"Thou shalt not bear false witness."
Exodus 20:16
The religious right has managed to convince the general public that the Ten Commandments are an antiquated religious relic. But we believe that they contain nuggets of timeless universal wisdom, and we can only wish that the religious right would stop blathering about them and start actually obeying them. Here's an analysis of how the religious right breaks the Ninth Commandment in its "Defense of Marriage":
"Marriage laws defined as being between one man and one woman have been on the books in Oregon since 1862."
It's a lie. Actually, our modern understanding of gay and lesbian relationships
was unknown in 1862, and the writers of this law did not have anti-gay discrimination
in mind. All this law does is define the minimum age at which men and the
minimum age at which women may marry: "by males at least 17 years of
age and females at least 17 years of age." It says absolutely nothing
about "one man and one woman"! It's the religious right that's
trying to make a radical change to our traditional constitution. The attorney
general stated in a letter about the ballot title for Measure 36, "As
commenter Moore notes, the State of Oregon has existed for [nearly] 150 years
without a definition of marriage in the Oregon Constitution." But the
equal protection clause (Article 1, Section 20) has been in the state constitution
since 1859. And now the radical right is attacking this most sacred and traditional
protection in our constitution with their contradictory constitutional amendment
stating that gays and lesbians shouldn't have equal protection!
Anyway, "one man one woman" is not any kind of a legitimate argument;
it's just a belief. We all have beliefs. We can respectfully disagree. Religious
freedom has been in our constitution since 1859. But beliefs don't belong
in our constitution.
"Children do best with both a mom and a dad."
This is both a big lie and a religious-right red herring designed to confuse you, because Measure 36 will not stop gays and lesbians from having children any more than it will stop unfit heterosexual parents from having dysfunctional families. Read Measure 36 for yourself and see. This is not about children and family, it's about discrimination versus equal treatment for all committed relationships. And anyway, children do best with loving parents—straight or gay. Numerous studies show that love is more important than gender. There's an ancient saying that "It takes a whole village to raise a child"—not just one man and one woman. Gays and lesbians are especially adept at providing a variety of male and female role models for their children—and outlawing gay marriage will not change this. Why, it doesn't seem to bother the religious right that murderers, rapists, child molesters, and other convicted felons of the worst kind are allowed to marry and procreate and raise children. Clearly the "Defense of Marriage" hypocrites are more interested in rationalizing prejudice than protecting children.
And it's a big lie to claim that the "research is overwhelming." Actually, there is not one single accredited study that says children do better with opposite-sex versus same-sex parents. The studies that the Defense of Marriage Coalition quotes out of context simply compare two-parent with single-parent households. It's true that children do better with two parents—whether man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman—than with a single parent. And sometimes it's hard to tell whether the Defense of Marriage Coalition is running a hate campaign against gays and lesbians or against straight single parents. Regardless, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association "both have endorsed same-sex marriages, going so far as saying that children might suffer psychological harm if same-sex parents are not given the same legal protections as hetero parents" (Portland Mercury, 7 October 2004, p. 10).
"Endless studies demonstrate the benefits to children of being raised with both a mother and father."
This paraphrase is just another religious-right big lie. According to The Oregonian (9 July 2004, p. E7), "The coalition cites several studies. The authors of some of that research say their findings have been taken out of context. 'That is not a legitimate use of our work,' said Michael Gottfredson.... That research says children with a loving parent are less likely to commit crimes but makes no distinction about the sexual orientation of the parent, he said.... The American Academy of Pediatrics and American Medical Association have gone on the record in support of gay parents and their right to adopt."
"Dr. Pruett explains that … infants, by 8 weeks, can tell the difference between a mother or father interacting with them … [providing] broader relational development than children raised by only one gender."
And Dr. Kyle Pruett is furious that the Defense of Marriage hypocrites are bearing false witness by using his work to suggest that gay couples aren't good parents. "By quoting me, they're using me like I'm some kind of scientific background for banning gay marriage. I consider that irresponsible."
