CA Church Groups Call for Prop 8 Repeal
Wednesday November 19, 2008
The vile piece of legislation known as Proposition 8 in California continues to be the focus of controversy, as protests across the country spring up. Now, a coalition of California religious leaders has called for a repeal of the law, which not only prevents gay marriage in California but also manages to rewrite the state's constitution. The California Council of Churches has filed a petition to the California Supreme Court requesting that Prop 8 be invalidated.
The petition's argument is a simple one - that improper procedures were used to pass the legislation. The California constitution has some pretty strict procedural requirements for revision of itself, and these weren't followed. A constitutional revision has to be presented to the state legislature first, and get a two-thirds vote before it can be put before voters for consideration. Prop 8, however, went directly to the voters of California, bypassing the state legislature.
In a representative democracy, where all are guaranteed equal protection under the law, the Council argues that if gays are denied rights by way of improper legislative procedures, who's next? The petition reads in part, "Just as surely as gay men and lesbians could be deprived of equal protection by a simple majority vote, so too could religious minorities be deprived of equal protection."
Of equal note is that those who object to gay marriage typically do so on the grounds of their religious beliefs. But what about those religious groups who have no opposal to gay marriage? As Pagan clergy, I'm more than happy to handfast any couple who loves one another, whether they're straight or gay. Under Prop 8, religions opposed to gay marriage are trying to impose their definition of marriage on the rest of us, and they're trying to get the state to help them do it.
The petition's argument is a simple one - that improper procedures were used to pass the legislation. The California constitution has some pretty strict procedural requirements for revision of itself, and these weren't followed. A constitutional revision has to be presented to the state legislature first, and get a two-thirds vote before it can be put before voters for consideration. Prop 8, however, went directly to the voters of California, bypassing the state legislature.
In a representative democracy, where all are guaranteed equal protection under the law, the Council argues that if gays are denied rights by way of improper legislative procedures, who's next? The petition reads in part, "Just as surely as gay men and lesbians could be deprived of equal protection by a simple majority vote, so too could religious minorities be deprived of equal protection."
Of equal note is that those who object to gay marriage typically do so on the grounds of their religious beliefs. But what about those religious groups who have no opposal to gay marriage? As Pagan clergy, I'm more than happy to handfast any couple who loves one another, whether they're straight or gay. Under Prop 8, religions opposed to gay marriage are trying to impose their definition of marriage on the rest of us, and they're trying to get the state to help them do it.
Comments
Definitely some very good points being presented there. I just hope they make their way to the proper ears and can make a difference. I only ever hear religious reasons for the blocking of homosexual marriages, and that bothers me because these people think that there’s is the only religion. A number of religions are OK with this and blocking it is unconstitutional as it interferes with some religious beliefs. And of course people should be able to follow their hearts no matter what their religion tells them. Freedom of choice!
There is also the fact that by law and the US Constitution, religion cannot play a part in government.
What a wonderful happenstance! I am so pleased to see that there are churches fighting against proposition 8, and for good reasons! It is wonderful to see two seemingly opposing sides come together on this issue. Democracy at it’s finest!
Thank you for sharing this!
I agree with above post, I’m glad to see someone else who agrees that “church and state” should remain separate!! It’s also nice to see two opposing sides working together!
Although I agree that Prop 8 was a bad idea it scares me to think we will invalidate a vote by the people. If you want to overturn it do it right with another vote. If we open the door to invalidating parts of our state or national constitution without following the laws put in place to change it I think we will have opened Pandora’s box and we may not like what the politicians do with this power next time.
The vote was legal, deal with it folks. If you don’t like it than work for another vote so that it is fixed by the rules. The Constitution was written with checks and balance for a reason, don’t throw away something that has worked for years over one issue. Do this by the book for everyone sake
JD, you said, “The vote was legal, deal with it folks.” I think a major point here is that it was NOT legal.
I just don’t get it. The people voted, and they homosexuals lost. I see things like “this vile thing”, “people voting for hatred”, “churches are bigoted”, and I fail to understand yet again. I don’t care if you’re gay, or if you want to be together, marriage is between a man and a woman period. Seems like we are simply fighting over an adjective…you have partnership rights, why does it have to be called a marriage? As far as a civil right, I feel this comparison does a misservice to those who fought for actual civil rights. I feel this has more to do with furthuring the homosexula agenda than it does with actual marriage any way. I don’t think having elementary school children taught about any sexuality should occur, let them be kids. Bringing adult topics such as this into the classroom at such a young age has helped damage society in so many ways. They see it in on t.v., hear it sung about on the radio, and glorified in the movies. Is it a wonder the world is in the shape it’s in? Finally, of all the vile things I’ve seen so far as a result of this vote was the behavior of certain people towards churches etc. Seems people preaching about hate should meet the kettle.
