The 8th Amendment and Gay Marriage
—By Paul Wilson
It has been very quiet here at UtahVoices. I think with the downturn of the economy most of us authors here have been a bit preoccupied with other things than blogging.
I have been actually meaning to write this post for a couple of months. Even though California’s Proposition 8 has passed I still think we are just at the beginning of this topic. Unfortunately, the incivility we’ve seen the last few months from the gay community is most likely only going to get worse.
I saw first hand this disrespect to other people and organizations having a different viewpoint when I went to Salt Lake to support the LDS Church’s stance against gay marriage. The gay community had decided that they were going to target the Mormon church because it was the Mormon’s fault for Proposition 8 passing in California.
Interesting thought, even though the Mormon vote only accounted for 2.4% of the overall vote. However, this percentage was large enough that the opponents against Prop 8 decided to rally Temple Square (without a legal permit) and vent their frustration. I went to make a stance against such religious bigotry. I was surprised however, that when I got to Temple Square how large the gay protest was. There was most likely a thousand plus people that marched on Temple Square screaming their hatred to the church.
I was with a very small group standing quietly to protest the march. Our quiet passiveness was in stark contrast to the chanting and screaming by the gay community supporters. Due to this unusual approach I was interviewed by KSL, Salt Lake’s local television station. In my interview I stated that even with Amendment 8 passing that no rights of the gay community were lost (my interview appears between 3:13 and 3:36 of the below video).
That’s right I said “Amendment” and not “Proposition.” I was nervous and without thinking I interchanged my words. I didn’t see my mistake until later that night on television. I am grateful to KSL for correcting my slip in the text of the article, but I still felt foolish for making such a simple mistake.
However, my quite visible mistake can easily be used as a metaphor for legalizing gay marriage. The 8th amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
The passing of Proposition 8, if upheld, will make sure that the California citizens shall not be at the mercy of the legal system inflicting an excessive bail on marriage. If gay marriage becomes a civil rights issue, those of us who feel that homosexuality is immoral and wrong will be at the mercy of those who do not.
If marriage had been redefined to be between any two consenting adults, it wouldn’t have added rights to the gay population, but it would have taken away rights from adoption agencies, churches, schools, and other organizations whose moral agencies didn’t agree with same-sex partnerships. Here are just a few examples how legalizing gay marriage would create an excessive fine imposed upon our society.
Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple’s application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state’s highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City’s ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls’ parents sued, saying the school was violating the state’s civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, California, refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship. He claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment. The woman sued under the state’s civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and 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.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple’s legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, California, requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city’s marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts’ leases. Meanwhile, the mayor’s office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts’ $1-a-year lease for a city building
While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit activities or events which go against what they hold sacred.
Where does this conflict between the two opposing mindsets end? Why should one minority’s ‘rights’ override the majority’s legal and religious rights and views? In turn, this same minority feels that others’ ‘bigotry’ and ‘narrow-minded thinking’ are trampling on their views and rights.
Is there even a common ground available to settle on? There has to be, but right now I can’t see one.
Paul, in one word; Amen.
Ironic that I read this quote right after reading you posting:
Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions….Albert Einstein
This is much more than an issue of the contractual benefits of marriage for sames sex couples. As individuals in areas that have already made these changes can attest, the legal protections of those whose opinions differ from this very focal minority quickly begin to dissolve after this decision is ruled against them.