Pruett does stress the importance for children to have nurturing relationships with adults of both sexes—but they don't have to be parents, he says. Actually, he writes, "Being a gay parent presents no measurable limitation to providing competent and meaningful care to children" (Willamette Week, 20 October 2004, p. 10).
And although Pruett says it is true that babies can tell the difference between males and females, "That's all it shows. Period." Babies can also tell the difference between a mother and a teddy bear. So what? Children need both a mother and a teddy bear!
And also according to Pruett, the age at which babies can make this distinction is six weeks, not eight. Mark Twain said, "Get the facts straight first. You can distort them later." But the religious right seems to think that as long as they're distorting facts anyway, why bother with any semblance of accuracy at all?
"Granting legal recognition to same-sex couples in Sandinavian countries led to a weakening of society's commitment to marriage across the board."
It's yet another religious-right big lie from ultraconservative writer Stanley Kurtz. "The evidence from Scandinavia refutes rather than supports Kurtz's logic. Long-range trends in marriage rates, divorce rates, and nonmarital births either have been unaffected by the advent of same-sex partnerships or have moved in a direction that suggests that the institution of marriage is strengthening." (William N. Eskridge Jr., Darren R. Spedale, and Hans Ytterberg, "Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate," Issues in Legal Scholarship, Single-Sex Marriage, Article 4, August 2004, abstract, http://www.bepress.com/ils/iss5/art4).
And "finally, the authors focus on the security of children in Scandinavia and find none of the ill effects posited by Kurtz."
"American College of Pediatrician's [sic] Statement Denouncing Same-sex Parenting"
It's not exactly a lie, but it does violate the Ten Commandments by bearing false witness. It's a crafty and deceitful attempt to confuse you with a name that sounds similar to the American Academy of Pediatrics, a respected professional organization that strongly supports same-sex parenting. But the so-called American College of Pediatricians is just a right-wing front group founded only two years ago to promote the religious-right anti-gay and anti-abortion agenda, and it does not represent the professional views of the majority of pediatricians, as footnote 1 under this statement, citing the American Academy of Pediatrics, inadvertently admits. Anyone can create a front group and make a statement. Please do not be fooled by this deceit violating the Ten Commandments in the name of defending "traditional morality"!
"Every species requires a male and a female to produce offspring."
This seemingly self-evident statement is yet another religious-right red herring that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of discrimination versus equal protection. Never mind that most aphids are female and practice parthenogensis (virgin birth). Never mind that bisexual species can undergo sex changes. Never mind that scientific studies have documented homosexuality in more than 450 species of animals (Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance). Yes, lesbian mothers need to get a sperm donation. So do some straight couples. Big deal.
"Marriage ... would become ... any group of loving adults ... three, or five, or 17."
And this too is just more ridiculous religious-right rhetoric designed to scare you. Marriage—straight or gay—will remain a personal commitment between two adults who agree to share love and responsibility. No, people are not going to be marrying harems or box turtles in Oregon. The religious right is sinking to new depths with these outrageous lies violating the Ninth Commandment!
"Beginning in kindergarten, children will be taught that marriage between two men is the same as marriage between a man and a woman."
And it's another big lie. According to Gene Evans, a spokesman for the state schools, "The Oregon Department of Education couldn't require kindergarten teachers to do that even if we wanted to. The curriculum is set through a public process, and right now there is no marriage curriculum in any grade" (Willamette Week, 8 August 2004, p. 11).
"[Constitutional Amendment] 36 doesn't change the constitution. It only clarifies what has always been."
Huh? A constitutional amendment that doesn't amend? It doesn't do anything, or it's "our last chance to save marriage"? Which is it? Either way, it's an outrageous lie. This amendment adds entirely new language to the constitution that has never been there before. And it's also not true that religious dogma "has always been" in our constitution. Puh-leeze! It's exasperating to have to answer such absurd lies.
"Preserving marriage is not discrimination. Measure 36 ... does not hinder benefits ..."
