Lynn D. Wardle
Bruce C. Hafen Professor of Law
Brigham Young University School of Law
Provo, UT, USA
Presented at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics & Culture
Conference on The Family: Searching for the Fairest Love
November 6-8, 2008, at Notre Dame University

Movement to legalize same-sex marriage
What’s the Harm?
What business does the state have regulating marriage?

II. Globally and in the US there is a strong movement to legalize SSM.
• Same-Sex Marriage Legal: Six* Nations and Two USA States:
The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa,* and
Norway (2009) (US: MA & CN [CA-overturned])
• Same-Sex Unions Equivalent to Marriage Legal in Thirteen
Nations and Six US States: Denmark, Norway, Sweden,
Iceland, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Slovenia,
South Africa*, Andorra, Switzerland, UK, New Zealand (US:
CA, CN, NH, NJ, OR, VT) ; and Australian Cap. Terr.
• Same-Sex Unions Registry & Some Benefits in Seven Nations
and Five US states: Argentina, Columbia, Croatia, Czech
Republic, Hungary, Israel, Portugal (US: AK, DC, HI, ME &
WA) ; and South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, recent Fed laws.

Global (US) Progress of Same-Sex Marriage, and Marriage Equivalent Civil Unions or
Partnerships, 1985-2007
YEAR
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2007
2008-Nov
Same-Sex
Marriage
0
0
0
0
3 (1)
5
6* (2)
Same-Sex Marriage-
Equivalent
Unions/Partners
0
1
3
6 (1)
13 (3)
15 (6)
15 (6)
Conclusions:

Hawaii:; Baehr v. Miicke, 196 WL 694235 (Haw. Cir. Ct. 1996), on remand from Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 67 (Haw.
1993), rev’d by constitutional amendment (1998).
Alaska: Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, No. 3AN-95-6562, 1998 WL 88743 at 6 (Alaska. Super. Ct., Feb. 27, 1998) reversed by constitutional amendment (1998).
Massachusetts: Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 943, 959 Mass. 2003); In re Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, 802 N.E.2d 565, 569-71 (Mass. 2004).
Oregon: Li v. State, 2004 WL 1258167 (Or. Cir. April 20, 2004), rev’d, 110 P.3d 91 (Ore. 2005).
Washington: Castle v. State, 2004 WL 1985215, *11 (Wash.Super. Sep 07, 2004), and
Andersen v. King County, 2004 WL 1738447 *3,4,11 (Wash. Super. 2004) rev’d 138 P.3d963 (Wn. 2006).
Maryland: Deane v. Conway, Case No. 24-C-04-005390 (Cir. Crt. Balt. City, Md. Jan. 20, 2006), available at http://www.baltocts.state.md.us/civil/highlighted_trials/Memorandum.pdf
, rev’d Conaway v. Deane 932 A.2d 571
(Md. 2007).
New York: Hernandez v. Robles, 794 N.Y.S.2d 579 (N.Y.Sup., Feb. 4, 2005) rev’d 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006).
California:In re Coordination Proceeding, Special Title [Rule 1550(c)] Marriage Cases, No. 4365, 2005 WL 583129 (Cal.
Super. Crt. San. Fran., Mar. 14, 2005), aff’d In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Calif. 2008).
Connecticut: Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, SC 17716 (October 16, 2008)
– This Month!

Two Court Rulings Mandating Legalization of Same-Sex
Unions Equal to Marriage
Vermont: Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) (marr-equiv SSUs).
New Jersey: Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.wd 196 (N.J. 2006) (marr-equiv SSUs).

Eleven Constitutional Doctrines Invoked to Mandate Same-
Sex Marriage, Strike SMAs and DOMAs, etc.
-Equal Protection
-Substantive Due Process Privacy
-Substantive Due Process Right to Marry
-Substantive Due Process Right of Association
-Substantive Due Process Right to Expression
-Privileges & Immunities
-Full Faith & Credit
-Bill of Attainder
-Establishment of Religion
-Freedom of Religion
-Arbitrary and Irrational

Explicit constitutional protection for family and marriage is the global norm in international and comparative constitutional law today.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted 1948, recognizes that “[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

