I think this is one of the craziest legal battles since that lady got millions from McDonald's for spilling hot coffee in her lap. Denying any minority group the same rights that the majority enjoys is a civil rights violation. Period. No matter your religion, gender, or age, every U.S. citizen deserves to have equal rights extended to them.
Gay "marriage" is a religious argument, and should be left out of the legal system. By denying same sex marriage, the law is leaving out a group based on sexual preference and religious values, two categories I believe are included somewhere in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The problem is semantics. Call gay marriage a "civil union" and take away the religious implications that accompany the word "marriage," while giving gays the rights they would have as heterosexuals. Done. Problem solved.
I don't understand why Christians are up in arms, and I have some questions:
1. How is denying a group equal rights "Christian?" Do you really believe that a God who is so forgiving and loving would endorse such a belief? Gays are not gay for the fun of it, or to attack religion. They are gay because they FEEL attracted to members of the same sex, just as you feel attracted to members of the opposite sex. Changing these feelings is impossible for them. Try to change yours and see how it works for ya.
2. Did it cause any red flags when huge Christian churches started interfering in Prop 8? I was shocked when I read about the LDS church preaching law from the sacrament meeting pulpit. I would expect this behavior from the Al Sharptons of the world, but surely my own church would know better! Did anyone study the Crusades in history class? How about the role of the Catholic church during the Renaissance? Heck, look at what's going on in middle eastern countries with fundamentalist Islamic leaders. Don't kid yourself. Christian leaders can be just as fundamentalist as any Muslim fundamentalist. Any time religion interferes with state matters things get ugly. Our founding fathers recognized that concept when they wrote the constitution (separation of church and state--See the 1st amendment). They knew first-hand how ugly life can get when religion is forced on people. I would prefer to take their word for it than to learn that lesson AGAIN the hard way.
Please don't believe everything religious leaders say because they claim "God told them." Apparently God's message is quite subjective and changes every 100 years, so regard personal revelations with a grain of salt.
Quite a bit of the propaganda about Prop 8 you have been fed is bad information. For instance, why would elementary schools start talking about gay sex in schools when they don't really discuss heterosexual sex? The health or sex ed classes and maturation films talk about the kids' changing bodies and sex for reproduction. Gays don't have sex to reproduce. No where in the curriculum is there is a discussion of sex for pleasure. If sex as a leisure activity were to be discussed in schools, then topics such as oral and anal sex would come up anyway. But the whole elementary school sex discussion is a non-issue because it was completely contrived. The propaganda is designed to play on your protective parental emotions and apparently the plot worked like a charm because the "gay sex in elementary schools" fear spread like wildfire.
Christians: Back off gay marriage and spend your time on something that will actually bring change. Let's take the money that was spent on Prop 8 and buy food for hungry babies. Now THAT is a Christian cause.
Outwardly nothing will change if gays can have civil unions. They will still be together, still have children, and continue to live as they always have. The government should not intervene in our personal lives, and our religions should not interfere in the government.
Gays, I have called on my Christian friends to back down, and now it's your turn. COOL IT. Blacklisting people for supporting a cause? Really? Do you remember McCarthyism? We don't need any witch hunting. Back to civil rights, do you really want to start coercing people to vote the way you are voting? What's next, cross burning? While I agree that stepping back and doing nothing won't solve the problem (another civil rights lesson), violence is never the answer.
Let's get some perspective. I believe that this argument can be solved by a simple history review.
Christians, remember the corruption in the Catholic church during the Renaissance and beyond. Be wary when your churches start campaigning for political causes. Think back to the civil rights era. Would you deny Blacks or Hispanics equal rights? Excercise a little of that compassion you are taught about in Sunday school and think of gays as people who would like to have families, just like you. They too have children they love and religious beliefs they cling to, just like you.
Gays: Personal attacks on local business owners aren't going to help you accomplish your goals. Remember the civil rights movement and the tactics that influential black Americans used to get equal rights. Try to relate to the Christians. They have been fed propaganda and are scared. Your best tactic is to set the record straight about Prop 8 and define why marriage is important to you.