Marriage is just a word, a societal convention. Marriage instantly & automatically conveys a myriad of legal rights that to duplicate in a “partnership” takes a lot of lawyer hours and a lot of documents. I’ve always thought people obsessed with the sex part of homosexual are not very secure in their hetero status. This is about the right of people in love to be married. When churches get into politics they should lose their tax-exempt status, period. Every single argument used against gay people being allowed to marry now are the exact same ones that were used against interracial marriage 50 years ago – you can just switch out the words “gay” and “homosexual” and substitute “black,” “white” or “black and white.” I agree that children are way overexposed to meaningless and demeaning sexual imagery in today’s media and pop culture. This isn’t what this is about. Gay people are part of society and always have been. This is about their right to get married just like everyone else when they’re in love, and have the same legal rights as a result. The Mormon church opened themselves up to this criticism by heavily financing the fight against this right. And they live in a fine big glass house on this topic, with their marital issues that run contra to “mainstream” society (such as polygamy & church elders/old men marrying very young girls in arranged marriages). The Catholic church as well has no moral standing on this topic, after their decades of scandals involving sexual abuse of children that they helped the perpetrators keep hidden. All gay people want is the right to form a stable family unit with the person they love, and be afforded the legal protections that go with that status. We are one of the few countries that don’t allow this, and we are one of the very few “Western” ones that don’t. Children should be taught that this is about love. You don’t need to be married to have sex. Stop obsessing about people’s sex lives when they’re two consenting adults, and focus on the being in love part. Peace and blessings to all my gay brothers and sisters and may they soon have equal rights. This land is your land, this land is my land, this land is their land, this land is our land.
Hank, pull your head out of your arse.
Well that was very mature, I’m sure that I will suddenly “see the light” now with your advice.
What I don’t get is the people, such as Hank in the previous post, who keep bringing schools into this. Aside from it being irrelevant, the arguments make no sense. Different does not mean perverted. Would you be protesting schools that teach about divorced families, single parent families, adopted families? They are not showing gay porn in schools, which is what these people seem to think, they are simply showing different forms of family, and like it or not a same-sex familiy is a family.
This type of argument annoys me, because it is automatically assuming that because something is different than the norm, it’s perverted and not “child appropriate” which is completely not the case. If you are so obessesed with sex that the only reason you can see same-sex families being shown is perverted, there is something wrong with you. Get help.
Man, I didn’t know you could’nt have an opinion on this topic. Not once did I say it was perverted, nor that I was occupied with sex. I simply feel this has no place in an elementary school classroom. Oh I forgot, I’m not allowed an opinion if it isn’t in line wit yours. Without having met me, not knowing anything about me, you sure seem judgemental.
Again if I can respect your point of view, while not agreeing with it, I don’t think you should be above the same courtesy. Oh, I forgot, if not part of the gay mafia pushing your agenda you can’t have an opinion, makes me wonder why we vote at all……whatever you do, don’t disagree with anyone or they’ll just act like spoiled little children, or worse…jackbooted vandals, etc. I tried being civil, but I guess that still doesn’t work when dealing with people hell bent on being right no matter how many vote against it. So piss off those of you who disagree, you know like you told me to, and at least I still have enough character to post my own name rather than whatever wierd name I feel like using this week.
One scarcely knows where to begin, there are so many misunderstandings here…
Proposition 8 confuses marriage with biology; it does not require male and female to “make a marriage”, it requires male and female to produce offspring. (Note that I said “produce”, not care for, raise, rear, or love.) A marriage is a legally-binding civil contract between two individuals that they will henceforth be considered a household under the law; this is why a marriage license must be obtained from civil government. In many other countries, all marriages are civil unions conducted in a civil office; those who wish to may then proceed to a religious service which blesses the marriage. While there may be a religious imperative for this arrangement to produce offspring, there is certainly no legal requirement to do so. This then, separates marriage from biology.
