What are the six consequences if Proposition 8 Fails?
1. Children in public schools will be taught that both traditional
marriage and same-sex marriage are okay. The California Education Code
already requires that health education classes instruct children about
marriage. (§51890) Therefore, if the definition of marriage is
changed, children will be taught that marriage is a relation between
any two adults. There will be serious clashes between the secular
school system and the right of parents to teach their children their
own values and beliefs.
2. Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage
ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public.
Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready
to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
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
has put an end to its adoption work, deciding to abandon its founding
mission, rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be
allowed to adopt children. (Boston.com)
4. Religions that sponsor private schools and which provide housing
for married students will be required to provide housing for same-sex
couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine or lose tax
exemptions and benefits.
5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages will be sued for
hate speech and could be fined by the government. It has already
happened in Canada, one of six countries that have legalized gay
marriage.
6. It will cost you money. A change in the definition of marriage will
bring a cascade of lawsuits. 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, your church
contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees. And think of
all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this
time. Where will it end? It’s your children, your grandchildren, your
money, and your liberties. Lets work together to protect them.
|
|
|
—-
My Reply:
Hi Humans,
Nina – I want to thank you for bringing my attention to Proposition 8. I had heard it was to appear on the ballot, but hadn’t yet done much reading on the matter.
I’m a little unsure how to best reply. My first response to reading this article was to google the referenced information, sensing that it may be a sort of propaganda. It’s been about an hour now, and my best guess is that the information came from a flyer created by the California Family Council (CFC). This comes from a August 28, 2008 article written by the Associated Press (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-24-gay-marriage_N.htm), then from googling “Ron Prentice” to find that the “coalition of religious and social conservative groups” mentioned in the article is the CFC. The CFC, as you may read, is the group that created proposition 8, thus may not be the most objective source for information.
Good luck finding an “objective source.” The strongest arguments will be made on either extreme end, and this conversation would go nowhere except to end in a heightened stance of name-calling (e.g. “liberal extremist”, and “conservative extremist”). I’d rather not do that. I think that the best thing to do, if we’re looking for objectivity on the issue, is to look at the facts the best way we can. Here’s a shot at #1. (I’m not a pro on this issue, I’m just going to try my best here):
(1). Is it so bad to teach children that it’s okay to accept their fellow human beings as the beautiful people that they are? I think that’s what society has been striving for when it teaches us to look past artificial barriers such as race, creed, religion, and gender. Perhaps it’s even part of what Jesus taught when He said to “love thy neighbor.”
Secondly, it seems from various blog posts that we should really take a look into the CA Education code before making assumptions. For example, the only part of section 51890 that refers to family is section D which states,
51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to ensure that: (1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects: (D) Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
(http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=51001-52000&file=51890-51891).
The point I want to make here, is that as Americans, we are given the right to vote. We are given the right to free speech, the right to question the information we are given, and the right to access more sources. We are also given a responsibility, to our fellow Americans, and our fellow people, to cast an informed vote. This is a moral question of voting with a crowd, or having the independence to consider an issue with the resources we all have as free citizens of the United States of America. This argument works for both extremes.
It is simple to google “six consequences if proposition 8 fails” and find a variety of opinions on the matter. It is a bit more time consuming to do the fact checking and to find legitimate/objective sources. But, it is very easy to identify that this is a piece of propoganda – the concerns voiced in the “6 consequences” are written in an alarmist fashion, and constitute illogical, unfounded, and ungrounded sentiments.
One person, Joyce A. Rogers, took on the list point-by-point, did her homework, and cited her facts. It’s a great read. You can read the full article here (though the original article appears here). You’ll notice that the two sources are from liberal news sources. The article is undoubtedly biased, but if you can bear to read through a bit of bitter sarcasm, you’ll find it to be factual, and its allegations easily sourced (i.e. if you don’t believe her, you can click on her sources to see if you might believe them). Though I’ll admit that battling one extremist view with the opposite extremist view is not the best way to come to a common ground, I would argue in this case that the article I’ve linked is more credible than the original “6 consequences” as it points to the exact places where it’s information came from, and the information from the “6 consequences article” cannot be easily tracked or validated (suggesting that it might be made up).
Obviously, I have expressed an opinion here. However, I have written this with the hope that the two sides of this issue can communicate, and as I said in the original facebook comment “in hopes that together we can share information and form a collective objectivity to this issue.”
Peace and love to all,
Whitney
