California's Proposition 8 Obfuscates The Real Issue At Hand In North America: The Separation Of Church And State
Wednesday, November 5, 2008 I do not live in California, or even the United States, for that matter, but I was so saddened to read this morning that Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment bill that would ban legal homosexual marriage in that state, was passed. The fact that enough Californians saw it as just to pass judgment on what happens in the bedrooms of strangers so much so that they would deem it appropriate to take away some of their constitutional, although short-lived, rights is outrageous.
I understand that a lot of people voted in favour of this amendment based on a morality borne by religious beliefs. Some believe that homosexuality is sinful and a blight in the eyes of their Lord. They are entitled to believe that as a part of their religious code, and I will not deny it to them, but the present system that allows people to force that view into a secular, government arena is unconscionable. It is antithetical to the evangelism of their faith to nonbelievers, it does not speak to Jesus' doctrine of tolerance, and it works to push more fear and anger into the world rather than create greater levels of human understanding and love.
But that is not my greatest concern. Believe the way you will, vote the way you will. I cannot expect people to put their faith aside completely and adopt a secular mindset when they enter a voting booth. That would be asking people to ignore what they see as God's mandate for their lives, and I don't believe in asking anyone to give up their core beliefs for anyone else, no matter how detestable I find those beliefs. My greatest concern is that church and state are still bound together through this marriage issue in both Canada and the United States. As long as the church still carries out the legal duties of the state, neither the secular nor the non-secular among us will be able to live freely as the ideal of separation of church and state would have us believe we do.
Even when I was a religious youth, I did not understand why a marriage performed in my church should have any governmental bearing whatsoever. I went through a bit of a purist stage back then, and I was concerned about any watering down of our religious culture or beliefs through secular intervention, and the assumed connection between churches of governmentally accepted religions and the state made me nervous. I grew up Mennonite, and I was given to understand that, as Mennonites endured hardships across Europe for centuries, we sought a place where the separation of church and state would ensure our safety and well-being in a way that the alternatives had not. Where the state intervenes in religious practice is where religious freedom becomes most vulnerable.
I have always felt, both in my religious and non-religious incarnations, that church marriage should belong to the church and that state marriage should belong to the state. If you are religious and want to have a church ceremony, please do that, but that marriage should only be acknowledged by the state if that contract is submitted to the state also. The sanctity of church marriage would remain intact, as it could be limited to believers, and state marriage would be what it has always been, a legal contract whose ancillary depth and meaning is based within the respective hearts, minds, and cultures of the couples involved regardless of their religious conviction.
As it stands, this joining of church and state in the way of marriage has done far more to water down the meaning and intent of marriage on a religious level than allowing homosexuals to marry every could. Think about it. Anyone with opposite genitalia, whether Christian, Satanist, otherwise religious, atheist, or agnostic, can and do marry under one umbrella. In the broader scope, marriage is not about religious faith any more than it is about purple unicorns. If there is anything that needs to change, aside from giving homosexuals back the right to be treated as equals under the law, it is the worn out marriage of church and state. It does neither side of the gay marriage debate any favours.
Arguing about legality and sanctity and whatever else with regard to who marries whom while the church and state are still working through their unholy marriage woes is like fighting over the last steak when it has already gone foul. Throw out the steak and count your respective blessings, both religious and not, that you can live in a country that allows you freedoms that in other countries, whether it be your religion or your homosexuality, could sign your death certificate. The security of the rights and freedoms of all North American citizens, both religious and secular, cannot be guaranteed until the church and the state realize that their co-dependent relationship is harming their children, the citizens who have yet to realize the promise of freedom that was made so long ago.
As I already stated, where the state intervenes in religious practice is where religious freedom becomes most vulnerable, and I add to that: where religion intervenes in secular practice is where secular freedom becomes most vulnerable. In the spirit of tolerance and good fellow-feeling, the religious and the secular spheres must tear themselves asunder to bring real freedom for both sides.
We are not the same, but we can be free.
I am a participant in NaBloPoMo 2008, a challenge to write 30 posts in 30 days during the month of November. "National Blog Posting Month is the epicenter of daily blogging!"
Reader Comments (38)
Purple unicorns!! There are no pur.....
:}
Could not agree more. I was saying to Al last night, "what we need is different words for church marriage and civil marriage, because most marriages these days are essentially civil unions."
