A respectful discussion between Casey and someone in support of No on Prop 8

Respectfully, there are a couple points where you are incorrect.

1) A religious leader or otherwise who is authorized by the state of California to perform marriages is recognized by the state to perform marriage period. As far as the state is concerned that person is the same as a state clerk concerning the marriage. They are allowed to sign the paper. If it comes down to laws, the state can actually force the authorized person to perform marriages (not necessarily religious ones) or lose the right to perform marriages in California if the law disagrees with how it is being used. Therefore, if my Bishop is sued because he would not perform the marriage, he would lose by law (because there can be no designation between gay or straight marriage, marriage would be marriage) and he would lose his recognition by the state. Then all our marriages would have to be done in the courthouse first. That is a loss.
In addition, if a religious organization is found to be acting against the laws of the land the state can remove that church's tax exempt status. It is against my religion and conscience to marry two gay people. If I, acting for the church refuse to perform that marriage and the couple sues, our church would lose that tax exempt status. There is an amazing amount of good done with the monies of the church that would be lost to the government, all because the law would force us to act outside our consciences.

2) The case law I am citing is California case law. The law suits have been directed at fertility specialists mainly in our state who refused in vitro fertilization to lesbian couples due to religious beliefs. In one case the specialist explained why and then told the couple he was referring them to his partner who would perform the procedure. The couple sued and the specialist lost. The Judge in that case went so far as to tell the specialist maybe he is in the wrong field. A list of these cases was published by National Public Radio as "When Gay and Religious Rights Conflict".

3) We would be nuts to ignore the one state in our union who has already passed this law.

4) On the point of a death of a spouse. First, any child born in the state of California is required to have the mother's and father's name on the birth certificate. So if the a child is granted by in vitro, and the actual gay birth-mother passes, the child would go to the blood father. If the gay birth-father passes, the child would go to its mother. California law allows any parent to relinquish parental rights, so if the rightful parent did not want the child, it would be up for adoption, possibly to the partner of the person who passed away. Under adoption you are correct, but the law can be changed to allow both partners names on the adoption certificate. Marriage is not necessary to allow this. I will vote in favor of allowing it, because you are right, if we are to allow gay couples to adopt, both people involved should be allowed to be adoptive parents by law.

5) No, we should not get rid of divorce, but divorce law has changed a great deal over the last 50 years making divorce much easier. This has been a mistake! We should be, and are, working to strengthen families who may be headed in the direction of divorce. Many marriages can be saved, and should be, while some must be allowed to break. But just because we have made mistakes that have weakened marriage does not mean we should make further mistakes.

6) You are wrong in thinking this is a matter of civil rights. The civil rights movements through the 18 and 1900's has been to give certain inalienable rights to those who are of another race. No bias due to race or physical handicap. Homosexuality is neither a physical attribute or a disability, nor is it a public affair. Black men and women were oppressed because of the color of their skin, which they could not control or hide. You and I are able to control who we sleep with and who we tell about my sexual preferences. And to say that it is inborn and cannot be controlled, there are many who are formerly gay. I am not sure how they were able to overcome gay tendencies, but they have. In all honesty I have a lot of respect for gay people (both friends and family of mine) because they have been given an extremely difficult place in our society. I cannot imagine how difficult it is to be gay in a straight society. But marriage is not a right!

Our government has determined that marriage is between a man and a women, as God ordained, and as a free-speaking, voting citizen I will vote to uphold my belief in that. I do not think any different of you for voting the opposite and I hope no matter how the vote goes we will be united in saying that the homosexual community should be granted certain rights and work together to get them. We simply disagree on this one.

Casey