My Letter to John and Ken

I listen to KFI AM640 every day. On monday night, John and Ken (who I like very much) were discussing a current man's agenda to seek a ban in California on divorce. The man is really out to show Prop 8 supporters are hypocrites (a 'Yes' on Prop 8 defined marriage as between man & woman, thus effectively banning gay marriage)

Anyway, John and Ken were discussing this, and John especially liked the man's "agenda", because John does believe Prop 8 supporters are wrong.

The hypocrite argument was this: If you supported Prop 8, then you must support this Divorce ban, because Prop 8 was about "protecting marriage", and what is more destructive of marriage than divorce? (John's hypothesis is that Prop 8 supporters won't vote for the divorce ban, and in that light will not be able to support their Prop 8 stance with any substantial argument) They opened the phones up, and sure enough they got some lady who played right into John's hypothesis.

Ken tried to play devil's advocate a bit, and at one point brought up that some would say that education was a part of Prop 8. (he didn't get detailed... simply brought up the subject) John immediately dismissed it as hogwash, claiming that they were unassociated, and were simply people's poor attempts at justifying their hypocrisy.

Now, I really like their show and usually agree with them, but obviously I differ in this area. As a result, I decided to write them an email with my "arguments".

For those of you who voted for Prop 8, you may have different opinions on the importance of my points, or even the validity of them, but these were the reasons I voted for Prop 8, and I believe I did a good job of proving that.

=================================================================

John and Ken,

I was listening to your argument regarding the ban on Divorce, and the link to Prop 8. The "real" issue seemed to be regarding the "hypocrasy" of Prop 8. in light of the divorce ban. While I don't personally believe in divorce, and therefore don't care one way or another is divorce is made illegal, I totally disagree with the view that allowing Divorce to remain legal somehow makes the Prop 8 argument illegitamate.

John, you wanted to focus so strongly on the fact that prop 8 was about protecting marriage. I will argue that Prop 8 was more about protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, and it was an extremely small part of the overall Prop 8 battle.

Still, I won't try to avoid this "hypocrisy" claim. So let's tackle it head on:

Claim: Someone elses gay marriage impacts my marriage, therefore someone elses divorce also impacts my marriage
Your divorce does not in any manner affect my personal marriage. Not on a moral level, a societal level, or legal level. There is zero impact to my marriage. The "lack" of your marriage does not make the existance of my marriage a sham. My marriage can remain consecrated and holy, in spite of your "sin".

The same is not true if someone else has a gay marriage. The mere existance of their "marriage", now changes the make-up of my marriage. Where marriage is defined as between a man and woman, it represents a unique, holy, consecrated bond between a man and woman, defined by a moral standard. If marriage is allowed for gay couples, it's entire foundation is altered. The moral foundation, and holiness is completely altered. Is it a "moral" question, as opposed to a physical one? Absolutely. Does everyone who gets married maintain the belief in the holiness of the bond it creates? No. It could be argued that there's no way to really know someone's belief in the meaning and implications of the marriage bond. However, actually allowing for marriage to include something considered morally reprehensible would be a direct act of removing value from the specialness of the unique bond of marriage.

My Personal Views on this argument: While I identify with the argument, I frankly don't really care. This point had very little to do with my decision to vote for Prop 8. Because I wasn't really about "Protecting the sanctity of marriage", the idea that I'm a hypocrite because I won't also vote to ban divorce is a complete an utter lie.


So, then, what's the real reason(s) for Prop 8.?

John, again I heard you argue that people want to "tack on" other issue to Prop 8 (like education) to validate their otherwise "empty" arguments in support of Prop 8. You stance that those "tacked on" arguments have nothing to do with Prop 8 is completely wrong. They have everything to with Prop 8. Here's Why.

Claim: Because of the "gay agenda", Gay Marriage carries an impact in regards to the education system.

Truth: There is a homosexual agenda to educate California students that homosexuality is not wrong, a fully acceptable lifestyle, and is perfectly normal. Furthermore, homosexuality is to even be honored. (SB 572 - Harvey Milk day).

This is a threat to people who don't want their children to be taught that homosexuality is not wrong and "normal". We have the right to raise our children with the moral standards we believe in. We have the right to protect our children from that which we feel is immoral or sinful. While we don't expect the schools to teach that homosexuality is wrong and sinful; neither do we allow for them to teach that it's OK. In other words, we believe it isn't the schools responsibility, place, or right to teach our children about this moral issue at all. We don't believe that "giving both sides" as an "unbiased alternative" is appropriate either, because given that it is a moral issue, it is by definition a biased issue. It is either right or wrong. It is our responsibility as parents to teach our children accordingly.

When we send our children to school, we tell them to respect their elders, to listen to them, and learn from them. In other words, Learn from you TEACHERS. It is a conflict of interest for the schools to the abuse this role to indoctrinate our children with their own moral values. It is confusing to young children to say, "Listen to your teachers, for they are right... well, except here, here, and here." Especially, when those same teachers then tell our children, "Don't listen to you parents, because they are wrong, because homosexuality is actually 'OK'."

So, what does Prop 8 have to do with the Education system?
It's been a slow and steady loss in the legal system for those against teaching children about homosexuality. Legal battles are constantly being fought on both sides, and the homosexual agenda has been slowly gaining ground. The fear is that if the State recognizes homosexual marriage as a valid lifestyle, the legal arguments for protecting our children in schools against being taught that homosexuality is "OK", will lose significant credibility because the State itself will acknowledge homosexual marriage as a valid and legal form of living. In other words, homosexual marriage does in fact affect our children's education.

