Top

news

Stories

 

Riding the Cultural Divide with Proposition 8

What's at stake in California's gay-marriage ban

On the evening of September 22, Young Israel of Century City synagogue hosted an “interfaith” town hall meeting for supporters of the November 4 Proposition 8 measure to ban same-sex marriage in California. The event wasn’t highly publicized, but 60 or 70 people, many of them young men and women in their 20s who belong to the Mormon Church, showed up at the temple on Pico Boulevard, just down the street from Factor’s Famous Deli. After an all-male a cappella group sang, “In Him My Soul Delights,” Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, a Catholic and longtime academic with teaching stints at Yale and George Mason universities, took the podium.

Founder of the San Diego–based Ruth Institute, Morse promotes “lifelong married love” between a man and a woman. According to the institute’s Web site, she also believes “treating same-sex unions as marriages will change marriage in destructive ways.” She opposes legalized gay marriage in California, as did the other speakers, who included Dr. Mark Brewer of Bel Air Presbyterian Church, Randall Huff of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Rabbi Daniel Korobkin of the influential Jewish group Orthodoxy Union.

But it was Morse, speaking with a kind of shoot-from-the-hip flair, who best laid out the big-picture implications of the 2008 Prop. 8 battle. “People often call us the land of fruits and nuts,” she told the crowd. “People expect us to do crazy things out here. ... But if gay marriage goes down in California, it goes down in the United States. If it goes down in the United States, it goes down around the world.”

The audience quietly nodded.

“If gay marriage goes down in California,” she later concluded, “it won’t be back in our lifetime.”

Five days later, on a bright Saturday afternoon, Lorri Jean, chief executive officer of the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, stood on a makeshift altar in the backyard of a Hollywood Hills home just above Doheny Drive. Friends and family sat in foldout chairs to witness her marriage to her longtime partner, attorney Gina Calvelli.

Jean’s younger brother Andy, a straight man and a cattle rancher from Idaho, presided over the ceremony, and after the women exchanged wedding rings and kissed, Jean turned to the 50 friends and family gathered. For months, the nationally recognized gay-rights activist had been anxious about defeating Proposition 8, but now she felt something different come over her.

“I saw all of those smiling faces,” Jean says, “and most of them were straight. But they were just so happy for us. They seemed to want it more than we did. I thought to myself, Maybe we really can win this time, maybe it will be different.”

By the following Monday morning, Jean was back at her fourth-floor corner office at the Gay & Lesbian Center in Hollywood, where she spends half of a 70- to 80-hour workweek making phone calls and taking meetings as an executive-committee member of the “No on 8” campaign, the umbrella group organized to defeat Proposition 8.

“I couldn’t take a honeymoon,” says Jean, sitting at her desk with a view of the Hollywood sign behind her. “[Proposition 8] could set back our quest for full marriage equality for a generation.”

But if the ballot measure were voted down, Jean predicts, “It will make a lot of states with fair-minded legislators think that maybe they should take a look at same-sex marriage. The stakes in this fight are enormously high, win or lose.”

Dr. Morse wouldn’t disagree with her. On November 4, according to experts on both sides of the Prop. 8 battle, voters will not only decide if same-sex marriage will remain legal in California, but, through a political domino effect, if gays and lesbians can wed in other states in the next year or two.

“California is a thought leader for other courts and other states,” says Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and one of the leading opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States. If Proposition 8 doesn’t pass and gay marriage remains legal, Gallagher believes other states will follow California’s lead and “effectively end the [traditional] marriage movement” across the country.

“It will be a mop-up movement after that,” Gallagher says.

Gay-marriage advocates now see New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Vermont as battlegrounds ready to be won if Californians back gay marriage by voting down Prop. 8. On October 10, the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in Connecticut.

“We will likely have full marriage equality [in those states] by 2011,” says Marty Rouse, national field director at the Human Rights Campaign, an influential gay-rights lobbying group based in Washington, D.C. Iowa will also jump into the-gay marriage fray, with a case to be heard by the state Supreme Court in December.