I couldn't agree more. I have always thought that a "solution" to this issue could be that all "marriages" would be essentially civil unions -- something that a government recognizes -- and if you then also choose to have a church ceremony, go for it.
Well you just said what I was planning on blogging about later this evening about a million times better than I will tonight.
Not so certain I agree with you. I've been thinking the core problem is thinking that a majority has the power to deny basic human rights a minority. That is an evil far more frightening to me than a blurring of the lines between church and state.
Perfectly said. Arizona made the same decision and I'm so disappointed. I have to think there's an imminent plan in the mix. There just HAS to be a civil union workaround.
I cannot agree more completely with you than I have with this. Marriage between two PEOPLE is more appropriate, and certainly not something any church should dictate to the people living in a free country.
Are you sure about those unicorns? I think one passed through my backyard the other day...I could simply be a heathen in the wrong too...
I suppose then there must be people who don't see my marriage as valid, considering there was no religious component to either of my marriage events (the first in a theatre with a JP, and the second in my living room with my JP-for-a-day friend). I hadn't ever thought about that.
I can only guess that you're light on posts for Five Star Friday, this week - since this one HAS to make the list. Has to.
schmutzie, your writing and insight rocks my world. Not for the first time. I know it won't be the last time, either.
You're using very calm and controlled prose in an effort to persuade people who need to be clubbed.
I'm with you. I'm so with you on this. But what do we do about it? How do we make it better?
Thank you for this thoughtful, insightful, and important post.
Tom and our children and I worked hard to see Proposition 8 defeated, all the way up until the end, even standing in the rain holding signs yesterday.
There is a problem not only with the church stepping into constitutional matters, and the civil rights of one group being trod upon by another, but there is a problem with the process. I'm hardly the first to recognize that the California initiative process is absurd. California permits constitutional amendment by a simple majority vote in a referendum. All that it takes is a simple majority of people to pass a constitutional amendment that takes away the civil rights of a minority group. The requirement of obtaining signatures reflecting 8% of the voters to put a constitutional amendment before the people is an easy task for a well-funded group, and in the case of Proposition 8 that group was one with a religious agenda, a large amount of out-of-state funding, and a marketing campaign fraught with untruths and scare tactics. Equal protection under the constitution is not supposed to mean that we legalize whatever arrangements the majority believes are desirable.
Jennifer Rothman opined (in her piece at Huffington Post on October 30) that Proposition 8 "may ultimately lead to a decision under the U.S. Constitution holding all marriage bans in all states unconstitutional. The federal constitution also protects privacy, liberty and equal protection and even conservative judges have not looked kindly on majority votes taking away rights." Moreover, nothing that I can see will stop another group from sponsoring a ballot initiative to amend the constitution to define marriage as between two adults. Now we have a game of constitutional amendment ping pong.
Assuming that Prop 8 passes, and while all votes are not counted, things are leaning that way to be sure, civil rights took at hit in California. This was at the state level, and it will only serve as a springboard for change at the national level. Lawsuits are being filed as I write this. California took one for the team. Change is coming for everyone.
Thanks again for your voice, Schmutzie.
Mildly Unstable, in both countries, a step in the right direction would be to take any legal proceedings out of the hands of religious bodies and put them squarely back in the hands of the state. That would help us to treat all people as equal and stop inviting religious intrusion into secular matters.
How to do that, though? I do not know yet.
Cheri @ Blog This Mom!, you make me feel hopeful! Thanks for YOUR insight.
My sons are descended in part from the Mennonite martyr Hans Landes, the last one executed in Europe, so I understand the stance from which you spring very well. The Mennonites, as all the Anabaptists, were keen to distinguish between they believed were the laws of God and the laws that people made.
Family law is the least satisfying kind of civil law, as it attempts to deal with values and emotions and situations that are best handled informally, with compassion and understanding. If I were world dictator, I would abolish family law. None of the government's business how citizens organize their most intimate relationships!
I would like to nominate this for Five Star Friday, please.
Brilliant. Thank you.
(and I agree with Black Hockey Jesus!)
