Calif. May Still Recognize Marriages if Prop. 8 Passes

California is still counting upwards of 4 million absentee and provisional ballots to determine the outcome of Proposition 8, but marriages performed over the past 5 months may still be honored if it passes.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown said that the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California between June 16 and November 4 will still be recognized as marriages.

"I believe that marriages that have been entered into subsequent to the May 15 Supreme Court opinion will be recognized by the California Supreme Court," Brown told the San Francisco Chronicle in August. He also said that the outcome of Proposition 8 would likely only apply to future marriages.

The ballot initiative's language does not mention revoking marriage recognition from those couples. The National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal warn, however, that Proposition 8 proponents might file a lawsuit to invalidate those marriages.

Comments

[J OF SAC]

IT MAKES ME WONDER WHY WE EVEN BOTHER TO VOTE! I UNDERSTAND, NOT AGREE, WITH THE FACT THAT HOMOSEXUALS WANT THE SAME RECONITION AS HETEROSEXUALS WHEN IT COMES TO THE RIGHTS OF COUPLES. HOWEVER!, THAT IS NOT NOT NOT THE WAY GOD INTENDED THINGS TO BE...AND IT MAKES ME ILL TO HEAR SOMEONE REFER TO THEMSELVES AS A MAN/WOMAN OF THE CLOTH (ESSENTIALLY PROFESSING A PERSON OF GOD) AND AGREE THAT SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS ARE OKAY, THAT MARRIAGES SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE DONE. WHO ARE YOU????!!!!!!! IF YOU WANT TO LAY UP WITH SOMEONE WHO IS THE SAME SEX AS YOU, THAT IS YOUR RIGHT, BUT NOT GOD GIVEN. THE ONLY THING THAT GOD GIVES US IN THAT RESPECT IS THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE. RIGHT, WRONG OR OTHERWISE. IT SADDENS ME TO SEE THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN SOMETHING GOD GAVE US TO REPRESENT SOMETHING SOOOOO WRONG AND NOT GOD. WHAT AM I TALKING ABOUT?, THE RAINBOW.
DO WHAT YOU MUST DO BUT STOP TRYING TO SHOVE IT DOWN EVERYBODYS THROAT THAT IT IS AN ACCEPTABLE LIFESTYLE BECAUSE FOR ME AND ALL THOSE WHO VOTED FOR PROP 8, IT IS NOT.

[Ted]

Jim Garlow, one of mega church leaders behind Prop 8, said on local San Diego TV last night that they want to invalidate all of the same-sex marriages.

[Ted]

J OF SAC: Thanks for showing that the exit polls that said that the un-educated were more likely to want to turn gay people into second-class citizens. Learn some grammar and turn off the caps lock, you stupid bigot.

[Brian]

J OF SAC: One of the great things about America is the separation of church and state. Prop 8 is about changing the constitution of California to take away the ability for gay couples to get married. This is unfair and creates second class citizens of gay and lesbian couples. Whatever your "God" intended is irrelevant because religious beliefs are to be kept separate from government and law. It's your right to believe whatever you want, but our government should not take away one group's rights because your religion doesn't agree with it. God should be kept out of goverment. If you don't believe in that statement then you are living in the wrong country.

[Lisa]

Well said Ted and Brian. But my question is for J of Sac... What in the world are you doing on a LGBT webpage?? Out cruzing while the wife is at church?? If you would quit thumping on the Bible and actually open it and read you would see that Jesus never mentioned a thing about homosexuality. As a matter of fact the only mention of same sex anything was married strait folk having same sex relations... So it looks like you are the abomination...NOT US.

[Jim Webber]

Re: J of Sac. Just because J of Sac is trying to cram his filthy values down our throat does not mean he is not gay. He talks exactly like a squalid, ignorant idiot I met in the Mercantile in Sacramento showing people pictures of the little kids he was taking at school playgrounds. That is where a lot of these closeted religious fags hang out. I think that if he is so enamored by his silly God he should do something about getting to heaven as soon as possible to be with Him.

[Grandblvd03]

I'm reading lots of blogs about this issue. Lots of people who favored the ban are willing to support gay civil unions. If you don't believe it, surf around yourself. We need to focus on promoting civil unions and not waste money on lawsuits and forcing the word "marriage" down everyone's throat. They don't want it.

