California votes next week on Proposition 8, a motion that would outlaw gay marriage (that’s the short version, I know it’s more complicated than that).
It’s great to see Louis Gray and Jesse Stay, both Mormons openly discuss the issue in light of the Mormon church bankrolling the Yes to Proposition 8 campaign (one figure I saw was 40%).
I’ve said this in the past, but I will repeat myself, so bare with me.
I’ve got no issue that religious teaching dictates that marriage is between a man and a woman. Religions are entitled to hold those views, as are those who follow them.
Where I have an issue is with religious doctrine being dictated to the state, no matter where you live in the world (the issue is just as topical in Australia).
If marriage is a sacred religious institution, then surely we should outlaw civil marriages as well. Why aren’t the very same people calling for a ban on gay marriage calling for a ban on the state marrying anyone, after all, if marriage is the exclusive domain of religion, and defined exclusively by religious teaching, then the state has no role in marrying people.
Sound extreme? Well so is dictating to the state who they can and cannot marry in a non-religious ceremony. No laws that I’m aware of are forcing churches to marry GLBT people (least most places). The laws of the state should always be based in non-discrimination, even if religion isn’t.
Although I’ve become more libertarian as I’ve gotten older, it was this argument that originally saw me shift in support of gay marriage several years ago, back in a time where my natural inclination may have been in favor of a ban.
Think about it.
Duncan, as a Libertarian-leaning person myself I totally understand where you're coming from. I'm still trying to wrap my head around all of this – I'm not going to simply accept either side of the issue. What gets me is all of this is all about vocabulary, one word essentially. Why don't we just all call it a “civil union” legally from here on out and then allow religions to make their own definitions of marriage since it does seem to be a religious term. Legally, the two have exactly the same rights given to 2 individuals, I'm not quite sure where they differ.
Of course, even then my worry would be what legal recourse could be taken against religion down the road. Will religion itself be discriminated against and forced to allow marriage between people of the same gender? I honestly don't know the answer to that – I know there are a few cases where it has happened already, but I don't know if those are evidence it will continue to happen, and in greater form if this were to happen, or not. There are too many unknowns right now – it's a very confusing, and emotional proposition. But frankly, if we already have Civil Unions, and it is exactly the same as marriage, I don't see how that would make it any different than it already is. There is much beyond my understanding on this.
If you pray, you'll know the truth: Jesus says Vote NO!. Why don't you try it?
Part of this boils down to a determination of what is a religious tenet of society, and what is part of society apart from religion. Several faiths believe that the Mosaic statement “Thou shalt not kill” was mandated by a divine being, but to my knowledge no one in the U.S. has ever tried to get out of a murder rap by claiming that a law against murder is an “establishment” of religion – partially because murder is prohibited by so many religions. One could argue that “marriage” could be considered in the same respect, since multiple religions practice marriage. But then again, you have Rick Warren's argument, in which he asserts that no society in the last 5,000 years has defined marriage as being between people of a single gender.
“I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve said this in the past, but I will repeat myself, so bare with me. “
Just because you're repeating yourself doesn't mean I'm going to get naked with you!
This should be a no-brainer for anyone that is for small government, increased freedoms and personal responsibilities. Would the proposition have even made it to the ballot if it was against niggers, wops, chinks, ities, pakis or jews marrying? We've been down this path before – usually in the previously mentioned flavours – and each time the progressive argument has eventually won through. Same will happen here.
Hiya, Duncan, great post. I was moved to comment on this issue on GovernmentPresence as well, also prompted by Louis' post. I also lean towards the Libertarian side of things, but that is not the tactic I argued from. I simply argued that any god or “traditional value” that requires you to champion fear and anger against love and freedom can't be right. It bothers me that people don't consider the actual moral ramifications of their own actions…it's like they belief that being “good” is a function of what side you are on rather than your own ethical status.
Anyway, great post.
This looks like a real concern: Proposition 8 may make Polygamy legal. You have to wonder about its strange wording.
In my humble opinion, most people make this issue entirely too complicated. The case is clear, if we just allow common sense and logic to prevail over emotional and religious overtones.
