By Tamarra Kemsley

For some at BYU, it was a confirming experience in the importance of families, and it took up their entire lives leading up to the election. For others, it was personally destructive, and it took up their entire lives leading up to the election.

Perhaps more than any other school, Proposition 8 burned through BYU's campus in the days and weeks leading up to Nov. 4.

The day came and went and the California amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman passed by 4.6 percent. Students on campus said two things were clear of the ordeal: no two experiences were exactly the same and no one thinks this is going away.

Many students on campus expressed that their desire to help in the cause came from being called to do so by the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which issued a statement in July asking the saints of California to dedicate their "means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."

As a citizen of California, sophomore Anne Blaser dedicated 10-20 hours a week in support of Proposition 8.

"Each time I left my apartment to make phone calls," Blaser said, "my roommates would ask me where I was going or what I was doing. ... I would respond 'I am going to protect my future children!'

"This is what kept me going - my love and deep desire to protect my future children from a society that has no sense of moral values or respect for the divine institution of marriage."

Others, after working for the Proposition 8 campaign, expressed in church meetings a strengthening of their testimony regarding family and the authority of church leaders.

Blaser said the experience increased her desire "to continue to stand for truth and righteousness."

Senior Caitlin Carroll from South Carolina had a different experience.

As someone who is against Proposition 8, Carroll said she would not share all the things she is passionate about regarding Proposition 8 "for fear of further attacks and threats against my personal being."

This fear, she said, was based on the response she received after publishing her opposing thoughts on the issue in a letter to the editor in The Daily Universe, which included "threats and vicious e-mails from fellow students that I could not believe."

"I listen to my leaders, but I also pray and ask God for confirmation to know that what my leaders are saying is what I need to be doing," Carroll said. "On this issue, I received no divine answer but decided through my own experiences and research into the matter my position on it."

In the end, Carroll thought the way in which the campus dealt with the issue was harsh.

"I have so many friends here at BYU that are gay that mean so much to me," she said. "I hated the way the students promoted Prop. 8 like it was a fun game with the plastering of posters and the telephone banks right in front of their faces.

"I don't think they realized the hurt they were inflicting upon the gay community both at BYU and throughout the church."

Junior Wesley Teerlink, also from California, disagreed.

"Friends and I went to the call center for Prop. 8 and there was nothing derogatory about it," he said. "Everyone working for Prop. 8 was very nice and basically well-informed."

Senior Daniel Embree said he appreciated the kindness he was shown, one morning, when he stopped at a Proposition 8 booth that he always passed on his way to class. As gay student at BYU, he told the person at the booth how Proposition 8 had affected his life, and he got a warm response.

But he said he had more emotional and social stress after the response of his letter to the editor.

Like Carroll, Embree took a stance against Proposition 8 early in the school year, and as a result, he too faced masses of "nasty and anonymous" hate e-mail alongside a continuous stream of anti-gay Facebook messages, which included people telling him that he should have his temple recommend revoked and that he would not be eligible for the celestial kingdom until he changed his stance on Proposition 8.

"I think the 'Yes on 8' campaign did try not to be anti-gay in their rhetoric, but the effect they had on the masses was one of creating homophobia that made this semester for me very academically and socially difficult and distracting in an emotional way," he said.

Beyond the simple for and against, however, was a pervading sense of uncertainty.

"I guess I just feel more comfortable having it pass than if it didn't," said senior Clay Adair with a shrug.

"I don't fully understand the parameters of it all because I just avoid the whole Prop. 8 thing," said Chris Patton, lawyer and BYU alumnus. "I know I'll be happier if I do."

Sophomore Dave Bean expressed his frustration about the myths surrounding gay marriage.

"I've done so much research, and I still don't understand which arguments behind Prop. 8 are true."

Their confusion is not remarkable given the legal issues behind the California amendment are still debated even among lawyers. Most controversial has been "Six Consequences," an anonymously written essay about the "consequences" of gay marriage, and which became widely circulated by those promoting Proposition 8, including many members of the church.