“California is the biggest battle in my lifetime,” says Mark Paredes, who holds the title of high counselor at the Santa Monica Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who believes the November decision will have a “worldwide” impact, with countries in Europe and beyond following the example set by the United States.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next Page >>
 
  • Yesprop8 11/21/2008 8:54:00 PM

    I don't understand how we can vote on something & then when the outcome isn't what we want that we can fight it & the California Supreme Court can step in & overturn that vote??? Why vote then if it really means that when it passes that it can be changed? When the minority overrule the majority it is the downfall of our country. When I vote on something & it doesn't go my way I move on & live my life. Why even put up props that if passed will be fought & overturned anyway? Imagine if our Country was this way. We vote in a president then if the MINORITY don't like him they can overrule the majority vote!

  • Nikki 11/14/2008 10:21:00 PM

    For those who are Christian and believe that because Jesus came and died for us and "changed" everything that the Old Testament is void I have this for you to read... Matthew 5:17 17 �Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. We are not supposed to just forget about the law because of Jesus. We are to try to live As much like him as passable. Man is weak and God knows this. Jesus came to SAVE us from our sins because we will fail. We could never be perfect like God. We are still supposed to try. I can�t believe he number of Christians, that don�t read their Bible. You cannot fight for God if you don�t know what you are fighting for. Many people will tell you that they are right. The ONLY thing that is right is the Bible!!! You could go to Church every day and listen to the preaching�s of a person. But nothing will compare to the truth of GOD. And that is what he gave to us with the Bible. His word, His truth. Christian are going to be tested. He told us this in Acts 14:22 22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, �We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.� LIVE CLOSE TO YOUR BIBLE. GOD IS SPEAKING TO YOU. LISTEN AND EASE YOUR HEART.

  • jay 11/08/2008 1:37:00 AM

    PEOPLE, WINNING PROP 8 WAS THE JUST THE BEGINNING!!!!! WE NEED TO KEEP FIGHTING TO PROTECT FAMILY VALUES ASWELL!!!!! WE ARE BEING DISCRIMINATED FOR OUR BELIEFS!!!!! IT TRUELY SEEMS AS IF WHAT WAS RIGHT NOW IS WRONG AND WHAT IS WRONG NOW IS RIGHT (MORALLY)!!!!! LETS KEEP AT IT AND UNITE TO BE HEARD WE NEED TO RALLY AND CONTINUE SPREADING THE WORD YES ON PROP. 8

  • Scott 11/05/2008 11:34:00 AM

    It is insane that Mormons, whose version of "traditional" matrimony involves polygamy and misogyny, have the nerve to promote such nonsense about "preserving traditional marriage". Nobody is challenging Mormons' right to believe in their own unique brand of lunacy, which includes the tenets that Jesus was a polygamist, that men can become gods, and that sacred underwear has supernatural protective powers . So why on earth are these fools pouring millions into curtailing the rights of others? Folks, until 1978, Mormons taught that African Americans could not get into heaven. They are simply continuing their peculiar tradition of bigotry.