Fact: The constitution of the United States ensures separation of church and state.
Fact: All citizens of the United States are to be treated equally.
Fact: Apart from any religious connotations, marriage in this country avails the participants with special civil advantages pertaining to taxes, visitation rights, legal guardianship, etc.
Conclusion: Those civil advantages must be available to everyone equally, regardless of the gender of the people involved.
I agree with the idea that the word “marriage” carries way too much baggage, and means so many different things to different people. But the bond it represents, and ALL of the legal ramifications of that bond, MUST be available to everyone equally. Calling it a civil union would be fine, but call it that for EVERYONE, including heterosexual couples who get married in a church. They can call it “marriage” to each other, to their families, in their churches, whatever. But as far as the government is concerned, it should only be referred to as a civil union, with all the rights, privileges and obligations which go along with that bond.
Every time we bring religion into state affairs, we slip a little farther down that slippery slope. Keep religion out of our governmental institutions, and that includes the whole idea of “holy matrimony”. The “marriage license” needs to be the “civil union contract”, and it needs to be a legal document, not a holy one. As always, people can do pretty much whatever makes them happy within their own church, which is where the holy aspect belongs.
Do we really need all this divisiveness over a WORD?
I would be VERY careful about changing our state's Constitution! Remember who's behind proposition 8. The wording of this ammendment is unusual, as this ministry points out..
How many hours have been spent in courtrooms arguing over commas in the 2nd ammendment? Let's leave our state constitution alone!
“No laws that I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m aware of are forcing churches to marry GLBT people (least most places). The laws of the state should always be based in non-discrimination, even if religion isn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t.”
I am narrowly a Yes supporter. While this statement is currently, I'm not sure it will last. If I believed this statement would hold true I would vote No on 8. But I am convinced it is a matter of time before a religion gets sued for denying a gay couple their “right” to marry on church grounds, property, etc. All it takes is one CA activist judge.
Vote No Vote No! Let the gays be miserble like the straight people!!
Vote No No No on 8!!!
I totally support Prop 8. I understand your point about the state not being involved in the affairs of our lives but this is not the state creating this measure it is concerned people who are deeply troubled by what they are seeing around them. This is the people of California deciding what they want and need for their future. I know that everyone has a right to choose what they do and if it be that they would like to continue in homosexual relationships then this is their decision to practice this. But being a scientist it comes down to simple laws of nature if your species is not reproducing faster than your dying your species will die out and homosexuality has to follow this rule because the last time I checked men can't have babies and women need men to create children. I know that marriage has to be defined as being between a man and a women for this is how we work as a species. I support Prop 8 for all these reasons but most importantly because it is the way that God ordained it since he created us his children.
Your scientific reasoning is flawed for 2 reasons (I'm a scientist myself):
1) Gay marriage will not affect the rate at which gay children are born (heterosexuals actually make gay children) so it will not affect our species dying out.
2) We need to make efforts to reduce global population. Please read Thomas friedman's new book (hot, flat and crowded) and you will understand why. There is huge pressure right now on our resources to sustain our growing population (in terms of food and energy).
And when God is concerned. I don't want to marry in front in God, I want to marry in front of the state. Marriage is not the sole property of the church. yes, in semantics it is the same word and in reality it has different meanings: to me it means rights for the state (some of which, like immigration, are not covered by a civil union), to others it means a union in the eyes of god. I applaud the belief of others and I respect it, please don't push your beliefs on me and allow me to get my rights.
As such, Vote NO on proposition 8.
VOTE YES on proposition 8. Don't let anyone force their agenda on you. NO on Prop 8 suporters are hypocrites because they want to impose their beliefs on me when I would never think of doing that to someone else. Marriage has been defined as between a man for 5,000 years. There is no reason to change that now. In fact, changing it would be ridiculous!
If you are a man – are you defined as a mother.
If you are a woman – are you defined as a father.
No!
Marriage is defined as between Man and Woman not Man and Man or Woman and Woman.
I do not know the definition for that, if there is one. Maybe Partnership. It is to be called something else but not Marriage. Marriage is between Man and Woman.
That is the point of Proposition 8
The DEFINITION OF A MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN.