I do live in CA and this is something that was very close to my heart. A friend sent me an email before the election that I really loved, sorry, its lengthy:
Hello Family & Friends,
I don't normally send out political e-mails, but I feel very strongly about Proposition 8 and have been extremely aggravated by the deceptive advertising paid for by the "Yes on Prop 8" campaign. Everyone is entitled to their vote, but I just want those I care about (and who care about me) to know what they are voting for. Some of you who are getting this may not live in California, but this is a proposition that has made national news and will likely set a precedent for the rest of the states in this country, so it it relevant to all Americans.
Unlike what the ads may tell you, Proposition 8 has nothing to do with children being taught about homosexuality in Kindergarden or churches losing their non-profit status for refusing to marry same-sex couples. If you read what is says, all it does is "Eliminate the right for same sex couples to marry." The "Yes on 8" campaign is trying to manipulate people to think they are voting directly to prevent same-sex marriage from being taught to young children. This is merely a "what if?" scenario that is brought on by paranoia and fear. I don't think elementary school children should be taught about homosexuality either, and if it were a proposition about homosexuality only being brought to adolescents attention during the sex education classes taught in middle school (that require a parents signature) than I would be voting yes. But this is simply not what the proposition is.
As far as churches losing their non-profit status for refusing to marry same-sex couples, this is an even bigger stretch. First and foremost, Prop 8 is amending only the CALIFORNIA Constitution, whereas non-profit status is decided by the Federal Government. The government is not going to force a church who does not recognize same-sex marriage to marry a gay couple, which would be a direct violation of the separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. And quite frankly, I don't see a lot of gay couples wanting to get married in a church with such views. While many churches are making it out to seem the "Gays are waging war against the Church", it's campaigns like
Yes on Prop 8 that make it seem the other way around.
I am first and foremost a Christian, and I also happen to be gay, which puts me in a very difficult but powerful position during these times where many churches and gay activist groups are in monumental conflict. There are many things that can be learned from the Bible, but what is without a doubt the most important message that Jesus Christ came here to teach us was to LOVE one another. Not to fear and outcast those who we believe to be different or sinful, but to love and embrace them.
All I ask is that when you go to cast your vote next Tuesday, vote with Love and not Fear. Why should my love be deemed lesser than that of heterosexual people? Do you really want to vote for something that is written out of fear of someone else's love?
I've attached below a letter written by someone, with whom I was in a relationship with for 2 years and who remains a friend with whom I love respect immensely. Coming from a different background than myself, he offers another perspective on Prop 8 that is worth considering as well when you go to cast your vote.
Thank you for taking the time to read this, and please forward it along to anyone you feel may gain new insight from it.
I welcome back any response you have to this e-mail, whether it be negative or positive.
Love,
A
To concerned California citizen:
The founding fathers of our nation wrote the United States Constitution for the express purpose of protecting certain fundamental rights of the people from governmental intrusion. They chose only the most fundamental of rights to protect: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to confront ones accusers, amongst others. They also provided that any amendment to the Constitution must be approved of not by a majority of votes, but by two-thirds Congress and three-fourths of the states, a near impossibility in our current politically-charged climate.
Amendments to any constitution, whether state or federal, should be used to protect rights from government intrusion, and should not be used to take away the rights of any person. Proposition 8 does exactly that. Proposition 8 attempts to use a vote of the majority of the people to enact prejudices into the California Constitution. The voters in our representative government were heard when the California Legislature voted twice to legalize gay marriage, only to be vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. If the denial of a person's fundamental rights were ultimately determined by a majority vote of the people, marriage would probably still be defined as only allowed between persons of the same race, as was the case in many states when this country was founded.
Proposition 8, in fact, condemns homosexual persons to a life of inequality. The ads in support of Proposition 8 say that if the proposition does not pass, our children will be taught about gay marriage in school; this is not true. But, if Proposition 8 does pass, an entire generation of children will be taught that the California Constitution says that homosexuals do not deserve to be treated equally, only provoking the hatred and violence homosexual teens and adults suffer as a result of being deemed "different." Name-calling and indifference simply should not be written in as a fundamental right.
An estimated 77% of the funding for Proposition 8 was contributed by the Mormon Church (an estimated $17.67 million of the $22.88 million collected in support). The church has approximately 770,000 members in the state of California, accounting for about 2% of the state's population. Proposition 8 will likely go down in history as the most costly voter proposition ever, with over $60 million spent by both sides. With so much money being thrown around, it is easy to forget that this is not a vote to support or oppose gay marriage. This is a vote to permanently condemn homosexual persons in this state to a life of being called "different." We are all "different" in our own way, which is what makes this country unlike any other. Wars are being fought every day to protect these fundamental rights we hold so true; while at home, we seem to have forgotten what it truly means to be a free-thinking republic.