  • Juan Jaasiel Rodriguez Ornelas 11/04/2008 7:58:00 AM

    there is very deep issue here at hand in terms of marriage. This problem will in no way be solved in this election. The door for conflict has been blown wide open, and the issue will go on to weig more important things in our country. We must truly look at the responsibilities of the state, and its need to promote the well being of it's systems ability to provide freedoms and liberties for its constituents and to avoid creating inconsistencies for them that leads to moral dilemnas. If we are to be true liberterians, and propose a state of anarchy, we must therefore not ask the state to consider our contracts, agreements, rhetoric etc. in its decision making process. For example, absolutely free trade and economy. However, because we request help (Welfare, police, defence, social security), recognition (race, profession, sexual orientation, business, sexual orientation, single or married), and action (money, punishments, reimbursements, domicile, visitation rights) from the system, and beg often for its interference for its constituents, we therefore grant it a power. And this is it: discernment. It must have the power to categorize. Who is poor, guilty, friend, enemy, retirement aged, hispanic, white, black, architect, school teacher, lawyer, president, soldier, pilot, gay, straight, neither, both, single, married, owed to, owes, guilty, not guilty, afflicted, afflicting, is in georgia, is in texas, is in california, related, unrelated, etc. This is key to our system of law. We give it this power because of the complexity it has due to our requests of it. No one is exempt in this request by virtue of living here. Therefore, we cannot claim infinite equality from the law. This is fine. It's ok. Anyone against it or that says it is not true is simply not looking hard enough. Proposition 8 proponents, and anyone who comes against it, are fighting over a power of discernment of the law, and that is the relational status that the law categorizes two people as "marriage". The category has already existed for a long time, and the law has helped, recognized, and acted on this category. And therefore it has interfered. Once again this is ok. Because we expect this of the government. And if we do not consider this fair, than that person does not belong here, and probably not in any other government. They are absolute anarchists. Now, this is the danger that our modern day is putting before our government: regulating on popular basis what the different categories are, and furthermore, what their individual responsibilities, benefits, demerits, restrictions and other qualities are. So, the marriage contract, homosexual relationships, heterosexual relationships, polygamist relationships, incest relationships, and others are all recognized by the law and assigned a status, legal or illegal. This too is ok. They are each individual categories. However, the marriage contract is a far more formal category. The real differences between the different relationships are all implied by the different titles we give them, however the differences occur in reality. They are obvious. And no one can deny them. Any straight person who would say that their relationship is the same as that as any other relationship, gay or plural and so on, and believes it, is in serious trouble. Now, this is the problem of not supporting a measure such as prop 8. You force the law to take two VERY different relationships, with very REAL differences, make it dishonor those differences, and force them into a category that will provide the EXACT same qualities to both relationships. We do not need the law to do this, because it is already done. It's called a union. Furthermore, we are forcing the law to take a category, called a contract, and force it into one of our most fundamental categories: a Right. We are confusing it with a real right: the right to hold a contract. Therefore, we remove a serious right: the right to exclusivity in any contract. And we will take it to the supreme court to do this. All in the name of equality. This is perhaps the biggest challenges this country will face. Are we going to force the government to hand over its power of discernment to our will and whim. And then, force it to close its eyes to real differences because of the word of the day, Tolerance and Equality, in this case, and then make it act irrelevant of those differences. The psychological impact that this will have on the future of this nation is unknown and could not be calculated. Because we will begin the eroding of value and difference for the law, we may affect the very nature of this culture in the future. And in no good way, because we may begin to affect the categories of the general culture and social structure because of its interdependence of with government in a negative manner, for example the many court cases already being held as well as their rulings show this. This is not a direct attack human rights and decency, and neither are people calculating to do this great harm to our nation. It is simply our inability to see past the real issues, and handle them as required. That there are ways to protect different groups from discrimination and that we can, with the law, is true. And we should definitely have them in play. But granting the formal homosexual union the same as the formal heterosexual union is not the way. This will unnecessarily inhibit the rights of heterosexual union. We should avoid this precedent at all costs. Because it is a precedent for lying at the fundamental levels of the government, not just at decision making and bureaucratic levels. Forget the problems for the two groups for and against gay marriage, we are entering a discussion of this nation's government's future, it's quality, and possible eventual demise. to say the least, picture ralph wiggum getting thrown through a glass window and saying: �I�m a brick�

  • Lauren 10/28/2008 12:43:00 AM

    What is so terrifying about kids learning about gay marriage anyway?? Seriously, I don't get it. If they're gay, they're going to figure it out sooner or later. If not, learning about gay marriage isn't going to have any effect on that. If you want to shelter your kid from the world to that extent, you should probably put them in a private parochial school or home school them. You can't expect the reality of the world to be filtered to your exact preference when your child's education is on the state's dime...

  • Jerry 10/27/2008 8:47:00 AM

    The Yes on 8 side continues to advance the same LIES in hopes that gullible people will be fooled into believing that children will be adversely affected if Prop 8 fails. This is the usual slimy tactic of the right wing religious nuts who think Leviticus is the New Testament, and that Jesus (who never had one bad thing to say about homosexuality) would agree with their thinking and tactics. This red herring issue has been exposed as underhanded - Californians are simply not that gullible. EVERY major newspaper in the state, the governor, the democratic party, the city councils of most major cities, the police chief and sheriff of Los Angeles and most political figures of any consequence all say NO ON PROP 8.

