Hey, this is kind of a long one. This was written by an old acquaintance from high school, in a facebook note. (reprinted with permission) :) I have long been conflicted myself regarding the church's position on homosexuality... this reflects some things I have thought about. (BTW - this is not about the church's position on homosexuality, it's about a person's position on Proposition 8... but still somewhat related, I suppose.) Good food for thought anyway.
Hello Everybody,
Some of you may have heard that the LDS (i.e. Mormon) church has come out in support of California Proposition 8 (wiki Prop 8 if you’re not familiar with it) and has encouraged its members to support this issue. Since most people who know me also know that I am LDS, I thought it would be appropriate for me to write a little something with regard to my personal stance on Prop 8.
I’ll be honest that this is an issue about which I have felt very conflicted. On the one hand, I firmly believe in respect and love for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. I also do not believe in forcing my religious beliefs onto others, but rather to allow people to make their own lifestyle decisions. I hope that my past actions have been consistent with these two beliefs. On the other hand, I do support traditional notions of the family as the foundation for our society and I support the freedom of a religion to say what actions it thinks are morally wrong and to act accordingly. With these and other considerations in mind, I have thought deeply about this issue over the past few weeks and have decided to come out in support of Proposition 8.
One of the primary reasons that I support Prop 8 is because of the possible (and maybe unintentional) encroachment upon religious liberties that the legalization of same-sex marriages could induce. While the immediate negative consequences to religious freedom from legalizing same-sex marriage are probably negligible, the long term effects might be more damaging. Since legalized same-sex marriages in certain areas in of the US haven’t been around for that long, I don’t know that we have enough data to say one way or the other. (I should note here that some supporters of Prop 8 have tried to cite what few examples there are, but for the most part these examples are misused or are not directly relevant). My personal belief is that I think that the legalization of same-sex marriage sets precedent which could result in an eventual reduction of religious freedoms. For example, I think it is entirely possible that a religious institution could eventually suffer legal consequences if it refuses to perform or recognize same-sex marriages. Also, I can see religious adoption agencies suffering legal consequences if they refuse, on religious grounds, to allow same-sex couples to adopt children through their agency. I also think that religious freedom of speech—the freedom to condemn certain sexual lifestyle choices as morally wrong, for instance—might ultimately come under attack. Obviously, Prop 8 does not directly deal with these issues, but depending on whether it passes or fails, I think that precedent is set one way or the other.
I also support Prop 8 because of my concept of marriage. In my definition, I believe marriage is an institution primarily directed toward producing and raising children and as such is the foundation of any society. Marriage is only secondarily, I believe, an official recognition of a long-term loving relationship. While same-sex relationships may obviously qualify as a marriage in the secondary category, the primary purpose for marriage, according to my view, is not directly achieved within a same-sex relationship. This is not to say that I believe that heterosexual couples are by definition good parents, nor that same-sex couples are necessarily bad, but I think there is an inherent difference between the two types of relationships and that the law should reflect that.
I do wish that some sort of social status could be conferred upon same-sex couples to recognize a long-term commitment to each other. Most recently the law has tried to do this through “civil unions” and while same-sex civil unions supposedly enjoy the same legal privileges in California as do heterosexual marriages, it seems pretty obvious to me that same-sex couples do not get the same social status that a marriage affords. However, I don’t think that same-sex couples should receive this social status at the expense of redefining the concept of marriage, which is more child-centered than adult-centered in my view. I also believe that the possible eventual reduction of religious liberties from legalizing same-sex marriage outweighs the immediate societal benefits of recognizing a loving same-sex relationship through a redefinition of marriage. I wish there were a way to please both crowds, but because of the entangled definitions of civil and religious marriages within our society, I’m not sure there is.
At this point I would like to make a brief, personal observation about other supporters of Prop 8 that I know. Supporters of Prop 8 are typically characterized as blindly discriminatory, rather ignorant, and blatantly homophobic. In some cases this is unfortunately true and supporters of Prop 8 that match those characteristics are often very outspoken, leading to the inference that most people who support measures like Prop 8 all fit that description. However, my personal experience with Prop 8 supporters has been much different. By and large I find that most of them are good and decent people, to my estimation. They are thinking, intelligent individuals who are very respectful of the lifestyle choices of others. Most of them have gay friends, associates, and co-workers, and they are very concerned about offending their friends over this issue. However, they also have strong reasons why they support Prop 8 and they stand up for what they believe in, although often in a quiet fashion so as to avoid the label of bigot. Admittedly I don’t know everyone and I obviously can’t generalize from my personal experience to the entire population, but I guess I just wanted say that people shouldn’t assume that because someone supports a measure like Prop 8, it immediately means that they are bigoted, unthinking, or homophobic.
