California Battle Over Gay Marriage Touches Nonprofit World

November 26, 2008

California Battle Over Gay Marriage Touches Nonprofit World

The fight over California’s vote this month to ban gay marriage in the state continues to produce political fallout, some of which is affecting the nonprofit world, according to reports in The New York Times and The Boston Globe’s online blog Brainiac.

The Times reports that California officials will examine charges that the Mormon Church failed to report several nonmonetary contributions — such as phone banks, a Web site, and commercials — that it donated to support a ballot measure to overturn the state’s gay-marriage law. Such disclosures are required by law.

A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints said the church will comply with the investigation but had no further comment on the accusations.

The Globe‘s Brainiac blog notes than another high-profile supporter of the ballot measure, John Templeton Jr., president of the Templeton Foundation, is now under fire for his effort.

He provided $1.1-million to push the ballot issue’s passage — and that support, even thought it came from his own checkbook, prompted a question about his support of a ban on gay marriage in on an online forum sponsored by Templeton Foundation.

The Globe notes that Caleb Crain, a New York writer, responded to the forum’s theme, “Does the Free Market Corrode Moral Character?” by asking how the grant maker reconciled its charitable mission with “the rather low and brutal practice of taking a civil right away from a minority group,” and proposed for the next forum the question, “Is marriage a civil right? “

When the foundation refused to post his comments, Mr. Crain asked others to boycott it; the grant maker then replied to Mr. Crain that it had no requirement to post criticism of Mr. Templeton’s donations as an individual.

(Free registration is required to view the Times and Globe articles.)

Comments

I am not surprised that some Gay Rights supporters would try to silence anyone who disagrees. That is the normal way many in that community handle civic issues. The riots and attacks on those who disagreed with them were savage and brutal, evan against elderly women, showing the hatred of so many of them.

Mr. Crain attacked the character of Mr. templeton rather than posting a rational defense of his position. Then he demands a boycott when he doen’t get his way.

Mr. Crain claims the position of homosexual marriage is the moral high ground when heterosexual marriage has been the moral standard for thousands of years. His claims get no special merit simply because he holds them.

— Gary Sweeten Nov 26, 04:22 PM #
I think that Gary missed the whole point. Philanthropy is defined by the Webster dictionary as “goodwill to fellowmen ; especially : active effort to promote human welfare”. What Mr. Templeton did through his charitable foundation was not philanthropic at all. What Prop 8 essentially did was not look out for the welfare of the fellowman, however was a way for Mr. Templeton to propagate his misguided and lack of compassion and acceptance of the LGBT community.

At some point people need to be held accountable by what they donate money to. Donations are public knowledge, and if Mr. Templeton did not want to have a reaction, he should not have acted in the first place.

As to your point about riots that were savage and brutal, I would love to hear about those, because I never heard of any of them becoming savage or brutal.

— Chris Nov 26, 05:32 PM #
Chris, I think you got it wrong. There is nothing uncompassionate about supporting Prop 8. I know you would like to define the debate with compassion and rights; after all, who wants to be looked at as uncompassionate?

Marriage is not a civil right. Marriage is defined and accepted by a society as a whole.

There are currently, and always have been, restrictions regarding marriage. It is against the law to marry: Your sister or brother; your children, minors, cousins, or multiple spouses, just to name a few legal restrictions on marriage.

If marriage is a civil right than all those who wish to marry their sibling would have the ‘right’ to do so. Marriage is not a civil right and never has been. Each society in the world has defined marriage according to their society and has enacted laws to support the majority of that society.

The same is true in America. Society has voted. Twice the majority has voted in favor of maintaining that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Taking a non-religious view, society encourages and protects marriage as between a man and a woman as well. Why? Because, marriage in this format offers offspring, the one and only one asset that propagates a society. No other form of sexual union can guarantee societies continuation. Scientific studies have proven biologically that that offspring cannot come from sexual union of man and man, or woman and woman. I could describe the differences, biologically, but that would be too graphic for most readers. Sufficient to say, homosexual activity cannot produce offspring. Whether you agree or not, it is to this end that marriage is protected by law in society.