  • Jeremy 10/27/2008 2:43:00 AM

    Saying that marriage is between a man and a woman does not discriminate against homosexuals, you would only discriminate against homosexuals if you said that only heterosexuals could get married, as it is, a homosexual man may marry a homosexual woman. Immanuel Kant, the German Philosopher, argued that practical contradictions are immoral. When a maxim is universalized, if it is no longer possible for the agent to act on that maxim, the maxim is deemed immoral. For example, if everyone not qualified to get a loan lied and said they were, the lending system would break down and no one would offer loans anymore, then you would not be able to take out a loan to achieve your intended maxim. Similarly, if everyone were homosexual, people would stop having children and the human race would cease to exist making it impossible for people to continue to be homosexual (the intended maxim). Thus, by universalizing the maxim of homosexuality, we see that homosexuality is immoral.

  • Patrick Range McDonald 10/25/2008 3:48:00 AM

    Thanks for those comments to my story, and for reading it. I'm curious, though, about Whoa's comment. What exactly is my agenda? I don't see one from what I wrote, but inform me. Take care, Patrick

  • Dave 10/25/2008 12:36:00 AM

    As a lifelong Christian, raised by a Lutheran pastor father in a traditionally Christian home, I will be voting NO on Prop 8. I find nothing in the Bible that tells me heterosexuals are less sinful than homosexuals, or that God loves heterosexuals more. There is nothing that tells me to legislate discrimination into the state laws. For those against same sex marriage, and as to whether or not civil unions are equal to marriage, picture a young man on bended knee, engagement ring in hand, proposing to his girlfriend: "Will you accept my offer of a domestic partnership?" Or asking permission of her father, "May I have your daughter's hand in a civil union?" Is that equal enough for you? No on 8 God does not ask me to discriminate. Dave

  • Whoa 10/24/2008 5:50:00 AM

    This is a very unneccesarily long, repetitive and boring story that could be told much more succinctly. The writer apparently used this HUGE amount of space to push his own agenda. LAME!

  • Dan Host 10/24/2008 4:12:00 AM

    It has everything to do with kids and schools! How can you deny the evidence? Just today, parents weren't notified that a Sacrament public elementary school was hosting "Gay Day" and teaching kindergartners to be "gay allies". Get the facts: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78829

  • Dan Host 10/24/2008 4:10:00 AM

    If you want to see where legalization of gay marriage will really lead a civilization, all you need to do is look to Massachusettes: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78829

  • Mulvaney 10/23/2008 11:33:00 PM

    The decision of the California Supreme Court does not force churches to marry any couple. Religions will continue to recognize and sanctify marriages as they see fit. My marriage is not threatened because gays and lesbians can marry under the civil law. My religion is not threatened. The social fabric is not threatened. When my family celebrated the same-sex union of our friends, my children learned only what they already knew -- that this couple is in a deep, committed loving relationship that is the foundation of their life and that of their children. That is a good thing for my daughters to know and to celebrate. I can't believe that people want to take that away.

  • John 10/23/2008 10:20:00 PM

    I think most people do not have an issue with civil unions because the rights afforded are very specific and one can be certain what the consequences are going to be of their bestowal. The marriage institution does nothing to extend actual rights, but it does put a symbolic stamp of approval, sending a clear message of, not only equality, but interchangeability of same-sex and heterosexual unions. It is scary because of its indeterminacy. While not indicating what it proscribes in situations of conflict between religious liberties and gay rights, it certainly gives greater symbolic power to latter. It is easy to see how it could make gay rights trumping religious liberties more likely in more instances. The question is, if there is no difference between same-sex and heterosexual unions, why not teach it in schools? Why not pressure any and every institution to accept this reality? Is there any reason not to expect a continued and strengthened pressing of the envelope?

  • Dan Host 10/23/2008 12:07:00 PM

    Opponents want you to think this has nothing to do with children and schools. They're hiding the truth. All you have to do is look to Massachusetts where same sex marriage was legalized to see the significant harmful effects this has on society: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

 

Most Popular Stories

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy