Prop 8 Apologetics

It's a controversial issue.

It is a complicated issue.

And not one that can be totally explained in one blog post. Or by watching one video. Or by viewing one or hundreds of printed or hand made signs.

And before I analyze some of the arguments and issues, let me remind you that via the pure democracy that we can freely express in our great state, California voters democratically, voted in favor of defining marriage as between a man and a woman - TWICE.

And honestly it was a bit exhausting typing this all out. I hope this addresses some concerns, but I encourage you to ask questions, and ask the questions your friends have been asking you. It's a long read, but if you disagree with those in support of Prop 8, or you need help defending Prop 8 to people, I highly encourage you read it thoroughly.

This was my process of voting for Proposition 8. I researched the proposition. I turned to my Bishops - after all, they are our Shepherds, remember. I did more research. I looked at arguments against, I found responses and counter arguments. I trusted my Bishops, my Church, and my own research. I voted Yes on 8.

For my fellow Catholics, I would challenge that if you didn't listen to our bishops and you didn't really do the research, I encourage you to do the research now and see what it is exactly you disagreed with our Bishops on. It may not be as "simple" as you thought.

So, trust me when I say if you do the research and you read the information, and you look at the arguments you can only come to one conclusion: as a faithful Catholic Christian defending marriage as that which is a covenant between God and a man and a woman is the right and morally sound thing to do.

At face value, Proposition 8 might SEEM as though it was motivated by hate - or "h8" as our protesting brothers and sisters enjoy pointing out. It seems like that's the only image you could get given the types of things I've been hearing across the wire, and through the internet. I mean the media has clearly made it seem that way, and if you get your gay marriage activist judge to edit the ballot measure so that it reads "eliminating the rights", than it would seem as though it was motivated by hate and the notion that we are depriving people of their rights.

Prop 8 was not hate motivated.

At the end of this piece, I am going to highlight some good articles and resources to further address the issue. But first, a few arguments that protesters of Proposition 8 argue that sound compelling, accompanied by short (I tried) apologetic responses. Here we go:

---

Argument:
Prop 8 is just a Religion thing:
I am going to break this down into two parts.

First, even if it was just a religion thing, we still live in a Democracy, and the voice of the people is the voice of the people. 52 ALWAYS BEATS 48. For us Catholic Christians, there are many religious reasons why Protecting marriage is a part of our faith, and you will find resources for those reasons at the end of this post.

We have to get rid of this notion that we have to leave religion out of the voting booth. To say that voting based on your religion is wrong is both bad logic, and actually very UNDEMOCRATIC. The very notion of democracy is that we vote on positions and for politicians that we believe both represent us and our ideals. Remember: The Separation of church and state was originally intended to protect those who practiced religion from unfair policies and control. Not protect the government from religion. *Gasp* Shocker! Oh and the term "Separation of Church and State" doesn't actually even appear in our constitution. Somehow, I think that my history teachers growing up failed to mention that.

Now, there are many that will say well we can't vote on such things, because it is not our role to legislate morality. Ahhhh... the rampant moral relativism makes me want to take a shower. If we fall into this trap of of moral relativity - the idea that "well this is what I might believe (or it is what my church teaches), but I can't force that onto other people - then we have no need for our own faith. In actuality, this moral relativity has become your religion, and that is what you vote on, that is what you defend. In other words, if your faith is something that you do not defend, what exactly is your faith? Is it simply there to make you feel good? Is it something that you just pick the "comfortable" things to relish in, and allow yourself to be lukewarm when it comes to other things? or does it challenge you to be better, and help you to challenge those you love to be better?

If we fall victim to the deceptive logic of Moral relativism, why then would we have any need for any laws. After all we wouldn't want to impede on anyone else's freedom to do what they want. I mean, if we can be morally relativistic when it comes to issues like abortion and gay marriage, why not be morally relativistic when it comes to arson, or murder, or kicking babies. Remember, some people used to believe that "racism is okay". If we just said "well that's not what I believe, but it's okay for you to believe that," what a sad state our country would still be in. Moral relativity destroys any need for any order. As an American and a Christian, if you believe something is wrong, it is not only your right to defend it, it is your duty.

