Church and state: The issue of Prop. 8

James Brosnahan

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Proposition 8 has passed, denying to some the right enjoyed by other citizens in California, the right to marry. Now, the central question for the courts to decide is: Are gays in California equal, or can members of certain churches declare them constitutionally inferior?

The approval of a constitutional ban on gay marriage raises troubling but age-old issues concerning the lines between religion and government. Before the founders of our country separated church and state, there were hundreds of years of turmoil caused by one religion dominating the government and using it against nonbelievers.

In the aftermath of Tuesday's vote, do gays and lesbians in California have a reason to believe that they have been abused, discriminated against and relegated to a separate-but-equal status?

Yes, and that's why this fight is far from over. There will be a challenge under the U.S. Constitution. In the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California constitutional amendment that limited fair housing on the grounds that prejudice could not be put into a state Constitution.

No one can forecast the outcome of this next fight, but there is bound to be some fallout that may harm those religions that so vehemently insisted that their beliefs be placed in the California Constitution. All religions require tolerance to flourish, but in Proposition 8 some religious groups aimed at and wounded gay people in California.

The drafters of the U.S. Constitution had a brilliant, experienced view concerning the importance of drawing the lines to protect religion on the one hand and civil government on the other. They put those lines in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Today, those lines are very relevant.

Government may not attack religion. Californians who have religious beliefs concerning the proper scope of marriage may exercise those rights as they see fit. Churches have always been able to proceed as they wish concerning marriage ceremonies. There was no mandate to suppress religious beliefs. This should be obvious to everyone in California because of our tolerance of all religions.

That the supporters of Proposition 8 were motivated by religious beliefs cannot be denied. Now the religious beliefs of some Californians are in our Constitution and, until overturned, govern us all whether we like it or not.

The other branch of the First Amendment is equally important. The state may not establish a religion. The state may not take principles of religious belief from a religion, any religion, and establish it as the law applicable to all. This line establishing the double branch of protection of religion on the one hand and no establishment on the other was arrived at after hundreds of years of turmoil.

Historically, marriage was used as a method of oppressing a despised group. These lessons of history are relevant to reflect on today. In Ireland, for 150 years, the penal laws provided that no Protestant could marry a Catholic.

Much more recent in the United States were the rules against marriage between a black person and a white person. These were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1960s and the California Supreme Court in the 1940s. Using the civil marriage ceremony as a method of expressing governmental disdain toward a particular group is as old as the Sierra Nevada. It has been an assault on tolerance.

Finally, marriage is a fundamental right in constitutional analysis. There are very few things in life more important than the ability to choose one's partner. Marriage is not just a word; it is a status, a state of mind, a way of being. Look in any direction and you will see examples of the people's respect for the institution of marriage.

A large group of Californians has now been denied that fundamental institution. These folks are our neighbors, our friends, our colleagues and our relatives. The constitutional promise of this state is, as the California Supreme Court held, that they are equally protected in the enjoyment of rights by all Californians. But the voters have spoken.

Now it will be up to the courts to explain whether equality is real - or just an illusion. I would not wish to be the one to justify this vote to a gay woman going to Afghanistan in the military, to a gay police officer who risks everything so we may be safe or any of the other thousands of gays and lesbians in California who contribute so much to our culture, our advancement and our well being.

I cannot square this vote with my view that Californians are decent, accepting and tolerant. But I know that the gays and lesbians of California, like the oppressed Catholics of Ireland who lived under penal laws, will fight this visible, constitutional, embarrassing injustice until it is no more. And when that day comes, we will live in a better state.

James Brosnahan, author of the "Trial Handbook for California Lawyers," is a senior partner at the Morrison & Foerster law firm in San Francisco.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/INUV13V3I2.DTL

This article appeared on page G - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle

See Church and state: The issue of Prop. 8

California Gay Marriage Ban Bad For Business

SAN FRANCISCO — A week before Election Day, Christopher Burnett's floral shop filled an order for one of the many same-sex weddings he has worked in the last five months: eight corsages, a dozen boutonnieres and two bouquets for the two brides, each with three dozen roses.

Now, Mr. Burnett said, since Tuesday's voter approval of Proposition 8, which amended the state's Constitution to recognize only marriages between men and women, that type of business is gone.

"I have done a gay wedding every week," he said. "And so it's very disheartening, because other business is very slow."

Even as opponents of the measure officially conceded defeat on Thursday, California business owners — particularly those in the marriage business — were trying to determine how many wedding cakes would now go unsold and how many tuxedos unrented.