33 International Treaties, Charters, Conventions and other Legal Documents with
Provisions Concerning Marriage and/or Families
(Research originally compiled by Scott Borrowman, J.D., 2005)
Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees
Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery
International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination
Convention on Consent to Marriage,
Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages
Recommendation on Consent to Marriage,
Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages
International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights
Duties of Man
Conference on Security and Co-operation in
Europe, Final Act (Helsinki Accord)
African Charter on Human and People’s
Rights (Banjul Charter)
African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child
Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights on the Rights of
Women in Africa
Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the
Child of 1914
United Nations General Assembly Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
Declaration of the Rights of the Child
Proclamation of Teheran of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of Their Families
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam
Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women
Draft Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples
Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action,
Fourth World Conference on Women
See also Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Declaration on Social Progress and
Development
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
Declaration on Social Progress and
Development
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction
Declaration on the Rights of Mentally
Retarded Persons
Convention on the Rights of the Child
European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed
Conflict
American Convention on Human Rights
American Declaration of the Rights and
Declaration on the Rights of Disabled
Persons
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms

145 Nations (/191) with Constitutional Provisions on Family and/or Marriage
Burkina-Faso *
Cambodia *
Cameroon
Canada *
China *
Columbia *
Congo *
Costa Rica *
Croatia *
Cuba *
Cyprus *
(Including 83 Nations with Substantive Protections of Marriage)
Afghanistan
Albania *
Algeria
Andorra *
Angola *
Antigua & Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia *
Australia *
Austria *
Bahrain *
Barbados
Belarus *
Belize
Belgium *
Bhutan
Bolivia *
Bosnia-Herzegovina *
Brazil *
Bulgaria *
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
Czech Republic
Dominica
Dominican Republic
East Timor *
Ecuador *
Egypt
El Salvador *
Equatorial Guinea *
Eritrea *
Estonia
Ethiopia *
Fiji
Finland
Gabon *
Gambia
Georgia *
Germany *
Ghana
Greece *
Guatemala
Haiti *
Honduras *
Hungary *
Iceland
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland *
Italy
Jamaica
Japan *
Kazakhstan *
Kosovo
Kyrgyzstan
Kuwait
Latvia *
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya *
Lichtenstein
Lithuania *
Luxembourg *
Macedonia *
Madagascar
Malawi *
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia *
Montenegro *
Mozambique *
Namibia *
Nauru
Nicaragua *
Niger *
Nigeria *
North Korea *
Oman
Pakistan *
Panama *
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay *
Peru *
Philippines *
Poland *
Portugal *
Qatar
Romania *
Russian Federation
Rwanda *
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent
Saudi Arabia
Senegal *
Serbia *
Sierra Leone
Slovakia *
Slovenia *
Somalia *
South Africa
South Korea *
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan *
Suriname *
Swaziland *
Sweden *
Switzerland *
Syria *
Tajikistan *
Thailand
Togo *
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan *
Tuvalu
Uganda *
Ukraine *
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay *
Uzbekistan *
Venezuela *
Vietnam *
Yemen
Zambia
See also:
Chechnya
Hong Kong
Puerto Rico
Tibet
*= protects both marriage & family
No * = protects family only

Thirty-Seven of 191 Sovereign Nations Have Constitutional
Provisions/Amendments Protecting Conjugal Marriage
Armenia (art. 32)
Azerbaijan (art. 34)
Belarus (art. 32)
Brazil (art. 226)
Bulgaria (art. 46)
Burkina Faso (art. 23)
Cambodia (art. 45)
Cameroon (art. 16)
China (art. 49)
Columbia(art. 42)
Cuba (art. 43)
Ecuador (art. 33)
Eritrea (art. 22)
Ethiopia (art. 34)
Gambia (art. 27)
Honduras (art. 112)
Japan (art. 24)
Latvia (art. 110)*
Lithuania (art. 31)
Malawi (art. 22)
Moldova (art. 48)
Montenegro (art. 71)
Namibia (art. 14)
Nicaragua (art. 72)
Paraguay (arts. 49,51,52)
Peru (art. 5)
Poland (art. 18)
Serbia (art. 62)
Somalia (art. 2.7)
Suriname (art. 35)
Swaziland (art. 27)
Tajikistan (art. 33)
Turkmenistan (art. 25)
Uganda (art. 31)
Ukraine (art. 51)
Venezuela (art. 77)
Vietnam (art. 64)
See also Mongolia,
Romania, Hong Kong

Article 45 of the Cambodian Constitution: “(4) Marriage shall be conducted according to conditions determined by law based on the principle of mutual consent between one husband and one wife.”
Article 42 of the Constitution of Columbia: the family “is formed . . . by the free
decision of a man and woman to contract matrimony . . . .”
Article 24 of the Constitution of Japan: “Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis.”
Article 110 of the Constitution of Latvia reads: “The State shall protect and support marriage—a union between a man and a woman,…”

In Many Nations & Communities There Is A
Strong Grassroots Movement to Give
Constitutional Protection to Conjugal
Marriage and Marital Families That Surpasses the Movement for Same-Sex Marriage.

