The video you posted, while moving, appears to contradict itself. It implies that voting YES on Prop 8 will not have any effect on the law protecting the civil rights of same-sex unions (in other words, you can vote YES and still be friends with your gay neighbors); however, the video then goes on to argue that a YES vote will prevent gay marriage being discussed in schools and possibly stop gay couples from adopting children. But that would be eliminating rights that the law currently protects for same-sex couples.
The California constitution currently reads:
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws... (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
This is a pretty powerful statement in favor of equal treatment for ALL people, regardless of issue. Proposition 8 seeks to amend this section of our constitution. If you change the constitution, you can make all kinds of laws, and the Supreme Court of California can't do a thing about it. Think of the implications an amendment such as this could have on the future of civil rights in our state, and our country.
The national and state constitutions are the very things that protect rights and make our government a republic rather than the rule of the mob. Protection of the rights of minorities defines a civil society. The majority usually already has what it wants. I think Al Sharpton put it best when he said, "It's like asking 'do I support black marriage or [do I support] white marriage?'...The inference of the question is that gays are not like other human beings."
Please consider the implications of Proposition 8 on our constitution and the fundamentals of our society. Protect the rights of ALL Californians by leaving the constitution as is.
I appreciate your comment Kristen. I will consider your point. I want to also respond to what you said, "...the video then goes on to argue that a YES vote will prevent gay marriage being discussed in schools and possibly stop gay couples from adopting children. But that would be eliminating rights that the law currently protects for same-sex couples."
Discussion in schools: Topics discussed in school are broad due to the common curiosity of children. My father teaches 3rd grade and discussions of tolerance and alternative lifestyles are inevitable. Even still, the balance of information and indoctrination can be disputed endlessly due to multiple personal viewpoints. Religion is discussed objectively but can not be required to be taught as part of curriculum. Opinions towards same sex relationships can be deeply rooted in religious beliefs. It can be discussed, but must it be part of the curriculum?
The right to adopt: The video proposed the question of whether or not people would need to "compromise their beliefs in the name of tolerance". I very much believe in tolerance, but don't think that any religion should be forced to something against their teachings/principles. Such as the Catholic Church being required to offer adoption to same sex couples. I do not think that their right to adopt is being taken away, just that they will need to use alternate sources than religious adoption agencies.
I completely agree with you about teaching sensitive subjects such as religion and marriage in schools. Curriculum should be presented objectively. I strongly believe that the YES on 8 campaign is misrepresenting this issue by implying that teachers in Massachusetts are "teaching" gay marriage. I think you can find individual cases of teachers imposing their subjective views about a whole host of issues, including gay rights, religion and politics. However, I don't think it should be considered an imposition to include the book "King and King" in a school library and allow children to think for themselves about it. Teachers can use the book to talk about tolerance, and although many parents may find it disturbing, they should see it as an opportunity to discuss the issue with their kids. It would be difficult to completely shelter a child from the issue anyway, with Ellen's wedding on the cover of magazines in grocery stores and gay couples presented on popular television shows.
I also completely agree with you that religious institutions should NEVER be forced by law to compromise their beliefs in the name of tolerance. This issue too, however, I believe is being misrepresented by the YES on 8 campaign. Churches are not governed by the constitution and in fact have explicit protections written into the constitution:
SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed.
If churches choose to celebrate same-sex unions, they can, or they can choose not to. All that is at stake in the state's recognition of the union are the civil privileges that the status of marriage confers on a couple. People can continue to believe that homosexuality is sinful or not. Preacher can spout condemnations of the lives of gay people from the pulpit. All that is protected (freedom of religion, freedom of speech...the constitution is awesome!).
That said, there are some unfortunate gray areas where church autonomy and state ordinance overlap, such as adoption agencies that are required by law to be licensed by the state. I understand and appreciate that at times it may seem the state is imposing civil rights protections on religious groups. And I can't say for sure what will happen in California in cases like this. However, I feel more strongly about preserving the integrity of our constitution. Perhaps laws or codes can be written in to protect church-sponsored organizations, but this should not require amending our constitution. Let's work it out another way.
As a teacher who supports gay marriage, let me join your conversation.