Regardless of what you believe or who you love, we are all thrown onto this earth together. Frankly, I think whichever higher being you believe in would like us to accept one another and get along.
Our country is trying to show the world that the nastiness of racial discrimination is a thing of the past. Let's not digress in the name of religion.
P.S. I forgot to mention how interesting it is that Prop 8 would pop up NOW, during THIS election, when a certain republican presidential candidate was trying to get as many conservative Christians out to vote as possible. The strategy is brilliant: Put something on the ballet that really fires up conservative Christians and inspires them to vote. Huh. President Bush pulled a similar tactic and it got him elected.
Recommended Readings:
Sarum by Edward Rutherford
The Source by James Michener
All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten by Robert Fulghum
Learning to Love People You Don't Like: How to Develop Love and Unity in Every Relationship by Floyd McClung
9 comments:
Huh. I'm not sure what twists the media have put on the prop 8 issue outside of California, but you guys obviously aren't getting both sides of the issue. I don't even know where to begin, so I won't.
By the way, McCain had nothing to do with Propsition 8 getting on the ballot. It was a state issue.
Here is my issue with calling gay unions "marriage"... Marriage IS a religous term. It should be left to the religions. Marriage signifies that God condones it.
I personally with the state would butt out of marriage period. Call ALL unions "civil unions" and leave the term "marriage" to the religions.
That being said... after looking at many statistics on gay married and hetero marriage I have come to the conclusion that there are SOME instances where Hetero should be given a higher priority. Mainly adoption. It is a proven statistic that gay unions do not last very long in general. Now I know that Hetero marriages have a 50% fail rate. But Gay is around the 75% rate... and that is the male gays... females have a MUCH higher fail rate.
I know that in most instances agencies try to place children in homes that are stable. If there is a sign that they are not
(hetero or otherwise) that home simply does not get the child. It's something to consider.
I do agree that a child is MUCH better of in a loving home of any sort than an abusive home or no home at all. This includes gay homes.
It's a conundrum.
Natalie,
PLEASE post what is being said in California. I am very interested to hear it. We just get the outrageous propaganda here in Texas on the Bible belt. I searched and searched online for the exact wording in the proposition, but I couldn't find a site that I thought was credible. if you have a link, I would love to read what it says exactly. Thanks for responding!
California has 55 electoral votes, more than any other state. If McCain could have won California there was a good chance he could've won the election. Putting issues on the ballot that inspire consertative voters in important states is not a new strategy for conservatives. The idea is that if they can get ultra religious, conservative voters to the ballots because of a issue that threatens their religion they will also vote for a conservative president.
Wow Erika. Derek pointed me in the direction of your rant, and I have to say I'm surprised you try to pass off the arguments you do. You're fully entitled to your opinion, and if you disagree with Prop 8, that's your business. But please do a little research into some of the facts first. I don't mean this in an offensive way, but very few of your arguments hold water. Just to name a few:
1)McDonald's coffee. This is a bit trivial, but since I learned about it today, I figure I'll share the knowledge. Everyone thinks that case was crazy because they're under the impression that a woman got millions simply because she spilled hot coffee and any idiot should know coffee is hot. If that were all there was to it, it would be crazy. The truth: McDonald's kept their coffee at an unusually high temperature so that it would still be adequately hot to drink in the all-too-common event that things got backed up and the coffee had to sit around for awhile. This created a significant danger when they weren't backed up and they handed out coffee that was literally right around boiling temperature. As a result of the lawsuit, they now have warnings and the coffee is served at around 20 degrees cooler, like everywhere else. So, the lawsuit wasn't crazy. Maybe the reward was excesssive, but that's another matter.
2) Please read the Civil Rights Act. You can even go to wikipedia and read a summary. Sexual orientation is not included. Period. Some states (but very few) make sexual orientation a protected class in their state constitutions, but there is no legal basis for saying that sexual orientation is protected in America based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
3) On a related note, you say that "Denying any minority group the same rights that the majority enjoys is a civil rights violation. Period." Wrong. We deny minority groups things they want all the time. Ex: felons, pedophiles, etc. Now don't jump to the conclusion that I'm lumping homosexuality in with those two examples, I'm merely using them to show that denying a minority group does not equal a civil right violation.
