I recalled a Sunday School lesson from my childhood (way back in the late 70's) where the teacher mentioned that the church discouraged interracial marriage, though her explanation was that people of different backgrounds have a hard time making it work. While it seemed a little odd at the time that skin color constituted a "different background," I didn't think much of it.
Now, with nearly 18,000 marriages about to be arbitrarily dissolved by public referendum and the unmarried gay population barred from the institution, it seems appropriate to examine the church's changing position on interracial marriage. I dug around, found a whole bunch of quotes (including a single website that listed some pretty offensive stuff), and decided that publishing them here would be nothing short of "sour grapes." Suffice it to say, on civil rights matters, the LDS church as an organization tends to be consistently 20 years behind the nation. Anyway instead of sour grapes, here is a quote on civil rights by Elder Hugh B. Brown:
"During recent months, both in Salt Lake City and across the nation, considerable interest has been expressed in the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the matter of civil rights. We would like it to be known that there is in this Church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed.My heart breaks for our gay brothers and sisters in California whose families have been the victims of the recent capricious actions of the so-called "Christian" community. The gospel of Jesus Christ, in my understanding, is based on love. The LDS church advocates that everyone should be allowed "to worship how, where, or what they may." And Joseph Smith, when asked how he led the church said that he taught the members correct principles and let them govern themselves. For a group of churches to legislate their beliefs on other people is nothing short of a violation of the principles of agency for which LDS people believe "the war in heaven" was waged.We say again, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the rights to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience.
We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned this means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States.
We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man." —General Conference, October 6, 1963
How's this for a better approach? Perhaps we should teach our children "correct principles" and let them govern themselves rather than legislate our religious views on each other.
Or better still, let's simply love one another.
22 comments:
way to take the higher road and be more Christ like than The leaders of the LDS corporation.
I respect your view on Prop 8. Just as I respect all those that vote against prop 8. However I don't understand your view against the LDS Church. How does standing up for what is a moral belief have to do with loving one another?
If I lived in California I would have voted for Prop 8. I would take great offense if I was told because of my belief I did not love those that are affected by this proposition. That simply is not true. The unconditional love of someone is not predicated by the absolute condoning of ones actions. To use the Savior as an example, as you first have done, the woman whom was to be stoned was shown a great example of unconditional love. He protected her from a death by stoning and rebutted the hatred of those that wanted to stone her. However, he asked her to sin no more. He did not make adultery permissible.
Clearly the LDS Church believes that being gay is not accepted by God. If one doesn't believe in the LDS faith, that is their right. But voting is fundamentally about voting your morals and beliefs. It is unfair to say that those with different beliefs are people who don't "love" or don't follow Christ.
Just my opinion.
Thanks for your opinion, Bryan. I need to apologize in advance, because this is gonna come off as a bit of a rant. Please understand that I'm passionate about this subject because it is so personal.
That said, it's not the LDS church's beliefs that are the problem, it's the church's "moral imperative" to enforce their beliefs, through legislation, on other people. Clearly the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Unitarians, the Metropolitan Community Church, and the United Church of Christ believe that everyone (gays included) should be allowed to enter into loving, committed marriages.
So, if marriage is religious institution, then the LDS church needs to practice the 11th article of faith and allow everyone to worship "how where or what they may" as they claim the privilege themselves.
But the issue isn't just a religious one. It's a civil one. As long as the government bestows civil rights (tax benefits, property co-ownership, hospital visitation rights, US Citizenship, etc...) to couples solely because they enter into a marriage, the government cannot deny a class of citizens those rights simply based on demographics. Either the government needs to extend rights equally to all of its citizens, or it needs to get out of the business of marriage altogether.
To recap: As a religious institution, marriage should be granted to each religion to be performed "according to the dictates of their own conscience"...whether that be same-sex marriage for the Unitarians, polygamous marriage for the FLDS, or Temple Marriage for the Mormons. As a civil institution, it should be granted equally for all US citizens.
Either way, the Mormons don't have to perform same-sex marriages any more than they have to condone smoking, drinking, or gambling if they see them as sins. However, when the LDS church starts actively campaigning to withhold basic rights from their brothers and sisters (as they did in the 50's and 60's with interracial marriage, the 70's with women's rights, and currently with gay rights)...well, if you can't understand or sympathize with my hurt and outrage, I hope you'll at least respect it.
