It’s quite ironic to see supporters of homophobic Proposition 8 using children to express their bigotry:
Gerrie Schipske makes an excellent point regarding Prop 8 when she says:
The supporters of Proposition 8 are in fact waging a vigorous campaign with the assistance (financial and otherwise) of religious organisations and are providing materials for church bulletins to remind their members that Proposition 8 “restores the definition of marriage. God himself is the author of marriage. Its meaning is written in the very nature of man and woman as they come from the hand of the Creator.”
These supporters also warn that without the passage of Proposition 8 “Californians will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.” The only problem is that Proposition 8 would actually do just that – force mandatory compliance of a religious belief “regardless of personal beliefs”.
And that’s at the heart of the argument about Prop 8. It was at the heart of Lilian Ladele’s argument, Graham Cogman’s argument, and all of this religious intrusion into secular public space. Except where Britain’s laws and constitution are muddled when it comes to the place of religion in civil society, as Schipske points out there is no such confusion in California – there is strict division between church and state. Proposition 8 is a religious-based initiative to rob the state of its secular responsibility not to discriminate precisely on the grounds of religion. Ladele and Cogman wrapped their arguments up in the same way – the law they said was discriminating against them by inhibiting (they believed) their ‘right’ to discriminate on the grounds of their religion. Britain’s equality laws being muddled and set against one another as they are is one thing, but the situation in California is another. Schipske reminds us:
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1808: “State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights.”
Cosmodaddy 
The battle for free speech and conscience
by Craig A. Huey
Many voters who are for same-sex marriage—or don’t care either way—are joining forces with those who believe in protecting traditional marriage to vote “yes” on Proposition 8.
Why? Because Proposition 8 restores individual freedom and protects free speech. A “no” vote destroys liberty, empowers judicial activists and creates a climate of lawsuits and coercion.
What happened
By a 4–3 decision, the California Supreme Court voted to force “same-sex marriage” on California. This decision overturned Proposition 22, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman only.
In 2000, an overwhelming 61.4% of California voters passed Proposition 22. This court ruling overturning the California voters’ decision is history in the making.
A civil right?
Marriage is being “redefined” as a civil right; this new definition will radically change our society. That’s the problem—and that’s why gays, heterosexuals, Christians and Jews, Democrats and Republicans are joining together to vote “yes” on Proposition 8.
No other political decision to change American society (as we’ve known it for more than 200 years) even comes close to this one. The three dissenting votes rightly pointed out that this is not a civil rights issue, it’s an issue of choice. The four judges who voted for “same-sex marriage” did so based on a distorted view of “civil liberties.” The four judges said, just as you can’t discriminate against people based on their race, you also can’t discriminate against people based on their “sexual orientation.”
But choosing one’s personal sexual behavior isn’t the same as what defines one’s race.
Confusion and danger
Redesigning society based on this confusion—that a chosen sexual “orientation” is no different from the unchosen, unchangeable characteristic of race—is based on faulty and dangerous reasoning.
There are some things we don’t choose. No one can choose his or her race or height—any more than he or she can choose any gene. Whom we enter into a relationship with, however, is voluntary—it’s a matter of free will. Homosexual behavior is a choice, not a civil right. Race is not a choice, and is a civil right.
Why real rights are in danger
Now, because of the court’s decision based on newly created “civil rights,” our religious liberty and freedom of speech are in danger. If Proposition 8 isn’t passed, watch for costly lawsuits to mount against churches if they don’t allow homosexual “weddings.”
Last year in New Jersey, a lesbian couple sued the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association after it refused, for religious reasons, to let the “couple” hold a ceremony on the camp’s property. The camp has lost part of its tax-exempt status and expects more court challenges.
Stifling freedom of speech
Watch out for more churches, religious organizations and pastors to grow increasingly reluctant to speak out against what they call the sin of homosexuality for fear of accusations of “hate speech,” “discrimination” and “violating civil rights.”
