Thoughts on Prop 8
The United States of America was founded by people who were escaping persecution because their beliefs were not mainstream in their fatherland. The founding fathers set forth a new kind of government to prevent tyranny of any kind from afflicting the citizens then and now. One of the key provisions was the first amendment. It is not very long and I think it bears scrutiny so that we can frame the battle in its terms:
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”
There are many pieces to this the first of our bill of rights. We allow religions to flourish and to follow their conscience. It could be argued that there have been laws made regarding religion, such as giving churches a tax-free existence. Perhaps it is understood that churches are not people and cannot or should not participate in the political discussions and battles of their times. In exchange, they are given tax-exempt status.
But if religious institutions participate directly or indirectly in the political process, they should not be given this special tax status. Perhaps this law should not have been passed in the first place, since it violates the first amendment. Revoking it is not against the separation of church and state. In fact it removes a law respecting an establishment of religion that should in fact not be in existence.
Step 1: Remove tax-exempt statuses from all churches, or those churches that participate in the political process.
States are hurting because of the financial crisis and could use the extra revenue. This would channel money that is wasted by the churches on battles such as prop 8 and return the money to the people. Clearly a majority of the people would vote for such if it were proposed as a proposition. This will also teach a lesson to those who feel people’s rights can be taken away by a majority vote.
The next part of the amendment is about freedom of speech and of the press. Both sides of any issue should be debated and freedom of speech and press is essential for the electorate to be informed before voting. Paying an ad agency for propaganda and using lies as was done in the prop 8 campaign is not the same as informing the electorate properly.
As today with our presence around the country at city halls and state capitols, we practiced the right to peacefully assemble. And we have brought before the courts our grievances for redress.
The courts have been set up partly to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
If the Germans were asked to vote on gassing the Jews in WWII, the majority may have voted to do it after a successful propaganda campaign. The majority is not always right or wise. It can be more like mob rule. Our constitution of California requires just 50% plus 1 person to amend. This seems highly dangerous and irrational. There should at least be judicial review of any proposed changes to the Constitution before it makes its way into the very document that we entrust to protect us all (equal protection) and that gives us our rights. Any conflicts should be noted in the judicial review.
Step 2: Revoke all balloted proposition amendments of the state constitution if they do not pass judicial review.
Step 3: Make it harder to change the constitution by requiring a 2/3 majority. (Which is virtually impossible unless we really require the change).
Step 4: Allow propositions that are best determined by the populace and disallow any others. (It is irrational to govern by mob-rule.)
One of the rights given all people by the U.S. Supreme Court in “Loving vs. Virginia” was the importance of marriage as a civil right. The court ruled:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. ”
Although the decision was based on inter-racial couples marrying, it could equally apply to gay and lesbian couples as well. Since the Supreme Court of the state of California has ruled that same-sex marriage should be allowed due to the equal protection clause of our state constitution, then taking away that right by a simple vote should not be allowed.
We will not force churches to perform same-sex weddings if they do not want to. We can get married at City Hall or by a clergy of similar persuasion. Most of us will probably not have children, natural or adopted. We will not be teaching children in the schools about same-sex marriage unless we have to in order to fight this fight into the next generation. This the prop 8 folks can avoid by revoking this putrid proposition. My marriage to my husband, Gary does not weaken marriage for heterosexuals, but strengthens it. If we can marry openly those that we love, we don’t have to enter marriages of convenience which take their toll on the wives/husbands but also most assuredly on the children.
We will prevail, I have no doubt of that. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is on our side. We may have to fight for it, even to the declaration of civil war. I am ready.
There, I’ve had my say on the matter.
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”
There are many pieces to this the first of our bill of rights. We allow religions to flourish and to follow their conscience. It could be argued that there have been laws made regarding religion, such as giving churches a tax-free existence. Perhaps it is understood that churches are not people and cannot or should not participate in the political discussions and battles of their times. In exchange, they are given tax-exempt status.
But if religious institutions participate directly or indirectly in the political process, they should not be given this special tax status. Perhaps this law should not have been passed in the first place, since it violates the first amendment. Revoking it is not against the separation of church and state. In fact it removes a law respecting an establishment of religion that should in fact not be in existence.
Step 1: Remove tax-exempt statuses from all churches, or those churches that participate in the political process.
States are hurting because of the financial crisis and could use the extra revenue. This would channel money that is wasted by the churches on battles such as prop 8 and return the money to the people. Clearly a majority of the people would vote for such if it were proposed as a proposition. This will also teach a lesson to those who feel people’s rights can be taken away by a majority vote.
The next part of the amendment is about freedom of speech and of the press. Both sides of any issue should be debated and freedom of speech and press is essential for the electorate to be informed before voting. Paying an ad agency for propaganda and using lies as was done in the prop 8 campaign is not the same as informing the electorate properly.
As today with our presence around the country at city halls and state capitols, we practiced the right to peacefully assemble. And we have brought before the courts our grievances for redress.
The courts have been set up partly to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
If the Germans were asked to vote on gassing the Jews in WWII, the majority may have voted to do it after a successful propaganda campaign. The majority is not always right or wise. It can be more like mob rule. Our constitution of California requires just 50% plus 1 person to amend. This seems highly dangerous and irrational. There should at least be judicial review of any proposed changes to the Constitution before it makes its way into the very document that we entrust to protect us all (equal protection) and that gives us our rights. Any conflicts should be noted in the judicial review.
Step 2: Revoke all balloted proposition amendments of the state constitution if they do not pass judicial review.
Step 3: Make it harder to change the constitution by requiring a 2/3 majority. (Which is virtually impossible unless we really require the change).
Step 4: Allow propositions that are best determined by the populace and disallow any others. (It is irrational to govern by mob-rule.)
One of the rights given all people by the U.S. Supreme Court in “Loving vs. Virginia” was the importance of marriage as a civil right. The court ruled:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. ”
Although the decision was based on inter-racial couples marrying, it could equally apply to gay and lesbian couples as well. Since the Supreme Court of the state of California has ruled that same-sex marriage should be allowed due to the equal protection clause of our state constitution, then taking away that right by a simple vote should not be allowed.
We will not force churches to perform same-sex weddings if they do not want to. We can get married at City Hall or by a clergy of similar persuasion. Most of us will probably not have children, natural or adopted. We will not be teaching children in the schools about same-sex marriage unless we have to in order to fight this fight into the next generation. This the prop 8 folks can avoid by revoking this putrid proposition. My marriage to my husband, Gary does not weaken marriage for heterosexuals, but strengthens it. If we can marry openly those that we love, we don’t have to enter marriages of convenience which take their toll on the wives/husbands but also most assuredly on the children.
We will prevail, I have no doubt of that. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is on our side. We may have to fight for it, even to the declaration of civil war. I am ready.
There, I’ve had my say on the matter.