The record needs to be set straight on Prop. 8

Steve Bolerjack • Special to The Desert Sun • November 1, 2008

Two recent columns supporting Proposition 8 must be rebutted. The first (“Backing equal rights not identical rights,” George Ousley, Oct. 28) offers a bizarre, unsubstantiated theory that acceptance of same-sex marriage is somehow the fault of Planned Parenthood, “free love,” Bill Clinton's misbehavior and the “New Paradigm” (whatever that is - it's never explained). The writer claims to support equal rights for all but doesn't want them completely equal to his, hence his headline.

I remind Ousley that the U.S. Supreme Court retired this way of thinking in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education. It was called “separate but equal,” i.e. segregation.

The second (“Voters, not courts should define marriage,” Jack Adams, Oct. 30) repeats bogus, exaggerated claims that legalized same-sex marriage will force gay mandates in schools and churches. The writer cites a Massachusetts case that dismissed parents' objections to a book mentioning same-sex couples in public school. Like conservatives and churches running ads on this case, Adams grossly misrepresents it. The federal judge ruled that individual parents cannot dictate curricula to a publicly elected school board. The parents have remedies: they may choose another school or work to elect a new board. The point is that a value judgment on homosexuality was not dispositive here; the issue was attempting to dictate what the school district teaches. Chief Judge Mark Wolf noted, “Parents have chosen to send their children to public schools with its current curriculum. The constitution does not permit them to prescribe what those children will be taught.”

Similarly, Adams misleads about the United Methodist Church and a New Jersey lesbian couple. Their wedding was to be not in a church but a “beach pavilion” owned by the Methodists. The church received tax exemptions on the property with the understanding it was for public use and open to all. In removing the tax benefits, state environmental commissioner Lisa Jackson said, “It is clear that the pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis. When the public subsidizes tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not to be parsed out, whether by activity or any particular beliefs.” Again, this is not a ruling on same-sex marriage; it's a decision against a church that reneged on an agreement that gave it a tax break. The California Supreme Court's decision affirming rights of same-sex couples to marry will have none of these alleged effects upon religion or public education.

So here's the truth:

First, same-sex marriage cannot affect your marriage. We don't have that power and we don't want it. If you're insecure about your marriage, get counseling, but don't blame us. We don't want to redefine marriage, we simply want to participate in rights inherent to it.

Second, we want civil marriage, not religious rituals. Marriage originated as a civil contract, not a religious ceremony. Keep your big church productions. No religion will ever be forced to perform a gay wedding (and why some gay people still go to church is beyond me).

Third, Proposition 8 has nothing to do with education. Fifty-nine law professors, who know these issues better than Baptist ministers, have so stated (see the Desert Sun, page B1, Oct. 30). Fourth, what do straight people fear? Are you so insecure about the integrity of marriage that you're ready to promulgate discrimination into the California Constitution?

No one, including the aforementioned writers, has truthfully demonstrated a valid need for Proposition 8. Finally, you know gay people, whether you realize it or not. Now try again to explain to them why they don't deserve the same rights that you have.

Steve Bolerjack is a writer and editor and member of the Palm Springs Human Rights Commission. He can be reached at stevebolerjack@gmail.com