[Bruce McGuire]

A letter to my governor and friends to forward a copy using their email. I ask you all to cut and paste and do the same. I have worked with the same people for over 7 almost 8 years. I do my job well and on the road i represent this company as it was my own. We just had our elections and one of the Amendments was about same sex marriage. It was voted down and i find that many of the people i thought were my friends clearly view me as a second class citizen and unworthy of the rights that married couples have. I dont have to be "married", but i do deserve the same rights as any citizen that has a life long companion. The idea we should accept anything less is discrimination. I am having a very hard time concentrating on my work today because of the idea a married couple a man that i work for and with got mad at his wife and into an arguement with her because she voted to not add the amendment to the State Constitution, and that another wanted to argue with me about it with out even reading the full sentence, or knowing how it could be used to affect any kind of union other than marriage. I feel that these people are pretending to be something they are not and have done so for the last 7-8 years knowing full well that i am not only gay but poz. I have worked 40-60 hours a week and helped every one of them in some means . To the extent of even loaning money for them to keep electricity in their home. I did not expect anything but i did think i was showing them i was a person, a man, and a friend. How could i have been so wrong? If you agree with my opinion please forward a copy to your governor and other state officials. This can not be allowed to be used against us after we have come so far.

Governor Crist

family values are taught by the family at home.That is why it is called family values, right? When your child asks you something, you tell them and if it is not comfortable for you, then you let them tell you later. Teach them right from wrong and you teach them tolerance. It appears that American families have only been able to teach some right from wrong and few tolerance. With the many diversities that reside in this country it is hard for me to believe that one could be confused with the other but it is. Issues are ones that involve state related politics and that being said i put this to you.... my post to same sex marriage ban amendment2 where values are issues when they should not be. Where religion is used as a shield for hatred and to press the wants of a moral majority to oppress a group of people who have different ideas but also seek life liberty and the pursuit of happiness surely this is wrong.

For over 200 years interracial marriage was banned in 40 of these United States based on morality and the bible. Sociology and religion were used in the name of hatred and ignorance then as well as now. These marriages were in the belief of the majority, a tear in the social fabric of this great country. these relationships today are still looked upon with disdain and anger but the supreme court found that the bans were based on bias and of a moral majority, that in their judgment stating that banning races from intermarrying was an offense against human worth and dignity. At that time, 38 states still forbade interracial marriage. The remaining bans were struck down by the US Supreme Court in 1967. The struggle for interracial marriage was won on an argument for civil rights, one very similar to arguments used by those striving for a same sex wedding. I hope that Mr. Obama remembers what his childhood was like being hated by both blacks and white and being treated as an abomination and is a man strong enough to stand up and say we were wrong then and we are wrong now. I have not had the opportunity to fall in love with someone but i hope that if i do i have the ability to show them the same way his parents were given the right to show each other the love they felt. I do not compare myself to his parents but to their situation. I deserve the right to love and legally be with the one i love. Even if when that happens it is a man. This like interracial marriage, should not be an issue for politics but for me and my GOD.

You can also do your part to put an end to this type of discrimination and unfair laws being created to devalue human worth and strip dignity from all Floridians. It is time for strong men to be in office, i hope you are willing to see and stand up for what is right not righteous as to the religious right.

It's time for fundamentalist and orthodox leaders to address divorce, out-of-wedlock births, the exploding rate of births by single-parent mothers,What about the men who abandon these women? the ever increasing number of abandoned babies found in garbage cans with umbilical cords still only hours old before death, those that are left at firehouses and police stations. The ever increasing number of homeless and discarded children who have been put out on the streets and placed in foster care, those who are in orphanages that no one in their righteous community wants, Why are there so many? Why haven't the righteous stepped forward and taken these children in and given them the love and protection they are speaking about? These children were born from women and men raised in these traditional homes. What about children born with aids that die alone and unloved. Where is all this social awareness and caring in everyday life? Why did it only come out when a group that wants to be a part of this world and care for those the righteous have discarded as waste and claim to be doing such a great job at improving society and protecting children from harm have actually been the perpetrator's of the harm they are trying to protect children from, as it relates to their particular religious dogma. They must cease claiming that the failing of the traditional American family is the end result of adult actions of about 5% of the population seeking equality of benefits between committed partners. The result of the American family and it's failures lie at home, and the teaching of intolerance and hatred.