4) In theory, I agree with your civil union solution as we've discussed before. Of course, the gay rights groups are crying that separate is not equal. I disagree on two counts. Separate can be equal. Ex: bathrooms for different genders. No one cries foul there. Secondly, the right to marry (as the word has been defined since written history) is not denied to anyone. Anybody can marry anyone of the opposite sex who consents and is of legal age for whatever reasons they want -- could be love, could be financial benefits, could be for a green card, etc. Similarly, the civil union option is open to any two people whether of opposite gender or not. Neither institution (marriage or civil union) denies anybody the right to participate in it, they just have to follow the "rules" so to speak.
5) Do I believe a God who is loving and forgiving would endorse Prop 8? Absolutely. Why? Because He's made it pretty clear that He does not approve of homosexuality and that marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. Do I believe that God would approve of homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) being turned down for jobs, excluded from schools, beaten and harassed, etc? Absolutely not. God loves the sinner, but not the sin. I won't go any further because I thing our religious views have drifted pretty far apart. Suffice it to say that virtually every world religion -- Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc -- teaches the same thing. Additionally, no one is saying gays can't be gay or that they have to change.
6) I don't know why you were shocked to hear the LDS church take a stance on this issue. They weren't preaching "law". In fact, there was no law to preach until after the votes were tallied. What they were doing was asking for support in choosing to uphold a moral issue that the church has ALWAYS supported. They made the exact same points in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" back in 1995 -- long before Prop 8 and before it's previous incarnation Prop 22 were even on the horizon. Frankly, I would've been "shocked" if they hadn't taken the stand they did.
7) I'm not going to expend the energy to argue about your comparisons to historical events such as the Crusades and the Renaissance. Did horrible things happen in the name of religion? Yes. Does it bear any reasonable similarities to our current situation? No.
8) I agree that religion and state are best kept separate. However, when it comes to marriage, it is the states that decided to impose restrictions (such as requiring those performing religious marriages to be licensed) on religion. Ideally marriage would be a religious ceremony and civil unions would be a legal event and that would be that. However, that was screwed up long ago and isn't going to change. That said, why would I want to intertwine the two even more by letting the courts (effectively the State) expand the definition of marriage to include a situation it historically never has?
9) On a technical note, the phrase "separation of church and state" never appears in the constitution. You cite the 1st Amendment but if you read it you'd see that it ONLY addresses the powers of the Congress and has NOTHING to do with government on the state level.
10) You begin with an argument that we shouldn't believe everything leaders of churches say, and end with the statement that we should take personal revelation with a grain of salt. It seems you shifted the scope of your argument in the middle of making it. Aren't those two distinct things? Why should any church leader's statement affect personal revelation?
11) Was there propaganda being spewed on both sides? Yes. I wish there hadn't been. Was the education claim false? Absolutely not. Again, we've discussed that one on Facebook, but remember Prop 8 was a California proposition and in California changing the definition of marriage would ABSOLUTELY change the school curriculum. I can't speak for Texas or any other state as I don't have their education code at my fingertips.
12)FYI, California has allowed and protected civil unions for a long time. As far as rights, benefits, etc civil unions are absolutely equivalent to marriages. Prop 8 will not affect civil unions one bit.
13) BTW, I think the Blacks and Hispanics made it abundantly clear that this is not a civil rights issue. Over 70% of blacks in CA voted for Prop 8, more than anyone else. Hispanics were the next largest demographic. The blacks have taken a lot of criticism, but they're not backing down. Why? Not because they're homophobic but because the issues are fundamentally different. A black person is born black and has no power to conceal that fact. To deny a black person a job, for example, because of something he can do nothing about is wrong. Homosexuals may claim they were born gay. Science can't say one way or the other, but it tends to fall on the side of choice, upbringing, and environmental factors more. But the big difference is that a gay man going to a job interview doesn't have to say he's gay, just like I don't have to say I'm heterosexual. Nothing about outward appearance makes ones sexual orientation apparent in the same way as skin color. Additionally, gays are not being discriminated against like blacks were. They're not being allowed to change the definition of marriage, but they're allowed all the rights every other citizen of this country is allowed -- jobs, schools, protections, etc.
