More No on Prop 8

From the Los Angeles Times:

Another "Yes on 8" canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings -- of any religion -- could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.

The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it's not public. The ruling does not affect churches' religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn't about a wedding ceremony.

Much has been made about same-sex marriage changing the traditional definition of marriage. But marriage has evolved for thousands of years, from polygamous structures in which brides were so much chattel to today's idealized love matches. In seeking to add a sentence to California's Constitution that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized," Proposition 8 supporters seek to enforce adherence to their own religious or personal definition. The traditional makeup of families has changed too, in ways that many religious people find immoral. Single parents raise their children; couples divorce and blend families. Yet same-sex marriage is the only departure from tradition that has been targeted for constitutional eradication.

Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state. Proposition 8 proponents know this, which is why they have misdirected the debate with highly colored illusions about homosexuals trying to take away the rights of religious Californians. Since May, when the state Supreme Court overturned a proposed ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, more than 16,000 devoted gay and lesbian couples have celebrated the creation of stable, loving households, of equal legal stature with other households. Their happiness in no way diminishes the rights or happiness of others.

Californians must cast a clear eye on Proposition 8's real intentions. It seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way, to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept. Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.

What if, say, the Mormon Church for example, decided to go back to their practice of not allowing blacks in their church, claiming that being black was the stain of God?  What if, somehow there was a proposition put on the ballot saying that no black people could belong to a church?  What if they poured money into this proposition?  Would you vote yes?

Okay, I know you're probably thinking that most people don't believe like that.  But what if they did?  Would you vote yes?

My argument to those who plan to vote yes has been that homosexuality is not a craven choice.  It is people being who they are and they shouldn't be denied rights accorded every other tax paying citizen.  A lawyer at work that I was speaking to about it asked so what if it was a choice.  That shouldn't matter to equality for adults under the constitution.

I cannot urge in strong enough terms the throngs of people not here reading me.  Vote no on Prop 8.

UPDATE:  A commenter (a commenter!!!) points out that I am misinformed about blacks in the Mormon Church and indeed, blacks were not barred from being members.  From Wikipedia:

Following the death of Joseph Smith, Jr. and the succession crisis, leaders of the major Latter Day Saint movement denomination, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, continued to welcome all people regardless of color to be members; however, they began to exclude most people of black African descent (regardless of actual skin color) from Priesthood ordination and from participation in temple ceremonies. These practices continued until September 30, 1978, when church President Spencer W. Kimball, acting in his office as Living Prophet declared that in early June 1978 he had received a revelation from God to extend the priesthood and temple ordinances to all worthy male members.

It's still discriminatory, as the Priesthood is in denying women participation, but I stand corrected and will endeavor to dispel this whenever I encounter it.  Commenter Prop8Discussion also has a link if you're so inclined.

Hmmm.  I think the Yes on Prop 8 forces are well organized.  How the heck did P8D find me?  I'm not on the well-worn track.