Monday, October 27, 2008




By William Clayton | JD/MBA Candidate
Stanford Graduate School of Business
Yale Law School

For most Americans, freedom is the paramount value. Preferring to live and let live, Americans naturally tend to oppose Proposition 8 believing that it restricts freedom. But a careful study of what has happened to freedom in countries and states where gay marriage has been legalized strongly supports exactly the opposite conclusion.

Laws frequently have unforeseen consequences. Such is the case with gay marriage. A study of the effects of the judicial imposition of gay marriage on the people of Canada and Massachusetts provides a clear picture of how it is destroying freedom of speech and threatens our very democratic way of life. Surprisingly, passage of Proposition 8 will actually strengthen our freedoms. Please don’t vote before taking time to carefully consider the following information to assist you in making up you mind about Proposition 8. Those who truly love freedom cannot afford to make a quick emotional decision about Proposition 8.

Most gays, particularly those who want to marry, are respectful of others views, but the activist Gay Lobby, that is driving the legal battles, has a very different agenda. A study of the world wide consequences of legalization of gay marriage, with particular attention to Canada and Massachusetts, clearly demonstrates that the agenda of the activist Gay Lobby is not granting homosexuals the legal rights associated with marriage but harnessing the power of the state to transform society into their image and suppressing all opposing views. The legal record shows that, given the opportunity they will force their views upon everyone else, including and especially young children. Their objective, as clearly seen in the legal actions taken and the instructional materials being used in the elementary schools, is not tolerance but celebration of homosexuality and “gay pride” while teaching that opposing views are mean spirited and hateful bigotry. And their attack extents beyond government supported institutions to private and home schools as they seek to deny parents the right to control the moral teaching of their children.

Society has rightfully removed the teaching of religion from the public schools, but the Gay Lobby seeks to use the courts to force the teaching of a new religion in the schools, the “religion” of gay activism. It is a religion of intolerance that has subjected those who voiced differing beliefs to ridicule, termination of employment, and even civil and criminal action for “hate” speech. To the Gay Lobby, separation of church and state means keeping the views of religions that disagree with their life style out of schools and government, while demanding that those same schools and government use tax payer dollars to teach their “religion” to young children and deny religious adoption agencies the right to direct children into homes with both a mother and a father. If left unchecked, their attack on freedom of speech will lead to the destruction of democracy in the name of tolerance.

Failure to pass Proposition 8 will give the Gay Lobby a potent legal weapon that will be wielded in California as it has been in Canada and Massachusetts . It will be used to promote the transformation of society and the suppression of freedom of speech. If this statement seems absurd, you owe it to yourself and your children and grandchildren who will have to live in the country you create with your vote to study this material carefully before voting.


Passage of Proposition 8 does not deny gays any rights under California state law. The Domestic Partners Act has already granted to gays all the rights of heterosexual spouses under state law. This Act, originally passed in 1999 and modified and expanded in subsequent years, culminated in the California Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, states its intent “to secure to eligible couples . . . the full range of legal rights, protections and benefits, as well as all of the responsibilities, obligations, and duties to each other, to their children, to third parties and to the State, as the laws of California extend to and impose upon spouses.” The final draft, under Family Code Section 297.5, provides that: “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” And in Koebke v. Bermuda Heights Country Club, the California Supreme Court concluded, “a chief goal of the Domestic Partner Act is to equalize the status of registered domestic partners and married couples.” Consequently, gays already have all the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual couples under State law. Although there are some federal tax limitations based on the definition of spouses, those will no doubt be changed by the federal government in the near future without the need of redefining marriage.


So, if it is not about equal rights, what is it about? Why are the gay activists so focused on acquiring the word “marriage”? A look at what has happened in the states and countries that have bestowed that simple word on Domestic Partners is instructive. As so often happens, an apparently simple change in the law can have far reaching and unintended consequences. At least the consequences are unintended for those who unknowingly vote in favor of what seems like a simple question of granting others the right to live their lives the way they want.

A review of the consequences of the judicial imposition of “gay marriage” on the citizens of Massachusetts and the track record of government action in Canada show that, although the argument in favor of gay marriage is couched in terms of tolerance and freedom, the consequence of permitting gay marriage has been the exact opposite.