These consequences in particular have become the center of the debate considering the role they played in the Proposition 8 campaign. But the crux of each argument, both in opposition and support of the "Six Consequences," are based on inferences and are therefore debatable.

-First of the "Six Consequences" and that which those working for the campaign were instructed to stress the most is that "children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage."

The Proposition 8 Web site, protectmarriage.com, features a video that discusses an elementary school class that was taken to a lesbian wedding under the pretense of it being an "educational experience."

According to articles from both The San Fransisco Chronicle and UPI.com, however, the wedding was the teacher's and the event was planned by a parent as a surprise. According to procedure, students and their parents were notified beforehand with the opportunity to turn down the field trip for their child.

Proposition 8 proponents still point out, as NPR reported in 2006, "in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, public school officials say they not only can talk about gay couples - they are required to."

The law regarding health classes is stated in California Education Code 51933: "Instruction and materials may not reflect or promote bias against any person on the basis of any category protected by EC Section 220," which includes "basis of sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, color, mental or physical disability, or any actual or perceived characteristic [that is defined in] hate crimes."

-Second of the "Six Consequences" is that churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public."

The most cited incident of this argument comes out of New Jersey where an organization associated with the Methodist Church was sued for disallowing a gay commitment ceremony on a pavilion it owned.

According to the article "Examining the Consequences of Prop. 8" linked on the Web site mormonsformarriage.com, the place in question is more public than private: "Bands play there. Children skateboard through it. Tourists enjoy the shade. It's even been used for debates and Civil War re-enactments. It was also available to be reserved for marriage ceremonies by people of any faith."

"The property in question is a boardwalk pavilion open to the public," said Morris A. Thurston, a lawyer who is a member of the LDS Church. "This case has nothing at all to do with any Mormon, Catholic or any other church's chapel or sanctuary that is used for religious purposes. It has nothing to do with any church's income tax exemption."

-Third of the "Six Consequences" states "Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father."

The essay then cites the experience of Catholic Charities of Boston who closed their adoption agency when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004.

According to the Boston Globe, "The controversy began in October when the Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice.

"Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state's antidiscrimination laws."

Ultimately, however, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley determined there was no way to accommodate state laws and religious beliefs.

-Fourth of the "Six Consequences" states private schools with married student-housing would be required to offer housing for gay couples.

This argument mostly stems from an experience in Yeshiva University in New York where gay students were eligible for student housing but their partners were not because they did not have marriage certificates.

But Thurston said Yeshiva University is a nonsectarian school that receives state and federal funding.

He said instances like these could be prevented through honor codes, such as BYU's, in which homosexual activity would result in expulsion.

Whether this opens doors to lawsuits is unclear. In the ongoing case of Doe v. California Lutheran High School, the parents of two lesbian girls are suing a private religious school for expelling their students based on their intimate though never outright physical relationship. But this lawsuit began in 2005, and isn't related to Proposition 8.

-Fifth of the "Six Consequences" is that "ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines."

This issue is supported by a case in Canada where, according to a memo from the Human Rights Panel of Alberta, Canadian evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was fined $5,000 and told that he could no longer advocate against homosexuality after he submitted a letter to the editor in his local Canadian newspaper, The Red Deer.

The Human Rights Panel of Alberta has spoken out in similar ways to several other Candian religious leaders outspoken against homosexuality.

Those opposing this argument point out that this incident took place under Canadian law, not American.

-Sixth of the "Six Consequences" is a belief that if Proposition 8 didn't pass, it would cause a "cascade of lawsuits."

LDS lawyer Kurtis Kearl argued that "the cost of this litigation to the parties who are sued will likewise be enormous and will in many cases be passed on to consumers."

Opponents argue that there is simply no proof of this, and if anything, a cascade in weddings would be a boon to the economy.



Copyright Brigham Young University 10 Dec 2008