Ecuador grants marriage rights to same sex couples

GLT » World News Briefs

New Ecuadorean Constitution gives same-sex couples marriage rights
Sixty-five percent of Ecuadoreans approved a new constitution Sept. 28 that, among much else, grants all the rights of marriage to stable, monogamous same-sex couples who live together.
At the same time, the document bans gay adoption and says marriage is only between a man and a woman.
The constitution also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and HIV status; imposes upon Ecuadoreans a duty to respect and learn about sexual-orientation and gender differences; and requires schools to teach about sexual rights.
President Rafael Correa has spoken forcefully in favor of equality for gay couples.
“Jesus of Nazareth never preached hatred, homophobia or segregation; instead he knew to say, ‘Love one another,’” Correa said in July.
“It is false that (the constitution) is recognizing as family the union of homosexuals. What we are doing is recognizing the dignity of all people without discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.”
“Let’s hope, now that there’s been so much talk about moral incompatibilities between the new constitution and the Gospel, sometimes utilizing falsehoods, that we also can talk with equal force about the profound incompatibility of the social situation – of that inequality, of that existing social injustice – with the Gospels,” Correa said.

Gay Marriage Is Ruled Legal in Connecticut - NYTimes.com

Gay Marriage Is Ruled Legal in Connecticut - NYTimes.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 11, 2008
Gay Marriage Is Ruled Legal in Connecticut
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN
A sharply divided Connecticut Supreme Court struck down the state’s civil union law on Friday and ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Connecticut thus joins Massachusetts and California as the only states to have legalized gay marriages.

The ruling, which cannot be appealed and is to take effect on Oct. 28, held that a state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, and a civil union law intended to provide all the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples, violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.

Striking at the heart of discriminatory traditions in America, the court — in language that often rose above the legal landscape into realms of social justice for a new century — recalled that laws in the not-so-distant past barred interracial marriages, excluded women from occupations and official duties, and relegated blacks to separate but supposedly equal public facilities.

“Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women.

“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”

The ruling was groundbreaking in various respects. In addition to establishing Connecticut as the third state to sanction same-sex marriage, it was the first state high court ruling to hold that civil union statutes specifically violated the equal protection clause of a state constitution. The Massachusetts high court held in 2004 that same-sex marriages were legal, while California’s court decision in May related to domestic partnerships and not the more broadly defined civil unions.

The Connecticut decision, which elicited strong dissenting opinions from three justices, also opened the door to marriage a bit wider for gay couples in New York, where state laws do not provide for same-sex marriages or civil unions, although Gov. David A. Paterson recently issued an executive order requiring government agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The opinion in Connecticut was hailed by jubilant gay couples and their advocates as a fulfillment of years of hopes and dreams. Hugs, kisses and cheers greeted eight same-sex couples as they entered the ballroom at the Hartford Hilton, where four years ago they had announced they would file a lawsuit seeking marriage licenses.

One of those couples, Joanne Mock, 53, and her partner, Elizabeth Kerrigan, 52, stood with their twin 6-year-old sons, choking back tears of joy and gratitude. Another plaintiff, Garret Stack, 59, introduced his partner, John Anderson, 63, and said: “For 28 years we have been engaged. We can now register at Home Depot and prepare for marriage.”

Religious and conservative groups called the ruling an outrage but not unexpected, and spoke of steps to enact a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, blamed “robed masters” and “philosopher kings” on the court. “This is about our right to govern ourselves,” he said. “It is bigger than gay marriage.”

But the state, a principal defendant in the lawsuit, appeared to be resigned to the outcome.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said that she disagreed with the decision, but would uphold it. “The Supreme Court has spoken,” she said. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision, either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution, will not meet with success.”

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said his office was reviewing the decision to determine whether laws and procedures will have to be revised — local officials will issue marriage licenses to gay couples without question, for example — but he offered no challenge and said it would soon be implemented.

The case was watched far beyond Hartford. Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey all have civil union statutes, while Maine, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii have domestic partnership laws that allow same-sex couples many of the same rights granted to those in civil unions. Advocates for same-sex couples have long argued that civil unions and domestic partnerships denied them the financial, social and emotional benefits accorded in a marriage.

The legal underpinnings for gay marriages, civil unions and statutory partnerships have all come in legislative actions and decisions in lawsuits. Next month, however, voters in California will decide whether the state Constitution should permit same-sex marriage.

The Connecticut case began in 2004 after the eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses by the town of Madison. Reflecting the contentiousness and wide interest in the case, a long list of state, national and international organizations on both sides filed friend-of-the-court briefs. The plaintiffs contended that the denial of marriage licenses deprived them of due process and equal protection under the law.