Have you been speaking with Satan?
I'm sure the “colored” drinking fountains from the 1960's dispensed water just like the “white” drinking fountains. So why don't we still have “colored” water fountains? Water is water, right?
“Separate but equal” may have felt equal to whites, but how do you think they felt to blacks?
I fully believe that this is the civil rights movement of our time. We look back in disgust on the “separate but equal” institutions of the 60's like “colored” drinking fountains and cringe. I believe that history will look back on us and judge us based on our actions here.
If you insist on defining the loaded word “marriage” as being only between man and woman, then you must follow through with the obvious obligatory next steps, which is to eliminate ALL civil entitlements and benefits associated with that word. The problem is, there is nothing in this proposition which eliminates those entitlements, therefore it is grossly UNFAIR and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
We are much better off if we leave the term “marriage” where it belongs – in places of worship. The civil contract which we have misnamed “marriage”, with all of its entitlements, should be open to ALL men, women, and everything in between (yes, there are some who exist in the gray area in between, who may or may not be left out of this proposition, depending on your definitions).
Religion has no place in civil law, other than the guarantee that it should be SEPARATE from the state. The state should not interfere with the matters of any church, so long as individual rights are maintained, and conversely, the church SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE MATTERS OF THE STATE. This boils down to a ridiculous semantic argument over a WORD. Get over it and vote the way Jesus Christ would have voted. Don't spit on the Constitution of the United States. NO to the elimination of equal rights for all.
you cannot find anything in the consitution that states the phrase” seperation of church and state”, if you find it please show it to me. LOL, it's not there! “” 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.””
thats what it says. I will define to you what that means. Congress cannot make a religion a state religion. its like saying that the whole united states will worship the way casthloics do or the way baptist do. Thats what it means in the first amendment, it does not say anywhere that religion does not belong in matters of the state. Liberals would like to make people think that but the 1st amendment does not state it as such.
as for prop. 8, vote yes to it. if you chose to be gay then you will undoubtedly suffer for your decision just as a child molester will suffer for thier actions by being put on a sex offender registry. All we here is tolerence, well I have tolerated having the homosexual lifestyle pushed down my throat as being normal, but it is not. You see it on TV and in movies all the time, its nothing more than systematic brainwashing to the point that if we see it enough it will eventually be OK. Well, it's not ok, its socially and morally wrong.
If you want people to vote the way jesus christ would have then you apparently have not read what he said about marriage and homosexuality. jesus taught that marriage was between a man and a woman. he also taught that homosexuality is an abomination in his eyes. you better rephrase that one.
Religions' strength, it's real strength is that you can keep hate alive and never have to admit it's hate. Vote yes on 8, but for God's sake don't forget to mention you're doing so only to protect marriage. On the other hand, and if we really want to protect marriage, why not eliminate divorce (just kidding).
Hate the sinner but never fail to mention the sin.
God Bless
Herb
The principle of separation of church and state has been affirmed and reaffirmed many times by the Supreme Court. The actual phrase was first used by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, but the principle is based on the First Amendment. So please don't try to tell me it “isn't there”; while the specific phrase may be absent, the entire constitution is constantly interpreted by the courts, and in this case, the interpretation is consistent and crystal clear.
The Founding Fathers had good reason to include the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses in the Bill of Rights. The problem with religious zealots like yourself is that they always think their version of morality is the only “true” morality, and they are unable or unwilling to be tolerant of other viewpoints. Case in point: Your assertion that homosexuality is “not ok, its socially and morally wrong”. I sense that arguing the point with you would be fruitless, as you have made up your mind, so I shouldn't bother you with the facts. But just think for a minute how gay and lesbian people must feel, having the heterosexual lifestyle shoved down THEIR throats constantly, to a much greater degree than you will ever experience the converse.
Let's not even get into Jesus and the great centuries-long game of telephone that was involved with the first transcriptions of what he allegedly said. The bible, as all religious writings, was written by men who sought to exert power over other people through dogma which was, to use your words, pushed down their throats. Anyone who did not believe based on “faith” alone was branded a heretic and dealt with in the harshest manner. More bloodshed and atrocities have been committed in the name of religion than for any other cause, bar none. And it is still going on today, so many centuries later, whether the weapons used are swords, missiles, passenger airplanes or misguided ballot propositions.