I also feel I should note that not all Mormons (including people I know) agree with the LDS church with regard to their support of Prop 8, and many have made their views public. These Mormons also are good people and have made many reasonable arguments within an LDS doctrinal sphere on why they do not support Prop 8. While I respect their opinion, my beliefs are obviously different.
In closing, I realize that the position I have taken is rather unpopular and probably isn’t shared by most of the people that I consider to be my friends. With that in mind, I would ask that you please respect me and my opinions, even if you don’t agree with them, as I have hopefully respected you and yours in the past.
Sincerely, Bob Rawle
17 comments:
Dig your tunes. Can't get my head around your convoluted excuses for the obviously prejudiced position that your church leadership has taken.
Great that you're making a stand, but no excuses, please:
" On the one hand, I firmly believe in respect and love for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. I also do not believe in forcing my religious beliefs onto others, but rather to allow people to make their own lifestyle decisions. I hope that my past actions have been consistent with these two beliefs. "
EVERYONE has the right to live their lifestyle already, with or without SSM. It is not forcing your religious beliefs on others to defend the definition of marriage that was instituted long before anyone still alive. Marriage is God-created, it existed before men were, before man created governments to regulate and tax such things.
Remember - it is the activist homosexual community who is FORCING THEIR LIFESTYLE on those of us who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. They would make you feel guilty by labeling you as homophobic, prejudiced (see chino blanco's comments), bigot, intolerant.
Tolerance is a two-way street. But they would have you believe intolerance is only when YOU disagree with THEM. Their intolerance is evident in that they teach your 5-year old that men can marry men, women can marry women, and SO CAN THEY. Then they tell you it didn't happen (see Parker/Massachusetts; 1st graders take field trip to SF City Hall to witness marriage of two lesbians). IT ALREADY HAPPENED. Parents have been arrested for trying to stop it. Children have been told not to tell parents. (If it is such a good thing, why can't children tell their parents?)
Chino blanco has no tolerance. Chino blanco would not let you teach your children that gay marraige is wrong. Chino blanco is a religious bigot.
There's no confusion here. Either you know something is right or something is wrong, and you stand up for that.
Tolerance means you can talk, you can discuss, means you can agree to disagree. From Dictionary.com:
TOLERANCE -
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
Who says that in order to be labeled "tolerant" you have to agree with the other guy? You can be tolerant by allowing their lifestyle, being friends with, being courteous with, being civil towards, not discriminating against in all matters. But where is their tolerance toward our religious beliefs and standards?
I suspect you already know this, but others who read your blog may not.
Julie
Wow, Julie apparently knows me better than I know myself.
So, no further need for me to comment. If you want to know what I'm really thinking, just ask Julie.
Saves me a load of trouble for sure.
The argument posed by your friend is without foundation. To pre-suppose that religious rights are damaged by institutionalizing same sex marriages is quite a stretch. Personally I don't support same sex marriages, but I do however support a person's right to choose. What right does any organization, religious or otherwise have to prevent others from living according to the dictates of their hearts. People want equality in the world, as long as it doesn't make them feel uncomfortable or challenge their own beliefs. If the tyranny of government prevents life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then it's time for a revolution. If a religious organization prevents life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness (according to the dictates of a person's heart), then maybe it's time to quit pretending to be a Christian organization. Having said that, any religious organization can choose not to support anything that goes against their teachings, and, refuse membership if they so choose, but to state that religious rights would be under attack are insidious and un-founded.
Chino - you're silly. Do some research.
Dad - I appreciate your comment. You know how I feel about gay rights, I feel that people should have the right to choose too. When he talked about the encroachment upon religious liberties that same-sex marriage could induce, I don't think he was talking about your right to believe what you want to believe or anything like that. I think he was more talking about things like, same-sex couples demanding that a catholic adoption agency not refuse them services just because the church's teaching are against it... for an example. Or any adoption agency that feels the same way. (A church should not be forced to allow it or shut down business in that state just because someone demanded it. The tolerance thing goes two ways). So it isn't totally unfounded to make that argument, because it has already happened. To me he is saying that it could have far-reaching effects that perhaps we haven't thought about. (Note that he also says that not enough time has passed to say for sure one way or the other.)