Our country was founded on principles separating church from state and ensuring "liberty and justice for all". That "all" isn't just the majority...or in the case of the Prop 8 debate, the out-of-state proponent who contributes the most cash. Inalienable rights apply to everyone...which is why people of all races, creeds, colors, religions, and (slowly but surely) sexual orientations are repeatedly protected by the courts from having their rights impinged by the majority. I do not begrudge you the free practice of your religion, but if I choose not to participate in it I would appreciate at least your reciprocal respect. Teach your kids you love me even though I'm going to hell for being gay, that's none of my business. But who I love is none of yours. And I find it patently offensive that your religious beliefs supersede mine in a matter so close to my life, my liberty, and my pursuit of happiness and so completely removed from yours.
I'm sorry if this is offensive. I realize your post was attempting to come from a place of respect, but I'm tired of the church and (some of) its members waving the banner of love and concern while they actively seek to destroy gay families.
Yesterday, gay families in California lost the protection of marriage. That means that California businesses aren't required to provide health insurance for partners, California hospitals aren't required to recognize a partner's right to be at the bedside of his or her dying spouse, and the children of gay couples aren't entitled to the legal protections automatically afforded to married straight families.
Seriously, who's undermining families here?
I would never try to destroy your family, yet the church actively seeks to undermine the family I hope to have one day and then has the audacity to tell me they love me? How arrogant! How hypocritical! And this coming from an organization that once quite literally pioneered "alternative family structure."
So what do we do? Well, the church can dismiss me as apostate and I can dismiss the church as a bigoted...or we can agree to allow each other the privilege of worshiping (or not worshiping) according to the dictates of our own consciences. As for me, I'm sincerely hoping for the latter.
Brandon, you make some very intersting and thought-provoking points on this topic. As I have mentioned before, I do not always agree with your opinions but I do respect that you are entitled to them as I am entitled to mine, but I will admit, you've pointed out a new perspective for me on this topic as far as the church getting involved with politics and legislation. I'll be mulling it over in my mind.
p.s. I wasn't really glad that you weren't feelling well on election night. I'm just a sore loser. I'm still your favorite sister-in-law, right? At least, your favorite one that isn't named Holly?
Yesterday, gay families in California lost the protection of marriage. That means that California businesses aren't required to provide health insurance for partners, California hospitals aren't required to recognize a partner's right to be at the bedside of his or her dying spouse, and the children of gay couples aren't entitled to the legal protections automatically afforded to married straight families.
This simply isn't true. The Domestic Partnership Rights and Responsibilities Act, passed in 2003 makes sure that "California employers provide registered domestic partners the same health benefits, and sick and family medical leave plans as those offered to married employees under the act, which requires employers to provide registered domestic partners the same legal rights as their married co-workers."
Furthermore you said:
"I find it patently offensive that your religious beliefs supersede mine in a matter so close to my life, my liberty, and my pursuit of happiness and so completely removed from yours.
I am not trying to outlaw your relationships with a willing adult partner. You have every right to have what ever kind of relationship you so desire. In fact I am in complete support of the rights of gay couples when it comes to the benefits of domestic partners. I would also be in support of the tax benefits being given to domestic partners.
Here is the problem I have. I believe in every word of the LDS Proclamation to the World. I believe that a family is designed to have a mother and a father. I believe that families with gay parents hurts the children involved. I also believes that this leads to a destruction of society. This does effect me. It does matter to my beliefs. I will not apologize for my beliefs. I know them to be true. I don't believe this to hinder the happiness of others. On the contrary I believe that the family is what leads to happiness.
On another note your anger/frustration against the LDS church is misguided. If you are to say that it is wrong for a religious group to teach its members moral beliefs and then encourage them to stand up for those rights is wrong than you are not allowing "each other the privilege of worshiping (or not worshiping) according to the dictates of our own consciences." I will always vote my consciences. I expect you to do the same.
This is a moral issue. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. I respect that. I do not intend to try and change your opinion or distinguish your passion. I only set out to disagree with your sentiment of the LDS church and its position on prop 8. They have every right and I would say every obligation to its members to do as they have done. They have not threaten excommunication if a member doesn't support this proposition. The Church merely voiced its opinion and encouraged members to do the same. How is this any different from the Teachers Union in California using the dues of it's members to oppose prop 8? It's not any different. It's the voting process.