While the case was pending, the legislature in 2005 adopted a law establishing the right of same-sex partners to enter into civil unions that conferred all the rights and privileges of marriage. But, at the insistence of the governor, the law also defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Arguments in the case centered on whether civil unions and marriages conferred equal rights, and on whether same-sex couples should be treated as what the court called a “suspect class” or “quasi-suspect class” — a group, like blacks or women, that has experienced a history of discrimination and was thus entitled to increased scrutiny and protection by the state in the promulgation of its laws.

Among the criteria for inclusion as a suspect class, the court said, were whether gay people could “control” their sexual orientation, whether they were “politically powerless” and whether being gay had a bearing on one’s ability to contribute to society.

A lower-court judge, Patty Jenkins Pittman of Superior Court in New Haven, sided with the state, denying that gay men and lesbians were entitled to special consideration as a suspect class and concluding that the differences between civil unions and marriages amounted to no more than nomenclature. The Supreme Court reversed the lower-court ruling.

“Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal,” Justice Palmer wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Justices Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz and Lubbie Harper. “The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter is not.”

The court said it was aware that many people held deep-seated religious, moral and ethical convictions about marriage and homosexuality, and that others believed gays should be treated no differently than heterosexuals. But it said such views did not bear on the questions before the court.

“There is no doubt that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society than marriage,” the court said. “Ultimately, the message of the civil unions law is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as real marriage.”

In one dissenting opinion, Justice David M. Bordon contended that there was no conclusive evidence that civil unions are inferior to marriages, and he argued that gay people have “unique and extraordinary” political power that does not warrant heightened constitutional protections.

Justice Peter T. Zarella, in another dissent, argued that the state marriage laws dealt with procreation, which was not a factor in gay relationships. “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry,” he wrote.

About 1,800 couples have obtained civil unions in Connecticut since the law was adopted three years ago, although gay-rights advocates say the demand has slowed. They cite complaints that the unions leave many people feeling not quite married but not quite single, facing forms that mischaracterize their status and questions at airports challenging their ties to their own children.

But marriage will soon be a possibility for gay couples like Janet Peck, 55, and Carol Conklin, 53, of West Hartford, who have been partners for 33 years. “I so look forward to the day when I can take this woman’s hand, look deeply into her eyes and pledge my deep love and support and commitment to her in marriage,” Ms. Peck said.

Sharon Otterman and Christine Stuart contributed reporting

- Anti Gay Marriage Proposition 8 Supporters Lie and Lie Again

Gayapolis News - Anti Gay Marriage Proposition 8 Supporters Lie and Lie Again

Just got an alert from Marriage Equality about a new SurveyUSA/CBS poll on Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative in California. If this new poll is to be believ
Advertisement:ed (and there is some doubt about the robocall methods SurveyUSA uses), opposition to Prop 8 has dropped from 54% last month to just 43% today, in large part because of the deceitful ads Proposition 8 supporters are running.


So let's take a look at the ad these Christian groups have put together (and since when has it been the Christian thing to do to lie? I don't remember that being one of the 10 Commandments, but maybe they've added some new ones). Thanks to the Sac Bee for much of this great info.


The ad says that "four judges ignored four million voters and imposed same sex marriage on California." It neatly sidesteps and ignores the fact that most of those judges were Republicans.


The ad also claims that people will now be sued over their personal beliefs, although California law prohibits discrimination against anyone on the basis of religion.


Then it claims churches will lose their tax exempt status, purposely ignoring language in the California Supreme Court ruling that stated that "no religion will be required to change its religious practices with regard to same sex marriage.


I've also read articles claiming that heterosexual couples are being victimized by forms (just changed yesterday, BTW) that no longer said "bride" and "groom". To my mind, that's just a taste of what gay and lesbian couples have endured for decades every time we had to fill out a government form and check the "single" box because the state wouldn't recognize our relationship.


So why are these Christian groups, who've raised an astonishing 25 million to ram this thing through so far, resorting to lying? Because it seems to work. Why let a few measly facts get in the way of your push to shove gay and lesbian couples back into the closet?


I mean, in the big picture, isn't it more important to be self righteous? Not to actually help your fellow man, but to make sure your interpretation of the world is shoved down everyone else's throat?


To these Christian groups, I ask this - how does my marriage to my partner affect you in *any* way? Does it make you want to cheat on your wife? Will it keep your kids from getting married to one another (assuming they're straight) when they grow up? In exactly what way have I as a gay man victimized you?