I'm not trying to stop you from believing anything your heart desires, as long as you don't try to dictate to others your version of morality as if it were a given. It is not. And THAT is why we need to adhere to the principle of separation of church and state, and why this proposition should be soundly defeated by all who care about equal rights under the law.
By this definition, we should definitely prohibit sterile couples from getting married. After all, if they have no hope of procreation as nature intended, what's the point? And by extension, we should of course prohibit any woman past menopause from getting married for the same reasons. We should surely continue this logic by dissolving any childless marriage whenever one partner chooses a vasectomy or tubal ligation. Hey, this is starting to make sense… I can see why the Catholic church is against all forms of birth control. It's really not a marriage at all if you don't or can't have kids, right?
Can't you see that this mentality is a direct result of ancient clan-building methodology? In the distant past, if your clan/country/religion could out-breed your enemies, you would eventually prevail. Go forth and multiply, the good books say. Long before there were concerns about over-population, diminishing resources and global warming, procreation was a tremendous weapon for one clan to wield over another. When battles of attrition were the tools of conquest and empire, more and more children were required to fill the ranks, make the weapons and have more children to keep the cycle going.
Those days are long gone, but the “morality” of reproductive marriage that was thrust upon the masses via religion is still around, like an appendix that has lost its useful function but continues to persist and cause problems for those poor souls saddled with it. But the biggest problem such defunct morality creates is the spill-over effect when those poor souls try to inflict their outdated morality on the rest of us.
Procreation is not a fundamental requirement for marriage in this society, therefore the point about “laws of nature” and, by extension, gender is moot. Marriage in our modern-day society is about creating a loving, nurturing relationship between two people, regardless of their reproductive capabilities. Believe whatever you want to believe, attend whatever church you want to attend, but please leave our fundamental rights alone, thank you. Any thinking person, religious or not, must vote NO on this amoral proposition.
Ah yes, the interpetation of the 1st amendment. the whole idea of the serperation of church and state came from a letter written by thomas jefferson. It was then taken by liberals, much like yourself, and interpeted to mean something other than what it states. The founding fathers had the right idea but it was then changed by the supreme court. Liberal thinking appointees to the court did that for us. The constitution does not need clarification. I have read it from start to finish several times, and I have not found one thing that needed to be interpeted for me. the only people who need it interpeted form the are the ones who seek to change it for the own good.
No you should not bother me with “your” facts about homosexuality. I have friends who are gay, and I have alot of respect for them, but I still do not think thier lifestyle is right. I have disscussed this with them in the past and we have come to the point of being able to agree that we will never see things the same. They are still my friends.
In our society, the majority sets the rule, as conveyed by the constituion. A majority of the the 2 houses of congress can over-ride a presidential veto. the majority is a 51% majority not this new super-majority horsecrap we are now seeing in congress that says it takes a 60% majority” another liberal ploy to change our constitution” . the way that california is handling this is the way that it should be dealt with all over this country. put it on a ballot and the people decide what they want through a majority vote. once that is done then the whole situation will be settled.
To all those out there that are against Prop 8, It seems especially you EDAN,(you're just rambling) If you are against it, You probably don't recognize God as a Supreme Being; that would be my guess. The logic there is that if you did, you would recognize his word he gave us to live by as the Bible. And in that Bible, Homosexuality is explicitly condemned as an abomination. Jesus still loved those people, he did not accept their lifestyle. He gives us guidelines as a pathway to Life; A man and woman. I'm sorry gay guys and gals, but there is NO Gay Gene. Scientists have been looking for it for years. Guess what; Even if it ever did exist, It would have died out eons ago because “gays don't reproduce”. It is clearly a choice of lifestyle; You know it and I know it.