• Recent conference of family law experts from
11 nations in Central & Eastern Europe:
– none have SSM,
– only one has marriage-equivalent SSCUs.
• Five nations in Central and Eastern Europe are among the 37 Nations of the world whose constitutions explicitly define marriage as the unions of a man and a woman. (Bulgaria,
Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, and
Ukraine).

Same-Sex Marriage is explicitly prohibited by written law in 45 states (all states except
Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
Mexico, and Rhode Island*).

MOST US States (30/50) Have Adopted
Constitutional Amendments Protecting Conjugal Marriage
Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Kentucky
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
30 States with marriage amendments :
Missouri
Minnesota
Nebraska
Nevada
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wisconsin
3 States with votes in
Nov. 2008 ALL passed:
Arizona
California
Florida

Eight SMAs Protect Status of Marriage:
AK, CO, MS, MO, MN, NV, OR, TN
E.g., “To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.” Alaska Const., Art. I, sec. 25 (1998)
** AZ and CA 2008 Amendments of this type
Eighteen SMAs Protect Substance of Marriage (Forbid Giving Equivalent Substance to DPs or
CUs):
AL, AR, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MI, NB, ND, OH, OK, SC, SD, TX, UT, VI, WI
E.g., “Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.” Utah Const., Art. I, sec. 29 (2004)
**FLORIDA’S AMENDMENT 2 (2008) is in this category
One SMA Protects Government Structure (Legislature Can Ban SSM):
HI
“The Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” Haw.
Const., Art. I, sec. 23 (1998)

VOTER SUPPORT FOR STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS
The average vote in favor of state marriages amendments in all of the states combined is nearly 69% (before Nov 2008).

Support for Marriage Is Especially Strong Among
Minorities and Emerging Democracies
•
• General Colin Powell described the difference between black civil rights claims for equality and gay rights claims for equality. “Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic; sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics.
Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”
• Minority votes for SMAs higher than majority.

• State Year
• GA 2004
• MI
• OH
2004
2004
• OK
• TN
• VA
• AZ
• CA
2004
2006
2006
2006
2008
% All % Afr-Am % Dem
75% 80% 64%
59% 59%
62% 61%
45%
44%
76% 74%
81% 86%
67%
72%
57% 56%
49% 61%
52.5 70%
32%
25%
?

So What?
Who cares?
What does it matter?
What’s the Harm?
Why not Live and Let Live?
What business does government have regulating marriage, any way?

Marriage protects the resources and conditions necessary for free individuals and democratic communities to survive, thrive and flourish. Thus, society protects marriage to protect the critical substructure and infrastructure of a liberal, democratic society.
Liberal Democracy Requires “Virtue” to Survive and
“Virtue” is cultivated and nurtured by mediating institutions – mainly in homes and churches.

We celebrate marriage to signify our entering into a public institution and our undertaking a public trust
Marriage has profound social & political significance & consequence
That is why all states regulates marriage – a pre-legal, pre-state relational institution
That is why the state cannot ‘get out of the business of regulating marriage’
Marriage provides the foundation & generates the infrastructure of all liberal republican democracies, especially American constitutionalism

“The idea of virtue was central to the political thought of the founders of the
American republic. Every body of thought they encountered, every intellectual tradition they consulted, every major theory of republican government by which they were influenced emphasized the importance of personal and public virtue.
It was understood by the founders to be the precondition for republican government, the base upon which the structure of government would be built.
Virtue was the common bond that tied together the Greek, Roman, Christian,
British, and European ideas of government and politics to which the founders responded.”
-Richard Vetterli & Gary Bryner, In Search of the Republic 1 (1996)

“[L]iberty cannot be preserved, if the manners of the people are corrupted.”
“[A]ll popular and well-mixed governments [republics] . . . are ever established by wise and good men, and can never be upheld otherwise than by virtue: The worst men always conspiring against them, they must fall, if the best have not power to preserve them. . . . [and] unless they be preserved in a great measure free from vices. . . .”
“[I]f vice and corruption prevail, liberty cannot subsist; but if virtue have the advantage, arbitrary power cannot be established.”
-Discourses Concerning the Government (1698)

•
• “[I]n a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue.”
. . . .
• “When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possessed the whole community. [E]ach citizen is like a slave who has run away from his master.”
• -The Spirit of the Laws, Bk. III, Ch. 3 (1755)
• “As virtue is necessary in a republic, and in a monarchy honour, so fear is necessary in a despotic government . . . .”
• -The Spirit of the Laws, Bk. III, Ch. 9 (1755)
• “It is the business of the legislature to follow the spirit of the nations, when it is not contrary to the principles of government; for we do nothing so well as when we act with freedom and follow the bend of our natural genius.”