To address the statements regarding
“separation of church and state”, the First Amendment actually does not include that phrase. The First Amendment protects the citizens of the United States from the establishment of a state-imposed religion, while protecting the rights of all to practice their own religions. The idea of “separation of church and state” does not mean that the US government is intended to be a secular one which is free from any religious belief, but that the government is intended to be free from influence from one particular religious philosophy over any others.
Proposition 8 violates California Constitutional procedure for re-writing itself. Proposition 8 violates the non-establishment clause of the US Constitution, making it ultimately unconstitutional and therefore, invalid, since there is no higher authority of civil law in the United States than the US Constitution. Proposition 8 further violates the US Constitution by being discriminatory; discrimination of any kind is against Constitutional law. Proposition 8 was funded by religious organizations, which may ultimately result in those organizations being relieved of their tax-exempt status for violating the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The advertizing funded by the religious organizations was misleading, preyed on the fears of under-educated people, and was in some cases, patently untrue; odd tactics for supposed believers in Divine Law.
The passage of CA Proposition 8 does not mean that “homosexuals lost”, it simply means that CA is not immune from illegal attacks from religious bigots for whom money talks and BS* walks. (*Breeder Supremecists.) I take issue with statements about “vile behavior toward churches”; followers of each religion are allowed to think what they like, and may certainly deny admission of persons who fall outside their prescribed codes of behavior. What they are not allowed to do is to force their religious agendas on civil law. Civil law has the requirement to serve all people regardless of creed or philosophy, whereas religion serves only the followers of one philosophy. Religions can therefore discriminate within its own membership, as that membership is voluntary; civil law cannot discriminate.
Incidently, other popular votes in CA have been overturned by the Supreme Court on the basis of unconstitutionality in the past. Simply because a majority of misinformed voters cast their ballots in favor of an idea, that does not mean that the idea has been phrased in such a way that it will stand a constitutional test. For example, a proposition to mandate that school districts require proof of citizenship and report undocumented families to (then known as) the Immigration and Naturalization Service was overwhelmingly passed — then overturned — because the State law attempted to empower local goverment with federal powers. In other words, the CA proposition usurped the federally-granted powers of INS and illegally required the school districts to act as INS “deputies”. The voters had spoken, but because they were under-educated in US Constitutional law they did not understand that their proposed new law was invalid.
I believe that CA Proposition 8 will be overturned by the CA Supreme Court on the basis that the CA Consititution was violated. Should that fail, I believe the US Supreme Court will rule that CA Proposition 8 is discrimination which is a violation of civil rights, a religious agenda which is a violation of the nonestablishment clause, and an attempt to subvert civil law to legally inflict emotional pain and mental cruelty on a minority group by creating a subculture of allowable discrimination which is a violation of human rights, and is therefore unconstitutional on its face.
One more observation in closing, I have heard and seen statements (though not in this forum yet) that the first “marriage” was between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I don’t personally subscribe to the creation mythologies of the People of the Book as interpreted today, however I’d like to point out that Eve wasn’t the “first woman”. The first woman was Lilith, who in refusing to relinquish equality with Adam and submit to his domination over her, also relinquished her humanity and returned to the ethereal domain — some legends say as an angel, some others say as a demon — guess it depends where you stand on equal rights.
Dear Hank,
Of course you may have an opinion, here or anywhere else on Earth…which makes one wonder why you choose to express an opinion so out of step with the philosophies of Pagans, in a quite-clearly identified Pagan forum. Not that we can’t handle an opposing opinion, you understand; it’s just that coming so obviously out of Right field, we’re temporarily caught up in the passions of your bigotry and feel compelled to respond in kind. If this forum was in a real-life room, and not an e-room, the law would regard your First Amendment-protected right to free speech as a carefully-crafted attempt to incite violence — like the actions of Neonazis who want to parade through predominantly non-Christian, non-AngloSaxon neighborhoods.
You’re absolutely correct; sex doesn’t belong in an elementary school classroom, except as a sensitive introduction to biological science, and then it’s usually kept mindfully vague. Why then would the advertisements about CA Proposition 8 deliberately lie to mislead voters that discussions of homosexual — or in fact, heterosexual — sex would occur in an elementary classroom? You are right to be concerned about too-early introductions of sex; you are mistaken if you think that sex of any kind is taught at the elementary level except in specifically-designed classes to instruct developing pre-adolescents about naturally-occuring changes to their bodies.