I'm Just glad that I wasn't in the two cities of Sodom or “Gomorrah when the angels were instructed by God to get Lot and his family out before they rained down Fire and flaming brimstone on the cities and annilated all life there. We cannot allow our civilization to fall down the same path as that. The Bible was given as a guide to an abundant life. It has nothing to do at all with “rights” or “fair doctrine”. Homosexuality was pronounced “ineligible for discussion” among the human race. That's just the way it is. Argue with it if you like, You cannot change the fundamental facts.
eDan, You're just rambling. I know you're trying to come up with a logical explanation for your feeling, but it's not enough. there is no way that a convincing argument that homosexuality and gay marriage is a “human right” or a legal precedent in a State. It is a spiritual and moral issue at heart and our entire civilization including our legal system is built on Biblical tenets.
I can see you don't believe that and that's OK. You will have to stand before God (right next to me)and answer to for your beliefs . Your Dogma is getting a bit tired. give it a rest.
I 100% agree with you. It is very refeshing to see that more people see things for what they are.
Very well said KAEMM.
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Proposition 8 is UNJUST and UNFAIR. STOP DISCRIMINATION COLD, and VOTE *NO* on Proposition 8 on Tuesday 11/4.
Obama'08
Kaemm, regardless of my views on a supreme being, I don't believe that blind faith in anything is a good idea. If you are so brainwashed that you firmly believe a particular book is the word of a supreme being just because someone told you so, perhaps over and over when you were young, then you are probably beyond reason at this point, and you share a common bond with religious extremists and Islamic terrorists who share the same blind faith in the divinity of a particular book. More conflict and misery has been caused by such faith than by any other force on this earth.
The truth is, books are written by PEOPLE. They may claim divine inspiration, which is certainly unprovable, but to accept this on blind faith is just another way to define “extremist”. Because once you accept that a book is the word of a supreme being, you become compelled to take the next step, which is to FOLLOW the teachings of that book without question. Therein the danger lies.
Should we start executing people for working on Sunday? For Exodus 35:2 clearly states the following:
“Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.”
If you believe the bible is God's word and should always be followed, you'd better start loading up on ammunition, because there are plenty of busy people in my neighborhood alone who are just asking for it. I suppose instead of working on Sunday, they should just buy some foreign slaves to do their work for them, as is permitted according to Leviticus 25:44:
“'As for your male and your female slaves, whom you may have; of the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves.”
And what about all those blasphemers out there? God, I can't stand them. Oops – I just condemed myself to death, according to Leviticus 24:16:
“And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.”
As you can see, if you are trying to make the case that everything in the Bible is the word of a supreme being and should apply to today's world, as you apparently think it should when it comes to homosexuality, you are opening a whole can of worms which you may not be prepared to defend, or else you are committing the sin of hypocrisy, applying only those passages which are convenient to your cause and ignoring the rest.
Any thinking person, religious or otherwise, must keep an open mind as to the source, the context and the intent of what is written in any book, even the bible. To use such writings as a defense for denying people their rights in the twenty-first century is simply reprehensible.
Vote NO on Proposition 8.
you know edan, maybe you should go back to those passages and review the context to which those statements are made. that does affect what the meaning of the passage of scripture. It not my words but the bible does call homosexuality an abomination, thats plain and simple. it goes back to whether you believe in God and his word.
As for thier rights, what about the rights of people who do not want homosexuality to be taught as a normal lifestyle. those people have rights, correct. As it would seem, those rights are only ok as long as it does not offend anyone.
Proposition 8 will get voted in and this whole thing will be over. The majority will have the final say, and it will be unprecedented. I only wish that I lived in california so I could vote in favor of proposition 8.
I see – so the context of biblical passages is important in all cases except when homosexuality is at issue, in which case it's “plain and simple”. Sounds like a double standard to me.
As for the rights of the homophobic, this proposition has nothing to do with how children will be taught in schools. In any case, equal rights under the law for all individuals takes precedence over the wishes of those who would rather deny those rights to specific groups. There are those who would prefer not to expose their families to black people, or to jews, or to hispanics, or to asians, but that is not a valid reason to deny basic rights to those minorities. The same standard applies to ALL minorities, including homosexuals.
Shame on anyone who uses outdated excerpts from an ancient book as an excuse to deny basic human rights of an oppressed group of people. It comes down to hate vs. love. Are the religious right so brainwashed that they can't even see the hypocrisy in this? Whatever happened to the Golden Rule?
