PCTN supported a No Vote on Prop 8. We think the League of Women Voters is right in saying: Proposition 8 is a threat to our basic constitutional rights. No person or group should suffer discrimination. Equal protection under the law is the foundation of American society. Regardless of your personal feelings about marriage for gay and lesbian couples, it is wrong to use the ballot box to change fundamental rights and freedoms.

• Allowing same sex couples to marry does not diminish the sanctity of traditional marriage, but extends the rights and responsibilities of marriage to more people.

• Domestic partnerships are not afforded the same dignity and respect as married couples and partners don’t have the same rights as spouses in many situations, including medical emergencies and when life and death decisions are made.

• The California Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to everyone, and should not be amended to single out one group for different treatment.

The League believes in equal rights and equal opportunity for all. Taking away marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples but not others will subject not only gay and lesbian couples but also their children to different and unequal treatment. Please vote against unfairness and inequality. Vote NO on Proposition 8.

A great video that says it all quite eloquently:

Marriage as a basic human right by Rev. Deborah L. Johnson,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbvShJSd3EM.

 ####

PCTN’s opinion paper was printed in the local paper on Saturday, October 4, 2008 - PARADISE POST A-7.

 We reprint it here for you.

PCTN Calls for a “No” vote on 8

The Paradise Center for Tolerance and Nonviolence (PCTN) is endorsing a NO vote on Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that takes away the right of same-sex couples to marry. PCTN agrees with Governor Schwarzenegger that the decision of the California Supreme Court entitling lesbian and gay couples the same fundamental civil right to marry as heterosexual couples should be upheld.

In its ruling on May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court stated that “our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights”.

PCTN further agrees with the court’s statement that “one of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of ‘marriage’ exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect.” 

Sixty years ago the California Supreme Court ruled that laws prohibiting interracial marriages were “inconsistent with the fundamental constitutional right to marry.” That ruling, controversial at the time, is now generally recognized as a constitutionally sound decision. To take away the right to marry after previously granting gay people the status of civil unions would be tantamount to having permitted interracial civil unions but not interracial marriages.

PCTN believes that the court was right sixty years ago and was also right in its ruling in May 2008. We support a vote of NO on Proposition 8.

Board of Directors

Paradise Center for Tolerance and Nonviolence

####

The following is PCTN's Letter to the Editor regarding the resolution approved by four members of the Paradise Unified School District Board of Trustees. It was published in the Paradise Post on Nov. 8, 2008.

We would also like to share with you the comments of George Gold, a PCTN member and concerned Paradise resident, who also spoke at the Paradise School Board meeting on 10/21/08.

October 21, 2008

Paradise Board of Education (Paradise, California)

Open forum to discuss the Board resolution to adopt a position of

Yes on Proposition 8.

Presentation to the Board - George Gold

Good evening members of the Board

I want to share with all of you one of my very radical thoughts. I believe in the United States constitution.

If I might, let me remind you of the role of the courts in this country. Whether the US Supreme Court or the California Supreme Court, the role of our courts is to interpret and apply the constitution. And if I might, may I remind you that this country is a country of laws. Laws that we all live by. And as we are a dynamic and changing society our Judicial system has the duty to interpret the laws enacted by the legislative branch of our government to make sure that the laws that we the people enact, are constitution. And let me remind you that throughout the world, our systems of judicial oversight of our legislative process is THE most admired system in the world.

As regards Proposition 8, some have said the California Supreme court has ruled against the "will" of the people.

Prior to 1954, the will of the American people, in our Southern States as well as the "Northern states," was to support discrimination based upon race. These behaviors were supported by and were the will of a vast majority of the general population and they affected where people could eat, play and attend school. In the US Supreme Court decision of 1954 in Brown vs. Board of Education, this sort of racial discrimination was found to be unconstitutional.  So in this case, and historically since 1954, the will of the people was subject to the rule of law based upon the US Supreme court's interpretation of the Constitution, NOT the will of the people.

The argument for proposition 8 states that the California Supreme Court ruled against the will of the people. The Court so ruled because the will of the people was found to be unconstitutional.

In the general election voter information guide the statement for Proposition 8 states that under California law domestic partners already have the same rights and benefits as married spouses. But as just one example, that is not true. Under federal law, domestic partners can not inherit Social Security benefits only married partners can. So being able to get married, no matter who you are, allows that level of equality that is not available today. If the right to marriage is not available to all, then this right of inheritance is not available to all.

The argument for Proposition 8 says state law may require teachers to instruct children about marriage. May does not mean they have to.

The for Proposition 8 argument also states that teachers could be required to teach young children about that there is no difference between gay and traditional marriage. Could doesn't not mean they are required.

While most of the ballet initiatives have pages and pages of text, Proposition 8 has but one line of text that is to be added to Article I Section 7.5 of the California Constitution -- Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.  The very wording of this amendment is discriminatory.

Next week the will of the people may be to enact an amendment to the California constitution to say where African Americans, Chinese Americans, or Jewish Americans may, eat, live, and go to school.

I say this not as some spurious argument, because all of these concepts and laws about these groups of people were in fact part of the discriminatory laws throughout the states, in these United States, not that long ago.

This Board of education should focus its energy on providing excellent education for our children, correcting the ongoing bullying and racist attitudes in our schools … not promoting discriminatory ideas about who has the right to marry.

PLEASE HELP PCTN SPREAD THE WORD – DONATE TODAY! THANK YOU.