Response to Tom

Below I respond to Tom's comment to this blog entry. Thank you Tom for taking the time to leave your opinion.

What do you mean by "ad hominem" attacks? No one has attacked the person who wrote these lies, only the lies themselves.

The accusation is that these are "lies," which implies that the author and those who disseminate this information are liars. Most who criticize these consequences leave their criticism at that. I appreciate you, however, taking the time to set forth your reasoning rather than merely stating that these consequences are "lies."

For instance, on number 1, regarding children being taught about same-sex marriage in school. Any parent has the right to remove their child from a health ed class (or any other class) if they don't agree with the curriculum.

That does not address the point made. The issue is not whether parents can remove their children from public school so as to avoid disagreeable curricula. The issue is whether SSM and traditional marriage will be placed on an equal footing in public school class rooms.

Thus, it is not a "lie." It would only be a "lie" if public schools were not going to teach that "same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage." Do you contend that public schools will not be required to take that position?

Number 2, churches will be sued if they don't allow same-sex marriages in their churches.

This is perhaps the most blatant lie of the bunch. First, the California Supreme Court specifically stated in its decision that churches would not be required to perform any ceremonies that went against their teachings. On top of that, Catholics don't let divorced people marry in their churches. No law suits. They don't let women become priests. No law suits. Mormons don't allow any but active, tithe-paying members to marry in their temples. For years they wouldn't allow black people to marry in their temples. no law suits.

You are correct that the California Supreme Court stated:

no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)

(Page 117 of the opinion.) You are incorrect, however, to think that the court's dicta establishes a bullet-proof protection for religion. Any litigator will tell you that such litigation is certainly a possibility and a probability. Will such litigation commence immediately? Probably not. It could take a long time. But, as society becomes more comfortable with SSM, public opinion will become more intolerant of religious viewpoints that contradict the perception that SSM is a "fundamental right." Can you think of any legal precedent in which public perception was forced on a religion, causing that religion to change its religious practices or risk imprisonment of anyone practicing those religious beliefs? If not, I will be happy to tell you.

Thus, it is not a lie. It would only be a lie if churches could not be sued over their tax-exempt status. Such litigation is definitely possible.

Number 3, regarding adoption agencies closing. That has NOTHING to do with marriage equality. It has to do with anti-discrimination laws that were in place for years before Massachusetts became the first state to embrace marriage equality.

You are correct that the laws in Massachusetts pre-dated the 2003 decision protecting SSM. That, however, is not the issue that is addressed. The point is that if Proposition 8 is defeated, it is likely that religious adoption agencies will be challenged on grounds of discrimination. Will religions prevail in such litigation? Possibly, and at this point in time, probably, but the facts remains that such a challenge is likely. It would only be a "lie" if such a challenge is impossible. Again, any litigator will tell you that such a challenge is possible and probable.

I find your response somewhat contradictory to your response to Number 2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently you find no problem with using state intervention to ensure that religions don't "discriminate" in adoption proceedings based on SSM. If you are okay with that, are you also okay with the state intervening to prevent religions from "discriminating" in their marriage practices?

Number 4 is probably true. After all, Bob Jones University had to allow mixed-race couples in married student housing.

N/A

Number 5 is ridiculous, as well. This isn't Canada. We have the First Amendment here. Ministers have free speech rights at their respective pulpits that state municipal employees (who are conducting government business) do not have.

Canada also has the equivalent of our First Amendment, which is embodied in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, i.e., Canada has freedom of both speech and religion. And, just like the U.S., Canada constitutional law permits infringments on those rights under certain situations. Thus, in the U.S. a court could find that a minister's preaching against homosexuality and SSM is "hate speech" not protected by the First Amendment. Thus, it is not a "lie."

If that doesn't convince you, I will add these two words: Fred. Phelps.

For now. But again, as society becomes more used to the idea of SSM, that could change very quickly.

Number 6, a "cascade" of lawsuits. Also untrue. Churches will be no more or less likely to be sued if Proposition 8 fails than if it succeeds.

You have not rebutted this point. In fact, several examples of such lawsuits are given in Number 6.

That enough logic for you?

I will resist any sarcastic retort.