To attack the Mormon church (by the way, there is no such thing as a Mormon church. The name is, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), and John Templeton, Jr., instead of debating the issue at hand demonstrates nothing more than terrorizing others, which are the tactics the opposition to Prop 8 are using, i.e. destruction of people’s property, slander, threats of financial ruin and bodily harm. Terrorize/terrorism is defined: “To coerce by intimidation or fear.”

It is amazing what people do under the disguise of rights.

— lt Nov 26, 06:13 PM #
An officer of the Templeton Foundation and I civilly exchanged letters about the matter on my blog, and no little old ladies were harmed in the making of this debate. FYI, here’s a link to my last letter to the Templeton Foundation, which includes links to posts explaining the origin and progress of the controversy:

http://www.steamthing.com/2008/11/my-reply-to-the-templeton-foundation.html

— Caleb Crain Nov 27, 12:11 AM #
This line in the story above is inaccurate and needs to be corrected: “He provided $1.1-million to push the ballot issue’s passage — and promoted the measure on an online forum sponsored by Templeton Foundation.” The Templeton Foundation has not promoted or commented on Proposition 8. We do not support or endorse political candidates or causes. Dr. Templeton’s financial support for Proposition has been private and strictly personal and is not related in any way to the activities of the Templeton Foundation.

Gary Rosen
Chief External Affairs Officer
John Templeton Foundation

— Gary Rosen Nov 27, 09:46 AM #
The Chronicle appreciates Mr. Rosen’s clarification and has corrected the item to note that it was an outside writer who brought up the gay marriage issue on the foundation’s forum. We apologize for the inaccuracy.

— Editor Nov 28, 08:09 AM #
Marriage is a civil right that is regulated by the government. Taking away that right from a minority group is not the same as regulating marriage between close relatives – that is a specious argument. Close relatives are hardly a minority group in our society. No one is born wanting to marry their cousin – although in the not too distant past it was the norm.

It is interesting to note that the same types of arguments were used when there were laws in place to prevent interracial marriage.

The crux of the matter is that most people who oppose gay marriage think that being gay is a choice. As if people would choose to adopt a lifestyle in which they can experience prejudice, discrimination and sometimes even alienation from their families.

Being gay is not a choice – a person is born with their sexual orientation, potential height, intellectual potential and skin color in place. They do not choose them.

As for protecting the sanctity of marriage – those who want to do so would do better to keep people like Britney Spears and Kevin Federline from getting married. Talk about a lack of respect for the “sanctity” of marriage – those two epitomize it!

— G Dec 1, 10:53 AM #
Sorry, G., but for most lesbians the thought that lesbianism is NOT a choice is considered insulting. Males, for some reason, take a different tack. In any case, as far as brutality, I don’t where some people have been — it was all over the news. Lacking the courage to confront African-American or Muslim places of worship, gay activitists attacked a small group of Christians in San Francisco who were praying, singing songs, and never suggested homosexuals should turn heterosexual. They’re also been caught on film ripping a cross out of a smiling elderly lady’s hand and throwing it to the ground. So much for tolerance.

— P Dec 1, 12:12 PM #
In response to lt’s comment on 11/26, marriage in the Western world left its cradle of genetic procreation a long time ago. There is not nor has there ever been requirements that people who are married be able to produce their own children or even have children. There are many married couples that entered into their union with the clear understanding that they will never have children, yet they are still able to access the same marital rights as a couple whom does have children. With that in mind, you’re assertion that marriage is about having children carries very little water.

Moreover, while I will not argue that two men or two women can produce their own biological children, there are many same-sex couples that do have children through a variety of situations and processes. These same-sex families deserve the legal protections that children of opposite-sex couples enjoy. Denying same-sex families the rights of marriage puts their children at an unnecessary disadvantage.

Finally, I want to point out that while there is a preponderance of scientific evidence to support that sexual attraction is influenced by heredity, whether or not “being gay” is a choice or is biologically predetermined is irrelevant to the fact that same-sex families exist and deserve equal protection under the law.

— Zach Howell Dec 1, 12:37 PM #
Sorry G, your comments are off topic and only deserve a quick reply. Marriage is not a civil right and never has been. You can say it is over and over all you want, but it does not make it so. Again, regarding marriage and the potential for offspring, “Whether you agree or not, it is to this end that marriage is protected by law in society” in America.

Zach, I appreciate your comments.