Arturo Cobos, a manager at Kard Zone in the city's traditionally gay Castro neighborhood, said he had done "big sales" of same-sex wedding cards and other trinkets since marriages began in June, but had recently stopped stocking new goods.

"We were afraid that they would pass Proposition 8," Mr. Cobos said, "and that's exactly what happened."

In Palm Springs, another gay-friendly city, Mayor Steve Pougnet said he had performed 115 same-sex weddings since June, when such ceremonies began, some of which had as many as 180 guests. By contrast, this week the city has canceled eight planned ceremonies.

"That's a huge economic impact, which is gone in these difficult economic times," said Mr. Pougnet, who is openly gay and married his partner in September.

Another mayor, Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, was blunt.

"It's a great day for Massachusetts," Mr. Newsom said, referring to one of only two remaining states to allow same-sex marriage. The other, Connecticut, legalized such unions in October.

The approval of Proposition 8 comes even as the state is suffering through another bout of bad economic news. On Thursday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who opposed Proposition 8, in part on economic grounds, announced that the state's budget deficit had already swelled to $11.2 billion for the coming year, and called the Legislature back into session and proposed higher taxes to address the budget problems.

David Paisley, a San Francisco-based marketing executive with a specialty in gay tourism, said California had four of the nation's top 10 destinations for gay travelers: San Francisco, Palm Springs, Los Angeles and San Diego.

Mr. Paisley said that it was too early to speculate on the exact economic impact of Proposition 8, but that some public relations damage might have already been done.

"California has always been perceived on the vanguard of gay-friendly destinations," he said. "Well, when a ballot measure passes says it's not, it's terrible publicity for gay and lesbian tourism."

California Gay Marriage Ban Bad For Business

Prop. 8 foes concede defeat, vow to fight on

Opponents of Proposition 8, after taking a close look at the ballot totals from Tuesday's election, today conceded defeat in their effort to keep same-sex marriage legal in California.

The estimated 3 million votes yet to be counted across the state are not enough to close the 500,000-vote lead the "Yes" side holds with all California precincts reporting, officials from the No on 8 campaign said.

"While we think the margin will close, we are convinced we will not be able to overcome the small deficit we are in and that Proposition 8 will pass," Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, said in a telephone news conference this morning.

The measure, a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage in the state, has received 52.5 percent of votes in favor to 47.5 percent of votes against it.

Kors and other opponents of the measure complained today about what they considered to be false statements and questionable tactics from Prop. 8 supporters.

They also predicted victory for the rights of same-sex couples in the future.

"That day is not today and it may not be tomorrow but I do not believe it is far off," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Prop. 8 supporters won a surprisingly widespread victory Tuesday, winning almost everywhere in the state but in the Bay Area and a few other counties. Voters in Florida and Arizona also voted in favor of constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

Prop. 8 Foes Throw In Towel

Noisy Prop. 8 protest snarls L.A. traffic

More than 2,000 people protesting California's new ban on gay marriage marched through streets Thursday, snarling afternoon rush-hour traffic on the west side as hundreds of police officers sought to contain them.

Two people were arrested after a confrontation between the crowd and an occupant of a pickup truck that had a banner supporting Proposition 8, the ballot measure that banned gay marriage. Seven arrests occurred during Los Angeles-area street marches late Wednesday.

Some spectators cheered from apartment balconies; one person threw eggs at the marchers.

The demonstration began at a Mormon temple complex in Westwood where marchers protested the church's support of Proposition 8, which won 52 percent support Tuesday for its definition of marriage as a heterosexual union. Gay marriage had only been allowed in California for a matter of months since a state Supreme Court decision earlier this year.

The march was noisy, with chants of "Separate church and state" and "What do we want? Equal rights." Some waved signs saying "No on H8" or "I didn't vote against your marriage," and many equated the issue with the civil rights struggle.

"I'm disappointed in the Californians who voted for this," said F. Damion Barela, 43, a Studio City resident who married his husband nearly five months ago. "I understand the African-American and Latino communities voted heavily in favor of Proposition 8. To them I say, shame on you because you should know what this feels like."

Brief violence erupted when marchers surrounded the pickup bearing a pro-Proposition 8 sign. Protesters ripped the sign, and an occupant of the vehicle got out and knocked down a protester. A demonstrator, Maurice Carriere, 27, of Studio City, ended up with a bloody nose in the fracas. He told police he didn't see the punch coming. Officers arrested two people and put them in a patrol car. It was not clear who they were.

The march initially focused on the Mormon temple because gay rights advocates claim the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spent millions to air deceptive advertisements in support of Proposition 8, and the church should lose its tax-exempt status.