And by the way, the majority doesn't always have the final say, nor are they always right. Fortunately, this country is not a theocracy, it is a democratic republic with checks and balances and a bill of rights designed to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. Even if this heinous proposition passes, it will surely be challenged in the courts again, because it would put California's constitution at odds with the U.S. constitution.
Thankfully, the time for discrimination is slowly passing into oblivion. Homophobia will eventually follow racism and sexism out the back door of majority public acceptance. In the mean time, rather than being part of the problem, I'd rather be part of the solution. Equal rights under the law. It's really not that hard to grasp.
I think you should go and read the entire passage of scripture that deals with homosexuality in the new testament. there is no exception for homosexuals.
When was homossexuality given the status as a race of people. It is not, therefore it should not be looked at as a minority. Homosexaulity is not a minority or genre of people, but it is sexual orientation, and choice. Read 1st Corinthians Chapter 6. It not a matter of love vs. hate, but one of right and wrong. Well if the supreme court strike down the will of the people in california, poividing this is passed, then they have over stepped thier bounds. The courts cannot be allowed to over rule the will of a state. States do have specific rights that cannot be challenged or changed by the courts.
Thank goodness, proposition 8 was passed.
I'm with you Dave in SC. thank God it passed. I am a firm believer that things happen for a reason. God said in the Old Testament that he alone puts in power and takes away leaders in this world.
I'm sure eDan is cringing in his own unbelieving way that this passed but it is a good thing for society. The homosexual agenda would not stop at just having “fair treatment” The CA supreme court elevated that union sadly to a “protected status” under state law which would prohibit the majority of CA residents from speaking out against the gay union. eDan seems to put up what he considers a good argument but in God's eyes, it is only foolishness. eDan; this is for you; You seem to know some Bible passages; Read 1 Corinthians 3: 19-20 . There's your warning from the Holy God; Take heed; It may not be too late for you yet!
Thanks to all! Hooray for Prop 8 !
I agree, edan's responses are typical of todays attitude about anything that ahs to do with morality. The gays and lesbians do have an agenda and thats to have thier lifestyle accepted as normal. but its not..
Congratulations, guys. You have proudly and willingly defiled the Golden Rule and joined the ranks of the KKK, the Nazi party and Al Qaeda. In each case, participants firmly believe they have the moral high ground; in each case, they endeavor to erode the rights of others in the name of their cause; and in each case, they start with a spirited verbal assault and end with violence and bloodshed. Let us hope that in this case there will be a bigger backlash against the oppressors, and that it will be confined to legal battles which will repeal this immoral, hypocritical and un-American law.
Enjoy your brief victory – it will be the last time such a law is passed in California. The margin went from 80/20 last time to pretty much 51/49 this time – your religious fascist numbers are dwindling, and are being replaced with forward-thinking, diversity-accepting young voters who will not stand for religious right would-be dictators of morality any longer. We all know deep down that equal rights for everyone is the moral high ground, as opposed to an ancient text spouting the xenophobia that made sense in a time of constant clan warfare but has little relevance today.
Any thinking person knows that the bible cannot and should not be applied literally to today's world, but zealots still find it convenient to pick and choose the passages that suit their particular crusade while conveniently pretending that the rest of the hypocrisy does not exist. Is there anyone out there who actually obeys every commandment in the bible? If so, they are probably a convicted felon, for the bible contradicts so many modern civil and criminal laws that there are more contradictions than similarities. So where does someone find the audacity of claiming that someone else's rights are null and void based on this same contradictory book?
But I prefaced that statement by saying “any thinking person”, so I suppose that leaves religious zealots out, for by definition they do not question the dogma that is taught to them. What is faith, if not the belief in something without question? If you start with the premise that a book is the word of god, and that if you don't believe it, you will go to hell, where can you go from there? Try reading the same book with an OPEN mind – it might open your eyes about the historical origins and purposes of those passages.
And don't worry about going to hell – with immoral propositions like this one, you seem to be doing your best to create hell here on earth. But there are those who value human rights over religious dogma, and our numbers are growing. We will not sit still for hate groups that espouse discrimination as policy. It didn't work for the KKK, it didn't work for the Nazi party, and it will not work for the religious right, the latest in a long string of hate groups.