Pope John Paul had this to say about Moral Relativism from Veritatis Splendor:

"Indeed, something more serious has happened: man is no longer convinced that only in the truth can he find salvation. The saving power of the truth is contested, and freedom alone, uprooted from any objectivity, is left to decide by itself what is good and what is evil. This relativism becomes, in the field of theology, a lack of trust in the wisdom of God, who guides man with the moral law. Concrete situations are unfavourably contrasted with the precepts of the moral law, nor is it any longer maintained that, when all is said and done, the law of God is always the one true good of man"

and this, too:

"This is the risk of an alliance between democracy and ethical relativism, which would remove any sure moral reference point from political and social life, and on a deeper level make the acknowledgment of truth impossible. Indeed, "if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity," then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism"

Part 2:
BUUUUUUUUUUUT, it isn't even just a religion thing. Don't be fooled into believing that this is simply a religious issue. If it were simply a religious issue, I do not think it would've passed - sadly.

There are many reasons that Gay Marriage is an ill conceived concept even outside the scope of religious morals. Here is a link for an article, co-written by an openly gay author: Answering advocates of Gay Marriage. They take a totally secular look at 20 common arguments for Gay marriage and they provide evidence to show the invalidity of these arguments [NOTE: The authors of this article have contrasting views with Catholics in regards to what they describe as "Homosexual Relationships", but nevertheless their points in regards to Gay Marriage are compelling]

In fact, there are quite a few Gay activist groups that feel that they shouldn't be fighting for marriage, because they feel a married lifestyle is oppressive to their nature. Just a thought.

---

Argument:
Yes on Prop 8 supporters were spreading lies:
So, the argument goes something like this: "the reason that Prop 8 passed is because those Catholics and Mormons spread lies about Gay Education and indoctrination. They also spread lies about how if Gay Marriage was allowed to continue, then people could face criminal charges for speaking out against Gay marriage. They have no support to these claims. They were just trying to scare people."

See I think the funny thing is that the No on 8 people actually hope that you hear/read this argument and go "Yea, they are right!" and believe THEIR own lies without looking for information.

The truth is, the very next day after the No on 8 people rolled out this Ad campaign saying we were spreading lies, a public school teacher in San Francisco took her FIRST graders - that's 6 year old children - to a Gay Marriage ceremony. No proof that these types of things happen? These indoctrinations of our children are happening where Gay Marriage is legal. Criminal persecutions of those who speak out against Gay Marriage is happening where Gay Marriage is legal. It was happening in San Francisco. It's happening in Massachusetts as noted both here and here. And the criminal prosecution of religious views on homosexuality, it is happening in Canada.

[UPDATE] It's happening in Brazil, too. And more on the Canada situation. Oh, and apparently you aren't aloud to run an internet business, unless you make specific efforts to cater to gay clientele, Christian-based E-harmony forced to cater to homosexuals.

Now let's make this clear, I am all for teaching tolerance and respect for those with Same Sex Attraction or those that consider themselves "Gay", but there is a strong difference in teaching tolerance and respect, versus indoctrinating children with skewed morals of the good in Gay Marriage. Teachers should not be doing this. Parents should be the ones teaching morals.

---

Argument:
Prop 8 is eliminating people's rights:

This might be the most compelling argument. And taken simply as that statement, no one would wish to be the one who "takes away the rights of someone else". However, it isn't that simple. To say that we are taking rights away is to say that these rights were already there. "Ahhh, but Raj, they were already there." True, in California people had the right to marry a person of the same-sex for four months prior to the election. But how was that "right" attained. That right was given by 4 Judges of the Supreme Court of California, who felt that their voice was more important than the 4.6 million people who voted for a strong definition of marriage in 2000. That's what you call an Oligarchy. Not a democracy.