Huh? George Orwell would be proud of this convoluted doublespeak. Black is white. Get it? If we say it often enough, maybe you'll start to believe it: BLACK IS WHITE! Slavery is freedom! And discrimination is not discrimination!
"Marriage is defined by the God of nature and nature's God. Marriage ... was established by God ... and we tamper with it at our own peril."
This one isn't exactly a lie. Rather, it's the religious right admitting that Constitutional Amendment 36 is all about destroying the freedom of religion by placing this one particular religious viewpoint into the state constitution in violation of the separation of church and state. We trust that Oregonians aren't stupid enough to vote religion into the constitution, but if Measure 36 were to pass, these religious arguments may likely make it easy for the courts to overturn it as an unconstitutional attempt to establish an official Oregon state dogma.
But there's also a more genuine religious viewpoint. Says the Rev. Dr. Karen Oliveto, pastor of Bethany United Methodist Church in San Francisco, "It is the church's role to protect the sanctity of marriage. The church needs to get out of the government's business, and get back into its business of recognizing the movement of God in our day, for what God seeks to bless, we ought not to get in the way. Extending marriage rites to gay and lesbian couples will not spell the decline of the institution of marriage. Extending those rights to slaves did not spell its decline. Extending those rights to interracial couples did not spell its decline. There will always be individuals who find the mystery of love moving in their lives, drawing them to another, finding that their lives are more meaningful together than they ever could be apart" (www.clgs.org/marriage/lecture_oliveto.html).
"Homosexual men have a very difficult time honoring the ideal of marriage."
Just like straight men! Why, immediately following this statement the "Defense of Marriage" hypocrites inadvertently admit that 25 percent of heterosexual couples are unfaithful—that is, they violate the Seventh Commandment by committing adultery outside of their "committed" straight marriages. (Other sources put the incidence of heterosexual marital infidelity much higher than merely 25 percent.) Jesus said that the religious right should remove the log from their own eye first so they can see better to help their gay brother with the splinter in his. Since straight men have so much difficulty honoring marriage, should we outlaw straight marriages? Many gay men and lesbians do indeed honor monogamy. And many have significant long-term relationships. Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were together 51 years before they could finally marry in San Francisco. And Harry Hay (founder in the 1950s of the Mattachine Society, the first gay-rights organization) and John Burnside met later in life at ages 52 and 47 in 1963 and were together 39 years before Harry died in 2002 at age 90. And the list goes on ...
According to Dan Yoshimoto, a lead researcher for a study at Seattle's Relationship
Research Institute, which compared straight and gay couples, gay and lesbian
couples seem to be better at negotiating issues of equality in their relationships.
And gay and lesbian couples are more likely to manage arguments in a positive
way and are less likely to react defensively than are heterosexuals. Says
Dr. John Gottman, who founded the Institute and who has been studying relationships
for more than 30 years, "I think that in 200 years heterosexual relationships
will be where gay and lesbian relationships are today." And without
the social pressures to marry that heterosexuals must face, "For many
gay and lesbian couples, it is 100 percent a choice to stay together," says
Yoshimoto (Willamette Week, 16 June 2004).
"Oregon laws deserve open, honest debate. Tell
elitist Multnomah County Commissioners that Oregonians don't make laws
in secret meetings with powerful special interest groups … forced us to collect signatures."
There are two different lies here. First, this initiative— and four others like it that were later withdrawn—were filed long before Multnomah County began issuing gay marriage licenses. And second, allowing gay marriage in Multnomah County was not a law. It was a policy decision, and we elect commissioners to make policy decisions for us so that we don't have to vote on whether female county employees should receive equal pay for equal work or whether the potholes on Ridge Road should be patched in March or August or whether Skunk Hollow should be renamed Pleasant Valley. This is how democracy works. Just because the religious-right special interest groups don't think that women should receive equal pay—or whatever—doesn't mean that we should vote to amend the state constitution to defend traditional Skunk Hollow.