Thank you

Bruce McGuire

- Show quoted text -

P.S. to those i have attached your only a few of my friends but i want you to forward a copy to the office of the governor and all our state officials as well. The more the governors office receives the more he is likely to listen. Forward it to all your friends and have them do the same. We are Americans were deserve the right to be treated fairly and as equals. Not seccond class citizens

[Heather]

Beyond legal differences between civil unions, domestic partnerships, and marriage, I'd also like to add that this "separate but equal" mentality doesn't work. It creates a group of second-class citizens. It wasn't ok to have blacks go to black schools and whites go to white schools. It's not ok to have gays go to civil unions and straights go to marriage.

I'll also add that the last and only other time we've taken AWAY rights in the constitution was Prohibition. ... and we repealed that, because taking AWAY rights is not what we do in the U.S. We strive for equality for all.

The social aspects of the word marriage also have impacts in how society views long-term relationships with same-sex couples. [ Such as the perception of marriage as the accepted social method for displaying life-long commitment and love.] If we want to bring kids into this, gays adopt kids and have kids and it doesn't really seem right to tell them they're a second-class family because their parents are the same gender. They raise kids just as well as straight parents do. [ Studies have shown this time and again] Their families should be given the same recognition under the law as being equal.

The religious aspect of the word 'marriage' is where the trouble comes from, I think. There is a very real distinction between Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage. I hope that people can start to recognize this difference. Maybe most people aren't aware of this, but the government is GRANTING Pastors, Rabbis, etc... the ability to create civil marriages at the same time they create religious ones. The government views them as completely separate entities. We're not arguing to change everyone's definition of religious marriage. Religious marriage has always tended to have stricter definitions of who can marry whom, and that's fine. And regardless of what civil marriages are allowed, churches can still refuse to marry a gay couple, just as they can refuse for any other reason they want; including age, religion, divorcee status, etc... That right will not be removed by allowing gays to have civil marriages.
But Civil Marriage is a wider term. And it's not ok to force a religious definition onto a legal term.

If it's the actual word that's got you so worked up, regardless of the reality of what our legal system has always said about civil marriage and religious marriage being different entities, then change everything to Civil Union in the law. Have the legal and social completely encapsulated in 'civil unions' for everyone. Gay AND straight. [ and Bi, etc] ... and leave the word marriage as something only attached to a church's ceremony. :)

But trying to create a "separate but equal" system again? Come on, people. We know better.

[Kevin]

Heterosexual dictatorship eliminates gay people's rights. Not a surprise. They have been doing this stuff for a long time. Wise up.

[David]

I feel like quoting Thomas Jefferson this morning from his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVII. "Religion," in which he insists on the necessity of getting rid of laws that enforce particular religious views:

"Let us too give this experiment [religious liberty] fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws. It is true, we are as yet secured against them by the spirit of the times. I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution for heresy, or a three years' imprisonment for not comprehending the mysteries of the Trinity. But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims."

Jefferson understood this in 1781; yet, in 2008, we have people insisting that their religious views be written into the Constitution of a State--precisely what Jefferson was writing against. Franklin wrote much the same thing. Perhaps it is time to return to traditional values, not the spurious ones spouted by religious zealots, but the ones articulated in the actual words of the Founders.

[Kim]

I agree with Jim Webber's post. I am straight and wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay couples. I believe they should have the same legal rights as married couples. I don't believe that the union should be recognized as a marriage as in a religious ceremony. While I personally wouldn't care if a church performed a ceremony I do believe that each faith has the right to its beliefs and not apologize or have to change these belief's for popularity. I am catholic and even though I don't agree with some of the teachings of the catholic church I do respect the fact that that is what it is and I either accept it or join another faith. While I still disagree, I choose to stay. I do believe many people are confused that allowing "marriage" for gays is making it exactly the same as when they walked down the aisle in their own church. Words have powerful, emotional meanings for people, which I'm sure everyone is aware of. I think most rational people wouldn't have a problem if the term was changed to union rather than marriage.