In Canada, the granting gays the right to marry is being used as an excuse for an all out assault on free speech and religious freedom, attacking any with opposing views as bigots engaged in “hate” speech. The shocking depth of this attack is chronicled by Hans C. Clausen, former Editor in Chief of the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, in his 66 page report published March 1, 2005 : (highlights added)

The "privilege of speech" in a "pleasantly authoritarian country": how Canada 's judiciary allowed laws proscribing discourse critical of homosexuality to trump free speech and religious liberty.

In this scholarly report, the Author examines Canada 's extensive legal regime prohibiting speech critical of homosexuality, illustrating how the Canadian judiciary's zeal for promoting the social acceptance of homosexuality has greatly diminished fundamental legal protections for open discourse and religious liberty. The introduction begins,

Giving credence to Alexis de Tocqueville's argument that in democratic societies the love of equality is greater than the love of freedomis a recently emerging trend among Western nations to legally proscribe speech critical of homosexuality. Such laws, in various forms, now exist in a large and growing minority of countries in Europe and North America . The goal of these laws is much grander than preventing discrimination against homosexuals; rather, the objective is seemingly to promote the social acceptance of gay and lesbian lifestyles.These laws provide for civil remedies and in some instances even criminal sanctions for speech considered offensive or degrading to homosexuals, and constitutional-rights objections to them--on the basis of speech and religious liberty guarantees--have been largely unavailing. Thus, achieving the social equality of homosexuals--conceived in sweeping terms--has, in many Western countries, outstripped legal protections for speech and religious freedoms.

Among other examples, Mr. Clausen describes the discipline of a Canadian teacher, Chris Kempling, who acted privately to address legitimate concerns about material he was being forced to distribute to his students.

Kempling, a public high school teacher and counselor, was initially suspended from his job for five months without pay (15) by the province's educational accreditation board for writing letters to the editor (16)--printed in the local newspaper, (17) but never introduced into any public school or classroom (18)--that argued, on the basis of scientific and scholarly research, (19) that homosexual relationships are unstable and gay sex risky. (20) He also criticized what he viewed as the pro-gay stance of the public education system. (21)

Kempling started writing his letters after being asked by presenters at a government-sponsored workshop to distribute copies of a gay-and-lesbian newspaper--which included advertisements for gay bathhouses, pornographic personal ads, and information about joining casual-sex and masturbation clubs--to students at his school. (22) He initially complained directly to his union and to the Minister of Education, but his complaints were ignored. (23) "When I realized that no one in authority was prepared to take any action, I decided to educate myself, and start writing directly to the public, to make parents aware of what was being proposed for their children," Kempling said. (24)

When the accreditation board learned of Kempling's letters, it launched a full inquiry: a government investigator was dispatched to Kempling's small town and was soon speaking with community leaders and Kempling's supervisors and colleagues. (25) Not long thereafter, Kempling--a thirteen-year employee of the public school system with an exemplary record (26)--found himself suspended and lacking support from his peers, his bosses, his union, (27) and even the B.C. Civil Liberties Union. (28) Although no evidence existed that Kempling's letters caused any disturbance or controversy at his school (29)--nor did any students or parents complain of Kempling's letters or job performance (30)--the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the accreditation board's decision to suspend Kempling for writing his letters, stating that "the appellant's discriminatory expression is of low value ... [and] is incompatible with the search for truth." (31)

After describing Kempling's suspension from his teaching position for publicly expressing his views on homosexuality, Clausen then mentions several other countries that have criminalized remarks critical of homosexuality: New Zealand , South Africa , Netherlands and Denmark . In 2004, the Canadian Parliament passed C-250, sponsored by gay legislator Svend Robinson. The legislation added "sexual orientation" to the list of protected minority categories in Canadian law. Because of this new law, religious leaders are fearful of speaking out against homosexuality and, notes Clausen, "Academicians also seem to be feeling the effect: some university professors are scared that the law will threaten free inquiry in the classroom and in their own publications." In one legal case, a Canadian court justified its suppression of free speech because it claimed that criticism of gays impacted an individual's sense of "self-worth and acceptance." The court also listed "self- fulfillment," "self-autonomy," and "self-development," as reasons to suppress free speech in favor of gays. Clausen points out that this argument is seriously flawed because it favors the speech rights of one group over another. The court also claimed that criticism of homosexuality damaged the "dignity" of gays.