8 years later, 5.4 million people democratically vote to define marriage in our constitution, and to defend our right to democracy. And we are attacked as those "eliminating peoples' rights".

[On a tangent, I read somewhere someone arguing that "Gay Marriage" is the Civil Rights Movement of our day. Ehrm. Funny. I read an article the other day about Dr. Alveda King, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s niece where she said the Right to Life/Anti-abortion movement is the Civil Rights Movement of our day. interesting]

And when did marriage become a right? It's natural law. It is like me demanding the right to using a female restroom. Or me demanding the right to become pregnant. No one would ever think about granting me those rights. It is natural law. Gender matters.

Ultimately, is marriage a right? I would say no. Marriage is a covenant. And therefore a privilege. Where did Marriage come from? God. It is not man made. And because it is not man made we don't have the right to change how it works. The word Marriage is derived from forms of the latin root maritare which means to provide a woman. What does matrimony mean? Literally, broken down it means the act of making a mother. Gender matters to the very nature of what marriage is. We can't change that. We have no RIGHT to change that. I'll leave it there, but for more info check out the rest of the resources.

---

Argument:
The argument of love:
"I have two friends that really love each other and are in a same sex relationship - there love justifies their marriage" or it's been said this way "How would YOU feel if someone told you that you couldn't marry the person you loved? Because he's this or he's that. LOVE IS LOVE."

I'll keep this one short. Love IS love, and it means wanting the best for that person, and what is the best for that person: IT IS ALWAYS HEAVEN. To use the argument of love to justify any marriage, more-so gay marriage is to say that marriage is the pinnacle of love. It is not. Again, marriage is not the pinnacle of love. Sacrifice is the pinnacle of love. The cross is the pinnacle of love. Marriages need love, and in many ways are built on love. But LOVE is bigger than marriage. If love and only love is sufficient to justify both a need and a right to be married, we could argue that unmarried people love less. I beg to differ. To argue this is to say that I, studying to be a priest, truly love no one. I beg to differ. Neither love did Mother Teresa, nor St. Therese, nor Pope John Paul II. I beg to differ. To argue this is to say that Christ loved me less than a husband and wife love each other. I beg to differ.

If we say there is more to marriage than love, then we can't use love alone to justify marriage. There's more to it than that.

Likewise, the final step of love is not marriage. It is heaven.

---

Argument:
People who voted for Prop 8 are intolerant:

in⋅tol⋅er⋅ant [in-tol-er-uhnt]- –adjective 1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters.

This is probably the most frustrating - and most visual - argument against prop 8. People have signs calling others bigots. People automatically assume that anyone who supported Proposition 8 is a hate monger. Many don't take the time to examine that there are serious issues of Religion, Natural Law, Ethics, democracy and more when we discuss Proposition 8. It is very easy to say "Oh Prop 8 people are intolerant." To do so without respecting their beliefs, and trying to understand why they hold this position is intolerant.

Again, marriage is not ours, it's God's, and that is what we are defending. We aren't judging people, or even condemning people because of who they are. We are defending the sanctity of marriage.

I'm going to borrow from what Colin Wen said, "It is not about discrimination. It's about more than just what some people want. Marriage is about society as a whole. You have to throw out the idea that what one person does has no effect on anyone else. In fact everything you do has an effect on the world. So does redefining marriage."

I am tolerant of other people and their beliefs - I respect their beliefs so much so as I try and understand their reasoning. It is just that in this situation I respectfully disagree with their viewpoints on basis of logic and faith. Personally, I know I have made the effort to foster a sound understanding of the No on 8 arguments, I tried to see it from their side. How many of the people who call me "intolerant" have done the same? Or was it just too easy to call me intolerant and a bigot and be done with it?