See you in court… and God Bless America.
wow, its nice to see you hold your own view so highly. Its really easy to throw the “hate” word around, it seems the only one you understand. I do not hate homosexuals, in fact, I have friends that are gay, I'm not. You seem to have a very humanistic view about things, in fact, humanism is a self professed religion. yet it is forced upon us at will, without recourse. the people of califronia have spoken what they want, it does not matter by what majority, it was enough….
Now you compare me to the KKK, and terrorist which is completely uncalled for in this discussion. In the same way that you complain about the religious right forcing thier beliefs on you, you are forcing a lifestyle of immorality upon others. You need to face the facts, not everybody in this country believes as you do about homosexuality being “normal”, and ok. Just get over it. Slinging words about people being dogmatic just because they do not see things the way you do is childless. I really do not care if people who are gay want to be married to each other, no matter how immoral and wrong it is, just don't call it a marriage. thats not what it is. Marriage is between a woman and man. You seem to always want equal rights for these people, and to heck with the rights of those who do not want thier familes exposed to such indignity, and immorality. what about those folks rights, where do they come into play.
in my opinion, the courts have no say in this, it was enacted by the people of california. If the courts can overtrun this then we are all in trouble. No court should the power to overturn something voted for by the people and passed.
Artistic Director Resigns Amid Prop. 8 Boycott
Gay, Lesbian Artists Sought Boycott Against Venue
POSTED: 8:56 am PST November 12, 2008
UPDATED: 12:11 pm PST November 12, 2008
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned Wednesday, after gay and lesbian artists threatened a boycott for his support of a ban on same-sex marriage.
Survey: Should He Have Resigned?
“I am leaving California Musical Theatre after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatre-going and creative community,” Scott Eckern said in a statement.
Campaign records show Eckern contributed $1,000 to a campaign supporting Proposition 8, which wrote a ban on same-sex marriages into the California state Constitution.
California Musical Theatre is the state's largest nonprofit musical theater company and Sacramento's oldest performing arts company.
In a statement, Eckern said one of his family members is in a same-sex relationship and that he is sad that his personal beliefs were taken with offense:
“I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings, maybe even betrayal. It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction. I chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved. I support each individual to have rights and access and I understood that in California domestic partnerships come with the same rights that come with marriage. My sister is a lesbian and in a committed domestic partnership relationship. I am loving and supportive of her and her family, and she is loving and supportive of me and my family. I definitely do not support any message or treatment of others that is hateful or instills fear. This is a highly emotional issue and the accusations that have been made against me are simply not true. I have now had many conversations with friends and colleagues, and I am deeply saddened that my personal beliefs and convictions have offended others. My choice to support the Proposition was personal, and does not represent the views and opinions of California Musical Theatre or the many people associated with the organization. I was required by law to identify my employer and occupation at the time of my donation.”
The organization has produced Sacramento's annual Music Circus and plays at Broadway Sacramento and the newly opened Cosmopolitan Cabaret.
Eckern, who spent 25 years with the company, has served as its chief operating officer and was its artistic director since 2002.
Lisa West, regional spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said Eckern is a member “in very good standing” and the Mormon church supports his decision to resign.
“I have not imposed my beliefs onto any of the works, but have sought to explore the truths found in the storytelling to speak for themselves if they are told well,” Eckern said in a statement.
Eckern said he will be making a $1,000 comparable donation to the Human Rights Campaign.
Several high-profile artists, including “Hairspray” composer Marc Shaiman, were among those leading the boycott effort.
Local playwright Gregg Coffin told KCRA 3 that he does not support the boycott. Coffin, however, did say that Eckern owes the people he works with an explanation.
“He works in an environment that is so inclusive and diverse,” Coffin said. “He works with gay actors, singers, dancers and choreographers.”
In his statement, Eckern expressed his gratitude for his time with the company.
