I am writing to respond to your offensive and demeaning Press Release that was excerpted on SFGate.com, and to give you some real world perspective on the issue of Proposition 8.

You’ve probably noticed that I am addressing this letter to “Mister” Niederauer, rather than by your job title. I am not one of your co-workers nor am I one of your customers. Therefore your job title has no bearing in this communication. As far as I am concerned, you are merely the District Manager of a multi-national foreign corporation. You have as much clout in the real world as the “Most Reverend District Manager” of a Bay Area Starbucks.

However, if you insist that your job title somehow gives you a “special” voice to the voters of San Francisco, I trust that you will equally acknowledge my ecumenical status as a member of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Inc., because in your words, "Tolerance, respect and trust are always two-way streets…” If you prefer that I acknowledge you by the terms “Archbishop” or “Most Reverend” in further communications, I trust you will refer to me thereafter by my title as “Sister”. (In fact, I have held my title in San Francisco since 1991, and your job transfer only occurred a few years ago, so if ecumenical titles mean anything in the local political arena, I would, in a sense, outrank you.)

My point, though, is that spiritual beliefs have no place in politics, particularly if they come directly from the pulpit. If you felt obliged to address a political issue you felt strongly about, you have the right to speak out as “George”, but it is inappropriate in your vocation to get involved in politics “on company time”. You need to learn that there are things you can and can’t do while on the company time clock or wearing your work uniform. If your primary allegiance is to a European foreign nation / corporate headquarters rather than the laws of the United States of America, then your status as a pubic figure is questionable, if not treasonous.

If you or other supporters of Proposition 8 are insistent that connotation of words like “marriage” and “domestic partnerships” are separate but equal, then you should have no problem with the media or the public making no distinction between terms like “Catholic Church” and “Catholic Corporation”. The organization with whom you are employed is in the business of collecting money and providing services, not unlike other non-profit corporations. It’s that special connotation of words like “church” that put organizations like yours in a special category. Wouldn’t it be sad if the playing field between your employer and other competing non-profit corporations were suddenly level?

Is that what you fear by allowing everyone the same marriage rights? Do child bearing heterosexuals deserve special rights just like churches deserve special rights over non-profit corporations that provide the same services? Isn’t that a bit arrogant?

I strongly disagree with the following statement for several reasons, “The churches that worked in favor of Proposition 8 did so because of their belief that the traditional understanding and definition of marriage is in need of defense and support, and not in need of being re-designed or re-configured.”

1. Churches should not be involved in secular political issues. As written, Proposition 8 made no mention of churches or religion.

2. To what era of civilization does the term “traditional marriage” refer? Fifty years ago? One hundred years ago? Two thousand years ago? My grandmother had a “traditional marriage” in the early 1900’s. She was considered the “property” of her husband and therefore it was unnecessary for her to vote. If that fits your definition of a traditional marriage, then half the votes in favor of Proposition 8 should be disqualified because they were cast by traditionally married women. I’d love to hear you defend that notion of traditional marriage in today’s world.

3. The California Supreme Court defined civil marriage in 2008. A preemptive attack on the status quo orchestrated by you was an attempt to have the established law “re-designed or re-configured”.

4. To date, not a single couple in a “traditional” marriage has stepped forward to state that the sanctity of their marriage has been affected by the 18,000 same sex weddings that occurred in California. Please provide your list of Divorce Decrees that list “Sanctity of our marriage was destroyed by homosexuals” as the reason for their divorce.

SEE PART TWO FOR MORE