"270,000 Oregonians signed petitions to put this measure on the ballot. Those signatures were collected in only five weeks."
According to the Portland Mercury (16 September 2004, p. 6), "During the signature gathering process for Measure 36, several churches were accused of coercing parishioners to add their signatures to the initiative. Currently, there are several pending complaints with the Secretary of State against these churches for violating election laws." Additionally, concerns have been raised about tax-exempt churches engaging improperly in political activity on property where it is not permitted.
"Overwhelming support [for Measure 36]"
Of 27 Voters' Pamphlet arguments supporting Measure 36, 19 of them were put together and paid for in one block by the Defense of Marriage Coalition. Of the remainder, two are by conservative legislators, three by other right-wing organizations, and three by private individuals. That's "overwhelming support"? Rather, these 19 arguments are an attempt by the Defense of Marriage so-called Coalition to create the appearance of a coalition when it's actually just a front group for the "Christian" Coalition—which in previous anti-gay hate campaigns has pretended to be "Christian" even though the largest coalition of churches in the state has consistently opposed right-wing anti-gay hate campaigns.
Compare that to the list of "No on 36" endorsers and decide for yourself what's "overwhelming support": Oregon Education Association, Oregon Psychological Association, Oregon Nurses Association, Portland Area Business Association, The Oregonian, Eugene City Council, Portland City Council, Governor Ted Kulongoski, Governor Barbara Roberts, numerous public officials and ministers, and many, many others. See the complete list at www.noon36.com.
"Over 350 Oregon statutes would have to be rewritten if Measure 36 fails."
It's another myth. Actually, the opposite is true. According to The Oregonian, "On both sides of the measure, activists say it could have wider implications because [if constitutional amendment 36 passes] a revised constitution would force a re-examination of more than 300 statutes that refer to marriage" (9 July 2004, p. E7).
"Oregonians want an issue of this significance to be decided directly by voters, not Supreme Court Justices."
Likewise, shouldn't all of your basic rights be subject to denial by the whims of popular vote? Should blacks, Jews, women, and Baptists have equal rights? Let's vote on it! This is democracy! Abolish the courts and put every case of constitutional interpretation on the ballot!
"Activist judges ... and blah, blah, blah ..."
In June 1958, Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman, were convicted of violating Virginia law banning interracial marriages. The judge who sentenced them to one year in jail said, "Almighty God ... did not intend for the races to mix." Deuteronomy 7:3 condemns interracial marriages, just as Leviticus 19:19 condemns crossbreeding cattle, sowing a field with two kinds of seed, and wearing mixed fibers such as cotton/polyester. At the time, 96 percent of whites disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites.
But in June 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction and declared that the Virginia law violated the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Why, these activist judges changed the law without a vote of the people! But these "activist" judges were actually actively upholding the Constitution and actively protecting minority rights. That's their job in the American system of government. The problem is that the religious right would be much happier living in a totalitarian society where there was no freedom for anyone to disagree with them.
"United Methodist Statement in Support of Measure 36."
This "statement" violates the Ninth Commandment and bears false witness because the Oregon-Idaho Conference of the United Methodist Church has not taken a stand in support of Measure 36. This Voters' Pamphlet argument is the work of a whole two—count them: one, two—individuals. Actually, several dozen Methodist clergy joined with the clergy of numerous other denominations in signing arguments against Measure 36 in the Voters' Pamphlet. And 105 United Methodists signed a half-page ad in the Oregonian supporting gay marriage. And the congregation of one of the two ministers bearing false witness appears to not support him in this; the Newberg church is a regular monthly contributor to Shalom Ministries, a supportive outreach to gays and lesbians and others who have been alienated from the church. Furthermore, when Southern conservatives manipulated the national Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church into passing a prohibition against clergy performing gay and lesbian holy unions or marriages, the Oregon-Idaho Conference was required to establish a penalty for this infraction. In a creative response, here's the penalty that was proposed and passed for ministers in this region who perform gay marriages:
Suspension from the ministry
for a period of twenty-four (24) hours
(yes, hours)
… with pay.
