As reported here, 9th Council District Candidate Steven Neal recently participated in an interview with the Long Beach Business Journal (LBBJ) during which he made some comments concerning Proposition 8, the City’s Equal Benefits Ordinance and marriage in general that have some in our community very upset. So much so that four local Democratic Clubs – Neal is a registered Democrat – have now published an open letter to Mr. Neal asking him to explain himself and to clarify his comments.

The four Democratic clubs co-authoring the open letter are: Long Beach Lambda Democratic Club, Long Beach Democratic Club, Long Beach Young Democrats Club and Long Beach Democratic Women’s Study Club. Their open letter can be read by clicking here.

Public comments on topics like those mentioned always tend to inflame community members in one direction or another. I learned this first-hand when I was honored to participate with First District Councilmember Robert Garcia as a guest speaker during a Beer & Politics forum concerning the then-proposed Equal Benefits Ordinance, hosted by the Long Beach Junior Chamber in July 2009.

Few people, at least in Long Beach, feel entirely ambivalent about any topics that either directly or indirectly impact the many fine members of our local LGBT community. I think that is as it should be because many in our LGBT community have, in my opinion, been treated as second-class citizens in California and in our nation for a long, long time. Even though I remain entirely unconvinced that the City’s Equal Benefits Ordinance (now codified in Chapter 2.73 of our Municipal Code) is the right way to address discrimination against members of our LGBT community in Long Beach, my vocal opposition to Proposition 8 remains a matter of public record.

Unfortunately one occasional side effect of feeling so passionate about State and local LGBT issues is that a person’s comments are sometimes taken out of context, misrepresented and misunderstood. I believe this to be true in the case of Mr. Neal’s comments to LBBJ Publisher George Economides in the article in question.

In their open letter, the four Democratic Clubs state: “You are quoted as saying that same-sex marriage is…” instituted by God…” and you “don’t think man has the ability or the right to change that.”
Some in our community are now accusing Mr. Neal of being “unable to separate church and state” and “mix(ing) (his) religion with politics” and “full on bigotry against a large part of the citizens he is supposed to represent”.

Here are the facts: The LBBJ asked Mr. Neal a vague and compound question: “Councilman Garcia pushed and got an Equal Benefits Ordinance. Do you support gay rights? You’re an assistant pastor. What about Prop. 8?”

Mr. Neal answered: “With Prop. 8, I believe that marriage is an institution instituted by God. And that being said, I don’t think that man has the ability or the right to change that.

I think Mr. Neal chose to answer the portion of the question concerning Prop. 8 according to his personal religious beliefs, beliefs he has no less of a right to hold and to follow than anyone else. But there is nothing in this answer that should cause anyone to fear that Neal would not have respected and abided by the State Constitution had Prop. 8 been defeated and gay marriage remained legal in California or that, if elected; he would not represent all of the constituents in his District to the best of his ability.

The open letter continues: “You also refer to the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) Community as ‘a lifestyle that people choose…’ We respectfully ask you to clarify or recant these anti-LGBT comments.”

Here are the facts: Mr. Neal actually said: “Now to go back to the ordinance that Councilman Garcia moved, if that is a lifestyle that people choose and they have made a life for themselves in that manner and they are living together, cohabitating, I do believe that they should have benefits. But when it comes to marriage, I have to go with the stance that I believe is supported by scripture.”

Mr. Neal believes that those who live an LGBT lifestyle do so by choice. That, as free and consenting adults, they choose the lifestyle they are leading. I believe this to be no less true for members of our LGBT than it is for our straight community. Members in both groups make a conscious choice to live as and with whom they choose and it is entirely their right to do so. Mr. Neal then went on to say that he believes that registered domestic partners “should have benefits”.

I don’t see anything in Mr. Neal’s comments as published in the LBBJ that are in any way or to any degree “anti-LGBT”. He simply has personal religious beliefs concerning what constitutes a marriage. Personally, I happen to be endorsing Vice Mayor Val Lerch’s write-in candidacy to serve a 3rd consecutive term in Ninth Council District but I do not think anyone should be pilloried because they happen to ascribe to a specific faith and are honest and direct enough to freely and publicly admit that.

As is so often the case, however, there is a much bigger picture here, that of the relationship between religion and government. Many misinterpret the religion clause of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to mean that religion can have no place in government. This is absolutely not correct. All of our nations founding documents are replete with references to God and the Creator.

This nation was founded on the principle that free peoples must be free to follow their own religious belief system but that no one specific belief system should be dictated or mandated by the State. Thus “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” means just that; Congress (and by extension the States, counties and municipalities) shall not legislate religion. Government shall neither endorse nor discourage any religion as a matter of law.

This is precisely my argument against Proposition 8 because I interpret the choice of any consenting adult to marry another to be an aspect of religious practice. Beyond a simple desire to cohabitate, those who choose to be married are seeking to have their unions solemnized and this is a practice specific to religion which I, in turn, define as, a ritual observance of faith… any faith.

Our Constitution does not address which religions should or should not be endorsed or discouraged. It makes no value judgments between Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Islam or any other “ritual observance of faith.” It simply holds that such judgments are not the purview of government and, so, no religion should be endorsed and none discouraged by government.

Thus if government is going to extend rights and privileges to one group of consenting adults through marriage, then it must extend those same rights and privileges to another group of consenting adults in the same manner.

Clearly there must exist exceptions: People who violate the law or abuse or victimize others, under the guise of religious practice must not be tolerated in the civil society. But this is not the case in our adult LGBT community. They are consenting adults freely choosing to solemnize their unions and commitments to one another, no differently from straight couples that are making the same choices. There is no law violated here. There is no victimization. There is only caring, commitment, dedication and love for one another.

Our dear friends Justin and Ralph are no less committed and devoted to one another than any straight married couple we know, in point of fact I think they are far more so than several of the straight married couples we know. Who is any adult to judge that another adult’s love for their chosen adult partner is somehow less worthy of respect and consideration and, more to the point, government recognition than any others?

I submit that no adult should do so, of course, but where the Constitution is concerned I believe no government in the nation can do so, not and remain properly adherent to the principles that helped to craft the religion clause of the 1st Amendment.

So there you have it: Mr. Neal deserves the same respect and consideration for his religious beliefs that others insist upon for themselves. I don’t happen to think he is the best candidate for the Ninth District Council seat but that judgment has nothing whatsoever to do with his religious beliefs.

I hold that Proposition 8 was, and remains, entirely unconstitutional for very similar reasons… our adult LGBT community deserves the self same respect and consideration and government recognition for their ritual observances of faith that our straight community enjoys for theirs.

I very much welcome your questions and your comments!

Click here to read our policy on covering the Long Beach City Council.