Yesterday the California Council of Churches along with a number of liberal Protestant and Jewish groups filed a "Petition for Writ of Mandate or Prohibition" (full text) with the California Supreme Court seeking to prevent enforcement of Proposition 8 that was approved by voters earlier this month. (Press release). The petition alleges that the state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage was adopted using improper procedures. California's constitution (Art. XVIII) has stricter requirements for constitutional "revisions" than it does for "amendments." Only amendments can be adopted through the initiative process-- the route used for Proposition 8. Revisions require a two-thirds vote of the legislature before being submitted to voters. The Petition filed with the Supreme Court reads in part:
The religious institutions that file this petition ... count on article XVIII to ensure that the California Constitution's guarantee of equal protection for religious minorities cannot be taken away without a deliberative process of the utmost care possible in a representative democracy. If Proposition 8 is upheld, however, the assurance will disappear-- for, just as surely as gay men and lesbians could be deprived of equal protection by a simple majority vote, so too could religious minorities be deprived of equal protection-- a terrible irony in a nation founded by people who emigrated to escape religious persecution.Six separate legal challenges to Proposition 8 have been filed with the California Supreme Court. (San Jose Mercury News, Nov. 17). [Thanks to Don Clark for the lead.]
.jpg)
Posts
15 comments:
Religious Groups Ask California Supreme Court To Void Proposition 8
CHURCH-STATE VIOLATION! Call the federal government to complain!
CHURCH-STATE VIOLATION! Call the federal government to complain!
I'm sorry, but Prop. 8 IS the church - state violation. Any law based solely on religion can't be legal.
As I said a couple days back:
I wonder why these same people aren't going against the Catholic Church for throwing their weight against Michigan's Proposition 2.
Oh, wait - that's because in Michigan, they lost.
There's a lot of hypocrisy in these calls for religious groups to not have any say in politics.
There is no limitation, let alone prohibition, against religious groups asserting legal rights in court.
There is a lot of misunderstadning as to what a church-state violation is.
Religious groups can say whatever they like in politics. Or about politics. But they are ONLY allowed to speak for themselves.
They are NOT allowed to speak -- or lobby to enact laws -- on behalf of anyone else.
It seems that by excercising their Chimera given right to "speak for themselves" the volume has screamed out quite loudly that "marriage" is only between one man and one woman.
There is nothing prohibiting a group of people, religious or not, from voicing their opinion, rallying others to join their cause or participating the political process. They are most certainly allowed to be politically active in support of legislation regulating what is in the best interest of society. Just because you are of a dissenting viewpoint doesn't give you the right to prohibit them from doing so. It just means you might be WRONG, or at least in the minority.
So, accept the probablility that you are a loser on the wrong side of an issue, or work on changing the laws if you can. Meanwhile, society has spoken and if that includes some religious groups, so be it. Perhaps they haven't spoken on you behalf (especially since Chimera's law forbids it) but I doubt that they care about what you think. They and the majority who side with them are concerned about doing what is best for society. In this case, keeping a segment of the populace from bullying their way into the cultural norm of another segment.
The problem is at heart a religious one.
Religion A allows only opposite-sex couples to marry, and does not allow divorce.
Religion B allows only opposite-sex couples to marry, but allows multiple marriages and divorces. Religion B has a plurality.
Religion C allows both same-sex and opposite couples to marry.
So whose religion wins? If religion A's rules win, then practitioners of religions B and C are prevented from practices which are allowed within their religion. If religion C wins, practitioners of A and B are not prevented from doing anything. They'll still go on hating practitioners of religion C. So logically, under the first amendment of the US Constitution, C wins.
However, B has the plurality, so B won the election
"It seems that by excercising their Chimera given right to "speak for themselves" the volume has screamed out quite loudly that "marriage" is only between one man and one woman."
You just bloody don't want to get it, do you? You insist on deliberately misinterpretting the meaning of what I said.
You can decide for yourself that marriage is only between a man and a woman, but you do not have the authority to make that decision on my behalf or on behalf of anyone else, either.
If two men decide they want to be married, no one should have the authority to tell them they can't. It has nothing to do with "society" and it is none of "society's" business who marries whom. They are causing no one any harm by being married to each another, so what business is it of anyone else's?
Majority, minority, or one-of-a-kind, I don't care. This is a decision that rests solely with the individuals involved, and with no one else.
It is oh so convenient to box this issue up as a religious issue so you can focus your intolerant hatred on a smaller target but you are wrong. This is a societal issue, not a religous one. If devoutly religious people were the only supporters of protecting the status of "marriage" the battle would have been lost long ago.