Hey, let the slap on the wrist equal the severity of the "crime"!
"Many of the 'protections' granted by marriage are already available to same-sex couples through the use of private contractual agreements...."
As www.noon36.com notes, "Even the most ironclad documents don't work in every case. Gays and lesbians should not be treated unequally by having to seek out costly and complicated legal protections for their families."
An average gay couple "recognize the reasons for keeping marriage between one man and one woman."
Not only does this television ad fail to mention any such reasons, since there aren't any, but it also fails to tell you that "average" Lance Kropf in the ad is the brother of conservative state Rep. Jeff Kropf of Sublimity and that the straights recruited him to make this silly ad bearing false witness against genuinely average gay couples.
"Measure 36 is the only way to preserve marriage."
Really? You mean that heterosexual men and women have no power over their own lives without putting discrimination against gays and lesbians into the constitution? Really? So just how is it that two lesbians in a committed monogamous relationship cause the heterosexual couple down the street to get divorced? If the lesbians had not been there, would the straight marriage have survived? Just how does this work? Why isn't there a single sociologist anywhere who's documented that gay relationships damage heterosexual marriage? Surely encouraging gays and lesbians to get married can only strengthen the institution of marriage, not damage it.
"No ... scientific study [has] ever established that homosexuality is rooted in nature and therefore is the same as heterosexuality. Scientists understand that homosexuality is rooted in a collection of biological, psychological and social factors. We cannot threat them as the same thing."
Well! Perhaps this statement about a "collection of factors" is progress over earlier religious-right accusations that gays are "sick" or "sinners." Likewise, left-handedness is a trait highly parallel with homosexuality in that it's also rooted in a complicated mix of factors. But this doesn't mean that left-handedness is not "the same as" right-handedness and that left-handed people shouldn't be allowed to marry. And heterosexuality is not "rooted in nature." Rather, right-handedness and heterosexuality are one type of handedness and one type of sexual orientation rooted in a complicated mix of factors just like left-handedness and homosexuality. Yes, they are the same thing, whether or not the religious right wants to admit it.
For that matter, religious orientation results from a complicated mix of factors too—and simplistic fundamentalism does seem to derive from genetic as well as cultural factors. But that doesn't mean it's OK to vote on a constitutional amendment prohibiting certain religious orientations from getting married—as much as we would love to see a constitutional amendment on the ballot against religious-right hypocrites!
"No human society—not one—has ever tolerated 'marriage' between members of the same sex as a norm for family life."
And before the twentieth century, no culture anywhere on the face of the planet allowed women to vote! And traditionally for millennia families could own slaves! And yet God neglected to strike us dead for tampering with the timeless traditions of patriarchy and slavery! Civilized people know when to abandon oppressive traditions. But actually, many cultures have revered gays as priests and shamans. Many Buddhist sects celebrate gay relationships and wish to be able to make them legal marriages. And for centuries the Catholic Church performed gay marriages (John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century [University of Chicago Press, 1981]). A form of gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989. Originally 72 percent of Danish clergy opposed it, but by 1995, 89 percent of the clergy admitted that the law was a good one with many beneficial effects, including strengthening marriage and society as a whole.
And we might note here that if gay marriage is legal, no church will be "forced" to perform gay marriages. If Constitutional Amendment 36 is defeated—and only if it is defeated—the freedom of religion will be preserved, and churches may choose for themselves what rituals to perform and how to perform them and who to marry. Catholics will not be forced to marry gay people, Baptists will not be forced to baptize by sprinkling, and Lutherans will not be forced to use nonalcoholic grape juice for communion. And churches, synagogues, and temples that desire to marry gays and lesbians will have the religious freedom to do so.
And the Ten Commandments will have been honored if the voters reject this religious-right attempt to bear false witness against gay marriage.
VOTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS RESTRICTING MARRIAGE UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM VOTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS RESTRICTING MARRIAGE UNTO YOU!