Friday, October 10, 2008

Why The LDS Church Is Pushing California Proposition 8 Even Harder: Connecticut Supreme Court Forces Gay Marriage Upon State By A 4-3 Vote

Recently, the Mormon Times reported that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has ratcheted up the campaign to get Proposition 8, which would constitutionally define marriage as solely between one man and one woman, passed on November 4th. As of October 8th, Mormons have already contributed $19 million of the total $25 million raised by pro-Prop 8 forces. In contrast, anti-Prop 8 forces have raise only a shade under $16 million. And it's working; latest polls show supporters of Prop 8 leading by 4-5 percentage points over opponents, with around 10 percent undecided.

But the election is still three weeks away, and the Church doesn't want people resting on their laurels just yet. So they've brought out the heavy artillery. Elder Quinten L. Cook, a member of the Church's Quorum of the Twelve who attended Stanford Law School and lived in California for 33 years before being called as an LDS general authority, outlined three of the potentially negative outcomes of same-sex marriage that could result if Proposition 8 fails on election day:

1. The state would give same-sex marriages and traditional marriages "equal dignity under the law," which could mean public school curriculum would teach that same-sex unions and traditional unions should be respected as equals. Students would also "likely receive age appropriate information about sexual relations within heterosexual and homosexual marriages," he said. "The freedom of families to raise children in an atmosphere that values and supports the unique importance of marriage between a man and a woman will be lost."

2. Religious adoption agencies would likely be told by the state they have to disregard their religious beliefs and place children with homosexual couples.

3. The church's tax exempt status could be revoked because it would refuse to perform same-sex marriages or open its buildings for such marriages. "The argument will be that the government shouldn't subsidize discriminatory beliefs with tax-exemptions", according to Elder Cook. [Ed. Note: It would be the
Edmunds-Tucker Act all over again.]

This oppression has already begun in Canada. In May 2008, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal fined Canadian pastor Stephen Boissoin $7,000.00, directed him to make a public apology for previous public criticism of homosexuality, and ordered him to make no further 'disparaging' comments about homosexuality. Read the documentation HERE. The case stemmed from a letter to the editor of the Red Deer (AB) Advocate he wrote on June 17th, 2002 publicly criticizing the practice of homosexuality. The full letter can be viewed HERE.

But there's a more immediate threat to deal with in our own country. On October 10th, 2008, Connecticut joined Massachusetts and California in becoming the third state in the United States to legalize gay marriage when the Connecticut Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, ruled that civil unions were an unsatisfactory substitute. The most detailed story on this decision comes from the Hartford Courant, which is the state's leading newspaper. Other stories published by OneNewsNow, CNN, ABC News, the New York Times, the Connecticut Law Tribune, and the Vanguard News Network Forum.

Index to all previous Hartford Courant stories on this issue HERE.

Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory and that the state's "understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection."

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," the majority wrote. "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others".

Click HERE to review 85-page majority decision in PDF format.
- Justice Borden's dissent HERE
- Justice Vertefeuille's dissent HERE
- Justice Zarella's dissent HERE

In one of the three separate dissents, Justice Peter Zarella said any decision on gay marriage should be left to the legislature, which approved civil unions in 2005 but has been reluctant since then to go further. "The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry," Zarella wrote. "If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court."

Justices Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz (who, among other honors, was selected the winner of the National Council of Jewish Women’s Women of Distinction Award in 2001), Richard Palmer and Appellate Judge Lubbie Harper, sitting for Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, who recused himself, formed the majority. Justices David M. Borden and Christine Vertefeuille joined Zarella in dissenting. One has to wonder how Chief Justice Rogers would have voted had he not recused himself.

Ever since gay marriage was legalized in California, a veritable witch hunt has been unleashed against those who oppose gay marriage and those who commit crimes against gays. Case in point: the murder of the 15-year-old out-of-control cross-dressing pervert Lawrence King by 14-year-old Brandon McInerney. King is not only being tried as an adult, but is also being charged with a hate crime because the prosecution claims investigators found "white supremacist" material in his room at home. The so-called "white supremacist" material was actually reference material he had collected to do a paper on Adolf Hitler, and McInerney had friends of all races, but the prosecution is interested in smearing this young kid to the utmost.

The prosecution also downplays the fact that Lawrence King was allowed to attend school dressed in women's appurtenances, to include lipstick and high heels, and that King had engaged in relentless sexual harassment of McInerney. McInerney committed a serious crime and deserves to go away for a while - but not for 50 years, for God's sake. Had his victim not been gay, I doubt that McInerney would be facing more than 5-10 years.

This is just another reason to fight against gay marriage in California. The gay rights movement isn't just interested in tolerance; they want supremacy. Visit the ProtectMarriage and the Preserving Marriage websites to find out how you can help.

No comments: