Early this month, Father Geoffrey Farrow delivered a sermon to his Fresno congregation that got him in a bit of trouble.  In the end, Father Farrow was removed from his church, "stripped of his salary and benefits, and ordered to stay away from all church communities he had served."  His crime?  Father Farrow urged his congregants to vote no on proposition 8, the proposition that would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.

According to the Los Angeles Times,

With Proposition 8 on the November ballot, and his own bishop urging Central Valley priests to support its definition of traditional marriage, Farrow told congregants he felt obligated to break "a numbing silence" about church prejudice against homosexuals.

"How is marriage protected by intimidating gay and lesbian people into loveless and lonely lives?" he asked parishioners of the St. Paul Newman Center.  "I am morally compelled to vote no on Proposition 8."

Then Farrow -- who had revealed that he was gay during a television interview immediately before Mass -- added a coda to his sermon.

"I know these words of truth will cost me dearly," he said.  "But to withhold them ... 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."

There's more...

Father Farrow is hardly alone: wrestling with his own personal beliefs and those of his church.  Mormons are the single biggest donors to the yes on 8 campaign, having contributed around 40% of the total funds raised since July.  On Sunday, Skyline Church in San Diego held a rally in support of prop 8, sending a video feed out to another 170 California churches.  Tuesday, a similar event was held at the Crenshaw Christian Center, minus the video feed.  Yet it is safe to assume that many of their congregants intend to vote no on prop 8.

You might be asking yourself why I would even bother discussing the religious aspects of prop 8.  After all, isn't there a separation of church and state in this country?  The simple answer is yes.  But saying that church and state are separate is like saying there's no religious test for public office.  On paper, it may be true, but in practice, each voter is free to make a decision based on any criteria, even religious.  But even on religious grounds, everyone should be compelled to vote no on 8.

Imagine for just a moment a wedding.  A heterosexual couple, standing at the altar, friends and family all around.  The pastor says before God and the assembled, "I now pronounce you man and wife."  Later that night, as one might assume, the couple will consummate the marriage.  However, this couple isn't exactly up on their paperwork and haven't signed the marriage license yet.  Will that couple be committing the sin of adultery for having slept with someone they are not married to?

Obviously, the answer is no.  From a religious viewpoint, it is the covenant between the couple and God that makes a marriage, not the license issued by the state.  Just look at the Catholic Church for proof.  Congregants who divorce may not remarry in the Church, because it is not within the power of the state (according to the Church) to dissolve a marriage.  In fact, the separation of church and state functions comes directly from the Bible.  According to Matthew 22:21, Jesus says, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

So while same sex couples continue to receive state marriage licenses, just as they have since June, there is no law forcing any religious institution to recognize or perform a same sex marriage.  Some churches have tried to scare their congregants into voting for prop 8 by saying they will be forced to if the proposition doesn't pass.  This is blatantly absurd.  If no court has forced the Catholic Church to remarry a divorcée, why would anyone believe that those same courts would force any church into performing or recognizing a same sex marriage?

The truth is, as I said back in July,

Proposition 8 is about deciding whether it is acceptable for California to have separate sets of rules for certain groups of people.  Passage of this proposition would not only mean unequal treatment, it completely goes against everything California stands for.  It would entrench bigotry and prejudice into our Constitution and deny fellow citizens their civil rights.

Please, vote NO on Proposition 8: it's about human dignity.

Comments

[Michael]

I voted by absentee ballot and I studied the ballot measures and my feelings do not coincide with the party line on all of them. For me, measure 8 for example, is not about denying rights it is about defining the word “Marriage”. Traditionally it has been understood that Marriage is to be a union between a man and a woman. Now the definition is blurred and unclear. If we don’t draw the line now just how far will it go? Will people demand to be able to marry dogs and cats and bears and lions? Yes it seems absurd but it was not too many years ago when same sex marriages were considered absurd.

Rights have to be clearly defined. I can’t understand why same sex partners can’t fall under a “Domestic Partnership” law and have the same rights as married couples. The word “Marriage” is not a word that can apply to any thing or any one. It must be clear and concise.

[Cece]

The whole issues of same sex marriage is just nasty. Plan and nasty and not right.

[allisonNewportBeach]

Yes, I worried about women voting for dogs and cats and bears and lions when they first got the right to vote, as well. Turns out women have actually voted for a multitude of dogs over the years. I also was afraid when Blacks were first counted as an entire person in the U.S. census instead of the TRADITIONAL three fifths of a person. (see, it wasn't discrimination because a Black person wasn't even considered a person, I mean TRADITIONALLY!) you understand, don't you. And, behold I was right to be afraid: Blacks earned the right to vote through the hard work, deep integrity and compassion of the many. Which leads me to my next fear: Pray tell they legalize interracial marriage and a half white/ half black baby is born! The thought is terrifying! And then the baby grows up, and because it is no longer against the law for Blacks to learn to read and write, he gets a stellar education, leads a life committed to his fellow man and (dare I say) becomes president of these United States of America! Unites a nation and lives happily ever after. I am horrified at the thought. What if he appoints cats and bears and lions and coyotes to his cabinet? Michael, you have raised some pointedly poignant predictions! My hat is off to you! Just one more question: How do you feed yourself?

[Concerned]

2nd Assembly District lack of citizens civil rights....look at this issue:

Why are we allowing California 2nd Assembly District to go to some one who is under going prosecution for fraud by the state attorney generals office and lying on his application for the office –Jim Nielsen does not live in the 2nd assembly district.
I am told that Bob Mulholland has said that the Democratic state party will not assist the canidate in taking the seat for the democrats because of the problems it might cause with the democrats and other republicans who are doing the same thing,not living in the appropriate district.
Nielsen can not be seated, as per assembly rule he than should be decertified from the election with the next highest vote getter winning by default, a democrat who followed the rules.
We all have to follow the same rule; we swore to uphold the constitution of the state of California and USA. Right is Right, Wrong is Wrong... Laws are made to be followed by all.

[Concerned]

2nd Assembly District lack of citizens civil rights....look at this issue:

Why are we allowing California 2nd Assembly District to go to some one who is under going prosecution for fraud by the state attorney generals office and lying on his application for the office –Jim Nielsen does not live in the 2nd assembly district.
I am told that Bob Mulholland has said that the Democratic state party will not assist the canidate in taking the seat for the democrats because of the problems it might cause with the democrats and other republicans who are doing the same thing,not living in the appropriate district.
Nielsen can not be seated, as per assembly rule he than should be decertified from the election with the next highest vote getter winning by default, a democrat who followed the rules.
We all have to follow the same rule; we swore to uphold the constitution of the state of California and USA. Right is Right, Wrong is Wrong... Laws are made to be followed by all.