Two points:
1. On teaching religion and gay issues in schools: Whoever thinks you "can't talk about religion in school" is dead wrong. You must talk about religion in school! I am a social studies teacher and you cannot teach history without teaching about religion. I teach my students about all the major world religions' beliefs, histories, and customs. To understand what religion is, I ask my students to reflect on their own beliefs, the origins of such beliefs, and the impact their beliefs have on their life. Religions are organized set of beliefs that seek to answer the big questions of life. I tell my students that even if they are not religious they can think about these questions! I ask them to write their reflections but we do not discuss individual beliefs, and I do not impose my own, in the classroom.
Regarding gay rights, I teach about that, too! I feel very strongly that gay rights are civil rights and after we spend time learning about the women's suffrage movement and Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s we look at contemporary civil rights issues, such as immigrant rights and gay rights. I tell students they are free to believe what they want but I do not tolerate hateful statements in class. I ask them to analyze the gay rights movement in comparison with the Civil Rights Movement. Showing a video called "Out of the Past" and asking students to do a short written reflection takes about one period and then we move on.
My point is that teachers can already teach about gay rights in schools (I taught in a public school in Oregon but I'm sure this video is used by some in Calfornia, too) if they feel it is an important issue. Passing Proposition 8 wouldn't change that.
2. How do same-sex marriages harm families? When my two girlfriends got married last month, your marriage (Nick and Holly) was not affected. When women like my friends are excluded from the constitutional right to marry who you love, they are harmed. If you don't support gay marriage, then don't have one. Otherwise, please respect other loving couples desires to honor their commitments just as you can.
If this is just an argument about semantics, about a word, then I think people should get over it! No matter what laws say, my girlfriends are married. They live in Oregon so fortunately they have the rights of domestic partners, just as they would in California. But they are married just as you are.
Amending the constitution to exclude people from an article defining equal rights is an ugly thing to do- is it worth it just to cling to a word?
I'm an Oregonian living in Japan but if I lived in my home state of California I would certainly vote no on Proposition 8.
Kristen and Ali, I really do understand your arguments; but I kindly disagree. This is a political issue and, as such, does not affect my feelings about any individual (be they family, friend, or acquaintance) I know (and I have lots of gay friends). Let the PEOPLE decide what is best for California.
6 comments:
I agree, If they cannot talk about religion in school, then there should be no talk of gay marriages. it is the same difference.
The video you posted, while moving, appears to contradict itself. It implies that voting YES on Prop 8 will not have any effect on the law protecting the civil rights of same-sex unions (in other words, you can vote YES and still be friends with your gay neighbors); however, the video then goes on to argue that a YES vote will prevent gay marriage being discussed in schools and possibly stop gay couples from adopting children. But that would be eliminating rights that the law currently protects for same-sex couples.
The California constitution currently reads:
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.
(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws...
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
This is a pretty powerful statement in favor of equal treatment for ALL people, regardless of issue. Proposition 8 seeks to amend this section of our constitution. If you change the constitution, you can make all kinds of laws, and the Supreme Court of California can't do a thing about it. Think of the implications an amendment such as this could have on the future of civil rights in our state, and our country.
The national and state constitutions are the very things that protect rights and make our government a republic rather than the rule of the mob. Protection of the rights of minorities defines a civil society. The majority usually already has what it wants. I think Al Sharpton put it best when he said, "It's like asking 'do I support black marriage or [do I support] white marriage?'...The inference of the question is that gays are not like other human beings."
Please consider the implications of Proposition 8 on our constitution and the fundamentals of our society. Protect the rights of ALL Californians by leaving the constitution as is.
I appreciate your comment Kristen. I will consider your point. I want to also respond to what you said,
"...the video then goes on to argue that a YES vote will prevent gay marriage being discussed in schools and possibly stop gay couples from adopting children. But that would be eliminating rights that the law currently protects for same-sex
couples."
Discussion in schools:
Topics discussed in school are broad due to the common curiosity of children. My father teaches 3rd grade and discussions of tolerance and alternative lifestyles are inevitable. Even still, the balance of information and indoctrination can be disputed endlessly due to multiple personal viewpoints. Religion is discussed objectively but can not be required to be taught as part of curriculum. Opinions towards same sex relationships can be deeply rooted in religious beliefs. It can be discussed, but must it be part of the curriculum?
The right to adopt:
The video proposed the question of whether or not people would need to "compromise their beliefs in the name of tolerance". I very much believe in tolerance, but don't think that any religion should be forced to something against their teachings/principles. Such as the Catholic Church being required to offer adoption to same sex couples. I do not think that their right to adopt is being taken away, just that they will need to use alternate sources than religious adoption agencies.