Proposition 8 is not a vote to support or oppose gay marriage; it is a vote to permanently take away an individual's right to choose their life on their terms. When you go to the polls on November 4th and cast your vote, I implore you to ask yourself one question: Do I want to cast a vote that permanently takes away any of the rights afforded to my neighbors, my friends, my co-workers, my family, or even my fellow citizens? There really is no other answer: VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8.
Thank you for your time and thank you for listening,
Yeah, I'm very disappointed that so many of my fellow Californians think it's A-OK to legislate discrimination.
I'm in full agreement on the civil marriage - I've heard that some European countries require all couples to do a civil ceremony, then if a religious couple wants a religious wedding, they can do that separately. That sounds good to me.
What kills me with all the "but what about the children??" fearmongering is this: what about the gay kids that will have higher suicide rates in high school? You're in support of that? (yes, I knew one of these, and I wish he could have stayed to see that things are not as bad as he thought).
I'm hoping that all those big churches who saw fit to meddle lose their tax-exempt status for getting into politics. A girl can dream...
Excellent essay Ms. Schmutzie.
why call it civil marriage? can civil unions not simply be raised to the same status and receive the same rights as a traditional religious marriage? marriage began in the church. i agree, shmutzie that it has been 'perverted' and watered down over the centuries.
i discussed this issue with a Jewish friend of mine today (who still lives in CA, though i do not), and he suggested, 'perhaps we should simply abolish marriage and henceforth only allow civil unions. then marriage can be kept in the church, where it began and where it belongs.' he may just be on to something.
If only more of my fellow Californians had this thoughtful outlook.
And you said you couldn't write about politics. You're hired! :)
I don't think it is possible to truly separate religion/morals/beliefs from government, but know that God is looking down on Californians today, and she is one pissed off bitch.
Have I told you lately that you're brilliant?
I totally agree. In fact it's a little weird but this is almost exactly what I blogged yesterday. (See #4)
I'm going to start calling you
"Linky Wondergirl"
You give good link.
Those beds! The poem! The Lincoln dream. You are making me love November.
Please don't stop, baby!
This is good political commentary too, m'lady.
Ms. Linky.
It won't solve the problem immediately but in a cultural way it will. All marriages are civil in Mexico, for example--but they won't be getting full marriage rights for a long time.
Fabulous! Yes! I totally agree. But I am just curious about one thing: As a Mennonite, my Grandpa had conscientious objector status in WWII, which I've been taught to be proud of and I generally think it was a good thing. The argument could theoretically be made that in that instance the government was upholding a tenet of a religious group (pacifism) at the expense of others (those fighting with less support, the country as a whole, etc.), much like the gay marriage instance today.
Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% in favour of same-sex marriage and love your post, but this just occured to me while I was reading it and wondered what you thought.
Hey - can I nominate this to be a part of Five Star Friday, please?
Well said.
Kay, both of my grandfathers were conscientious objectors during WWII, and I am deeply proud of their decision to stick by their belief in nonviolence, which was a highly unpopular decision at the time. They were both sent with other COs to work for a couple of years up in northern Canada clearing fire alleys, building roads, and bringing electricity to a part of the country that had not had that before. They may not have fought overseas, but they were removed from their families and their livelihoods each for a couple of years to work hard to build this country.
I am damn proud of the work they did and the stand they took.
As a clergywoman, I agree that the church should be out of the marriage business. Oh, sure, we could bless a civil marriage at the request of the couple, and at least in my United Methodist Church, I can't be compelled to perform any wedding--so that should get the church out of the legality of things. It's all so complicated, and marriage should not be politicized the way we've done.
I really appreciate your thoughtful post.
Whenever I read about things like this, I think back to slavery. I know the comparison might not be apparent immediately, but bear with me.
When slavery was abolished, it was not a popular decision with many people. In fact, had the decision been placed in the hands of the citizens, in a referendum, it is possible that the Emancipation Proclamation might not have been made. Now, over a hundred years later, no one would consider owning a slave. It is the government's duty to create a better society for its citizens, to be forward thinking and lead society through legislation. We need top-down solutions, rather than waiting for society to come around. By legislating a better society, people's opinions will change.
