no on 8

Twelve ballot propositions will appear on the statewide ballot in California on November 4, but as members of the LDS church, one has been particularly prominent in our minds during this election season: Proposition 8, which would "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

On June 29, the First Presidency of our church announced its support for Prop 8 in a letter read over the pulpit in every Mormon congregation in California that encouraged members to "do all you can" to support the initiative. Since then, members of the church in California—including family and good friends whom we respect and love—have responded overwhelmingly by blogging, making phone calls, canvassing neighborhoods, putting up signs and bumper stickers, and donating millions of dollars in support of the Yes on 8 effort.

Needless to say, it has been very hard and pretty lonely for us to have a different perspective on this issue.

After giving it hours of thought, study, and prayer, we could probably list dozens of reasons why we are choosing to vote no on Prop 8. For one, proponents of the measure would say that its passage is necessary to protect families and children; however, as eloquently stated in these reflections on Prop 8, "Voting 'Yes on 8' will not save one failing marriage or create one more loving home for abandoned children. It only eliminates civil rights now belonging to gay and lesbian Californians. It is painful to me that we have spent an estimated $70 million dollars in this campaign—not to relieve the debtor, or feed the hungry, or house homeless families, or heal the dying, or reclaim prisoners, or show stewardship for God’s creation—but to eliminate civil rights."

For us, that is the bottom line. Some supporters of Prop 8 might say that same-sex couples have nothing to complain about since the rights they desire through marriage can be found in current state anti-discrimination laws and domestic partnership provisions. However, when the California Supreme Court affirmed same-sex marriage in In re Marriage Cases, it alluded to the "separate but equal" conditions preceding Brown v. Board of Education (1954) by pointing out how exclusive usage of the term "marriage" by opposite-sex couples can stigmatize same-sex couples: "[P]articularly in light of the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay persons, there is a very significant risk that retaining a distinction in nomenclature with regard to this most fundamental of relationships whereby the term 'marriage' is denied only to same-sex couples inevitably will cause the new parallel institution that has been made available to those couples to be viewed as of a lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of second-class citizenship."

Previously on this blog we've paid tribute to Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in a landmark Supreme Court case decided only 41 years ago that ended restrictions on interracial marriage in the United States. Because we are an interracial couple ourselves, we feel even more hesitant to prevent any class of individuals from making a legal commitment to love and honor each other.

Additionally, it seems that many Mormons are voting for Prop 8 out of fear that temple marriages will come under legal attack if the measure fails. A document describing "Six Consequences If Prop 8 Fails" has been widely circulated and helped stir up this fear, along with concerns that gay marriage will be taught in schools and church-run adoption agencies will be shut down if they don't place children with same-sex couples. However, these fears are based on dishonest and misleading statements which have been refuted by many legal scholars, including a graduate of BYU law school, who rightly points out that "relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church."

If or when the marriage doctrines of the LDS church or any church are at risk, we will be the first to defend their right of freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment. However, the marriage practices of churches are already protected by the California Constitution as well as the First Amendment, and as very clearly stated by the California Supreme Court in its In re Marriage Cases decision, "affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; 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."

The last thing we want to mention is that we disagree with some of the questionable tactics being practiced by the Protect Marriage coalition, the latest being sending threatening (verging-on-extortion) letters to donors to the No on 8 campaign. Additionally, it seems that Ron Prentice—the president of California Renewal, the group behind Protect Marriage that is currently prohibited from doing business in California for not paying franchise taxes—has set aside more financial contributions from the public for himself than for his nonprofit's charitable work. Pretty shady stuff.

That was a pretty long post on a pretty divisive and sensitive subject, but these are things that we've been thinking about for a long time and wanted to share. Thanks for reading.