My Personal Views on this argument: I agree with the fears. I don't want my children told that homosexuality is not wrong, by the same people I've just told my children to listen to. At some point in their young adult life, they will be able to discern for themselves the truth in what they're being taught from the people they've been told to trust. Until that time comes (and it's different for every child), I don't want my child to be taught that I'm lying to them.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals. I don't believe their lifestyle choice is moral, but that doesn't affect me. I'm not intolerant of homosexuality. Tolerance is "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own." I won't stop someone from being homosexual, therefore I'm being permissive. I don't agree with them, but I won't stand in their way as they are allowed to live by their own moral standards, thus I'm fair. However, I don't accept their point of view as correct. One of us is wrong as they are opposing and mutually exclusive beliefs, and I say it is them. Therefore, I do object to my children being taught something I don't agree with.

Anyway, this argument isn't my main reason for voting for Prop 8, though it is a part of it.


Claim: Gay Marriage jeopardizes our churches

If I run a business, I am prohibited from refusing service simply because of your race, gender, or sexual orientation... even if it goes against my religious beliefs... even if I go out of my way to assist you in getting the service you need elsewhere.

In 2001 a Christian gynecologist at the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, California, was sued by a lesbian for refusing to provide in vitro fertilization treatment due to his religious convictions. Dr. Christine Brody has religious objections to pregnancy and childbirth outside of marriage, but a fellow physician referred Benitez to an outside specialist and the clinic agreed to pay any cost involved in the fact that the specialist was not covered by the lesbian’s health insurance (“Another Type of Conscientious Objector,” American Civil Rights Union Blog, April 30, 2007). In spite of that and in spite of the fact that she became pregnant and bore a healthy son, Guadalupe Benitez sued. In May 2008 the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case. “Legal experts believe that the woman’s right to medical treatment will trump the doctor’s religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business” (“When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash,” National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

In the same way, churches are in danger if homosexual marriage is allowed. Churches, by nature, are founded around moral principles. As a result, they need to be able to maintain the integrity of those principles.

So, what does Prop 8 have to do with Churches?
Churches take money for marriage ceremonies. Usually it is a small amount for the use of the space and to cover the costs of custodial/managerial charges associated with having church personnel present. If gay marriage is in fact allowed, churches won't be allowed to legally refuse to hold a gay marriage ceremony at their location simply because it is "homosexual"... even if the marriage goes against the churches principles.

Notice that the Prop 8 group didn't seek to ban gay marriage... instead the simply defined marriage as between man & woman. This has many ramifications, but in this case it has extreme importance in regards to churches allowing/not allowing marriage ceremonies. Since the term "marriage" represents a bond only between man & woman, then the church can continue to hold "marriage" ceremonies and deny the homosexual ceremonies, without fear of being sued.

Think I'm going too far? Don't think the lawsuit would happen? It already has...

In 2007, after a Methodist organization in New Jersey refused to rent its facility to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony, a complaint was filed with the state Division of Civil Rights. It ruled against the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, saying that since the property was open for public use, it could not discriminate against homosexuals. The state revoked their tax exemption for the property. Pastor Scott Hoffman, administrator for the Association, says they refused to rent the facility because of the theological principle that marriage is between a man and a woman. They are appealing to the state court system. The complaint came soon after New Jersey legalized same sex civil unions.

My Personal Views on this argument: This one scares me the most. People like the idea of attacking anything that maintains the view that they are sinning. They don't like to "feel guilty" for their actions... even if they aren't told they're sinning, if they know you "think" they are it can cause indignation and anger. As a result, there are many who will go looking for a way to attack the church, or religious principles. As you can see, it already has happened.

In April 2008 the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fined a Christian photography studio $6,600 for discriminating against homosexuals. Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, co-owners of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, politely refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s “commitment ceremony.” One of the lesbians, Vanessa Willock, filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission claiming the Huguenins discriminated against her because of her “sexual orientation.” Jordan Lorence, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund that is representing the Huguenins, said: “This decision is a stunning disregard for religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms of people of faith, of Christians, and those who believe in traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman. This shows the very disconcerting, authoritarian face of the homosexual activists, who are using these non-discrimination laws as weapons against Christians in the business world and Christians in their churches” (“New Mexico Commission Orders Fine,” OneNewsNow, April 11, 2008). Lorence believes the Huguenins will win an appeal of the decision, but he warns this is how similar laws in 19 other states, and the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, can be misused to silence biblical beliefs.

Intolerance has swung the complete other way. It remains ok to "believe" in certain morals, but it is not ok to "act" on your moral principles. In other words, you must live without principles or else you can be sued. I will fight to be able to go to church, maintain a job, and be successful, without needing to give up my moral principles.



See John, your claim that Prop 8 has nothing to do with the "tacked on" peripheral issues, is completely wrong. Prop 8 had direct impact on these other issues from a legal standpoint.

I've had friends ask, "well, why restrict gay marriage, rather than simply fighting for these other issues?" The issue (for me anyway) comes down to timing. We're already fighting for the schools, and yet still losing in the schools. Legal gay marriage would cripple those legal arguments. As a result, Prop 8 is about not losing any more ground. Since gay marriage became a more important issue so quickly, and resolution hasn't occurred with the school system, Prop 8 became far more necessary that it otherwise would be if the argument was simply and purely about marriage.

With regards to churches, once again it's about timing. Gay marriage came up and was ruled on so quickly, that the battle for churches legal safety couldn't even be fought before Prop 8 became necessary.

Are there other issues? I'm sure. But these are the reasons I voted for Prop 8. and thus why the Divorce ban is not comparable to Prop 8. They are simply not the same agenda.