Noisy Prop. 8 protest snarls L.A. traffic

Unfortunate news has dimmed the exhilaration of this historic, life-changing election.

Unfortunate news has dimmed the exhilaration of this historic, life-changing election.

I am deeply disappointed to report anti-LGBT marriage bans passed in Florida and Arizona, and in Arkansas voters voted to bar all unmarried people, LGBT or straight, from adopting children or serving as foster parents.

Meanwhile media outlets have begun to report bad news for marriage equality in California. However, the Human Rights Campaign just participated in a conference call with our coalition partners and we firmly believe that all votes should be counted before calling the race. Several million votes in California have yet to be counted. Now is not the time to speculate on somebody's fundamental rights. So we are waiting to see the final results from those ballots and will be issuing a statement after the race has been called. Please stay tuned.

While this news certainly put a damper on such a historic election, we should celebrate the fact that our movement came together in an unprecedented way, and worked tirelessly to defeat these amendments, and millions voted with us yesterday.

It is indeed a bitter pill to swallow. But we cannot allow distorted facts or shallow tactics – the foundation on which our opponents built their campaigns – to break our spirits. We are on the right side of history – and we will continue this journey.

Let us not forget that we saw many glimmers of hope for LGBT equality across the country last night. We increased the ranks of pro-equality lawmakers in both the House and the Senate. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), ringleader of the campaign to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, was soundly defeated. Jared Polis (D-CO) became the first openly gay man ever to be elected to Congress as a non-incumbent. Democrats took the New York State Senate, giving us our best chance ever to pass a same-sex marriage law in a legislature. We beat back a ballot question in Connecticut that could have threatened our recent victory there. In fact, marriages begin next week. And we elected Barack Obama as our next President, ending eight years of anti-LGBT policies. I truly believe that despite these setbacks, our nation is moving in the right direction.

After fighting for years, so many victories are now within reach. And thanks to yesterday's victories, we can now pass critical LGBT equality measures like the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act and begin unraveling the damage of the last eight years.

I vow to you today that HRC will not give up, nor will we retreat. Moving forward, HRC will:

• Continue our efforts to win incremental victories for relationship recognition, so that legally married lesbian and gay couples in Massachusetts and Connecticut have full standing under federal law; the same holds true for civil unions and domestic partnerships in places like New Hampshire, Vermont and Oregon.
• Use amendments and other legislative vehicles in Congress to establish growing equality for LGBT Americans under federal tax, Social Security, pension, insurance and other laws – piecing together as many of the rights of marriage as we can until the full victory is achieved in years to come.
• Work with our allies in New York to make good on the extraordinary opportunity presented by the election of a new fair-minded majority in the State Senate, which paves the way for the nation's first-ever legislatively achieved marriage equality victory. We are also simultaneously working on marriage equality in New Jersey.

Together, like we have done some many times before, we fought the good fight until the bitter end.

In Florida, HRC contributed $120,000 to Florida Red & Blue (backers of the SayNo2 campaign), including $50,000 of early seed money that allowed the campaign to raise significant additional funds and provided high-level fundraising consulting for the campaign. We started building an early base for campaign operations by sending staff to Florida and conducting volunteer trainings during the January Presidential Primary. We held a Camp Equality election skills training in Fort Lauderdale and mobilized hundreds of volunteers. And in the final weeks, four additional HRC staffers and a Campaign College participant were sent to work on the ground in Florida.

In Arizona, HRC contributed $50,000 to Arizona Together for media production and air time. We had three HRC staffers and one Campaign College participant on the ground. We also held a Camp Equality election skills training in Phoenix and mobilized the participants to work on this issue.

In Arkansas, HRC provided half of the funding necessary for the Arkansas Families First campaign to hire a campaign manager. We deployed a Campaign College participant to work on the campaign for 12 weeks, and an HRC staffer to work on the campaign during the final push.

And in California, HRC participated fully as a member of the marriage coalition executive committee, with unprecedented on-the-ground support, and extensive voter mobilization efforts. I am proud that HRC was the second largest funder of No on Prop. 8, behind Equality California, in what ended up being the most expensive campaign in the nation next to the presidential race. When all was said and done, HRC and our members invested nearly $3.5 million directly to the efforts in California. But our messages of fairness and reason were met with appalling messages of fear, distortion and downright hate that our opponents put forth on television, on radio, across the Internet, and in Sunday sermons.

