Friday, November 7, 2008

Prop 8, what about their rights?

I didn't really want to get into this matter again on my blog, and I realize by doing so, I open myself and that which I love up to criticism and contempt (which I don't like, naturally). But I just can't sit here and go on with my happy little life and pretend stuff's not happening. SO, here it goes.

Prop. 8 passed. Someone told me once that I write about this a lot. Well, it's because I've thought a lot about it in the past couple of years. I think it's important to have considered all points of view. I've gotten so many "Yes on Prop 8" facebook group requests, and read many notes like the one I posted a few weeks ago, and also this article posted by my church about why they stand where they do. They make points that could be reasonably argued, however, I ultimately do not agree with them. I am of the conclusion that homosexuality is not usually a choice (so how can it be condemned if it's not a choice), and even if and when it is a choice, who cares? Live and let live. If they want to be married, let 'em be married! Put simply, my marriage is the greatest joy in my life, and I just can't see how denying someone else that with a person they love can be fair.

Having said that now, I think the hellfire that the church has come under isn't fair either. Leaders had this to say on the website:

"Some, however, have mistakenly asserted that churches should not ever be involved in politics when moral issues are involved. In fact, churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society. While the Church does not endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues."

Folks, they are right! Just as you and I have the right to say and push for what we want, so does the church. They also said this:

"Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society."

Probably the most dispicable thing I've heard so far is of that commercial someone did of mormon missionaries breaking into a lesbian couple's home and ripping up their marriage licsense, announcing "we're hear to take away your rights." It is utterly dispicable, ridiculous, and totally immature. I do wonder how the people - like my sweet little sister - who literally put their entire lives on hold to do what they do, will feel when they see that/hear about it.

The protesting outside an LDS temple, as if the momon church were the only one involved, (and as if there weren't other people who voted for it) is just an example of people who need someone to point the finger at.

I welcome your comments, even opposing ones, if you feel like you want to. However church-hate-mail and name calling will probably be discarded (I've heard it already, believe me).

AS MICHAEL JACKSON SAYS, "HEAL THE WORLD, MAKE IT A BETTER PLACE." :)

16 comments:

M said...

YAY! I'm the first to comment :) I agree with what you said about the church having a right to speak out about this issue. I also agree with what you said about the protests at the temple and the commercials being over the line. Prop 8 passed by over 50%, pretty sure there aren't that many mormons in California.
I have people very close to me who are gay. People I love and respect. That made this whole prop 8 deal a little harder for me, but I was behind it the whole time. I love how brave you are to share how you feel about this! It is definitely a touchy subject.

NaDell said...

The thing that I disagree with it for the most is that they will teach kids in schools that it is exactly the same as man and woman marriage. That is not okay with me. I don't want my kids to come home saying that they read books at school with two daddies. I don't care what they do, but I don't want my kids to be indoctrinated at school. There's enough of that anyway. This actually did happen in Massachuetts. A kindergartner came home with some work with gay parents in the book and the parent's couldn't do anything about it. They took it all the way up, but nothing happened because that state had already passed into law that gay marriage is the same as between man and woman.
I understand that in many states, they do already have rights to things that they need. They can be a union. They can get life insurance on each other. I just don't like it.
Same with abortion. Especially underage. I don't get why parent's wouldn't be notified. Is that so that the place can get return "customers". I don't want the school to tell my kids that anything goes. It's one thing to say, "It's their choice. Let them be." and something else to say, "We are completely NORMAl and you can't say you don't agree with it even if you don't agree with it and you must teach your family that it is just the same.

Tolerance is different than acceptance.

Anonymous said...

To me...semantics. Can and do people of the same sex live together? Do they raise children together? Is there anything that monogamous couples can do to keep that reality from their families? It all comes back to teach those you love what you'd have them believe in and what you want them to become. Call it marriage, gay union, being together, whatever you want and it's the same thing. All of which has no bearing to a marriage between a man and a woman. LDS people get married in the temple while other people get married before a judge, some in Vegas, etc., etc. Does anyone think there is a difference? Why should gay people not be entitled to the same business, work, tax, whatever benefits as a typically married couple? Because they're weird, different? What?
Good topic.

STANLEY said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
STANLEY said...

The fact is, the world will NEVER come to an agreement on the issue. It will always be brought up by opponents seeking out someone or some organization to point fingers at. I think it's unfair that the church is getting butt of it all, but it's expected. The protesters have every right to raise hell. I guess thats what makes the church so peculiar.

I hate giving opinions :(

Kimble Family said...