This is society deciding for itself what the definition of marriage will be. Marriage is a word; a status; defined as man/woman. Done deal. There is no "right" to be married. Any equal protection interest in the legal status has been addressed via civil unions and the removal of other obstacles to unmarried couples.
Chimera rants that society can't deem what is legal or not? What? Legislators and litigators do it all day every day. What the hell are you talking about? In California, the referendum system allows propositions to be voted into law or even state constitutional revisions by the citizens of the state. That is a great big fat telling YOU what marriage is in the state. What part don't you get?
I have not approached this as a religious issue. Each religion has its own issues with its congregants, and its own rules. People are free to choose a religion or reject it, based on those rules. But those rules are not laws that are binding on everyone.
Some religions allow same-sex marriage, and call it marriage. Some don't. Up to them, on a religious basis. But civil marriages? They have to be open to anyone who wants one. Otherwise, you are setting up a practise of civil discrimination based on attributes no one can choose for himself.
Show me where it is written that anyone's marriage is of any concern to society. And why it should be.
Did you ask my permission to get married? Or will you, when the time comes?
Then what business is my marriage of yours?
Equal protection issues have NOT been addressed by civil unions. Civil unions are not available in all states and even where they are available they are NOT equal protection.
Equal Protection is Equal Protection, not Separate-but-Equal Protection.
Chimera's point about standing is a crucial one. It's nobody's business who I choose to marry. Likewise, it's not my business who others marry. I will promise not to take disapproving actions regarding your marriage choice and to NEVER attempt to use the government as the instrument of my disapproval, if you will promise me the same respect.
And yes, this is a religious issue. Were it not for the impetus given to this by religious groups, this issue would have evaporated long ago.
Having said that, I must disagree with one point Chimera made.
"They are NOT allowed to...or lobby to enact laws..."
Sadly, religious groups can and do lobby to enact laws. However, if the laws that they pass conflict with state or federal constitutions they can be struck down, as so many have been.
The Prop 8 case may be difficult in that regard as it is a constitutional amendment. It seems that in California it is possible to pass constituional amendments with a simple majority. Rights of minorities are not well guarded in such a process.
Jim51
In California, the referendum system allows propositions to be voted into law or even state constitutional revisions by the citizens of the state.
That's pretty funny given the current dispute over Prop 8. State constitutional *revisions* can NOT be voted into law by the citizens of the state - they have to pass the legislature first. State constitutional *amendments* CAN be passed by initiative.
The case currently headed for the CA SC is to decide which one Prop 8 actually is. If it's a revision, then it wasn't passed by the proper procedure for revisions and is void. If it's an amendment, then it's valid.
And the religious groups' point is very well taken: if gays can be stripped of their equal rights by 51% of Californians, then so can Jews, Muslims, Mormons, or any other minority.
"Having said that, I must disagree with one point Chimera made.
'They are NOT allowed to...or lobby to enact laws...'
Sadly, religious groups can and do lobby to enact laws. However, if the laws that they pass conflict with state or federal constitutions they can be struck down, as so many have been."
Yes, fair enough. That, indeed, is how I should have said it, to be precise.
They do it, even thought they're not supposed to be allowed to do it under the laws, probably hoping that no one will challenge their authority and just accept any changes they try to make.
Then we waste a lot of time and energy undoing all the crap they've managed to sneak in, while they sit in the middle of the floor and howl about being "unfairly abused" because of their archaic religious rules. It's not part of their makeup to respect anyone else's rights, is it?
Chimera,
Indeed, a lot of time, money, and effort is spent trying to stop/undo the sorts of things that religious groups are pushing for.
In general, I think that you and I agree on much of this. They do seem to have a whale of a persecution complex.
I only picked the nit because not all religious groups efforts in the political sphere have been directed at enacting sectarian dogma. Churches involved in the civil rights battles comes to mind. And while those involvments could also be reasonably accused of endangering charitable tax exempt status, they were not overturned for establishment clause violations.
Jim51
Nit-picking sometimes has a purpose, Jim. And when it comes to the entanglement of religion with law -- the whole purpose of this blog -- I need to be as vigilant as anyone, so by all means, examine all nits carefully.
The difference between a church's being involved in other civil rights issues and their being involved in this one is that initiatives like Prop 8 are aimed at restricting the civil rights of an entire, identifiable group of citizens, and preventing them from accessing the same pursuits of happiness the Constitution talks about. Other civil rights issues were geared toward expanding the rights to all groups, not just men or whites or property owners or English speakers. It was proper that churches be inclusive like that. It is not proper that they try to be exclusive. It smacks of...unchristianity.
Post a Comment