I am utterly baffled by your references to a “gay mafia”, but in continuing to read your post, I see that you are deliberately attempting to incite a militaristic response. There are no acts perpetrated by “jackbooted vandals” in CA; there are demonstrations, lawful organized protests, and an organized boycott of businesses who funded Proposition 8. Since I live no more than 30 miles from Palm Springs I have a “bird’s eye-view” of the proceedings; while there are acts of deliberate incitement coming from church members, there are no acts of “jackbooted vandalism” perpetrated by the protesters.
No one told you to “piss off” as you so eloquently put it. I won’t re-state the reasons why the vote was invalid as I think I already did that well enough the first time. I will however point out that “majority rules” is not the way constitutional law works, when the majority is perpetrating acts of blatant discrimination on the minority. I will put this as kindly as I can: you are mistaken in your understanding of American government, Sir, please take an “Introduction to American Government” class to help you better appreciate the beauty of the US Constitution.
My name *is* actually Shazza — it’s a nickname for Sharon — but it’s as valid as Hank, which is a nickname for Henry. My full name is Sharon Finnegan Terleski, and I’m happy to entertain your opinions as long as you will try to base them on fact, and not on fear.
Hi Everyone,
I think Shazza says it best. Thank you Shazza for so eloquently laying the facts out for everyone to read.
Hank is short for Henry in some cases, not all my name actually is Hank. As far as none Pagan ideas…I’m Pagan, have been for 19 years. Not all Pagans are in agreement with the “no on 8: side. It’s silly to think that all people of any group would tend to have the same thoughts on everything. Maybe I should have worded my last post in a different way, but being told to “pull my head out of my arse” was meant to evoke a response which it did. As far as lies , I think there were enough told on both sides, and as far as the gay mafia….come on. I can’t recall seeing any other group act as poorly all the way around. Really you have celebrities on t.v. talking about not paying taxes, shouting people down, vandalizing property in Utah, etc…..Any how, I know we’ll never agree on this matter….just please remember that not all Pagans agree with this and as a Pagan forum, if we as Pagans can’t disagree are we really better off than anyone else?
Proposition 8.
Hmmm.
Sounds like a lubricant. But if it was made by christians, no way I’d use it.
Thank you, Raven; Rahotep ~ LOL!
Hank, would you be good enough to explain to me how a Pagan, following either the Wiccan Rede or any other Pagan doctrine, could possibly support discrimination of any kind against a single minority group?
Celebrities calling for a tax strike on TV is not vandalism, actually, though it could certainly be called an act of civil disobedience. They were probably trying to make the point that if they were not going to be treated as full citizens, they should not have to pay taxes at the same rate as other citizens. Shouting people down is poor manners, admitedly; I think we can all agree it’s similar to telling someone to “piss off” or suggesting that someone’s view is skewed due to a rectal-cranial inversion, but again, it’s not vandalism. These are passionate responses to passionate incitements. I’m not aware of any public property being damaged in Utah though, can you provide a link to a news story?
I think the term “gay mafia” is very sad. Firstly, the originators of the term “mafia” are generally unsympathetic to homosexuals, and secondly, the GLBT community doesn’t work like a protection racket, drug traffickers, or a gambling syndicate, so it just doesn’t seem to apply. If you mean, “the gosh-darn-it-all unafraid militant GLBT community members who have decided to fight for their rights instead of cowering in the face of religious bigotry” I think I may understand what you mean. The racists who were beaten back by the ACLU came up with a similar phrase (now don’t everyone panic, I’m going to be using a nasty little expression in quotes, here:) “uppity Niggers.” The sexists used to call me either a tomboy or a “sassy-assed feisty little thing” when I was still resisting gender-based stereotypes while serving in the USN. It boils down to someone who thought a minority group would roll over being so stunned by an “in your face” response that they have to invent a sub-class to the minority, as if to say, “there’s feminists, and then there’s your ‘fem-nazis’ — they’re the real trouble-makers!”
To return to your statement that you’ve been Pagan for 19 years though Hank, to which denomination of Paganism do you belong that would advocate or at least tolerate discrimination against any minority group? I’ve only been practicing a Pagan religion since 1980 — and most of it as a Solitary — so undoubtedly there are some gaping holes in my education. I’m aware that trying to organize Pagans is a little like trying to herd cats, but I quite frankly (and naively, it seems) thought we Pagans at least agreed about equal rights for all under civil law. I will agree that there are bound to be disagreements among Pagans — there are how many denominations of Wicca, alone, to say nothing of Druids, Asatru, Covenant of Isis, etc., etc.? — but I have always believed that what bound us together as Pagans was our respect for the human community and our insistance for equality.