In conclusion I respect your opinion. I understand your passion for this issue. However, just because the LDS church and some of it's members support the other side does not make them bigots. Furthermore the LDS church is not legislating their beliefs upon others. They did not right the law. They supported a law. There is a difference.
Again, I don't wish to hurt you personally. I hope that comes across in text even with my limited grammar. I've enjoyed the times I have spoken with you, although limited, I would feel very sad if this has caused a feeling of contention if we meet again in the future. I can assure you I have no ill feelings toward you. Most of all I appreciate the kind friend that you are to my Sister.
Bryan -
First of all, let me apologize if anything I’ve said has offended you or hurt your feelings. My intent was never (and will never be) to belittle anyone’s faith. I firmly believe everyone has the right to their core set of beliefs, regardless of whether they differ with mine. So if anything I say sounds snarky or inappropriate, blame the cold meds.
As I mentioned to Lisa yesterday, it’s a good thing I don’t have a partner and children yet, or I’d have to go all “papa bear protecting its cubs” on you and completely lose the ability to carry on rational conversation. ;-)
Anyway, before I begin I do need to concede that I overstepped on my assessment of the specific rights the gay partnerships in California lost. It is true that California does have a domestic partnership law which gives partnered gay Californians substantively the same state rights as married straight couples. However, even with the legalization of same sex marriage, gay Californians do not receive federal benefits. Spousal social security benefits, tax filing benefits, legal recognition of their unions in other states, and so forth—the federal benefits that are automatically bestowed on married straight couples are completely unavailable to gay couples, regardless of their state’s stand on marriage or domestic partnership. We could go into the “equal protection” and the “full faith and credit” clauses of the constitution and their respective relationships to equal rights and interstate recognition of domestic unions (aka marriages), but that’s another debate. My point is that until same-sex marriage is legally recognized across the country (and it has to begin at the state level, since marriage is a state’s rights issue) then gays are effectively second-class citizens, paying heavier taxes without remotely equal benefit under the law. Even legally married gay couples in Massachusetts have to file their state taxes separately because they can’t file jointly on federal taxes, and therefore are taxed unfairly when compared straight married couples.
All that aside, here is the fundamental difference between our positions: My position allows you the freedom to practice your belief system as you see fit. Yours apparently seeks to strip me of that freedom.
If religious belief is taken out of the argument, there is no compelling reason to deny gays the same rights as straight people. None. Years of unbiased scientific research has repeatedly affirmed the positive social effect of extending the institution of marriage to gay families (and if you want to know the specifics, I’d love to discuss that too, but that would have to be another blog entry.) After three decades of study, the APA recently released a report detailing the effects of same-sex parenting on children. Their findings: as a group, children of same-sex parents are just as well-adjusted as children from so-called “traditional families” with one minor exception: “by age 10, about half of children with lesbian mothers have been targeted for homophobic teasing by their peers.” Essentially, the only real difference between a child of a same-sex couple and the child of a “traditional” couple is that the former is more likely to be targeted by the latter for bullying.
So the only argument here has to be a religious one. And despite our differences on the subject of religion, NOTHING gives me the right to limit your freedom of religious expression. I have no right to dictate what you can teach in Sunday School, what you can do in your temple, how you raise your children, or who you marry. And I believe I’m entitled to the same respect from you. Now, if the argument against legal recognition of same-sex unions is solely religious, which it is, then when any church (or all churches, for that matter) transfers it to the “public policy” arena by active seeking to legislate their religious beliefs about marriage, then they are trampling the basic rights those who believe differently. Therefore, in the case of Prop 8, not only have the basic civil marriage equality rights of gays been impinged, but so have their rights to their freedom of religion. A temple marriage (performed according to the dictates of their own conscience) in this country is perfectly legal as is a civil ceremony in an LDS cultural hall, but a same sex marriage performed by the Unitarians (which is ALSO performed according to the dictates of their conscience) is not. Tell me how the Mormon beliefs trump the Unitarians. Until government gets completely out of the business of marriage, it has no business favoring one religion over another and denying marriage to gays.