Ooh, great discussion. Let me respond.
I completely agree with you about teaching sensitive subjects such as religion and marriage in schools. Curriculum should be presented objectively. I strongly believe that the YES on 8 campaign is misrepresenting this issue by implying that teachers in Massachusetts are "teaching" gay marriage. I think you can find individual cases of teachers imposing their subjective views about a whole host of issues, including gay rights, religion and politics. However, I don't think it should be considered an imposition to include the book "King and King" in a school library and allow children to think for themselves about it. Teachers can use the book to talk about tolerance, and although many parents may find it disturbing, they should see it as an opportunity to discuss the issue with their kids. It would be difficult to completely shelter a child from the issue anyway, with Ellen's wedding on the cover of magazines in grocery stores and gay couples presented on popular television shows.
I also completely agree with you that religious institutions should NEVER be forced by law to compromise their beliefs in the name of tolerance. This issue too, however, I believe is being misrepresented by the YES on 8 campaign. Churches are not governed by the constitution and in fact have explicit protections written into the constitution:
SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or
preference are guaranteed.
If churches choose to celebrate same-sex unions, they can, or they can choose not to. All that is at stake in the state's recognition of the union are the civil privileges that the status of marriage confers on a couple. People can continue to believe that homosexuality is sinful or not. Preacher can spout condemnations of the lives of gay people from the pulpit. All that is protected (freedom of religion, freedom of speech...the constitution is awesome!).
That said, there are some unfortunate gray areas where church autonomy and state ordinance overlap, such as adoption agencies that are required by law to be licensed by the state. I understand and appreciate that at times it may seem the state is imposing civil rights protections on religious groups. And I can't say for sure what will happen in California in cases like this. However, I feel more strongly about preserving the integrity of our constitution. Perhaps laws or codes can be written in to protect church-sponsored organizations, but this should not require amending our constitution. Let's work it out another way.
As a teacher who supports gay marriage, let me join your conversation.
Two points:
1. On teaching religion and gay issues in schools: Whoever thinks you "can't talk about religion in school" is dead wrong. You must talk about religion in school! I am a social studies teacher and you cannot teach history without teaching about religion. I teach my students about all the major world religions' beliefs, histories, and customs. To understand what religion is, I ask my students to reflect on their own beliefs, the origins of such beliefs, and the impact their beliefs have on their life. Religions are organized set of beliefs that seek to answer the big questions of life. I tell my students that even if they are not religious they can think about these questions! I ask them to write their reflections but we do not discuss individual beliefs, and I do not impose my own, in the classroom.
Regarding gay rights, I teach about that, too! I feel very strongly that gay rights are civil rights and after we spend time learning about the women's suffrage movement and Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s we look at contemporary civil rights issues, such as immigrant rights and gay rights. I tell students they are free to believe what they want but I do not tolerate hateful statements in class. I ask them to analyze the gay rights movement in comparison with the Civil Rights Movement. Showing a video called "Out of the Past" and asking students to do a short written reflection takes about one period and then we move on.
My point is that teachers can already teach about gay rights in schools (I taught in a public school in Oregon but I'm sure this video is used by some in Calfornia, too) if they feel it is an important issue. Passing Proposition 8 wouldn't change that.
2. How do same-sex marriages harm families? When my two girlfriends got married last month, your marriage (Nick and Holly) was not affected. When women like my friends are excluded from the constitutional right to marry who you love, they are harmed. If you don't support gay marriage, then don't have one. Otherwise, please respect other loving couples desires to honor their commitments just as you can.
If this is just an argument about semantics, about a word, then I think people should get over it! No matter what laws say, my girlfriends are married. They live in Oregon so fortunately they have the rights of domestic partners, just as they would in California. But they are married just as you are.
Amending the constitution to exclude people from an article defining equal rights is an ugly thing to do- is it worth it just to cling to a word?
I'm an Oregonian living in Japan but if I lived in my home state of California I would certainly vote no on Proposition 8.
Kristen and Ali,
I really do understand your arguments; but I kindly disagree. This is a political issue and, as such, does not affect my feelings about any individual (be they family, friend, or acquaintance) I know (and I have lots of gay friends). Let the PEOPLE decide what is best for California.
Peace.
Post a Comment