Clausen ends his discussion by observing that hate speech laws that suppress criticism of homosexuality, if taken to their logical conclusion, would "require the abolition of democracy itself" and "It reflects a deep lack of faith in citizens' ability to distinguish truth from error, faults the 'marketplace of ideas' as inadequate and even dangerous, and claims that the coercive force of government-in the form of hate speech laws-is the solution."

Anyone who truly wants to understand where we will be headed in California if Proposition 8 fails should spend some time reviewing this careful analysis that traces the development of the legal prohibition of free speech in Canada .

Attack on Private and Home Schools

In March 7, 2007 - Gay activist groups in Ontario urged the Provincial Ministry of Education to exert more control over private and home schools to fight against the alleged effects of homophobia, objecting to religious schools teaching “only their own values.” An article in Ottawa 's Capital Xtra written by Tony Lovink, who describes himself as a gay Christian school teacher, claimed that "All private schools tend to be at least implicitly homophobic. And I would say all religiously formed independent schools are definitely homophobia.”

The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario says it is concerned that the provincial ministry of education was failing to exert "more control" over the curriculum used by private religious schools. The coalition also objects to private schools hiring teachers based upon the school's own qualification requirements.

In October 2006, the Quebec government ordered private Christian schools to begin teaching sex education in compliance with the provincial curriculum. Schools failing to implement these materials were threatened with closure.

In British Columbia , gay activists Murray Corren and Peter Corren were granted power over the provincial school curriculum as part of a lawsuit settlement. The settlement also introduced a policy prohibiting parents from removing their children from the classroom when gay-affirmative materials were being taught.

Seek to Shut Down Pro-Family Websites

Gay activists have demanded that the Federal Human Rights Commissions shut down three pro-family web sites run by Craig Chandler, a Canadian conservative and talk-radio host.


You might want to believe that things will be different in the United States , where we are supposedly protected by freedom of religion, but nothing could be further from the truth. The experience in Massachusetts since the courts granted gays the right to marry has been an unrelenting attack on freedom of speech and religion that appears to be accelerating, taking lessons from Canada about how to use the courts to destroy any opposition to the teaching of their “life style” to young children.

Training Video – Teaching Gay Pride in Schools

A primary objective of the Gay Lobby’s agenda is the indoctrination of young children, starting in kindergarten with the idea that being gay is wonderful and free. You may say this is just reactionary fear mongering but unfortunately it is true. The following training video for teachers shows what you can expect in our California elementary schools if gay marriage is allowed to stand and possibly even if it isn’t. It was created by Women's Educational Media, which states that, "Waiting to teach children to accept differences of all kinds until middle school or high school is too late…." In one segment, teachers discuss teaching homosexuality to children even if parent's have moral objections to it, concluding that it had to be taught regardless of parental objections. If you do nothing else to educate yourself about this issue, by all means view this training video and ask yourself if this is what you want happening in the earliest grades in our schools. In particular, notice the attitudes being instilled in young minds that any opposition to gay marriage or homosexuality is “mean” and “hateful” and the use of peer pressure to enforce that prejudice. Excerpts of this training video can be found at:

Legal Actions Against Parents

The Massachusetts courts have also held that the schools have no requirement to notify parents when teaching about homosexuality even in Kindergarten.

In April 2008, David Parker, father of a kindergarten student at Estabrook Elementary School, in Lexington, Mass. spent a night in jail and was charged with criminal trespassing after refusing to leave a scheduled meeting with officials at the school unless they provided parental notice of such lessons and gave him the option of pulling his child out of those classes.

The legal rights of parents to opt their children out of “gay pride” education has been smashed by the Massachusetts courts. U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable;indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality. Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children … would undermine teaching and learning…"

Attack on Religious Adoption Agencies

Not satisfied with using the power of the state to force the teaching of their views and the ridiculing of opposing views in the schools, gay activists efforts have forced the Catholic Charities of Boston , begun in 1903, to cease its adoption services rather then comply with state law requiring placement of children with homosexual couples.


Most people would like to let others live their lives as they please in the name of tolerance in the hope that their own freedom would be equally respected. As a result most Americans oppose the state interfering with what out to be personal decisions including whom one chooses to marry. But an analysis of the activist Gay Lobby’s legal agenda world wide indicates that their objective is not mutual tolerance but use of the power of state to force their views upon everyone else.