When you say this is a moral issue, I agree. If any church sees same-sex relationships as abominable, as many do, then they have a constitutional right to teach that from the pulpit, just as I have a constitutional right to call it bigotry. But to attempt to enforce a religious belief or practice upon someone else is unconscionable. With mountains of scientific evidence disproving the perceived threat gay families pose to society, the only argument left is a religious one and you have no more right to enforce your religion on me than I have to make you wear a t-shirt that reads “Marriage Elitist Bigot” to sacrament meeting. (BTW, here I’m just making a point, not calling names.)
Yes, this is a moral issue. And it is blatantly immoral to strip people of basic human rights because of religious dogma. As a country we have a moral imperative to allow people of all backgrounds the freedom to live with equality. And the LDS church, on paper, agrees. As Joseph Smith so eloquently said: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” Don’t tell me that the LDS view of marriage doesn’t constitute a form of worship.
Thank you for expressing your opinions here. Believe it or not, I am grateful to you for sharing your feelings and allowing this discussion in a public setting. I truly believe that no satisfactory change will come without open, honest dialogue, and I would be delighted to engage in further discussion. I do respect your beliefs and will always defend your right to worship “according to the dictates of your conscience.” Please keep reading and commenting. I’m sure there will be a subject (or fifty) that we disagree on in the future and I welcome the opportunity to discuss alternate points of view. In fact, it might be useful to start a new discussion under a new topic. I’d love to discuss the social benefits (or harm, as you might suggest) of legal recognition of same-sex families. Let me know, and I’ll work on a new blog entry.
I probably shouldn't jump into this - but allow me to make a comparison that Bryan may or may not understand.
Bryan - when you defend you and your church's actions by saying you believe in the Proclamation on the Family (a religious document, not a legally binding one), can you not understand that you are attempting to write into law your own personal religious beliefs?
What if the situation was reversed? What if some of the groups involved in Prop 8 (many of whom hate mormons as much as they hate gays and only worked together with you becuase of your vast financial resources) next decide that they don't think temple marriages should be legally recognized by the state of CA? How would you feel? You would feel the same way that Brandon, me and many other gay people across the country feel right now.
This is a RELIGIOUS matter. If I know in my heart that I am living the life God gave me, who are you or your church to make laws dictating that? As was once said by Oliver Wendell Holmes, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. You are swinging your religious fists here and you are hitting gay people right in the face. So don't try to say you're doing it out of love. That's bullcrap.
I really believe the mormons will regret this decision down the road. Writing religious belief into law is the beginning of the end - and mormons should know better than anyone that the mainstream christian religious hate you and once the door is open to them, they will begin to dictate to you how you can run your church, how your relationships are recognized under the law, who you can or cannot pray to.
That is all.
I may regret throwing my hat in the ring, because I truely hate contention, but I have been wrestling with this issue a lot with Arizona's prop 102 (similar to prop 8) on the ballot this election.
Brandon, I really can respect most all of the points you have made. Especially about legislating morals. I have long thought that I would have to teach my family about morals, and not rely on the laws of the land to teach them. I usually take more of a live and let live approach. I highly value the principle of agency.
I was concerned and a little bothered, that the church, which is politically neutral, felt the need to weigh-in so strongly on this issue. For so many members of the church it is totally black and white, but for the reasons you have outlined, I don't see it that way. But I believe strongly in following my church leaders, so I have tried to seek understanding.
For me, there is one explanation that makes sense as to why the church would get so involved, and using your argument, it does make sense to me.
If this is an issue of civil rights, and will follow the path of interracial marriage and other civil rights issues of the past, do you not think that down the road, the church persisting to disallow same-sex marriages, or actively homosexual members could result in all kinds of discrimination lawsuits or similar issues for the church? If in our society, rejecting homosexual behavior is seen as being the same as rejecting people based on race or gender, rather than a moral issue (based on scripture), the church could be in violation of all kinds of discrimination laws. If this is what church leaders have seen for the future, can you respect that they might see a need to guard against that scenario?
I understand and respect your sadness. I know not all members of the church have approached this issue with love and compassion as the Savior would have.
And now a question: How would you feel, if legislation were passed to allow for Civil Unions that extended most of the same rights, but were not called "marriages?" Just wondering?