“I am leaving California Musical Theatre after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatre-going and creative community. California Musical Theatre will continue to welcome with open arms all staff, artists and audiences who collaborate in the experience that live theatre does best — to lift the human spirit. I will continue to be in the audience to cheer on all the good work. It has been an honor to serve alongside those I love and respect in this noble profession. I am disappointed that my personal convictions have cost me the opportunity to do what I love the most which is to continue enriching the Sacramento arts and theatre community.”
The company's executive producer, Richard Lewis, said Tuesday that the company doesn't share Eckern's views.
However, Lewis said Wednesday that in no way was he forced to resign.
Other managers will take over the artistic director duties, Lewis said, but they're not sure if they will replace that position.
Supporters of Eckern said they will gather at the venue at 12:15 p.m. and protest what they think is a forced resignation.
California Musical Theatre released this statement Tuesday:
“Any political action or opinion of Scott Eckern does not represent the views or opinions of California Musical Theatre. We have a long history of appreciation for the LGBT community and are truly grateful for their long-standing support. We acknowledge the dedication, patronage and hard work of the many members of the LGBT community who have played a crucial role in our success. Our only mission is to present quality theatrical productions to enrich the cultural life of the community.”
The theatre had scheduled an emergency meeting to take place on Tuesday but the meeting was canceled.
*********************************************
I think this is a complete outrage that this man should have to resign his job just because some gays were offended. from this article he did a great job in his position which is all that matters. it appears that he never tried to push his beliefs on any of the gay artist that performed at this theater. So now it aperas that if you have an opinion that differs from the gays and thier lifestyle you pay by having to give up your job and income. Talk about fair, thats not fair. fi he had been spreading his thoughts to people at the theater or specifically targeting people with his actions, on the job, weel thats a different story. The problem we have is we haveway to many weak minded eople who will not stand by any real, moral beliefs about anything sacred. With this happening, I hope that this theater closes down. The only thing that is truly offensive about this is this man just had to give up his job for basically nothing.
Marriage was created by God along with the seventh day Sabbath during Creation week.
These two are the most attacked in the world. Marriage was originally between one man and one woman. Jesus endorsed this.
You don't know this so I will tell you. There are 4 laws in the Old Testament: The Moral law(ten commandments), the Ceremonial law(Temple and its sacrifices), the Health laws(clean and unclean foods) and the civil law.
Since Christ died for us and fulfilled the Ceremonial law it is longer binding on us. The Civil laws in the Bible are no longer binding as God is not our king. Only the Moral and Health laws are still binding. If you eat the wrong things you will get ill and die, if you live an unhealthy lifestyle it will kill you sooner or later. The penalty of breaking the Moral law is death.
Would you say the same had Proposition 8 been about a national day of rest?
Marriage was created by God along with the seventh day Sabbath during Creation week.
These two are the most attacked in the world. Marriage was originally between one man and one woman. Jesus endorsed this.
You don't know this so I will tell you. There are 4 laws in the Old Testament: The Moral law(ten commandments), the Ceremonial law(Temple and its sacrifices), the Health laws(clean and unclean foods) and the civil law.
Since Christ died for us and fulfilled the Ceremonial law it is longer binding on us. The Civil laws in the Bible are no longer binding as God is not our king. Only the Moral and Health laws are still binding. If you eat the wrong things you will get ill and die, if you live an unhealthy lifestyle it will kill you sooner or later. The penalty of breaking the Moral law is death.
Would you say the same had Proposition 8 been about a national day of rest?
Marriage was created by God along with the seventh day Sabbath during Creation week.
These two are the most attacked in the world. Marriage was originally between one man and one woman. Jesus endorsed this.
You don't know this so I will tell you. There are 4 laws in the Old Testament: The Moral law(ten commandments), the Ceremonial law(Temple and its sacrifices), the Health laws(clean and unclean foods) and the civil law.
Since Christ died for us and fulfilled the Ceremonial law it is longer binding on us. The Civil laws in the Bible are no longer binding as God is not our king. Only the Moral and Health laws are still binding. If you eat the wrong things you will get ill and die, if you live an unhealthy lifestyle it will kill you sooner or later. The penalty of breaking the Moral law is death.
Would you say the same had Proposition 8 been about a national day of rest?