“In a democracy, where the right of making laws resides in the people at large, public virtue, or goodness of intention, is more likely to be found than either of the other qualities of government [wisdom or power].”
Commentaries on the Laws of England, bk. I, § II
*49 (1765-69)

Both supporters and opponents of the
Constitution of 1787 believed that virtue was essential to a popular republic and that immortality and corruption could be looked upon as forerunners of tyranny.

“[W]hat is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
-The Federalist Papers, No. 51 (1787) (J. Madison)
Madison told the Virginia ratifying convention :
“To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”
-The Writings of James Madison 223
(Gaillard Hunt ed., 1904)

“[It is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which
Freedom can securely stand. . . The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virute . . . . “-Letter to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-Letter from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts (1798) in 9 Life and Works of John Adams 229
(1954) (emphasis added)

Washington also declared, “Free suffrage of the people can be assured only ‘so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.’”
-The Papers of George Washington, Letter of Feb. 7, 1788.
“[T]he foundations of our National policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality”
-Inaugural Address of 1789
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . .
Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”
-Farewell Address (Sept. 17, 1796)

“Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”
Source: http://quotes.libertytree.ca/quotes_by/patrick+henry .

• “Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
• Ordinance of the Northwest Territory, art.
III (1787)

“American republicans saw “marriage as a training ground of citizenly virtue.”
Likewise, “it served as a ‘school of affection’ where citizens would learn to car about others.”
One founding era writer noted that “by marriage ‘man feels a growing attachment to human nature, and love of his country.’”
-Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows, A History of Marriage and the Nation 18-20 (2000)
John Adams: “The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families . . . .
How is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of
Morality or Religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their Mothers live in
Habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their
Mothers?”
-4 Diary and Autobiography of John Adams 123 (L.H. Butterfield, et al. ed. 1961)
“George Mason argued that republican government was based on an affection ‘for altars and firesides.’

• Historian Linda Kerber:
• “The Republican Mother’s life was dedicated to the service of civic virtue: she educated her sons for it, she condemned and corrected her husband’s lapses from it. If, according to. . . [one] commonly accepted claim, the stability of the nation rested on the persistence of virtue among its citizens, then the creation of virtuous citizens was dependent on the presence of wives and mothers who were well informed, ‘properly methodical,’ and free of ‘invidious and rancorous passions.’ . . .
To that end the theorists created a mother who had a political purpose and argued that her domestic behavior had a direct political function in the Republic.”
• Historian Michael Grossberg:
• “By charging homes with the vital responsibility of molding the private virtue necessary for republicanism to flourish, the new nation greatly enhanced the importance of women’s family duties. . . . At times ‘it even seemed as though republican theorists believed that the fate of the republic rested squarely, perhaps solely, on the shoulders of its womenfolk.’”
• Historian Jan Lewis: “Revolutionary-era writers held up the loving partnership of man and wife in opposition to patriarchal dominion as the Republican model for social and political relationships.”

An Austrian social commentator and contemporary of Alexis de
Tocqueville wrote:
“The American Constitution is remarkable for its simplicity; but can only suffice a people habitually correct in their actions, and would be utterly inadequate to the wants of a different nation. Change the domestic habits of the Americans, their religious devotion, and their high respect for morality, and it will not be necessary to change a single letter in the Constitution in order to vary the whole form of their government.”
-Francis J. Grund, The Americans, in the Moral, Social, and Political
Relations 171 (1837)

1) It’s not really marriage – regardless of the label
-Men and women are different
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a famous decision: “Physical differences between men and women. . . are enduring: ‘The two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one [sex] is different from a community composed of both.’” United States v.
Virginia, 116 S.Ct. 2264, 2276 (1996)
-Calling a same-sex union a marriage doesn’t make it a marriage.
-Abraham Lincoln

2) Transformative Power of Inclusion : Same-sex relationships differ in profound ways form conjugal marriage
For example, a study by Dutch AIDs researchers, published in 2003 in the journal AIDS, reported on the number of partners among Amsterdam’s homosexual population. They found:
- 86% of new HIV/AIDS infections in gay men were in men who had steady partners.
- Gay men with steady partners engage in more risky sexual behaviors than gays without steady partners.
- Gay men with steady partners had 8 other sex partners (“casual partners”) per year, on average.
- The average duration of committed relationships among gay steady partners was 1.5 years.
A recent study of 2,583 older sexually active gay men reported that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever . . . was 101-500,” while
10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners, and another 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand sexual partners in their lifetime.