Thanks for weighing in Kendra. I apologize for this hastily typed response. Hopefully I've covered everything, and you'll have to forgive any typos or errors in wording...I haven't proofread.
Yes, it is a touchy subject and I’m sure there are potential repercussions if popular opinion is in contrast to church policy. For example, in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities, an adoption agency, stopped providing adoption services rather than reject state funding that would require them not to discriminate against gay couples. The privately-funded LDS Family Services, however, doesn’t have to take such steps. In my view, a parent who wishes to give their child up for adoption should have options. For an LDS parent, LDS family services is a great choice. However, if LDSFS was to receive state funding, then it should abide by the laws of the state, including antidiscrimination laws. It’s a matter of principle. Public policy can’t be crafted to favor one group over another, so public funding shouldn’t be applied to private discriminatory behavior. BUT, given the LDS Church’s stand against homosexual behavior (Sex outside marriage is bad whether it’s gay or straight…though this does raise other arguments…) AAAANYWAY, given the Church’s stand, as a private religious organization, it’s protected by the principles of religious freedom in this country as long as it doesn’t expect the country to foot the bill for its discrimination.
As for the interracial marriage idea, remember the church was strongly opposed to interracial marriage up until the mid 60’s, actively supporting existing legislative bans on interracial marriage. Early church statements on the subject of interracial marriage are pretty offensive by today’s standards and while they don’t bear repeating here, apparently this is one issue where LDS people believe the Lord changed his mind.
I can see that the church leaders might perceive a threat to the Church’s tax exempt status or perhaps some might have wild fantasies about the government stepping in and forcing them to perform gay marriages, but it seems a poor excuse for imposing their beliefs on others. Remember, Prop 8 only passed by a narrow margin, which means the slight majority is dictating acceptable religious policy for a relatively large opposition. If a legal challenge was made to the Church’s standing in the country, I would think freedom of religion would prevail. The government withdrew its support for the Boy Scouts when its discriminatory practices against gays were brought to light, but that organization wasn’t forced to change its practices.
The issue is one of agency and integrity. The church, rather than waging its misguided war on the rights of gay families, should error on the side of compassion. TEACH what it believes, allow others their agency, and if there is a resulting legal battle, trust that the founding principles of this country will allow them freedom of religion.
Finally, if some institution were created which gave gays the same rights and responsibilities as straight couples but wasn’t called “marriage”, I would be definitely in favor of it…at least as a step in the right direction. However, in legal terms, separate but equal isn’t equal. Additionally, if civil unions carried most of the same rights, but not all, they would be an inferior institution and therefore unacceptable. Not to mention the social implications of the word “married.” The terminology we choose carries a certain weight not only in the minds of the people who are married (versus “partnered” or “civil unioned” or “reciprocal beneficaried”) but in their communities. But again, that’s another discussion.
My prediction is the next generation will be as baffled by our reluctance to make marriage available to everyone as we are by the interracial marriage debate that was waged only three or four decades ago.
Brandon,
Once a gain you have written an elegant argument. You truly have a gift. Regardless if I agree or not I always enjoy reading your posts.
I don't see how going into any more depth as to my beliefs of families can do any good. I fear they would only cause hurt and I don't wish to further that in any way.
I want to clear one thing up though. When I talked about my beliefs on the rights of children, I did not intend to say that you would not make a good parent. As much as I know of you I believe you'd make a great parent. I do not wish to imply that I am somehow a better or more loving father than you will be just because of sexual orientation. I hope you know that. Your aware of how the family is of the most importance in the LDS faith. I only meant to express that sentiment. I know that sounds like a lame explanation but like I said, any in depth views of mine are not going to do any good.
That is besides the point though. We know what each others opposing view points are and why. I first only intended to comment on the right of the Church and it's members voting and campaigning for prop 8.
Sheriinsaltlake,
You said; "Bryan - when you defend you and your church's actions by saying you believe in the Proclamation on the Family (a religious document, not a legally binding one), can you not understand that you are attempting to write into law your own personal religious beliefs?"
I was not defending any actions. I was defending my belief. There is a difference. I did not say or imply that the Family Proclamation is in any way a legal document. I only used it as a reference to my personal beliefs. However, I am shocked that you suggest that somehow it is unlawful or wrong for people to vote and or campaign for something your are against. Tell me how, why, what was done that was illegal and not part of the voting process that goes on every year in every state?