Ok i started to write a comment and it ended up long and very lengthy, so I will save that for another time and place. I just love that you are not afraid to speak your peace about these important issues of our time. Though I must say, I am of the minority in this issue, because I was absolutely not behind this proposition and worry that this country took one step forward and one step back on tuesday.

Jax said...

Cali, I think it's commendable for you to stand up for your beliefs when they are reasoned and thought out well. My feelings on this subject can be condensed down to a few simple lines logic.

(1) All evidence, including controlled scientific studies, indicate that homosexuality can be a genetic trait, which means that the behavior is not always a result of conscious choice. (This doesn't mean that it isn't a choice for some, though, but that's irrelevant if heredity plays a role at any point.)

(2) Religions all define marriage differently. Some define it as only between a man and woman while others are accepting of unions been men and men, women and women, and even between men and multiple women (polygamy). Non-religious individuals similarly take differing stances.

(3) One of the government's duties is to ensure liberty and equality for its citizens.

(4) When marriage from a governmental standpoint is defined a certain way, it excludes the beliefs of certain religions and embraces those of others. For instance, many but not all Christians would typically believe that God Himself defines marriage as between a man and woman.

(5) In American, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state as a means of protecting freedom and equality for all.

(6) Because religions, as well as those who are non-religious, define marriage in many different ways, the government should only enforce the freedom and equality of people to get married. Actually defining it as between a man and a woman is explicitly supporting the religious beliefs of certain religions, which support their positions on the notion that God Himself defines marriage this way. The government should have no part of this (i.e., ruling on what God thinks about anything).

(7) Lastly, the very concept of labeling "marriage" as between a man and a woman and a "civil union" as some kind of pseudo-marriage between people of the same sex is inherently unequal. The different terminology itself is discriminatory. It is similar to the "separate but equal" logic used during the segregation era but that was ultimately discredited with the Brown v. Board of Education case.

In summary, mark my words. Within a decade this matter will inevitably end up before the Supreme Court, and at that time we will likely see a ruling similar to Brown v. Board of Education. The different labeling is "separate and unequal," and the government can't define marriage based on religious beliefs about what God does or does not tell us.

All my opinions, of course.

Anonymous said...

What needs to be said, but seldom is, has to do with the homosexual sex act itself. It's perverted. It is an abomination, but few are ready to acknowledge it.

This is the real reason why the LDS Christians oppose SSM, and why non-LDS Christians oppose it, or should oppose it. God has forbidden man to lie with man, because it perverts the purpose of sex and marriage.

When Mormons teach their children about marriage, it's in the context of a bond and relationship that will never end, passing through death, standing before the judgment seat of God, rising in the resurrection, and dwelling with the billions of families that will inhabit the earth for a thousand years, preparing for its coming transformation into a celestial abode, when the old earth and the old heavens shall pass away, as a new earth and a new heavens replace them.

In that day, the former earth and the former heavens will not be remembered, or come to mind. However, this great hope and glorious vision of the future is forever lost to those who, for whatever reason, reject the path that leads to their part in it.

Yet, that is their business, and they have the God-given right to choose what they will believe, or will not believe.

Nevertheless, it would be foolish to think that the Mormons don't understand how their children will have to withstand the persuasion of those who will come among them saying, "Believe it not!"

They will be cajoled, prodded, brow beaten, scorned and even persecuted for their faith in the sanctity of marriage. They will be urged to reject it as folly, to look upon it narrowly and consider it as a foolish and a vain hope, in a thousand subtle, and some not so subtle, ways, and, alas, many will surely succumb, choosing to believe it not.

Do you think, then, that the Mormons don't have the right, indeed the duty, to defend their position, for their children’s sake? Should they not be expected to seek to firmly establish the holiness of marriage in the minds of the people, striving to circumscribe and minimize, in every legal and ethical manner possible, the power and influence of those whose persuasion in the schools, in the media, and in the halls of the state, is, and ever will be, exerted to deny it, to the utmost of their ability?

Institutionalizing perversion, officially calling good evil and evil good, allows it to be taught in public schools, written into public laws, accepted as the community standard, and treated as a publicly sanctified norm, to which no opposition can be brooked.

Clearly, we must oppose such a move, and resist those who seek to establish it, for whatever reason, or face the consequences, when we are fully ripened in our iniquity, like the cities of the plain.

Sue said...

The problem I have with the church being involved in politics is that they get tax breaks to run their organization and therefore they are using the money of all taxpayers to pass laws. So if the church would like to give up their tax exempt status perhaps I'd think differently.