14) I don't agree with your criticism of the behavior of gays since Prop 8 either. Everyone is perfectly free to assemble and protest (though it'd be nice if they'd get permits required by law here) -- those activities ARE protected by the 1st Amendment. Boycotts are fine too. What's not okay is violence, destruction of property, threats of bodily harm, and acts of "domestic terrorism", all of which have been engaged in by the opponents of Prop 8. I understand this is a passionate issue for people regardless of what side of the argument they're on. I can sympathize with the opponents for being upset that the majority vote was not in their favor. The best thing to do is to peacefully and lawfully protest if you feel that's effective, and feel free to use legal methods to attempt to change the features of society you don't like. There will be future opportunities to vote, and when the majority opinion on an issue has changed, that should be reflected by the laws. At this point in time, however, the majority of Californians -- myself included -- do not want to see the definition of marriage expanded. That's kind of the definition of democracy.
15) Finally, I want to give a plug for your friends Natalie and Aprillium who have commented already. I agree with what they have to say. McCain had nothing to do with Prop 8 being on the ballot in CA. Even if he'd wanted to do something as crafty as that, his political advisors would have undoubtedly pointed out that Prop 8 would likely COST him the presidency. The black vote was huge for Prop 8. It was also huge for Obama. And to add to the statistics comment about fail rates of unions, fidelity among couples, best environment for a child, etc I suggest you read an extremely well-respected report prepared in 2004 by the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, NJ entitled "Ten Principles on Marriage and the Public Good". You can find it online. It is a summary of research and discussions conducted by leading scholars in the areas of History, Economics, Psychiatry, Law, Sociology and Philosophy. Interesting stuff.
Okay, I've now rambled long enough. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Here's the official site for the YES campaign: protectmarriage.com.
Here's the official site for the NO campaign: noonprop8.com.
Here's the exact wording of the proposition that was approved by voters and may be added to the California constitution: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
from http://www.protectmarriage.com/about
It says nothing about education, just like the NO on Prop 8 site says, but according to the education code (S51933 sect. 7) it says, "Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage..." The argument follows that if marriage includes gays, than it will be included in the education in the schools. It's already happened in Massachusetts, where same sex marriage was legalized in '04. So, it's not like they'll be talking about sex itself (whew), but about the structures of families and how same sex marriages are an option. That should be left to the parents to decide when to address the issue.
I realize that conservatives use measures like that to encourage voters, but Greg had it exactly right when he talked about the black and hispanic voters. Prop 8 was put on the ballot by voter petitions and because Obama was on the ticket this year, it brought out a larger black population, which also voted Yes on prop 8 (75% of them). That probably tipped the scale, not the LDS church, but somehow it's "better" to vandalize temples and protest the LDS church than it is to fight against minorities. Go figure. :)
I'd also like to add that the YES campaign was conducted peacefully and with integrity. It was hard, being so close to San Francisco, with the NO supporters vandalizing cars, protesting buildings and stealing YES signs from private properties. And that was before the votes were counted. I agree with you. They need to cool it and quit acting like children. The vote was counted and that's what the people wanted. That's how a democracy works.
This was (and is) such a sensitive issue for both sides, so it's hard to get an objective opinion about it. Even the wording in the voter information booklet was extremely biased.
Erika, this is your brother Derek (not Monica).
I’m deeply saddened by your remarks posted to your blog recently. I’ve decided to write you a response about “this proposition 8 nonsense,” as you called it. Gay marriage is indeed a religious argument as well as a legal argument. And yes, a part of the problem is semantics. Let’s start there.