"What if the situation was reversed? What if some of the groups involved in Prop 8 (many of whom hate mormons as much as they hate gays and only worked together with you becuase of your vast financial resources) next decide that they don't think temple marriages should be legally recognized by the state of CA? How would you feel? You would feel the same way that Brandon, me and many other gay people across the country feel right now.
First. Again you assume that those who don't hold your belief hate you or those they oppose. Do you hate me? We don't agree on this issue, therefore you must hate me.
Second, the financing was pretty close to even for each side. Are you saying that money can be donated to a campaign only if you deem it to be right?
Lastly, a Temple marriage is a ceremony. In Europe you must be married civilly before you get sealed in the Temple. I don't think that is a good comparison. I understand what your trying to say though. I cannot however, see a decent legitimate comparison. I look forward to you giving me one.
I know you believe that I must hate gays in order to be against gay marriage, but believe it or not I am sensitive to the pain that this causes you and others. But that is not the argument here. I don't believe it does any good to get into any argument about "intelligent design" or 'God's Plan" or even "Evolution" for that matter. They are all beliefs and the believe of one is what governs them and guides them. Like it or not.
You also said that this is indeed a religious matter, as if to say that I said otherwise. I did not. There are countless laws and beliefs that you have that are based on what another would call religious beliefs. But the LDS church is not the government. It is not writing laws. It is not enforcing laws. It is simply supporting it's beliefs. The LDS church did not write Proposition 8. They supported it. They have that right. Then voters vote. There are already lawsuits and this won't be the end of this matter. But what has been done that is so illegal? If you are to say that personal beliefs should have not bases on laws then you are heading down a very slippery slope. If you wish to look into that scenario further just let me know.
You also said "don't try to say you're doing it out of love. That's bullcrap. "
So you can see into my heart? You have labeled me and everyone who voted against what you believe to be full of hate. Why is it that you believe I am judging you and am so wrong and filled with hate when you are the one that calls me a lair? I have not called you a lair. I have not suggested that I hate you or even hate what you believe for that matter. I have defended the right of the LDS church and others to do what ever is legal in there support of any proposition. Guess what, I do the same for you. Do whatever you want to, within the bounds of the law, when it comes your beliefs and the educating of others of those beliefs. Just don't chastise, insult and brand others that oppose your view.
Again I wish to state that I am for the rights of Gays when it comes to, benefits and taxes. I'm sure there are other issues that I am not informed enough about that I may support. However it was the right of the people of California, Arizona and Florida to vote on the issue of gay marriage. And they did. Now we will watch it play out in the courts, which is a whole different topic.
Kendra,
Just as a clarification. The LDS church is like many other church's and actively gets involved in what is deemed as moral issues. Nearly the same type of statements by the Church have been made from state lotteries, legalizing prostitution, abortion and even prohibition in the 30's. All "moral" issues. Although they don't get the opposition that prop 8 has gotten. Proposition 8 just so happens to be the most watched and contentious.
It brings up the question of the slippery slope. If you don't morally believe in an alternative definition of marriage why is prostitution, legalizing drugs, polygamy and many others any different.
As a matter of fact the State of Utah could have kept prohibition but they voted to against it. This was against the urging of the Church. There was no mass excommunications of those that voted different from the Church.
Brandon, I guess my question is this. If you believe that people can believe what they want to believe. Why don't you believe that they should be able to try and keep those beliefs. I understand that you say it is unconstitutional, but is voting unconstitutional? Also you say that the slight majority is dictating acceptable religious policy for a relatively large opposition. What is wrong with that? By that logic no majority should even matter unless its above a certain percentage. Yes it is a slight majority in California, but it also has passed in every other state the vast majority of the time. Including California in 2001. The majority clearly is against gay marriage. There is no other way around that. As always though, I support your right to change their minds.
Well - I had a response written that got lost in the depths of the internet somewhere.
But Bryan - the reason that it's wrong is that the "tyranny of the majority" has always been something the minority have been protected by, generally through the courts - though this "constitutional amendment" thing is a new way for the majority to get around the courts and impose their will on the minority anyway. Yes, the majority of people voted for this ban. But if interracial marriage had come to a popular vote in its time, the majority of the people would have been against it. That is why we have balance of power in this country - to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Also, I will just say (since my other response got lost) that I never said I hated you. I don't even know you. I'm saying that the groups your church allied themselves with hate mormons. If you do a bit of research on them, you'll find that out.
