Monday, October 20, 2008

CA Prop 8: Fact and Fiction

Facts v. Fiction

Proposition 8 would put discrimination into our Constitution. It would inject government into private lives. It undermines equal protections under our laws.

Here’s what’s fiction and what’s fact:

Fiction: Prop 8 doesn’t discriminate against gays.

Fact: Prop 8 is simple: it eliminates the rights for same-sex couples to marry. Prop 8 would deny equal protections and write discrimination against one group of people—lesbian and gay people—into our state constitution.

Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.

Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is “false and misleading.” The Orange County Register, traditionally one of the most conservative newspapers in the state, says this claim is false. So do lawyers for the California Department of Education.

Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.

Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “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.”

Fiction: A Massachusetts case about a parent’s objection to the school curriculum will happen here.

Fact: Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won’t affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.

Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…

Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.

Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs.

Fact: California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.

Fiction: Pepperdine University supports the Yes on 8 campaign.

Fact: The university has publicly disassociated itself from Professor Richard Peterson of Pepperdine University, who is featured in the ad, and has asked to not be identified in the Yes on 8 advertisements.

Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won’t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.

Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.


Nicole Shelby said...

That is one amazing thing about you. You don't just make a decision based solely on emotion. You study it. And continue to study it. Looking for the facts, and eliminating the fluff.

I know you will always base your decisions on what you believe is the right thing, the conscientious thing.

Jodi Jean said...

i just read this article:

and then i read your blog ... so even tho they are saying these things it wouldn't affect california in the same way since we have different laws?! am i understanding that correctly?

i know you and i differ on our opinions on prop 8, but i find it interesting nonetheless.

Blognet said...

Thank you for your well thought out post. I have spent the last several weeks thinking maybe I was the only Mormon in the world who was less than jazzed about this whole "Protect Marriage" nonsense. Your blog has given me the extra strength I need to vote my conscience. I just don't think most LDS people see the big picture here, that legislative morality is bad for everyone. This sets a bad precedent. What happens next? Suppose there was a proposition that required all marriage ceremonies to have a government official present. What would that do to temple sealings? But since Mormons are such a minority, that could easily pass. Everyone is free to feel how they want about homosexuality, but to force those opinions on others and deny a right just to "protect" marriage? Protect it from what? Marriage is threatened and cheapened far more by adultery, divorce, and abuse, yet two of those are still legal. Stop the insanity people!

T.J. Shelby said...


I suppose a there is a great irony in an article attacking lies of the opposition to be laden with lies itself. Most blatantly in the case of the lesbian wedding "field trip". An incompetent investigation would yield enough truth to disprove the allegation but the Yes on Prop 8 directors already know that. They are just as immoral as those they accuse. It was a parent's idea and those not wishing to participate where excused (only two in the class opted out). Source:

I am not saying that those on the No for 8 campaign wouldn't want to have it discussed as early as possible. They know that discrimination is learned and if we can educate the young they won't have to worry about them as adults. That being said, California has a law in place regarding the "opt out" policy. Massachusetts did not have an established "opt out" policy when SSM came into effect. Two different circumstances; deal with the challenge when and if it comes.

Lastly I find it ironic that those standing on the moral platform are accusing those on the political platform of dishonesty. I expect the no on Prop 8 proponents to do all they can to ensure the failure of a discriminatory amendment. The ends justify the means.

But when the Moral Majority actually define this social policy as a moral issue use half-truths, partial truths and immoral behaviors to bring about the resolution they desire...I'm sorry, but in this instance the ends do NOT justify the means.

Nicole Shelby said...

i'd like to say that i can't wait until nov when the voting is over and done with. however, i don't believe that is will be "done with." just hopping around friend's blogs and reading all the rhetoric is making me crazy!

nobody "knows" anything...they just keep passing back and forth the same potentialities.

whether people who read your blogs agree or not - at least here they know that you research out every opinion, "fact", and anecdote. so, they may not agree with your least they won't get fear-mongery and gossip.


Ray said...

TJ, I am voting yes. I have many gay friends, and I care about them a whole lot. The reason I am voting yes, is because I just dont want my gay friends to have to go through the pain of going through a divorce. Divorces should be between a man and a woman.

(Note, for people who cannot read sarcasm, all that was sarcasm.)

Here's the thing that bugs me the most about this proposition: It is about preserving the sanctity of marriage? Then why not a proposition that makes divorces illegal? would that not uphold the sanctity of marriage?

T.J. Shelby said...

Ray, I couldn't agree more...