When you get right down to it, this has little or nothing to do with Protecting Marriage. Let's at least be honest about that - it has to do with the ick factor - the squeamishness of straight men when they think about gay sex.


Hey, I won't argue with you there - I don't want to think about you and your wife's love life either. But here's the difference. I'm not raising hell to keep the two of you from legal recognition of your marriage.


At the moment, supporters of Prop 8 have raised over $25 million - compared to just $15 million on the opposing side. If you know any gay couples, if you believe in basic fairness and decency, if it disturbs you when the conservatives lie and get away with it, please visit ECQA and make a donation.


Gay and lesbian couples all across the state are counting on you.


And if you're a gay or lesbian couple considering getting married in California, do it before November 4th - according to the Secretary of State's office, if Prop 8 passes, it will take effect the following day. Most legal sources are saying that prop 8 won't be retroactive, so now's the time to take this important step.


Let's not let deception win.

BREAKING NEWS :: Conn. high court rules same-sex couples can marry :: EDGE Boston

BREAKING NEWS :: Conn. high court rules same-sex couples can marry :: EDGE Boston

BREAKING NEWS :: Conn. high court rules same-sex couples can marry
Associated Press
Friday Oct 10, 2008




Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.

The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut’s civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

"I can’t believe it. We’re thrilled, we’re absolutely overjoyed. We’re finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed, but will not fight the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said in a statement. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision - either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution - will not meet with success."

The lawsuit was brought in 2004 after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated.

They said the state’s marriage law, if applied only to heterosexual couples, denied them of the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.

Peck said that as soon as the decision was announced, the couple started crying and hugging while juggling excited phone calls from her brother and other friends and family.

"We’ve always dreamed of being married," she said. "Even though we were lesbians and didn’t know if that would ever come true, we always dreamed of it."

Dyer announces plans for same-sex benefits for city employees -- OrlandoSentinel.com

Dyer announces plans for same-sex benefits for city employees -- OrlandoSentinel.com

Dyer announces plans for same-sex benefits for city employees
Jeff Kunerth and Mark Schlueb

Sentinel Staff Writers

October 3, 2008

Mayor Buddy Dyer announced plans Thursday to offer domestic-partner benefits to gay city employees when the City Council approves changes to its employee health-care policy Monday.

Orlando will be the first government in Central Florida to do so. It joins about two dozen other cities in Florida that provide domestic-partner benefits to city employees.

"We've been looking at doing it for quite a while. I think it's the right thing to do," Dyer said.

Domestic partners will have to sign an affidavit declaring they are in a committed relationship.

But the domestic-partner benefits will apply only to same-sex couples, not unmarried straight couples.

"They have the option of marriage," Dyer said.

The change was cheered by gay community leaders as a major step forward in recognition of gay rights.

"The mayor and the City Council are saying that we are as equal as anyone and deserve the same benefits," said Michael Vance, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Community Center of Central Florida.

Dyer is scheduled to talk about the change in policy at the Oct. 12 Come Out With Pride 2008 at Lake Eola Park -- one of the largest gay-pride events in the state. Last year's event drew 30,000 people. This year organizers will hold a rally against Amendment 2, which would put a ban on gay marriage into the state constitution.

Dyer is expected to reiterate his opposition to the amendment as a potential threat to domestic partnerships in Florida.

"I think it exhibits great personal and political courage by the mayor to take steps that benefit the families of Orlando employees and propel Orlando forward as a major and progressive player, knowing that it will be viewed by some as controversial," said Mary Meek, spokeswoman for Come Out With Pride.


'Strategically timed'?

John Stemberger, whose Longwood-based Flo rida4Marriage.org raised the signatures to put Amendment 2 on the Nov. 4 ballot, characterized the mayor's announcement as politically calculated.

"It sounds like it is very strategically timed to interject himself into this amendment," Stemberger said.

He questioned whether the city can afford to provide the same health benefits to gay couples as it does to married employees. The city estimates it will cost about an additional $37,000 to the overall, one-year employee health-care premium of $33 million.

Stemberger added that providing such benefits to gay couples would not be affected by the passage of Amendment 2.

"I'm not sure it's the greatest public policy, but the amendment would not prohibit it," Stemberger said.

Opponents to Amendment 2 say the language of the law could jeopardize domestic partnerships under the clause that states: "No other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

"It directs the state not to recognize anything that isn't marriage," said Derek Newton, campaign manager for Florida Red and Blue, a group that opposes the amendment.

Mat Staver, who wrote Amendment 2, said domestic partnerships are protected because they are not the "substantial equivalent" of marriage.