[kim]

Sorry, my post is in reply to Grandblvd03, NOT Jim Webber!

[robert]

It began with 90% of black voters supporting an unknown and inexperienced candidate simply because he shared the same color skin.

Now we have discrimination enshrined in the California constitution thanks to these same black voters voting for Proposition 8.

From the CNN web site:

Vote by Race

White yes 47% no 53%

African-American yes 70% no 30%

Latino yes 51% no 49%

Asian yes 47% no 53%

Other yes 50% no 50%

To the gay community: Next time you vote or donate money remember this fact, 70% of black voters chose to discriminate against you.

It is clear who our enemies are and don't ever forget it.

"I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman." (From the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Presidential questionnaire) - Barack Hussein Obama

Obama is no friend of the gay community and never will be.

As gays we need to stop automatically giving the Democrats a blank check every election, especially when they clearly do not support our equal rights. Demand they fight for our rights everyday (not just when it is politically convenient for them) or no money.

[Adrianne]

Robert,

I notice you carefully left out of your listing of CNN statistics the fact that Prop 8 passed with less than 5 million votes, out of 23 million eligible voters and 17 million registered ones. Considering that African Americans comprise less than 7% of California's population, that not all of that 7% registered to vote, and that even less of the number that did actually voted on Prop 8 as opposed to only the presidential election, it's disingenous and inaccurate at best and outright race-baiting at worst to suggest "those homophobic blacks" are the reason for Prop 8's passage. 47% of the majority of the population (the white vote) is significantly more than 70% of the group with the lowest demographic representation among the electorate. So actually, it's those homophobic whites and "others" you should be directing your ire towards. Give me a break!

More troubling is your assertion that blacks owe the gay community something for support of Obama, as well as the outrageous and ridiculous claim that blacks overwhelmingly supported Obama based on race. Oh, and what race were John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, etc., who all had overwhelming black support? If you were actually knowledgable about this election, you would know Hillary Clinton had substantially more black support than Obama until, first, Obama's win in the Iowa caucus, which made him appear to be a viable candidate because he won overwhelming white support, and subsequently the race-baiting remarks made by Bill Clinton during the South Carolina primary. This was when African Americans began to drift to Obama. When his policy positions were so similar to Clinton's, if some wanted to embrace a shared affiliation because of the historic nature of his candidacy, so what? If blacks voted based solely on race, then Lynn Swann, Alan Keyes, JC Watts, and Ken Blackwell would be enjoying elective office as we speak. But as usual, we are represented as a monolith engaging in group think, not individuals with needs, concerns and opinions of our own. Typical privilege talking, along with this idea of feeling betrayed because you apparently think you threw the darkies a bone and now they don't know their place and didn't support your interests. I'm surprised you could balance upright to type with the weight of that hugely arrogant and distorted head bobbling on your shoulders!

Why not just be up front about your bigotry? Admit that you are scapegoating instead of acknowledging the fact that better organization, outreach and PR was needed in the face of the incredibly aggressive push by the CLDS and conservative faith-based organizations to push this proposition through. Lies, propaganda, deceptive advertising, all were tactics utilized to convince people that gay marriage represents the end of the world as we know it. These organizations specifically and aggressively targeted ethnic communities, going to African American, Asian and Latino churches and businesses, buying ad space in their native language newspapers, meeting with community organizations and leaders to directly engage nonwhites and appear to care about and speak to their concerns. There was little similar outreach on the No to Prop 8 side, I guess because those minorities are supposed to be grateful to magnanimous white gays who give lip service to diversity without actually pursuing it. Now you discover maybe those minority communities actually needed to be engaged with, understood, educated about the issues, and communicated with an a way that made this a civil rights issue, rather than a religious or "special rights" issue, as the backers of Prop 8 effectively painted it. Black communities (notice I said 'communities', not 'COMMUNITY; once again, we are not a monolith!) have a responsibility to address and agitate against homophobia and bigotry within those communities; we are human beings and not exempt from the obligation to acknowledge and challenge our own prejudices. But the same onus is on whites in gay communities, to ask why minorities often feel excluded and ignored by them, as well as victimized by outright racism and lack of support.

