ending the domestic partnership with In November 2004, before the provisions of the Domestic Partner Act of 2003 went into effect.
From my lay background, I understand putative marriage to be a marriage where at least one of the parties has good reason to believe he or she is married, but is not married legally due to a technical impediment (i.e. the other person is already married, the papers were not filed correctly). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putative_marriage.