As for tolerating disagreement being the benchmark for being “better off than anyone else”, are you suggesting that Pagans are some sort of higher-order human? Paganism is religion for some, a lifestyle for others, and unfortunately is also a word some people use to mean they are anti-organized religion, particularly Christianity. What Paganism is not, is a platform for self-aggrandizement from which we can look down on others. It is to their own shame that certain Christians disregard the teachings of Jesus Christ against bigotry, but we are little different if we succomb to feelings of superiority. We have different ways of worshipping the Divine — different, not better — and disrespecting other beliefs only makes us a different kind of bigot.
Shazza, your comments seem to be very sound and you seem to have educated yourself in the area of government. Thank you for contributing. Hank, you are completely entitled to your opinion, as are we all. And no; all pagans will not agree on all things. However, your initial comment does seem to have been thrown in as bait, especially since you are familiar with Patti’s audience.
That said…
The current procedure for becoming a legally recognized couple consists of visiting a county office and obtaining a marriage license, which is then taken to a person recognized by the state to perform a ceremony designed to render the union “official”. I am forty seven years old and have never understood why the process of procuring the license was not, in itself, the legal recognition of the relationship. The state could easily step away from the religious aspect of the picture, as I believe it should, and create a Legal Union Verification document (yes, LUV)or some such form. The application for which would continue to take place at the county office, but the signing of the same would complete the procedure. After obtaining the LUV document, a couple could just begin their new life together, or they could have a ceremony, marriage, handfasting, or barbeque; whatever they felt best represented their joining. Anyone could perform their union ceremony, if they wanted one. What a great way to celebrate. And for those who want to be “married”, that sacred religious act could be performed by their clergy, as a rite of their faith, just as it is now.
I live in California and was very disappointed by the passing of Prop 8. I do believe, though, that the people have spoken. What they have said is that there is still a need for understanding, tolerance, and education, in what I thought was the most enlighted state in the nation.
One point of interest, and children, this is a BIG point:
You Have To Keep Religion Out Of Politics.
Period.
We are NOT “Christian” countries. Never have been, never will be.
Why?
Because, for a start, christianity has multiple sects, with multiple differences of opinion. The only thing they have in common is The Book.
Not all people within so-called “christian” countries are christian.
Not all people within christian countries want to be christian.
Not all people within christian countries even agree with the (multiple) christian doctrines, let alone want to follow them.
So why, sheeple, do you rail and argue with these deadheads who hold no real power at all?
If you want Pagan and Witch, Sorcerer and Satanist, views held and respected in the wider community, then get off your respective lazy backsides and get into where your opinions and views will do some good.
And that is within your respective legislatures. Organize, rally, march. Politic with the best of them. Use your voting rights. You can either bash your head against a wall of ignorance, or storm the doors of your so-called “Democracy”.
Human Rights. Gay Rights. Women’s Rights. Children’s Rights. Animal Rights. If there is a section of society that has a need, campaign with your last breath for those rights.
Or are you going to stuff your head under a pillow and cry, “Why doesn’t anyone do anything”.
Claudine, getting the license for a civil union would be the act of recognizing the relationship, if the clerk was licensed to officiate the proceedings. It wouldn’t take much, just the same short course one takes to become a legal notary public, paying a fee, and getting an official seal embosser. I don’t think we need to invent another term; civil union will do quite nicely.
Rahotop, what in the world are you nattering on about?!? This isn’t a Christian forum; we’re Pagans. We’re not discussing Politics even a little bit, we’re discussing the legalities of Proposition 8, and why an illegal proceedure — regardless of public opinion, irrespective of elections — negates “the people speaking”. Talking about issues in a forum like this is the very best way to learn, discuss, and come to agreements. It is the electronic-age way to “organize, rally, march”, actually. Several million voters organized a “virtual march” about 5 or 6 years ago against the Bush Administration to express their views regarding assault rifles. The hundreds of thousands of actual marchers carried posters with the names of hundreds of “virtual marchers”. I think we actually ARE fighting for our beliefs; we’re just not fighting here.
And as for doing nothing, well I’m here for the second day in a row, trying to educate folks about how Constitutional law works. Apparently, I’m having mixed results. If Claudine and others actually believe that all you have to do is show up and win an election to change the Constitution, I must not be a very effective teacher.
I am all for equality, but I feel that marriage is nothing more than legalized prostitution.