Most importantly, it might do you well to remember that last time I checked, there were GLBTQs of every ethnicity. So who is the "enemy" of a black gay man? Your comment illustrated the nature of the problem: even you conceptualize and default "gay" to mean "white", which marginalizes and excludes ethnic minorities in GLBTQ communities, and renders them voiceless. How many of them in California voted "Yes" on Prop 8? But you didn't consider them, did you? I cringe when people argue that some oppressions are more damaging and pervasive than others, but your comment positively stinks of the white privilege that keeps some people of color from seeing GLBTQ communities as oppressed minorities in need of civil rights support. But go ahead, keep winning friends and influencing people. Seems to be working out well for you so far.

[GraceJeanJones]

Obama was very influential in helping seal the fate of gays & lesbians regarding Proposition 8 in California, and the anti-gay amendment that passed in Florida.

After reading below what Obama did, how Obama sold gays & lesbians up the river, how Obama fanned the flames of hate that many blacks feel toward gays & lesbians, is it any wonder that 70% of black voters voted against gays & lesbians in California and Florida.

Obama should be ashamed of himself. Such strategies are right out the Karl Rove playbook, even worse...please read below for yourself:

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2007/11/obamas-anti-gay.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/obama-should-repudiate-an_b_69244.html

[Raha]

To Adrianne: Everything you said is absolutely correct. I heard black gay protesters were being called niggers at rallies. I'm black and lesbian and decided to stay home and not protest because of that. There's always been racism and segregation in the gay community

[Josh]

There is no such thing as god, so why are we wasting time arguing about churches and bibles. Human rights are human rights, straight people should not be allowed to speak on behalf of gay people, you can't criticize what you don't understand.

[Steven]

To Robert: I know you are hurting at the moment. So am I. But please don't jump to conclusions because of some very misleading statistics. African Americans were not responsible for the passage of Proposition 8. The figures just don't stack up.

African Americans comprise 6.7% of electors in California. Translate that in to real numbers, subtract unregistered voters and then allow for turnout figures and the most you can come to is 900,000 votes.

Proposition 8 passed by a majority (at last count) of 495,000. 47% of Whites and Asians voted for it. 51% of Latinos voted for it and this was the crucial factor, not the African American vote. Even if African Americans had voted Yes in the same proportions as Whites and Asians, it would still have passed.

So why? We know that homophobia is rampant in Latino and African American communities. But it's also rampant amongst Whites and Asians. Where we find homophobia, we find only one common denominator. And it's not race. It's religion.

What swung Latinos away from us was the Catholic church. In much the same way as Mormons influenced the White vote. But what is interesting with Latinos is how the rhetoric almost didn't work. We should have expected them to reject same-sex marriage completely in line with the teachings of their church. Yet they only did so by the slimmest of majorities.

I have a theory. Most Catholic priests are not obtrusively masculine people, now are they? Even old Ratzinger looks as though he'd break out in a fit of the giggles if somebody were to put a bat up his nightdress. There's something patently ridiculous about a priest in full drag banging on about the evils of homosexuality - with one twitching eye on the altarboys and another on the passion of Christ. My theory is that Catholics are starting to realise just how gay the priesthood is. They're being forced to confront homosexuality because they see it every Sunday in church. Familiarity breeds contempt, and that's our best hope. Give it a few years and the majority may not be on our side, but at least they won't be motivated enough to come out and vote against us.

African American religion is a different kettle of fish however. The Black churches are mostly evangelical Protestant with a married heterosexual priesthood, a strongly masculine outlook and a history of slavery and emasculation to overcome. The penetrative and submissive aspects of male homosexuality raise issues not easy to deal with in this kind of psychology. Issues that conservative Christianity feeds on and perpetuates. I think that no matter how hard we try to reach across the barriers (and how hard did we really try in the No to Prop8 campaign?), little can be achieved in the short term. These prejudices just run too deep.

The Adriannes of this world will of course accuse me of racism. Because that's the kneejerk response to anyone who exposes a flaw in the African American position. Just as we accuse our detractors of homophobia no matter how pertinent a point they make against us. Nobody has an ironclad monopoly on the truth.