I disagree that ‘the Western world left its cradle of genetic procreation a long time ago.’ Going back to the basics, if there were no children being born as of this day moving forward, society stops immediately.

Further, I never said that there have “been requirements that people who are married be able to produce their own children or even have children.” You are trying to restructure my comments in order to support your position. ** I said, “No other form of sexual union can guarantee societies continuation.” Please re-read 6th paragraph, first four sentences.

Further yet, I said that the man and woman union, “‘offers offspring,’ the one and only one asset that propagates a society.” This is indeed ‘true’ today.

You said, “while I will not argue that two men or two women can produce their own biological children,…” That is because you are conceding to my point. Also, since it is impossible for same-sex marriage to produce offspring, when you say same-sex couples do have offspring-they have to obtain children from a man and a woman sexual union. This is prove of the desire of same-sex couple to mimic heterosexual union of family. Think about it. What I just said you may not like to hear; yet it is true. In addition, same-sex couples even wanting to raise children proves my point that societies life blood, today, is based on having offspring, and, it is to this end that societal law protects marriage as defined as a man and a woman.

Your comments actually did not address my premise at all. The only thing you did was try to restructure my view point, which does not work in public forums of discussion because we can go back and re-read what has been said. I do thank you for your views.

— lt Dec 1, 07:15 PM #
The Supreme Court defined marriage as one of the “basic rights of man” when it ruled on interracial marriage. Replace race with sexual orientation as you read this:

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia’s argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:

“ Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. ”

The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:

“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. ”

Despite this Supreme Court ruling, such laws remained on the books, although unenforced, in several states until 2000, when Alabama became the last state to repeal its law against mixed-race marriage.

— G Dec 3, 04:55 PM #
I believe I can see your point. Thank you for your reply. We will have to agree to disagree. What you offered is about ‘white supremacy,’ and about man and woman marriage. The supreme court absolutely did not, and was not referencing same-sex marriage.

Also, a point to ponder. When you say replace race with sex – I ask you to replace race with relative, or minor, or spouse. If you are going to offer a truism, then your truism, or truth must stand consistent. If it does not, then it is a false argument, or position. Substituting race for the words I offered does not make sense to you, does it? Neither does replacing race with sex. Your position simply does not hold up even with your own analogy/comparison. However, my position does hold up.

— lt Dec 4, 01:46 AM #
Here is the skinny from the American Psychological Association on sexual orientation:

“What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.

It’s important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person’s sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. “

Sexual orientation is not a choice – just as skin color is not a choice. Therefore people should not be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation just as they should not be discriminated against because of their race. If that is the case then the decision of the Supreme Court on interracial marriage should apply to same sex marriage.

The age at which a person can marry or the degree of consanguinity of a marriage are socio/cultural issues that can and should be determined by the society that one lives in. You can’t compare the two issues.

— G Dec 4, 04:28 PM #
G, Science also thought the world was flat. Your Surpreme Court case analogy does not hold to gay marriage no matter how much you want it to… Nevertheless, you are right in one respect, it is up to the society that one lives in. The society of Calif. voted twice, and the majority of Calif. citizens put the issue to rest. And, believe me, 4 or 6 Judges will not over turn the peoples vote this time. If they do, and decide to legislate from the bench ignoring the consitution by ignoring the will of the people to govern themselves, those Judges will find themselfs impeached/recalled.

Marriage is not a civle right, and never has been. It is a decision of that community/society/state. I happen to live in a state that has supported by law, and by the vote of the people that marriage is between a man and a woman.

There is no consensus from science that sexual orientation is, or is not a choice. As for me, I don’t know, neither do you. Therefore, I will not say it is, or is not. You quote that sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. If so, that shaping of kids should be a ‘choice’ of the parents and individual family culture. Since gay marriage will not produce offspring, I suppose you want gay marriage to become legalized so that gay sexual orientation can be taught to heterosexual children in school. You will say no, but that started happening right before the vote took place-in two school districts that are just north of me in the bay area. Sorry G,

— lt Dec 6, 03:17 AM #

Commenting is closed for this article.

Previous: Government and Politics Watch: IRS to Examine Fund Raising; Plus, Obama Transition News
Next: Law-Enforcement Charity's Finances Questioned