And as long as protesters aren't violent I think they have a right to protest the actions of any organization.

I do appreciate your thoughtful post. You might appreciate the opinon of a gay person who feels discriminated by this: http://nofo.blogspot.com/2008/11/proposition-hate.html I think sometimes we get so caught up in the issue we almost forget that real people are hurt by others imposing their own values on others.

Sue said...

Jax: Great post. I can't wait till more people think as you do. And I can't wait for us to live in a world where people are secure enough in their own religion to not want to impose it on others. Share all you want, but don't force your beliefs on others. And I'm pretty confident God feels that way to.

Jax said...

Susan, I love how you put this: "And I can't wait for us to live in a world where people are secure enough in their own religion to not want to impose it on others." That's precisely my point.

It's great that some people believe, in their religious context, that God defines marriage as between a man and a woman. And if their religion is actually the true one, that's great, and they can be confident about that. But the government and its laws, statutes, and so on are not the place to codify such beliefs. Doing so disregards the religious--or non-religious, as the case may be--beliefs of others.

And to Excal, you'd be more persuasive if you toned down the overly zealous and religiously intolerant vocabulary (abomination, forbidden, celestial abode, persecuted, sanctity, perversion, ripened in our iniquity). Our country is a place where people of many different backgrounds live, so any solutions need to accept that. Otherwise, we'd live in a theocracy.

Anonymous said...

Wow... my brain hurts. In the middle of all this crap, the one thing that really hit me hard was knowing the millions and millions of dollars spent by Mormons especially donated to fight Prop 8 where that money could've been used to feed the poor, build more homeless shelters, help third world countries, etc. I know the church does that already, but it's very minimal compared to what they could easily do, and what the members could donate their hard earned money for. What are the real "Christian" priorities here? Would God really want us to spend all our time and energy and resources on this?? I don't think so. He loves everyone and everyone has the free agency to choose and teach their children what they believe. Let it go and do some actual real good for mankind instead!

JohnnyB said...

Barb
Well said.
Amen

smalltowngirl said...

Barb, well said? wait no
"...I know the church does that already, but it's very minimal compared to what they could easily do"
Give me a break! Have you ever looked at the statistics of what the LDS church donates to the poor in our communities, third world countries, natural disasters, etc. compared to other religions? And the answer to one of your many questions is a resounding YES! God would want us to stand up for something that we most definitely oppose. In addition, I think the passing of Prop 8 did do mankind some good. If the family unit deteriorates, society will be next.

Sarah said...

Wow. Quite the

Sarah said...

Sorry--my last comment got cut off. I was going to say, quite the convo you have going here. I'm not very educated on this matter, so my opinion is based solely on my thinking and no research. But yes, I do have an opinion, but before I say anything, I think everyone who is reading this should know that my best friend from high school is gay, as is a number of students whom I love and who email me for advice on being gay and Mormon (even though I am not gay. They just know I am a safe person who is active in the church.)

I think the biggest issue with Prop. 8 is the possibility of the church, bishops mainly, being persecuted for not performing marriages. Most people talk about the issue of the temple. I don't think this is a big issue, because we don't let all heterosexual people in the temple--no discrimination in my mind. But heterosexual couples do get married outside the temple by bishops. And I could see a bishop getting sued for refusing to perform such a marriage.

As much as some people's feelings might get hurt, the Lord's laws do not change just because human perspective does. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. His law on this matter is very clear, and therefore his servants feel that it is their duty to support the morality of God's law.

Also, this is an issue about the decline and dissolution of the nuclear family, which is sacred. dissolving the family is the number one tool to unravel society and ultimately break apart the unity that holds us together as a productive nation. As divorce and single parenthood numbers rise, there is also an increase in immorality, poverty, irresponsibility, crime, lasciviousness, homelessness, and bad judgements.

What is a real "Christian" supposed to do? Well, I am reminded of the bible, when the woman who was taken in adultery was brought before Him. He did not condemn her, but he did not say, "Oh, you're just doing what comes naturally to you. You didn't CHOOSE to commit sexual sin. It's just who you are, and it's okay to be who you are." No. He said, Go your way AND SIN NO MORE. It is the "real Christian's" duty to stand up for the laws and principles of Christ. If that means walking into a temple and overturning the money changers' tables, then that's what that means. If that means donating money to uphold the organization that is essential to the Creator's Plan of Salvation, then that's what that means. Being moral and believing in Christ isn't always easy. If it were, this country would not exist.

Again, I repeat what someone has already said: Tolerance is different than acceptance. Love the sinner, hate the sin.