Same-sex relationships differ in profound ways form conjugal marriage, cont’d
Kirk and Madsen reported in their that “the cheating ratio of
‘married’ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%. . .
.”
2006 Norwegian and Swedish studies found divorce-risk levels were about 50% higher for registered gay men partnerships than for comparable heterosexual couples, and controlling for variables, the risk of divorce was twice as high for lesbian couples as it was for gay men couples.

3) Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, Emerging
Conflicts (Becket Fund 2008)
All scholars from right to left agree that there will be legal conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.
• Chai Feldblum (Georgetown), Moral Conflict and Conflicting Liberties, Id. at 123.
• “’Intellectual coherence and ethical integrity demand that we acknowledge that civil rights laws can burden an individual’s belief liberty interest when conduct demanded by these laws burdens an individuals’s core beliefs . . . .” (125)
• Laws that protect LGBT liberty “might, in certain circumstances, burden what I call ‘belief liberty.’” (130)
• “[F]or all my sympathy for the evangelical Christian couple who may wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried straight couples and all gay couples, this is a point where I believe an inevitable choice between liberties must come into play. In making that choice, I believe society should come down on the sdie of protecting the identity of GLBT people. Once an individual chooses to enter the stream of economic commerce by opening a commercial establishment, I believe it is legitimate to require that they play by certain rules. . . . Just as we do not tolerate [racial discrimination] we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect the ability of LGBT people to live in the world.” (153)

Threats to Religious and Other Civil Rights
• CA SCT decision : Catholic doctor legally liable (if facts) because declined ART services to a lesbian; no religious exemption
Elsewhere:
• -Georgetown University
• United States, the Boy Scouts denied privileges and public facilities.
• -Canada, Knights of Columbus was held liable
-Hospital (abortion already, so same-sex marriage, also)
• -Educators and schools are vulnerable.
• - Massachusetts numerous school controversies
• - British Columbia, Trinity Western University denied accreditation
Free speech rights have already been abused: effort to “silence” oppons
• -Sweden Pentacostal Pastor Ake Green
• -Similar cases have been reported in Canada and England & PA & OH
(African-American administrator at college in OH).
• Suit involving CDC counselor for referral (‘homophobic’)
• - Ireland, ICCL warned that Catholic Bishops and clergy of hate speech

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Resolution against Catholic
Adoption Policy
San Francisco BS Resolution against Evangelical youth organization
New Mexico Photographers forced into court, ordered to pay nearly $7,000 in attorneys fees for not photographing same-sex commitment ceremony
Judges/Magistrates/Registrars punished, forced to resign
Prop 8 Abuses
200,000 lawn signs defaced or stolen
Website targeting LDS donors to Yes on 8
Professor Richard Peterson: harassment, death threats, univ
Hyatt Hotel in San Diego – boycott to punish (AALS partly sptd)
SHOW - “Invasion of the Home” TV Ad

Available at the BYU Bookstore at http://www.byubookstore.com/ePOS/form=item.html&item=0761843160&store=439 .
Also available from the publisher at http://www.univpress.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0761
843167

We must speak up and stand up
 One of our responsibilities as scholars is to warn of dangers
 - Elie Wiesel, Night: “ Moishe the Beadle”
 Elie Wiesel, Nobel Acceptance Speech: “I swore never to be silent . .
. . We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor . . . .” We too must speak up and get involved.”
• “There is so much to be done, there is so much that can be done. One person – a Raoul Wallenberg, an Albert Schweitzer, a
Martin Luther King, Jr. – one person of integrity can make a difference, a different of life and death.”

Standing for Something
• “We cannot effect a turnaround in a day or a month or a year.
But with enough effort, we can begin a turnaround within a generation, and accomplish wonders within two generations – a period of time that is not very long in the history of humanity.”
– Gordon B. Hinckley, Standing for Something