But no matter how conflicted the African American position is on homosexuality, don't fall in to the trap of blaming them for our plight. Blame the Pope, blame the Mormon Grand Poobah and most of all, blame yourself and myself and all of us for not doing enough. A majority of people out there CAN be convinced of the justice of our cause. We just have to do the convincing.

[Sydney]

Amendment 2 is one of the forgotten bills that passed on Nov 4. My domestic partnership (since Florida already does not allow marriage) that my employer supported will now be null and void as will the domestic partnerships of heterosexuals. California was not the only state where gays and lesbians lost rights, FL and AZ suffered as well.

[Bradley]

There seems to be such a defeatist attitude on losing Proposition 102, and really, it's fighting over a word.

Instead of accepting defeat, we should be championing the idea that the state create a civil-union vehicle that is open to all who don't want the religious sacrament of marriage.

In your homes, you would define your relationship by any words you choose. On a federal or state form, you would simply check a different box. Meanwhile, in day-to-day, life you would be enjoying the benefits the state affords to "married" people.

Jim Crow laws made people sit in the back of the bus because of skin color. Civil unions would not make two men or a man and a woman who had a civil union ride in the back of the bus.

I believe most people who supported Prop. 102 are in fact in favor of granting civil-union rights to others, and I'm sure a bill would pass in the state Senate without too much fanfare granting these rights.

If religious groups want to claim marriage as religious doctrine, let them. Who cares. The rest of the residents of the state could be afforded the benefits bestowed upon the "marriage" term by the state. - Bradley Bertchie,Phoenix

[XPolygamistWife]

What amazes me is how much money Mormons put up for Prop 8...25 million!

If Mormons gave half that money to The HOPE Organization in St. George, Utah, Elaine Tyler would have the resources to help victims escaping polygamists who practice tyranny over women and impregnate underage girls.

The Mormon Church SPREADS AMERICA'S WEALTH to Warren Jeffs' FLDS polygamists who receive 25-30 million a year in taxpayer handouts. There are 10,000 FLDS polygamists, but they only represent 15-20 of the polygamists in Utah. Most polygamists live off taxpayers.

Why do Mormons go after gays in California and ignore polygamists in Utah? Seems kinda hypocritical when you consider that 200 nations have joined the UN's ban on polygamy because of the human rights violations.

Only in Utah.

Watch the video at:

http://www.bankingonheaven.com/
BANKING ON HEAVEN

[Adrianne]

@ Steven,
I am not sure why you assume I would accuse you of being racist. Of course, I'm also not sure what "flaw in the African American position" you "exposed", especially when nothing you addressed has not been previously tackled by numerous GLBTQ bloggers and writers of color over the last several years. For the most part, I appreciate your nuanced comment and agree with it in tone and spirit. Perhaps you did not read my comment very carefully; as I in no way backed away from the responsibility of the African American community to confront the homophobia within its midst. I just don't see the need for scapegoating, and find it diminishes my desire to be an ally and the potential of success in the overall battle. And despite Josh's assertions to the contrary, the gay community does need straight allies, and allies of color, specifically in order to defeat pernicious legislation like Prop 8.

[Keith]

As a gay person in Fla., I think that we need to get away from using the "marriage" word. This country should issue 'civil union licenses' to anyone that wants to form a civil union (and the rights granted by our government to married people needs to be conveyed in this manner). THEN, the two persons that obtained the civil union licenses can then go their merry way and get blessed , uh er--married---in whatever church that wants to do so. I believe that government has no right to tell religions who they have to (or cannot) marry.

Other problems that would need to be dealt with: adoptions. Obtaining the civil union license would not grant anyone the right to adopt children. Reason primarily being that this is just a bone of contention in this whole mess.

[brucey]

J of Sac,
The last time I checked, a marriage license, is given by the state it is issued in, NOT GOD! For heaven sakes, (get the pun), don't think you, or your religion are that important. I see now why the founding fathers made is plain, RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS LIKE YOU, are exactly what they had in mind when they decided on "separation of church and state". Don't take yourself so seriously, don't worry you're not that important!