Fair enough Sheri! Glad to hear you don't hate me. Sorry i misinterpreted. Thanks for your response. I do think that the balances are still there in protection of the minority. We will have to see what happens in the courts.
First of all Bryan, just because the majority is in favor of something, that doesn’t make it right. Our country is set up so as to make it difficult for the majority to trample the rights of the minority. And more often than not, it's wise to error on the side of free expression than of curbing civil rights.
Regarding your “slippery slope” comment, I’m actually in favor of legalizing, regulating, and taxing the hell out of (certain) drugs, prostitution, and polygamy (well, not taxing polygamy). Again, it’s the idea that if we educate our kids, they’ll make better decisions. The vast majority of the population won’t participate, those who do will participate responsibility, and those who slip into addiction can get help without fear of prison.
But I digress…
I think the point you’re missing is the difference between "beliefs" and forcing other people to conform to those beliefs. Personally I believe people should tie their shoes, but if you choose not to, I respect your right to expose yourself to the possibility of tripping and landing flat on your face...and I hope you'll respect my right to giggle before I help you up. I believe it’s wrong to swear in front of kids, but if you happen to swear in front of your children, I’m not going to take them away from you...though I hope you'll respect my right to sing showtunes at the top of my lungs if I ever catch you swearing in front of my neices and nephews. I believe gays should be allowed to marry, but if your church won’t let them, I respect your right not to marry them in your temples. I would NEVER advocate a law that requires a church to perform gay weddings. Yet, the supporters of Prop 8 did just that…well they did it in reverse. They passed an amendment to the California constitution that essentially prohibits churches from marrying gays. This isn’t about me telling you what to believe or how to behave or what you can do or teach in church, it’s about the religious community denying basic civil rights to a segment of the population based solely on religious beliefs. That's not troubling to anyone in the majority, but I hope you'll remember that there was a time in LDS history that the church was on the receiving end of the "mob mentality." God forbid it ever happens again, but if it did, rest assured that despite our differences, I'll be fighting for your civil rights too.
No name-calling here, Bryan. I support you're right to believe however you believe. But when it comes to raising children, the ONLY argument you have is a religious one.
Take a moment to check out what the APA (and every other reputable psychological association) say about same-sex couples raising children. Then tell me how you can in good conscience craft and enforce public policy around a belief that is based not in unbiased scientific study but your own faith. This public policy not only damages the rights of gay parents, it literally hurts the children of gay parents. (Maybe it's time to move this to a new blog entry, but that'll probably have to wait till next week.) Suffice it to say, the only...I repeat, ONLY argument you have against same-sex parenting is a religious one. And until you can produce something beyond "God told me homo parents are bad" then as Sheri so eloquently reminded us, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
It's only fair to legislate based on scientific study and quantifiable facts that suggest what's in the public's best interest. Legislation based on an arbitrary religious belief, ESPECIALLY one that the scientific community has repeatedly debunked, is reprehensible.
By way of illustration: I can say something outrageous like "Jesus told me Mormons should be confined to the state of utah with a 50-foot wall and then neutered so they can't breed" and I might be able to convince a majority of the population to agree with me, but that doesn't mean my enforcement of my "belief" is any less reprehensible. I have no right to shape public policy based on that.
So give me something else. If there was any real evidence that children of gay parents were in any more danger than children of straight parents, I would swallow my paternal instincts and concede that I'm unfit to be a parent because of my sexuality. But there is none. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. As such, I won't stand for you enforcing your religion on me and my future family.
P.S. Sorry about the "comment moderation." I thought it was time to take a breather for a bit, so I turned it on briefly. You'll notice it's off, so feel free to battle away...
I'm sad that you deleted your comment, Bryan. I was tempted to take the e-mailed version I received and post it so my most recent comment makes sense, but I'll respect your right to withdraw an opinion from public view.
