No on Prop 8, and NO on posts and emails lying about why to vote yes.

(I meant to post this on my other blog, but it ended up here. It'll be too much work to switch it, so I'm leaving it as is.)

Many of you may have seen this posted on other people's blogs

Six Consequences If Proposition 8 Fails

1. Children in public schools will be taught that both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are okay.The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)Therefore, if the definition of marriage is changed, children will be taught that marriage is a relation between any two adults. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.

2. Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.

3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has already closed its doors because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

4. Religions that sponsor private schools and which provide housing for married students will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine, or lose tax exemptions and benefits.

5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages will be sued for hate speech and could be fined by the government. It has already happened in Canada, one of six countries that have legalized gay marriage.

6. It will cost you money. A change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits. Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees.And think of all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this time.

Well, I want to take MY 15 minutes and explain why this is a bunch of bull. I'll go in order of how they were listed.

#1. First of all, The California Education Code will not be changed by the defeat (or passage) of Proposition 8. However, I feel that children should be taught that both traditional marriage and homosexual marriage are ok. They should also be taught that they don't HAVE to marry. BUT- whether or not they are even taught this is still iffy to me. I never was "taught" about marriage when I went through sex ed. I was never specifically taught "marriage is between a man and a woman, by law." I was taught about sex, and that having sex leads to children. The code mentioned in the "article" doesn't really even mention or require children to be taught specifically about marriage or its defintion. The code actually says this:

"51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive healtheducation programs" are defined as all educational programs offeredin kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public schoolsystem, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed toensure that:

(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects:
(A) The use of health care services and products.
(B) Mental and emotional health and development.
(C) Drug use and misuse, including the misuse of tobacco andalcohol.
(D) Family health and child development, including the financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
(E) Oral health, vision, and hearing.
(F) Nutrition, which may include related topics such as obesityand diabetes.
(G) Exercise, rest, and posture.
(H) Diseases and disorders, including sickle cell anemia andrelated genetic diseases and disorders.
(I) Environmental health and safety.
(J) Community health.

(2) To the maximum extent possible, the instruction in health isstructured to provide comprehensive education in health that includesall the subjects in paragraph (1).

(3) The community actively participates in the teaching of healthincluding classroom participation by practicing professional healthand safety personnel in the community.

(4) Pupils gain appreciation for the importance and value oflifelong health and the need for each individual to takeresponsibility for his or her own health.

(5) School districts may voluntarily provide pupils withinstruction on preventative health care, including obesity anddiabetes prevention through nutrition education.
(b) Health care professionals, health care service plans, healthcare providers, and other entities participating in a voluntaryinitiative with a school district may not market their services whenundertaking activities related to the initiative. For purposes ofthis subdivision, "marketing" is defined as making a communicationabout a product or service that is intended to encourage recipientsof the communication to purchase or use the product or service.Health care or health education information provided in a brochure orpamphlet that contains the logo or name of a health care serviceplan or health care organization is not considered marketing ifprovided in coordination with the voluntary initiative. Themarketing prohibitions contained in this subdivision do not apply tooutreach, application assistance, and enrollment activities relatingto federal, state, or county sponsored health care insurance programsthat are conducted by health care professionals, health care serviceplans, health care providers, and other entities if the activitiesare conducted in compliance with the statutory, regulatory, andprogrammatic guidelines applicable to those programs."

However, if you are having serious clashes between secular school systems and your own values and belief systems, then earn a teaching license and home school your children. BUT- "Local school districts and parents develop health education programs for their schools. In addition, no child can be taught anything relating to family and health against the will of their parents. California law prohibits it." There is always the option to keep your child out of sex ed, or any material relating to it or §51890. They don't HAVE to be taught anything having to do with sex ed or marriage.

#2. No no no. This is unconstitution and illegal. It cannot and willnot happen. No church can be forced to perform any marriage. Just a tangent, but even if by some huge fluke it was cable of happening, why are churches not required to give equal rights and repsonsibilities to women? If churches will be sued for not marrying gays in their buildings, then churches can also be sued for not giving equal rights and responsibilities to women. That hasn't happened, so the gay issue willnot happen either. No. This is just ridiculous. I found a quote that also put it nicely, any pastor, priest, bishop or the like can refuse to marry anyone:

"No one can be required to perform a marriage - priests refuse to marry divorced persons, rabbis can refuse to marry the uncircumcised, Mormons can refuse the Gentiles Temple weddings - even in Boston and Canada."

Also, from noonprop8.com comes this statement:

"There is an important difference between religious marriage and civil marriage. Religious groups and clergy members have a constitutionally protected right to recognize or refuse to recognize religious marriages based on the tenets of their particular faith. That has not changed and will not change. But the government can't treat same-sex couples differently when issuing civil marriage licenses or solemnizing civil marriages. "

#3. This is just a lie. Catholic Charities of Boston did not 'close its doors' at all; it is still very much in existence. Catholic Charities of Boston chose to end its adoption work [and only its adoption work] in 2006—and not 'because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts,' but because it refused to comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.

#4. Since the benefits of California’s domestic partnership law were expanded in 2003 (and went into effect in 2005), unmarried couples (gay and straight) registered as domestic partners gained the right to family student housing on public campuses. The question is this: Since this new benefit went into effect, has any private religious school in California been “required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine” in the past three years?
In all the research done on this subject, there has yet to be a single case of a private religious school (in California or elsewhere) being “forced” to house a legally-married same-sex couple.

#5. You know, in California, someone could sue for hate speech... but they wouldn't win. Ministers, pastors, bishops and priests can yell that God hates fags over the pulpit all they want, but their right to do so is protected under the first amendment. Next, what happens in Canada is irrelevant. "Canadian law has zero effect on U.S. law. And, as evidenced by the United States’ overwhelming refusal to catch up with its northern neighbor in the civil-rights department, the U.S. isn’t even influenced by Canada."

#6. First, nobody’s redefining marriage except the anti-gay forces.

Second, this “activist judges” line as the anti-gay crusaders use it is utterly meaningless, and always has been. Circuit and federal-court judges are appointed by officials elected by the majority of voters to represent the people. They are representing the people.

Third, the California marriage ruling was not made by a bunch of “activist judges,” but by an overwhelmingly conservative court — which did its duty properly, without attempting to inject the personal ideology of any of its members into its majority opinion.

Fourth, anyone who’s worried about lawsuits must be thinking of filing his own, since there is no historical precedent that the legalization of same-sex marriage has ever caused a “cascade” of any negative consequence — other than hysterical fearmongering from the anti-gay brigades. Since the anti-gay folks want you to believe that using Canada as an example is relevant, let’s use a more realistic example, closer to home: Massachusetts. Has there been “a cascade of lawsuits” against religious institutions since marriage equality was legalized in 2004?
I won’t hold my breath waiting for someone to show me this “cascade.”

Fifth, If you’re worried about “your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees,” then perhaps it’s time to find a new church, one that won’t be using your tithing to file any frivolous lawsuits.

(most of #6 was information that I got off another website, because I didn't know much about it. But I knew right off the bat that it was too illogical to be remotely considerable.)

I think it's fine to feel or believe a certain way, even if that includes wanting prop 8 to pass. But I do not think it's ok to post or email stuff like this that is just chalk full of lies that is not only most likely misunderstood by the poster, but is also confusing and giving mis information to unsuspecting people who don't know any better. Everyone deserves to know the whole truth, so this excludes these blatently false posts.