“Hate the sin, love the sinner” is a favorite phrase among many a Christian in today’s society. When Governor Sarah Palin told Katie Couric in her now infamous interview that her gay friend “happens to have made a choice that isn’t a choice that I have made,”1 the obvious implication is that she thinks being a homosexual is the equivalent of making a poor decision, “sinning,” if you will. And you know what? She has every right to feel that way. Many people would argue that she is wrong, but it is not illegal to hold that view. What should be illegal, however, is the attempt of anyone to use that belief as an excuse to give homosexuals less rights than heterosexuals. And whether or not it is a “choice” has absolutely nothing to do with it. Did Gov. Palin “choose” to be a fundamentalist Christian and a Republican? She might argue that she was born that way, or she might agree that it is a choice, but her rights remain the same regardless, simply because she is a human and an American. I am probably using Palin in my example, admittedly, because she is such an easy target, but Democrats fare no better in this issue. I am appalled that both the red and blue presidential and vice-presidential candidates are unable, or unwilling, to see the inherent dishonesty in claiming “tolerance” on the one hand and denying homosexuals basic human rights on the other. I am even further appalled that the tolerant and progressive step forward that has been taken in California is now threatened by the passage of Proposition 8.
One cannot help but draw a parallel between other past civil rights issues, such as the now embarrassing ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson that blacks would receive “separate but equal” treatment under the law.2 This is not the first time in our nation’s history, nor do I expect it to be the last, that religious groups have rallied together to fight against moral progress. If today’s typical Christian woman were alive in 1923, she might have argued that the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment would force her into the workplace. And in a way, the women and men who did believe this were right. The U.S. economy has changed drastically since the Civil Rights Act was passed (40 years after the ERA was defeated due to Christian opposition), and it is likely harder now for single-income families to make a living. But would any sane person argue that it wasn’t worth it? Sometimes, in fact most times, doing what is right costs something. There is no question for most people now that women and minorities should have equal rights, in the workplace and elsewhere. There is no question among many of the same organizations that fought against these exact issues.
So, what exactly is the cost of giving homosexuals the right to marry? From what I’ve seen, the only cost would be the swallowing of pride among those fighting against it. We have all heard the arguments that by preventing homosexuals from marrying, Christian groups are protecting the “sacred bond” of marriage and “traditional family values.” They say their own marriages will somehow be affected if homosexuals are permitted the same rights as heterosexuals. Surely they must realize that thousands of same sex marriages have already been performed in California, Massachusetts, and elsewhere. Has this had a negative effect on Christian marriages? Is it measurable? Is it quantifiable? If so, I’d like to see the evidence. If not, then I’d say they need a new argument. Additionally, there are plenty of heterosexual unions performed which Christian groups, in theory, ought to be vehemently opposed to, such as a marriage between two sadomasochists, a marriage in which the bride used to be a man, or a drunken Las Vegas marriage that is annulled within 24 hours. Christian groups might not like these situations, but they recognize that they do not have the right to take away these freedoms from these people. This creates a stunning double standard.
What about the belief that Christian groups hold that they will be forced to perform same sex marriages? As has been shown again and again, this claim is patently ridiculous. Religious organizations are currently permitted to discriminate as they see fit. As a non-Mormon, I am not permitted to even attend, much less participate in, a Mormon marriage ceremony. Our country allows this, because it gives private organizations and individuals the freedom to practice their beliefs. It should be this way… and it already is.
Speaking of the Mormons, they deserve special attention in this article. On June 29, 2008, the First Presidency of the Mormon Church released a letter calling on its 770,000 members located in California to give their full support and to donate as much money as they can within their means to the Prop 8 campaign.3 A complete list of Mormons who have donated $1,000 or more, with a running tally, can be found here. This is particularly sickening to me in that there are many people on this list whom I know personally. Mormons currently account for 31% of pro-Prop 8 donations, although that number is expected to rise dramatically as more data is collected.4 The Mormons’ opposition to gay marriage is quite ironic when you consider their history. They themselves have endured incredible persecution due to their own unorthodox views on marriage, i.e. their previous practice of polygamy. They were also much slower to react than the rest of the nation in treating blacks as equals. It took them until 1978 to give black males the same authorities that white males enjoyed.5 (Women still currently are given no authority at all.) Just because the mainstream Mormons no longer practice polygamy and now give blacks equal status, they would do well to remember their history.
One of the biggest problems I see here is that Christian groups are behaving as if marriage is a specifically religious contract, one they hold a monopoly on. Certainly religious ceremonies can be performed and beliefs held surrounding a marital contract, but the contract itself is secular in nature. The contract itself is from the U.S Government, which has an obligation to ensure equal rights and freedoms to all of its citizens. Not just Christian, white, male, or heterosexual citizens. All citizens.
I believe that in the years to come, future generations of Christians will look upon the issue of equal rights for homosexuals much the same way they view equal rights for blacks and women today. Let’s not wait another 40 years to treat everyone as equals. The most wonderful thing about the U.S. is people can believe whatever they want without persecution; our country was conceived on this principle. If you enjoy these rights and freedoms, it is your moral responsibility to apply them to all people, and that includes people who don’t believe the same things you do. Please, if you live in California, vote NO on Proposition 8. Let’s together set a precedent for basic human decency. VOTE NO ON PROP 8.