In 2000, a similar marriage ban in California was passed by a margin of 61% to 39%. So the closeness of this race and the positive shift in public opinion underscores that it is only a matter of time before we add more states to the march for marriage equality. As Obama said last night, "That's the true genius of America – that America can change."

Yesterday, an unfortunate majority of voters stood with the most extreme and negative elements of society to deny the rights of loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. But it's not the first time that has happened to us, and it won't be the last. It doesn't change the fact that we are married. It doesn't change the fact that we have families. Make no mistake. We are bowed, but not discouraged. We are sad, but not disheartened. We grieve, but not as those who are without hope.

Today we will mourn the losses in Florida, Arizona and Arkansas, but tomorrow let's resolve to lift one another up, and continue our march forward.

Remember, our marriages didn't begin with a decision of the court, and they will not end with a vote of the people.

 

Warmly,

 

 
Joe Solmonese
President

NO on Prop 8 Campaign Releases Statement by 300 California Pediatricians, Leading Pediatricians Refute MD Who Signed Prop 8 Ballot Argument

SACRAMENTO, Calif., -- - The NO on Prop 8 campaign today released a statement signed by more than 300 leading California pediatricians announcing their joint opposition to Prop 8 and concluding that the physician who signed the Prop 8 ballot statement, Jane Anderson, MD, in no way represents the majority of pediatricians on this issue.

The pediatrician statement took issue with Dr. Anderson, who identifies herself as a Fellow of the American College of Pediatricians.  According to that organization's Web site, the American College of Pediatricians believes homosexuality is "preventable and changeable" and that "spanking can be an effective component of discipline."  (See: http://www.acpeds.org/)

The pediatrician's full statement against Prop 8 reads as follows:

"As pediatricians who care for children and families of California, we are writing to publicly deny any implication from the recently mailed "2008 California Voter" Guide that pediatricians support Prop 8. In the Guide, a rebuttal to the argument against Proposition 8 is signed by a pediatrician who is self-identified as a Fellow of the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds).  We wish to clarify that the ACPeds is an organization that does not in any way represent the majority of pediatricians' opinions regarding this initiative.

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), not the ACPeds, is the national organization with over 60,000 members that represents American pediatricians. The Board of Directors of the national office of the AAP commissioned a review of the relevant literature regarding child health in the context of same sex unions. The report was authored by a diverse panel of twelve experts from around the country and was published in the AAP's journal Pediatrics in 2006. It concludes,

'Civil marriage is a legal status that promotes healthy families by conferring a powerful set of rights, benefits, and protections that cannot be obtained by other means. Civil marriage can help foster financial and legal security, psychosocial stability, and an augmented sense of societal acceptance and support. Children who are raised by civilly married parents benefit from the legal status granted to their parents.

'Gay and lesbian people have been raising children for many years and will continue to do so in the future; the issue is whether these children will be raised by parents who have the rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage.

'There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research has documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment...  Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.'

"As physicians who care for society's most vulnerable members, we are committed to supporting what is best for our patients.  In our clinical experience, supporting loving families supports children. Supporting the union and legal right of parents who care for our patients is not only the right thing for us to do; it is the professional thing to do.

"Please join us in protecting our patients and vote against Proposition 8 on November 4."

The statement and the full list of pediatricians who signed it is posted online at http://www.noonprop8.com/

Savvy Navigator LLC Offers Gay Tours of South Africa for Sophisticated Male Travelers

ched a specialized gay tour company catering to sophisticated male travelers. With three departures planned in 2009, Savvy Navigator offers 12-day experiential, life-changing journeys for small groups to sample some of South Africa's lesser-known attractions and meet with leading artists, naturalists and intellectuals.

Mr. Ward combines his executive experience in the trade with a passion for deeply enriching travel to create total immersion adventures for clients around the world.

"I started Savvy Navigator Tours because I saw a need among affluent gay men for escorted, one-of-a-kind travel experiences that would allow them to go beyond the standard vacation," said Mr. Ward, whose background includes more than a decade with American Airlines, where he concentrated on improving the customer experience. "Savvy Navigator will take select groups on exhilarating journeys through areas known only to the most devoted chowhounds, wine enthusiasts, cultural critics and nightlife connoisseurs."

Highlights of the "Eat, Drink and Be Merry" South Africa package, January 13-26, 2009, include a gourmet dinner hosted by a leading South African playwright and a safari at the luxurious Londolozi Private Game Reserve in Sabi Sands next to Kruger National Park. Other South Africa tours will depart in May and November 2009.