Sorry if I wasn't clear there. I'm also very proud of my Grandpa for having been a conscientious objector, and I for one recognize the sacrifices that he and his family made. My point is that I'm very glad that the government stepped in to uphold a religious belief, even if it most likely seemed very unfair to those people and their families who didn't have a way to opt out of fighting. So I'm trying to (in a devil's advocate kind of way, because I'm all about supporting gay marriage) draw a parallel betwee the government being involved in faith over conscientious objectors and the government being involved in faith over gay marriage.
Bossy is so bummed. This is the most backward "forward-thinking" country she's ever been a part of.
The *complete* separation of church and state is utterly necessary if we want to present ourselves as a secular society at all. You can't, on one hand, decry the highly contentious and religious lifestyle of hardline Muslim folks in the middle east, or rightwing fanatic Christians in a compound in Texas, while on the other hand claiming that the society you live in is secular when you still are forced to invoke the name of a God when you testify in court (although I don't know of many jurisdictions that insist you swear on a Christian Bible anymore), when you sing your national anthem, or when you http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102703.html" REL="nofollow">convocate from university.
There is no reason religious viewpoints should be argued when discussing civil services such as marriage. What I mean is: you can't (or shouldn't) object on religious grounds against something that takes place in a necessarily secular forum.
But over and above the issue of gay marriage, if the country you're living in refers to itself as a 'melting pot' or a 'mosaic' that embraces all cultures, yet still ties its legal system, its system of civil rights, and/or its education system on religious institutions or calls on its citizens to recognise a Higher Power of any kind in order to become citizens, even if it's only in lip service, then you're not really living in a country that truly supports freedom of religion (or freedom *from* religion, depending on how you look at it).
Great post, Schmutzie. Church and State ought to have been separated at birth. Hopefully one of those famous conjoined twins doctors can do the operation now, though, before more harm is done.
This is so beyond incredible...
but I do have to agree with Black Hockey Jesus. I wrote about this recently, although from a different angle ( http://www.sweetsalty.com/sweetsalty/2008/10/23/what-was-planted-to-heal-the-world.html ... I don't mean to link to be an ass, I do actually have a related point)
A Mormon commenter recently intervened on that post to remind me to "have more humility and patience" to "understand" the other side. I responded to her diplomatically, but really, I'm of a more clubbing mindset.
Sometimes, you're just on the wrong fucking side, and you need to be told that in no uncertain terms. I do not need to "understand" the reasoning put forth by religious bigots for state-sanctioned discrimination. I can simply reject it outright.
I remember when gay marriage was made legal in Canada, the religious folk were somewhat up in arms as well (although they're not nearly as well-funded or as vehement as they are in the states). Here's what our federal government said to them - as far as I can recall, it was our prime minister at the time:
"It's our job as government to do the right thing, and to end wrongs. Sometimes that's not popular among vocal minorities, but in this case, we don't need to hear the other side. We are a tolerant nation - end of story."
(paraphrased)
I know in my heart that the same will be true down south regardless of what happened the other day. It's only a matter of time.
Gorgeous, gorgeous post.
Thanks for this. I have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion - only anger.
As a bi chick, I was extremely saddened by the results of the votes. I'd almost rather see McCain in power if that meant the 3 states voting on gay marriage said, "Sure, why not?" instead of "Bleh! No way!"
I think it's weird that one of the most red-necked, conservative provinces in Canada has legalized gay marriage while fricking California got rid of it. It makes me extremely angry.
I feel as though the public is like my grandma, who tells me that all I really need is to find the right guy and settle down. Then all this silly "liking girls" thing can just be put behind us.
I want to stand up and wave my middle finger at anyone who voted, "Ewwww!"
EXACTLY RIGHT. This is a civil rights issue only, when it comes to government involvement, freedom and mandate, that is. Period.
I was very disappointed too but I really do think we'll see change on this. Just keep posts like this coming- people need to realize it's a civil rights issue first and unfortunately a lot of people just don't get it.
This was such a well written eloquent post and I'm embarrassed that I didn't know Canada made gay marriage legal- I like the quote from the Prime Minister.
We have to all be alert, vocal, and persistent here in the states in order to get this issue dealt with.