Brandon,
Sorry I deleted my comment. I have to be honest. It may sound like a poor excuse but I have been on a lot of pain medicine due to a recent surgery. When I read my comment this morning I could not remember writing it. I don't mind if you re-post it. I don't think I said anything that I don't believe. But I do enjoy a good rational debate and as I read my post I knew that it could easily be rebutted. Which you did. Not that I didn't believe it on a personal level I just thought it would cause more hurt and not lend to a good debate. Does that make sense? I hope so.
Am I admitting defeat? If you do not except that people religious views do play a part in governing our society, then yes. But that's only in the case of debating. Not real life. In the real world values do dictate how we govern. I understand you think it shouldn't. But look around, it clearly does.
People are driven by their beliefs and morals. I wonder, do you believe you can desecrate a human cadaver? By your argument it should not matter. That person is dead. They will suffer no consequences. How can science say it should be illegal. It is a definite moral issue. Like it or not morals are what defines our society. You have every right to try and change those morals just as I have every right to keep them.
As to the matter of the majority imposing there view on the minority, to me the sad part is that this will likely be decided by 7 judges. That's it. 7 judges! The topic of the vision of the founding fathers and whether or not they really gave judges that much power is a whole other blog topic. (They didn't by the way) But the idea that the majority does not count is a weak one. Again like I said to Sheri, I understand your right to inform others of your opinion but why can't others do the same?
On a different thought. You had talked about other posts to debate. I was wondering what your thoughts on prop 4 is. If your interested I'd be like to hear them.
Bryan –
Values are inherent in everything we do. Every choice anyone makes is to some degree based on values. It would be impossible to create any public policy without values. Society values human life, hence our laws against taking life. Society values property ownership rights, hence our laws about theft. These values transcend religion. Even the most bewildered agnostic believes murder is wrong.
The striking difference in the gay marriage debate is that the set of values that seeks to "protect marriage and family" by preventing gays from marrying and raising children, this set of values is purely religious. From a social standpoint, there is no compelling reason to deny gays the opportunity to marry, create families, and raise children. In fact, from a social standpoint there are numerous reasons to extend those rights and responsibilities to the gay community.
Yet there is a strong opposition to gay unions which comes almost exclusively from various churches and their religious doctrines. As such, crafting public policy based on these values, especially in the face of so much scientific evidence to the contrary, is tantamount to enforcing religious dogma on the unbelieving. In a very real sense, the gay marriage debate is a “holy war” being waged in our legal system. It’s the Crusades of public policy.
“The pope and I have dedicated ourselves to bringing Christianity to the entire world! Even if we have to kill every nonbeliever to do it.”
- Charlemagne (in Pippin, the musical)
In answer to your comment about seven judges imposing laws on the public, the judicial system is in place, in part, to ensure that the majority doesn’t trample on the rights of the minority. Were it not for a handful of judges, the cause of racial equality would have been left to the majority, and would have been decided differently.
In no way does the decision of the Supreme Court remove your right to express your views or practice your religion the way you see fit. Your rights remain as they have always been. You can still teach to your heart’s delight that gay unions are contrary to God’s plan for the Mormons.
What the Supreme Court’s decision did was rule that your rights are the same rights gay people are entitled to, and that the “moral” majority’s decision in 2000 to withhold those rights from gay people was unconstitutional. (Which is why the only recourse was to amend the California State Constitution.)
Still, if giving me the right to marry the consenting adult I love somehow denies you the right to marry the consenting adult you choose to be with, then something is wrong. But it doesn’t. If you were a straight California citizen the day the ruling came down from the Supreme Court, your rights did not change. You still have the right to marry the woman of your choosing, the right to raise a family, and the right not to. All the Supreme Court did was say that so do the gays.
And regarding California's Prop 4...I'm not gonna touch that with a ten-foot pole. I imagine myself as a parent asking myself the question "If my 13-year-old daughter is hell-bent on having an abortion, would I prefer run the risk of her sneaking off to some dirty back-alley clinic or just not know that she's had one?"
Not an easy question. If I were a parent, I would hope that I'm actively involved enough in my child's life and the lines of communication are in place so that she felt she could trust me with the news that she's pregnant.
But yeah, that's another discussion. I'm off for the weekend. Gone! Feel free to post and rant, because I won't be here to knock you back in line with my dazzling brilliance until Monday.
Dazzling? Your dazzling debating skills is only second to your overwhelming humility.
Have a great weekend!
Post a Comment