Tangentially, it is very interesting some of the tactics being used by some of the so-called tolerant No on 8 people during the aftermath of the election. I understand that many on the No on 8 side condemn this type of activity and these actions, nevertheless it is both sad and interesting that these things are happening. It is very sad when people go as far as getting a "genuinely giving" person to resign from their job as an art director of a non-profit theater group, and spreading lies about a restaurant's cleanliness, quality and service. It is quite surprising, and rather disgusting, that in the two weeks after the elections, Leatherby's creamery - who supported Prop 8 - was hammered on Yelp with bad reviews, and straight out lies. You may not agree with people's views, but this is the livelihood of people and their families. Trying to destroy them is "just mean".

To put a blanket statement and call supporters of prop 8 or anyone who supports the sanctity of marriage intolerant or bigots is to call 5.4 million Californians intolerant and bigots. It is to call the majority of Black voters in California intolerant and bigots.

Oh yea, President Elect Obama: He's Anti-Gay Marriage. By your logic, I guess he's a bigot, too.

On a more peaceful note, I do welcome and sincerely appreciate the many who have peacefully engaged me in dialogue in regards to Prop 8. That is a true sign of tolerance, and the American/Christian way.

---

FINAL THOUGHT:
The last thing I want to add before the rest of the resources is this. A friend who is No on 8 challenged me with this question: "Do you honestly think proposition 8 will draw homosexuals closer to Christ?" My response is No. See, only Christ can draw people closer to Christ. We can and we must be instruments of that love and grace, but that doesn't mean we sacrifice our morals. First, we must defend the faith, that is the first step of love. The rest is about loving each other enough to know that we all fall short, and that we are all called to change. So, Love. That's a command. His, not mine.

be God's brothers and sisters.

---

---

RESOURCES:
An Article that tackles arguments by Gay Marriage Activists from a secular point of view (co-authored by an openly gay man)
Answering advocates of Gay Marriage.

Phatcatholic Apolegetics Prop 8 and Homosexuality:
Part 1 and Part 2

The Bible Geek via lifeteen.com:
If love makes sex sacred...


Phatmass defense directory -
Homosexuality

His Excellency, the Most Reverend Jaime Soto's keynote at the NACDLGM Conference in Long Beach:
"Do Not Conform yourself to this age"

His Excellency, the Most Reverend William Weigand defends the Mormon Church and its support of Prop 8:
Former Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City stands up for LDS

USCCB statement "Between Man and Woman: Questions and Answers about Marriage and Same-Sex Unions"
http://www.usccb.org/laity/manandwoman.shtml

His Excellency, the Most Reverend Salvatore Cordileone, Auxiliary Bishop of the Diocese of San Diego
http://www.marriagematterstokids.org/cordileone.html

His Excellency, the Most Reverend Allen Vigneron, Bishop of the Diocese of Oakland
http://www.marriagematterstokids.org/vigneron.html

His Excellency, the Most Reverend George Niederauer, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of San Francisco
http://www.marriagematterstokids.org/niederauer.html

His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph Kurtz, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Louisville speaking on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh_81zsW6U8

Essay of Lee Harris, a man struggling with same-sex attraction who supports retaining the definition of "marriage" as between one man and one woman. NOTE: What the author refers to as a "visceral response" -- whether he intends to or not -- I think he is referring to natural law.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2932146.html

Article by Eve Tushnet, a woman who also struggles with same-sex attraction but still strives to live an authentic Christian life.
http://www.staycatholic.com/what_homosexuals_want.htm

Homily of Fr. Anselm Ramelow, O.P. for the feast of Pope St. Leo the Great. A cool Dominican priest and Professor of Philosophy at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkeley.
http://johnmalloysdb.blogspot.com/2008/11/proposition-8-rights-and-duties.html

Another homily by Fr. Anselm Ramelow, O.P. on natural law.
http://johnmalloysdb.blogspot.com/2008/11/life-reality-and-natural-law.html