"Domestic partnerships have some of the benefits of marriage, but not nearly all of the rights, privileges and benefits of marriage," said Staver, head of the Maitland-based Liberty Counsel, which has filed lawsuits throughout the country challenging gay rights.

Orange, Osceola, Lake, Volusia and Seminole counties do not offer domestic-partner benefits for employees who are unmarried couples.

Kissimmee is looking into domestic-partner benefits for gay and straight employees, city officials said, but other Central Florida cities do not provide domestic-partnership benefits to city workers.


City looked at policies

Orlando made the decision to change its domestic-partnership policy for gay employees after reviewing similar policies of private companies in Central Florida, including Disney, Universal and the Orlando Sentinel. Orlando's only Fortune 500 company, Darden Restaurants, has offered same-sex domestic-partner benefits since 2000.

Commissioner Patty Sheehan, who is gay, pushed for the change for years.

"I'm glad to see that it's finally happening," she said. "We want to be able to attract quality employees."

Action News Exclusive | Priest's Shocking Revelation - 10/05/08 - Fresno News - abc30.com

Action News Exclusive | Priest's Shocking Revelation - 10/05/08 - Fresno News - abc30.com

Fr. Geoffrey Farrow (Full Homily Text): Priest Comes Out Twice on Holy Day… « orate fratres

This catholic priest in Fresno takes a courages step in bucking the establishment of the Roman Catholic church


Fr. Geoffrey Farrow (Full Homily Text): Priest Comes Out Twice on Holy Day… « orate fratres

Fr. Geoffrey Farrow 10.05.08 (Respect Life Sunday)

As most of you know, I was appointed pastor here at the Newman Center on April 15th of this year. When I arrived, I set out to address a series of various projects to repair our facilities. To date, most of these deferred maintenance items have been addressed. In the middle of dealing with contractors, the parish finance committee, the building department of the diocese, neighbors, etc., I received a FAX from the bishop’s office on the 30th of June. It was the bishop’s pastoral letter for the month of July.

This single FAX threw my whole summer, and in fact, my whole life into a turmoil. Recently, I was speaking with some of our parishioners who advocate for the ordination of women. In the course of our conversation, a question arose which has haunted me: “At what point do you cease to be an agent for healing and growth and become an accomplice of injustice?” By asking all of the pastors of the Diocese of Fresno to promote Catholics to vote “Yes” on Proposition 8, the bishop has placed me in a moral predicament.

In his “Pastoral,” the bishop states: “Marriage is much more than simply two persons loving each other. Marriage is naturally, socially, and biologically, directed to bringing forth life.”

Actually, there are TWO ends to marriage: 1) Unitive and 2) Procreative. The unitive end of marriage is simply a union of love and life. The Procreative end is, of course, to create new life. It is important to understand that the unitive end of marriage is sufficient for a valid marriage. The Church sanctions, and considers a sacrament, the marriage of elderly heterosexual couples who are biologically incapable of reproduction. So, if two people of different genders who are incapable of reproduction can enter into a valid marriage, then why is that two people of the same gender, who are incapable of reproduction, cannot enter into a valid marriage.

The objections which are raised at this point are taken from Sacred Scripture. Scripture scholars reveal the problematic nature of attempting to use passages from the Hebrew Scriptures as an argument against same gender relationships. Essentially, these scriptures are addressing the cultic practices in which sex with temple prostitutes was part of an act of worshiping Pagan gods. With regard to the Pauline epistles, John J. McNeill, in his book: “The Church and the Homosexual,” makes the following point: “The persons referred to in Romans 1:26 are probably not homosexuals that is, those who are psychologically inclined toward their own sex-since they are portrayed as ‘abandoning their natural customs.’” The Pauline epistles do not explicitly treat the question of homosexual activity between two persons who share a homosexual orientation, and as such cannot be read as explicitly condemning such behavior. Therefore, same gender sex by two individuals with same sex orientation is not “abandoning their natural custom.”

In 1973, as a result of a greater understanding of human psychology, the American Psychological Association declassified homosexuality as a mental illness. In 1975, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Church’s watchdog for orthodoxy) produced a document entitled: “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics.” In this document, they made the most remarkable statement. They stated that there are “homosexuals who are such because of some kind of innate instinct.” While these statements are hardly glowing affirmations of gay and lesbian persons, they represent a watershed in human perception and understanding of gay and lesbian people.

These new insights have occurred as a result of the birth and development of the science of psychology and understanding of brain development in the 19th and 20th centuries. The California Supreme Court cited and quoted an amicus brief filed by the APA in the Court’s opinion issued on May 15, 2008 that struck down California’s ban on same sex marriage. Specifically, the court relied on the APA’s brief in concluding that the very nature of sexual orientation is related to the gender of partners to whom one is attracted, so that prohibiting same sex marriage discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, rather than just imposing disparate burdens on gay people.