Canadian Evangelical Pastor Stephen Boisson was recently banned from expressing his opposition to homosexuality, ordered to pay $5,000 for damages for “pain and suffering” and to apologize to a homosexual activist for writing in a newspaper it was wrong to teach 5- and 6-year-olds that homosexuality is acceptable behavior.
Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family has to edit references to homosexuality out of his radio broadcasts in Canada so he doesn’t get prosecuted for “hate speech.”
Stifling freedom of conscience
Religious employees, Christian schools and bookstores, photographers, wedding-cake bakers, rental agencies and other businesses—all of them could be targets of ruinous lawsuits.
In New Mexico, Elaine Huguenin, a professional wedding photographer, was fined and found guilty for not wanting to photograph a lesbian wedding.
And just last month, the California Supreme Court found guilty two doctors in San Diego who refused to inseminate a lesbian woman. They referred her to another doctor. After she had the child, she sued, winning her “civil rights” case that would force the doctors to act against their own freedom of conscience. They will be potentially subjected to paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees to the lesbian.
Proposition 8 is easy. Whether you agree with same-sex marriage or not, Proposition 8 is needed to protect freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. Voting “no” on 8 is voting against freedom of religion and opening the door to lawsuits and harassment of those who disagree with homosexuality.
Voting YES is protecting the American dream and stopping the erosion of liberty.
Craig A. Huey
craig@cdmginc.com
Sorry Craig, but it is “based on faulty and dangerous reasoning” to say that homosexuality is a choice. You are correct to say we choose who we have a relationship with, but what we are when we choose to have a relationship with someone should not affect our legal rights. Laws preventing interracial marriages were overturned. Two people who fall in love of separate races, we now recognize, do not have a different or less important love, and it should be treated as such. Same-sex love is no different, and to think otherwise is not necessarily evil or hateful, but it is ignorant.
I’d be interested to know if Franco believes the sentiments in the appalling article, or whether he’s added them to show the disgusting lies and misrepresentations which those who support Proposition 8 rely on. Chiefly we have:
Homosexual behavior is a choice, not a civil right.
Fundamentally wrong. Homosexuality isn’t a choice at all. It’s the fallacy at the heart of the article. Given that being gay (or not) is an inherent quality of individuals, enshrining discrimination under a state’s constitution is inherently bigoted. Being gay is of course a civil right by dint of its legality. The rest of the article doesn’t follow.
Watch out for more churches, religious organizations and pastors to grow increasingly reluctant to speak out against what they call the sin of homosexuality for fear of accusations of “hate speech,” “discrimination” and “violating civil rights.”
They should be reluctant to speak out against gay people if they’re inclined to attack people for their intrinsic natures. Being gay isn’t dangerous, it isn’t harmful, it isn’t even harmful in any way to society. One should indeed be allowed to have personal issues with homosexual sex – the day we get to controlling people’s thoughts will be a dangerous one indeed. And talking about that in public shouldn’t of its own accord be illegal, but promoting thinking ill of people, treating them in a lesser way because of their inherent (and unharmful) natures should.
Proposition 8 doesn’t have a moral leg to stand on.
yeah in total agreement with you Jase, it’s not my concern if religious teachers feel bad that their own holy words are shown to be petty and wrong. I feel no compulsion to help the same religion that imprisoned and killed millions of gays around the world and thru time. If I was born 1000 years ago I would have been gleefully burned at the stake by the same people who now tell me that they hate the sin and love the sinner. All with the blessing of their god.
Prop 8 is wrong, the judges were right.
Churches are only at risk of unraveling their own sordid history, nothing more.
Actually, I think my last comment would be much better suited under this post…
That’s the same stance I was coming from when I did this video:
http://www.losangelesiam.com/videos/20f26d55fda1
It’s ironic that the Prop 8 backers were so afraid of educating their children on gay marriage, and yet, these kids know more than we give them for.
(This was filmed at the LA National Protest last Saturday)
-b