"My concept for Savvy Navigator is the best dinner party imaginable extended over 12 days in settings of startling beauty," said Mr. Ward. "Sophisticated travelers are craving something different and want the opportunity to have a transformative adventure that includes getting to know interesting locals, and not just have a traditional tourist experience."

Mr. Ward also noted that low air fares, combined with the value of the South African Rand currency, make January an excellent time for a South Africa vacation.

About Savvy Navigator Tours

Savvy Navigator Tours, LLC is a U.S.-based provider of luxurious, experiential journeys to Southern Africa, appealing to a sophisticated, gay, male traveler. Intimate groups consist of no more than 12 guests and are fully inclusive of all accommodations, tours, wine-tastings, many meals, and all sightseeing with a local guide. These escorted, one-of-a-kind trips offer travel experiences that are unmatched by any other tour operator or travel agent. For more information, please see http://www.savvynavigator.com.

 

 

Millions Poured Into Prop. 8 Fight

The SF Chronicle reports: 

A tsunami of new money has poured into the campaign to defeat Proposition 8, as Hollywood celebrities, deep-pocketed donors and thousands of people from across the country wrote checks to block the proposed ban on same-sex marriage in California.

"If they keep raising money at this rate and our supporters don't respond, (Prop. 8 opponents) will blow past us in money raised," said Chip White, a spokesman for the Prop. 8 campaign. "They will beat us in paid advertising and beat us on election day."

Between Oct. 1 and Oct. 18, the closing date for the latest state financial report, opponents of the same-sex marriage ban raised more than $12 million, compared with $2.5 million for Prop. 8 backers. Both sides had about $7 million in the bank for the final push to the Nov. 4 election, which is plenty of money for strong TV ad campaigns.

"The last few weeks (of fundraising) have been absolutely incredible and there's no sign of it letting up," said Steve Smith, campaign consultant for the "No on Prop. 8" effort. "We're really feeling good about the way the campaign is looking right now."

By Oct. 18, the campaigns had raised a combined $56 million, nearly evenly split between the two sides. In the week since, Prop. 8 opponents have collected an additional $3.6 million, compared with $800,000 for foes of same-sex marriage.

The battle over Prop. 8 already has become the most expensive social-issue election in the history of the country, said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles.

"There's true commitment and intense feelings on both sides," he said. "Almost all these donations are from people, not from companies or corporations."

When polls earlier this month showed increasing backing for the same-sex marriage ban, support surged for Prop. 8 opponents.

"We'd had a number of good polls that had made people fairly complacent," Smith said. "There's no question that when this tightened up, it ignited our donor base."

Jon Stryker, a Kalamazoo, Mich., billionaire, gave $1 million. The California Teachers Association added $1 million, bringing its total contribution to $1.3 million. Hollywood notables like comedian Ellen DeGeneres, director George Lucas and actor T.R. Knight gave $100,000 each. The state Democratic Party gave $100,000, as did the service employees union.

In the week since the most recent filing period ended, Hollywood producer Steven Bing has dropped $500,000 into the campaign, Cleveland philanthropist David Maltz has added $100,000 to the $1 million he has already given and James Hormel of San Francisco gave another $100,000. Apple Computer and Sergey Brin, president of Google, each gave $100,000.

Most of the recent donations for Prop. 8 have come in smaller contributions, although the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal group, has given an additional $150,000, boosting its total donation to $1.4 million.

Meanwhile, there's plenty of nastiness on both sides in the final days of the campaign. ProtectMarriage.com, the group behind the Prop. 8 effort, sent letters to businesses that have given money to the opposition campaign, warning them that they will be publicly identified as supporters of same-sex marriage unless they contribute to the pro-Prop. 8 effort as well.

The effort is at least partially in response to efforts by Prop. 8 opponents to boycott businesses owned or run by backers of the same-sex marriage ban.

Money also is flowing into other propositions on the November ballot.

The biggest contributor in the latest financial filings was Clean Energy, a Seal Beach (Orange County) company that gave $12 million to Prop. 10, which would approve $5 billion in bonds, much of it to provide state subsidies to people who buy alternative-fuel vehicles. T. Boone Pickens, the Texas oilman who is behind Prop. 10, also owns Clean Energy, which has given $15.7 million to the campaign.

The campaign for Prop. 11, which would take redistricting power from the Legislature and give it to a 14-member citizen's commission, has raised about $12 million and has about $1.9 million in the bank and almost $1.3 million in unpaid bills. Opponents, led by the California Democratic Party and public employee unions, have collected just under $1 million, with $2,697 in the bank and $269,000 in unpaid bills.

IN BUSINESS

-- Why Apple joined Google in opposing Proposition 8. C1