In directing the faithful to vote “Yes” on Proposition 8, the California Bishops are not merely entering the political arena, they are ignoring the advances and insights of neurology, psychology and the very statements made by the Church itself that homosexuality is innate (i.e. orientation). In doing this, they are making a statement which has a direct, and damaging, effect on some of the people who may be sitting in the pews next to you today. The statement made by the bishop reaffirms the feelings of exclusion and alienation that are suffered by individuals and their loved ones who have left the Church over this very issue. Imagine what hearing such damaging words at Mass does to an adolescent who has just discovered that he/she is gay/lesbian? What is the hierarchy saying to him/her? What are they demanding from that individual? What would it have meant to you personally to hear from the pulpit at church that you could never date? Never fall in love, never kiss or hold hands with another person? Never be able to marry? How would you view yourself? How would others hearing those same words be directed to view you? How would you view your life and your future? How would you feel when you saw a car with a “Yes on 8″ bumper sticker? When you overheard someone in a public place use the word “faggot?”

I remember the first time I heard that word, faggot, I was hanging out with my cousins. They all played on the football team of the Catholic high school in our town. One of them spat out the word in the form of a curse. I was just a kid in the 5th grade, I’d never heard the word before, and so I asked: “What’s a faggot?” A faggot is a guy who likes other guys, was the curt reply. Now pause. Think. What would those words mean to someone in junior high school who discovers that he/she is attracted to people of their same gender? The greatest fear that he/she would have is that they would be rejected by the people they love the most-their family. So, their solution is to try to pass as straight, deceive, and in effect-lie. Of course, this leads ultimately to self loathing. It should come as little surprise that gay teenagers have elevated suicide rates. According to the Center for Disease Control’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey (1999), 33% of gay youth will attempt suicide.

The bishop states: “The Church has spoken out constantly that those with a homosexual orientation must be respected with the dignity of every child of God. Every individual is created in the image and likeness of God and should never be subjected to prejudice or hatred.” A pious thought uttered by a cleric, robbed of any substantive meaning, as the executioner begins his work. Only a few select people actually read those documents. What most Catholics hear about being gay or lesbian at their parish church is–silence. A numbing silence, which slowly and insidiously tells them, “You don’t belong here, this is not for you, and you are not welcome.” It is not the crude overt vulgarity of some churches. But rather, it is the coldness of a maitre d’ who simply won’t seat you, or the club which has put you on a waiting list with no intention of allowing you to join. And simply asks you to wait in polite almost, apologetic tones.

In effect, the bishops are asking gay and lesbian people to live their lives alone. Why? Who does this benefit? How exactly is society helped by singling out a minority and excluding them from the union of love and life, which is marriage? How is marriage protected by intimidating gay and lesbian people into loveless and lonely lives? What is accomplished by this? Worse still, is to intimidate a gay or lesbian person into a heterosexual marriage, which is doomed from its inception, and makes two victims instead of one by this hurtful “theology.” This “theology,” which is parroted by clerics in polished tones from pulpits, produces the very prejudice and hatred in our society which they claim to abhor.

When the hierarchy prohibited artificial birth control, most of the faithful in the United States, Canada and Europe scratched their heads in wonderment and proceeded to ignore them. There is an expression in theology: “the voice of the people is the voice of God.” If your son or daughter is gay/lesbian let them know that you love them unconditionally. Let them know that you are not ashamed or embarrassed by them. Guide them as you would your other children to finding true and abiding love. Let them know that marriage is a union of love and life and is possible for them too.

I do not presume to tell you how to vote but I do ask that you pray to the Creator of us all. Think and consider the effects of your vote on others, especially minorities in our society who are sitting next to you in church, and at work. The act of casting a vote takes you a few minutes but it can cause other human beings untold happiness or sorrow for a lifetime. It can grant them hope and acceptance, or it can cause them to lose civil rights. It can be a rebuff to bigotry and hatred, or it can encourage bigotry and hatred. Personally, I am morally compelled to vote “NO” on Proposition 8. It is my hope that the people of California will join with those others around the world such as Canada, Europe and South Africa who welcome their gay and lesbian family members fully into society by granting them the civil right to marry.

I know these words of truth will cost me dearly. But to withhold them, would be far more costly and I would become an accomplice to a moral evil that strips gay and lesbian people not only of their civil rights but of their human dignity as well. Jesus said, “The truth will set you free.” He didn’t promise that it would be easy or without personal cost to speak that truth.