1. Discrimination in any fraction is not right. Even if the subject is gay marriage. I will agree that if gays wish to come together in union for purposes of marriage that they should be free to do so as they please as long as they follow the laws which are set forth. This is not the issue dealing with proposition 8. However, news propaganda and anyone not familiar with the legislation would be lead to believe otherwise. They would be lead to believe that this is a civil rights issue, and to a certain extent one could argue that a part of the legislation may be a civil rights issue. However, the underlying issue that makes proposition 8 such a big deal is that it changes the legal definition of the word marriage. Why is this a problem?
• Because proposition 8 infringes on the religious right of Americans (for now just in California). To perform legally-defined marriages, pastors, bishops, temple workers, ect. have to be recognized by the state as having the civil authority to perform marriages. If proposition 8 would have failed, it would have required those pastors, bishops, temple workers, ect. to have to perform homosexual unions as well or they'd risk losing their state authority to perform marriages at all. For the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints this would mean no more temple marriage in the state of California. Can you understand now why the Mormon as well as most catholic, muslim, evangelical, or other churches who do not permit homosexual activity may have had a small problem with that?
• Another issue which I might add- is not a propaganda trick, is that in the state of California schools have the option of teaching sex education. I imagine that just like Idaho or Texas that most or all of them teach it due to educational purposes and STD prevention. If proposition 8 were to have failed then the definition of marriage would have included gays as well as other forms of unions (like with animals and inanimate objects) – I’m not joking, the definition in the legislation is quite abstract. It would have required schools to include teachings of homosexual unions and sexual behaviors. This means, that the elementary school “maturation clinics” that have traditionally covered sexual intercourse between a male and a female, would also have to discuss in equal detail anal sex between two men, and various forms of sexual interaction between two women. It has nothing to do with whether it is for pleasure or not. It would be taught for educational purposes to teach young children about alternative life styles as well as heterosexual lifestyles. The thought of this makes parents stomachs (as well as my own) churn. Most parents in America have a problem with teaching their young innocent children these graphic, distasteful, illustrations that may influence their behavior against the parent’s moral beliefs and disguise it as quality education. --- I mean can you imagine teaching Abrie about anal sex? How terrible. And don’t rationalize to think that this is just propaganda. This was one of the main purposes of proposition 8.
• The last point that I want to talk about is about our religion. Erika, you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We are not a wishy washy church. We have core beliefs. Allow me to state a few of them that are important to the previous conversation. This is the family proclamation. It reads:
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.
All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.
The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
Erika, I know these things to be true. I know that they are true because I have read the book of Mormon and have asked God if it was true, and he answered me that they are true. If your feelings for the church are uncertain, then I urge you to study the book of Mormon again for yourself and ask God if it is true. As you study and pray you will find that God has chosen a prophet who he gives revelation to in order to guide us, revelations just like the family proclamation.
Please don’t feel angry at anything that I have written. Nothing that I wrote was intended to offend you. I simply have taken the time to respond to what you wrote on your blog. Love you.
I LOVE it. This kind of dialogue is exactly what I wanted! I admit that in trying to wind down the most difficult semester I have taken thus far, I probably didn't do the research I could have done for this article. But that wasn't the point. I wanted to hear your points of view. Plus, I now know that Greg has a blog. Awesome.
I also admit that a few of my views swing decidedly to the left. However, DEREK, make no mistake. I still love the church and consider myself an active member. However, I really do take issue with the church telling people how to vote. That's all. Nothing faith shaking. There is no need to mourn for my salvation yet! Oh yeah, and your views don't offend me. Don't let mine offend you. The purpose of conversations like these is simply to talk to out.
Greg, I still think the McDonalds case is crazy. As a "reasonable" person, I don't order a hot drink thinking it will be cold, nor do I order a hot drink and put it in my lap where it could spill and burn my legs. It's neither here nor there. Obviously I will never be a judge making decisions like that.
THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS! I love to read them. My kids are crying so I will have to finish my comments later! :D
Oh, BTW, I think I will stick to posting about my kids mostly from now on. :D
Erika, I was surprised to find out I have a blog too...I guess I'll have to actually add content at some time.
Post a Comment