Many gays are tolerant and respectful of others views, but their legal activists are pursuing a very different course. Most gays, especially those who want to marry, simply want to be allowed the freedom to pursue their lives as they think best and that opportunity has been provided them through the Domestic Partners Act. Unfortunately, the Gay Lobby is not satisfied with tolerance of their alternate life style. While decrying “hate” speech, they are teaching it to young impressionable children in the schools, teaching them that anyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong is an ignorant bigot.

The Gay Lobby wants to silence all disagreement and attempts to do so by twisting words and terms. Christians are called hypocrites. Those with traditional morals or religious beliefs are called homophobic. Disagreement is called hate. Honest opponents are called bigots, hypocrites and “forces of darkness.” Teaching homosexuality to young children is called “preparing them to become engaged and productive citizens.”

From the actual history of the legally enforced implementation of “gay rights” in the schools and courts, it is clear that the objective of the Gay Lobby is not equality under the law but the reshaping of society into their own image. It is not teaching children tolerance of the gay lifestyle but teaching them to celebrate homosexuality and “gay pride” and the eradication of traditional values in the process. They use the law and the courts to threaten and harass anyone who disagrees with their views and to shut down freedom of speech and to deny parents the right to control the moral teaching of their children. Their onslaught against our most basic and essential freedom of speech must be stopped or it will lead to the destruction of democracy in the name of tolerance. Tolerance is a double-edged sword. It needs to cut both ways. The Gay Lobby’s view of tolerance is one sided, using the force of law to promote their views while exercising that same force to limit the freedom of those who disagree with them.

Granting gays the right to the word “marriage” gives the Gay Lobby a powerful weapon that they will wield in their fight to transform society as they have in Canada and Massachusetts . Proposition 8 does not deny gays any legal rights provided to married couples under California law, but it will slow down the activist Gay Lobby’s assault on our most basic freedoms of speech and religion.

For this reason, it is imperative that Proposition 8 be passed in order to deny these activists one of their most effective weapons with which to bludgeon our freedom of speech and religion, denying freedom of conscience and religion to all who disagree with their views.

Passage of Proposition 8 simply confirms that all people are free to exercise their freedom of speech, expression and religion; tolerance for all will continue to be taught in California schools; same-sex domestic partnerships will continue to provide all of the rights and benefits extended to married spouses; and, “marriage” will continue to be defined as it always has: a legal relationship between a man and a woman.


Scott said...

The entire thrust of this article is based on the premise that there is a united "Gay Lobby" that has long-term plans in place for world domination.

I don't see it.

I don't doubt that there are militant activists who would like to abolish all references to homosexual behavior as "sinful". Every group has its fringe elements.

But by-and-large, every gay person I've talked to who supports Prop 8 does so simply because they want to be treated the same as every straight person. If a straight person can marry the person who their natural orientation and attraction allows them to love, a gay person should be able to do the same.

I haven't yet met a gay person who believes that it would be right to legally gag a preacher from speaking against homosexuality over the pulpit.

I haven't yet met a gay person who wants to insert into school curricula the concept that gay sex is okay (although I hope that everyone, gay and straight alike, would support teaching our children to respect those who believe differently than they do).

I haven't met every gay person in the country. There probably are some who do want these things, and who will use legal same-sex marriage as a "weapon" in their personal crusade.

But is it right to deny a right to a group of people just because a few will attempt to abuse the system? Do we have so little faith in our system of government and fear so greatly the perceived harm those few could do that we can justify our discrimination?

A CROW'S VIEW said...

Yes I don't have a lot of faith in a system that allows us to vote for something then allows the court to overturn it because the few thinks the many voted the wrong way.

Yes I don't have a lot of faith in a system when the Union the represents those who educate our children feel that its okay to indoctrinate our children the way they think is right and not according to what parents think is right.

I think the First Presidency said it best in the Family Proclamation:

“We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

“We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society” (Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102).

BigRedHammer said...

"Yes I don't have a lot of faith in a system that allows us to vote for something then allows the court to overturn it because the few thinks the many voted the wrong way."

That isn't how it worked at all. California voters voted and passed a law that banned gay marriage. The California Constitution is a higher authority than that. The judges ruled that the original ban did not support the higher law.

That is actually what the courts are supposed to do. They pointed out a discrepancy between the two levels of law.

Think of abortion: if a state allowed abortions for anyone and we passed a Constitutional ammendment to ban it, your point of view would say that the state law should still stand. The judges just cited a higher law is all.