Also, and and we know we don't agree on everything, but I did feel bad that you implied that the church is "pretending to be a christian organization", because I really really think you know that isn't true. Still you may say what you think, of course.
Anyway, I didn't mean to start such a heated convo, I just really thought it was a well-thought-out article, and was put very respectfully. I think it's worth thinking about.
you are doing good things.
Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is not taking away anyone's rights. The definition simply distinguishes a union that is biologically capable of producing its own children. Whether a married couple has children or not, I feel like this deserves a separate name--even the potential is kind of a miracle.
Actually this definition can be seen as the ultimate expression of equality our society has to offer: it takes one man and one woman. One could see a lesbian union as a marginalization of men, or a homosexual union as a marginalization of women.
Equality is especially important when it comes to raising children. Children deserve/need a father and a mother. Neither parent should be marginalized.
Yes, many children are already growing up in single-parent homes. Prop 8 should be a reminder to everyone that as a society we need to assist and strengthen families as much as possible. Really, as a society we should be most concerned with the success and health of our families.
http://emiliadelmar.blogspot.com/2008/10/legislation-and-social-issues.html
http://gr8prop8deb8.blogspot.com/
peace!
Look, the thing about this whole topic is, does a male and male or woman and a woman have a right to be joined together in a union that is politically recognized and not discriminated against. Rather or not it incroaches on historically accepted interpretations of "marriage" isn't the issue. How is a traditional marriage changed or altered, by some other un-related act to join a same sex couple? Any? What I'm getting at here if some person wants to "marry" some other person, who, including any religious organization has the right to say that they can't? People want to get all bent on the idea and definition of marriage. So lets say they call it "gay union". Does that change anything whatsoever? Nothing can or will ever change the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman. Certainly children need the influence of a mom and dad. Mom's and Dads have a responsibilty to teach their kids the concepts of their beleifs, and indicated by God. No question. But if people, for whatever reason want to be recognized as being married, who, besides God, has a right to make a judgment on it. And secondly, yes I did mean what I said about stop pretending to be a Christian organization. If a person believes in Christ and tries to be like him, is that not the definition of Christian? wwjd? Would He condem them? Who can say, except Him. He is the only entity that can make that judgment. You want to talk about what the Word says? It says that men and women are intended to united. As for gays? Why doesn't everybody let God decide on that issue? If Catholic (or Mormon for that matter) adoption agencies want to draw the line and not accept gay couples that's their right as a religious organization. Here's a crazy idea, if you're gay and you want to adopt, why go to a religious entity in the first place?
I don't know, that's a very good question.
That's exactly what I'm getting at.
The post is very reasonable explanation of the reason some people support that proposition. However, I disagree that there is a slippery slope to forcing churches to perform marriages for unions they don't accept. Priests and Rabbis already can refuse to perform a ceremony for inter-faith couples and that is not taken away by laws that allow them.
Secondly, to Julie, who states, "It is not forcing your religious beliefs on others to defend the definition of marriage... Marriage is God-created." Isn't asking the state to enforce a definition one believes is "God-created" the same as forcing religious beliefs on others?
Cali, I appreciate you presenting this difficult question. I think gay couples should be allowed to marry and that it has no impact on anyone else - but I see that others disagree with that; the voters will decide, so everyone should vote.
look i'm not an expert on this, but i think the issue that cali's high school friend was trying to convey was whether or not gay people need to give up their seats at the front of the bus to strait people.
now back in the 60's when i was a pot smoking acid trippin' teen, i made love to many a woman and its possible a man slipped in.
There would have been know way of knowing.
We live in sue happy world. We have to just face the facts. A gay couple will go to these institutions just because they know they will be refused. Since the law allows it, the institution will lose and the couple will win.
You can't say it will never happen, because it has. Just look it up. We need Prop 8 to pass not just to protect marriage but also to protect religion as a whole.
Mark
I say it never will happen. I looked and couldn't find it - so, can you show me where a religious organization was successfully sued and forced to marry a couple when it conflicted with the institution's religious beliefs.