Think about it (espacially if you believe that you should not have sex before marriage). You love someone which is great, but now you can’t be intimate with them unless you get married. So big or small you have a wedding in which you must spend money so know you can have sex.
Paying money so you can have sex…gee that’s familiar. Marriage should just be done away with. More then half end in divorce anyway.
Also if you look throughout history the concept of marriage keeps changing. There is no such thing as a traditional marriage, it does not exist. The whole is a joke and waste of money.
Rahotep, I’m not sure what makes you think that people around here are “stuffing their heads under pillows and crying”. I know for a fact that there are many people, some of whom have posted here, who are actively working to see the changes they wish to have in this country’s government.
I figure anyone who’s willing to work towards change is more than welcome to complain publicly about the things they dislike.
patti
>>Kat>I am all for equality, but I feel that marriage is nothing more than legalized prostitution.
(sigh)
That was a really good last comment I made…any idea what happened to the rest of it?!? (lol)
Shazza, Thank you for you questions. First, I wouldn’t claim an actual denomination as a mostly solitary ecclectic witch.
I did help in establishing a Pagan church..nondenominationl in Delat, Colorado as well as teaching for 2 years with several independent groups.
As far as a gap in your education, that’s only for you to decide. I simply don’t see this as discrimination, I don’t agree with it or the agenda behind it. As far as being a “Bigot”, and I’m not implying that you directly called me that, sticks and stones. I’m gonna do something I don’t normally do. If you check out my myspace page when you look at the pics, they will show my hand fastening from 2 years ago. I was hand fastened to 2 women at the same time and we have lived a happily polyamorous lifestyle for the last 7 years. Should this be a recognized legal marriage, I think not, as it doesn’t meet the legal definition, nor do we desire to be “Married”? I/we don’t need or want that particular adjective applied to our relationship. I fail to see how the Rede would even come into play here as I’m not denying anybody anything, I also feel I have to be true to myself as well as my beliefs, before promoting or fighting for something I don’t believe in.
As far as a generalized Pagan belief, I feel that has always been a bit over done. There are some really major differences in alot of different paths, example…I truely believe in the Law of Just Retribution…many others do not do to their understanding/belief/take on the Rede. I know several people who feel that everything is love, light, and happiness, and I wish them well with that, for at the end of the day, you above all should be able to look in the mirror and be happy with what you see and content in the way you live your life. I was generalizing and not using you personally as an example.
Finally “better off”, if it came off as I was saying that I feel Pagans are somehow “better” than Christians (or insert the religion of choice), yes in a small way I feel I was. I am proud to be Pagan, and in general I find people of Pagan faith to be a little bit better off thn their peers. Simply becase they chose to explore alternatives in their life rather than blindly following their parents dogmatic beliefs. So yes, I do feel we are better off in some ways….making the effort to explore different things and understand them as well as investing the time and work necessary to achieve your own path makes you better than someone just going through the motions based on family history, etc……just my ever so hmble opinion.
As far as the vandalism issue, I’m not gonna bother with posting individual links check out the online Salt Lake newspapers.
The terms I used “gay mafia” etc, I do feel apply, simply based on actions by certain members of that community. Havng people fired based on their support/financial contributions, acts of intimidation, acts of violence…yeah under the R.I.C.O. act I feel that term applies. I keep seeing the comparison with the civil rights marches and womens rights etc. I fail to see it. Again, I am entitled to my opinion, and as such, theose are my thoughts, as far as the legality of all of this….I do feel the courts will overturn it, right wrong or indifferent, they almost have to. My main point was why allof the nonsense with picketing, disturbing others religious services, singling out 1 denomination when quite a few contributed, and being down right disrespectful of others? This doesn’t help their cause and I’m sure in some ways makes others feel sure they made the right decision when they voted.
Well, I guess I didn’t make myself very clear. I absolutely understand what changing the constitution involves – state or federal. I also worked very hard to register and educate voters. The problem isn’t that I want to change the constitution; the problem is that the California state constitution was changed as a result of a vote representing an opinion. That is wrong. My last comment simply expresses my desire to see all “civil unions” be handled identically by the state. The state needs to stop recognizing “marriage” as a legal relationship when, as the religious right very strongly pointed out in the last election, “marriage” is recognized as being a religious union in this country. If you want it to continue to be called a civil union instead of my playful Legal Union Verification, that’s fine. The point is, there should only be one legally recognized civil relationship – and it shouldn’t be called a marriage.