Wow, I'm glad my comment has generated such great discussion. Thanks to Cali for putting up my message. Here goes an attempt to respond to some of the posts and maybe clarify my position. [Yikes, it turned out to be a little long.]
First of all, my point about the possible reduction of religious freedoms due to the legalization of same sex marriages was an attempt to say, "Hey, I think there might be some unintentional and far-reaching effects of legalizing same sex marriages and that these effects could encroach upon religious freedoms." I don't think that the effects would happen tomorrow, nor that the examples I've chose are the definite effects. However, it seems that whenever a law is put into place, especially with regard to social issues, people subsequently set about trying to see what are the boundaries of that law--usually through court cases. Cali mentioned the Boston Catholic adoption agency case, which I think is a good example of this. Anyhow, because of California's rigorous anti-discrimination laws, I can see how legalizing same sex marriages sets legal precedent which could eventually result in legal consequences for religious institutions that, in some way, discriminate against same-sex marriages.
I do agree with JonnyB that there isn't (to my knowledge) an instance of a church successfully being sued and required to perform a same sex marriage. But I guess that is my point. Legalized same-sex marriages haven't been around for that long, and we ultimately don't know what will be the ramifications. Preliminary data seems to suggest that religious institutions will come under attack for discrimination, but at this point it is mostly speculation. Give it a few decades, and then we might know more. However, I personally believe that it seems very likely that some religious freedoms will come under attack due to the legalization of same sex marriages, and that the risk is large enough to warrant supporting a measure like Prop 8.
Second, I would like to draw a little attention to my second point about how, I think, a society should define marriage. In fact, I think that my position is better stated by a comment from a friend on my Facebook profile, so I'll quote that. He says, "I've tried to judge the issue based on an objective perspective of what policy is best for society...I've tried to think of why the government should even be involved in recognizing marriage at all. As you've said, I don't think that government is in the business of recognizing lifelong relationships. If two people want to have such a relationship, it's great for them, but I can't see the societal reason that the civil government should recognize that union. It's inherently personal, not public.
I think that civil governments recognize marriage because of something that you've mentioned - children. It's in the best interest of a society to take reasonable measures to ensure that its next generation is born and raised in a healthy, happy environment. You can argue what environments are suitable for raising, but one thing is clear about birth: It is best for children to be born to two married parents who have a lifelong commitment to each other. That's the reason that government should recognize heterosexual marriage - it fosters the existence of unions that will generally produce children in the best situations. Obviously there will always be exceptions and some marriages will not work out, but recognizing heterosexual marriage is still a reasonable step for our government to take.
In this light, government recognition of homosexual unions doesn't make sense. They can adopt, but children are not the expected, normal, and common result of these unions in the same way as heterosexual unions. It doesn't make sense for government to get involved in what is primarily a personal decision."
Anyhow, that's it for me now. Thanks again to Cali.
Obviously a heated subject and I'm a little late to the conversation.
I believe every religious organization should be allowed to establish the boundries for the marriages they wish to honor. I believe the definition of marriage comes from the people in the marriage and they don't need religious or civil acknowlegement of their personal relationship.
I do believe the people who are going to merge their finances need legal boundries and I don't care if they are two people or 50 people. When money is involved it gets complicated and you need to set the boundries. This is a matter of law and not religion.
I think children need emotional and financial support. I don't care if that comes from a man and a woman, one man, one woman, two women, two men, or a whole city. Someone has to be responsible for that child. If you chose to adopt or give birth you need to outline how you're going to raise that child and provide for them. If you spawned that child you have responsibility unless someone else agrees to relieve you of that responsibility. In those cases where parents have been irresponsible and there isn't a way to hold them responsbile, we are all share responsibility.
Deciding what love is 'good' and what love is 'bad' is not our choice. You may believe God wants you to love someone of the opposite sex. Good. Do that. If a woman decides she loves someone of her same sex and you think God doesn't like it, fine, but let God decide. You need to back off.
Honor your marriage and let others honor theirs. There is no way someone else's marriage dishonors yours. Are you upset Brittany was married for 53 hours
? Did that hurt your marriage? Of course not. Take care of your own salvation and let others worry about themeselves.
Sorry..rambling but seriously we all have enough to do to take care of ourselves. Let others alone.
P.S. When I say "you" I don't mean you personally, Cali, I mean the general populus.
P.P.S. What a beautiful bride you were! I just noticed the photos way down on the right side.
Post a Comment