UPDATE 1:
On Friday, October 17th, a group of Mormons who support gay marriage delivered protest letters, bundles of carnations, and a petition with over 400 signatures, to church headquarters in Salt Lake City. A church spokeswoman accepted the package as the more than 40 people making the delivery sang church hymns.6 The group, called Sign for Something, believes that “each individual should have the civil right to marry the spouse of their choice and to have that union recognized by civil authorities.”7 They also write that “The Constitution of the United States of America assures us that no person or group’s religious views are allowed to be binding on the public… We are dismayed at the dilemma of choosing between the voice of our conscience and the advice of our church’s leadership on this issue.” This group of brave members should be applauded for standing up for the Constitution, and for what they believe is right, in the face of so much adversity.
UPDATE 2:
This past Sunday, October 26th, a large group of people came out to protest Prop 8 in front of the Mormon temple in Oakland, CA. You can read more about the event and see some great photos of protest signs here. In other news, I’m thrilled to report that Prop 8 opponents have now taken the lead in fundraising! As of late September, things were looking bleak for the anti-Prop 8 campaign, but the month of October has seen a ton of money pouring in, giving opponents of Prop 8 a strong advantage. Hopefully it will see us through to the finish line!
UPDATE 3: (Cross-posted here)
According to the CivLib Blog, “By making the passage of California’s Proposition 8 a substantial part of its activities this year, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has violated nonprofit law. Because it has broken the law, it should be stripped of its 501(c)(3) non-profit tax-exempt status. This law will not be enforced unless complaints are filed against the LDS Church for its illegal activities.” The blog lists all the individual documents required for filing a complaint, but our own JNTB has compiled all of these documents into one PDF for convenience. Per JNTB:
This document, IRS Form 13909 LDS.pdf, is the official form to submit to the IRS completed with the information offered by the CivLib.com blog. If you have Adobe Acrobat Reader 8 installed, it should allow you to open the PDF, add your own personal information (name/address/date of complaint) and then save the PDF to your own computer for use in an email later. If for some reason your version of Acrobat doesn’t allow the entering of info, just print, write it in, then scan back into an email to send to the IRS. Or, you can fax and snailmail, but beware …
This document, IRS Form 13909 LDS Supporting Documents.pdf, contains all the supporting documents (57 pages) that are required to file Form 13909 with the IRS. Email would be easier because faxing and snail-mailing can be annoying and costly. It’s up to you!
—–
Related StOP articles:
Regarding Roger Severino’s “Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Spark Lawsuits…”
Mormonism Unearthed:
Part I
Part II
Part III
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093002993.html [<]
- http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/sepbutequal.htm [<]
- http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage [<]
- http://mormonsfor8.com/?p=108 [<]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement [<]
- http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7Ee9lkE23iWetMMU1Vy5nxReXCgD93SKREG0 [<]
- http://signingforsomething.org/blog/?page_id=2 [<]
Tags: acrobat, Amendment, America, belief, California, campaign, Christ, church, citizen, Civil Rights, Constitution, Couric, Democrat, economy, Eden, family, family values, freedom, fundamental, gay, Government, Governor, history, human, Interview, Jesus, Law, lawsuit, LDS, legal, Love, Mass, Massachusetts, Monism, moral, Mormon, mormonism, Palin, photo, Plessy, president, republican, rights, Science, secular, sex, Sunday, tax, temple, theory, tolerance, Unearthed, United States, Vegas, vote, war, Washington
One thing (among many) about religion that irks me is that it allows adults to justify their biases and false assumptions. Forget tolerance, it is faulty reasoning to support irrationality.
I’ve been thinking about this issue a lot lately. I realize that we all deserve equal rights in this country and the importance of that. Prop 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay or lesbian domestic partners. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits”(family code 297.5) as married spouses. There are no exceptions to this. Prop 8 will not change this. I am voting yes on prop 8. It protects children from being taught in public schools that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage. Everyone needs to do what they feel is the right thing to do. What I feel in my heart is that homosexuality is wrong. When I have children, I want them to grow up in a society where this is not something that is socially acceptable. Voting no on prop 8, contributes to homosexuality becoming something as of the norm. I don’t believe this is how God wants us to live. I believe it to be a challenge given that can be overcome. I’m not trying to challenge you or anything like that. It’s just my point of view and wanted to share it with you!
I think that the traditional concept of “marriage” is dead. It is a concept steeped in religiosity that typically has people promising a fealty that is beyond their ability, much less their prognostication abilities. “Til death do us part”. Famous words that are extremely difficult for the average 20 year old to conceptualize, much less carry out. I am not sure what should replace this venerable concept, but it would be wise to think of something NOW. Fifty percent of marriages fail. Is that the fault of the people, or the system??
How hard would organizations like the Mormon church and its member fight if there was a constitutional amendment that Mormons marriages would no longer be valid or legal by the state of California? After all some parents may not want their children taught in school that Mormon marriages are ok. I mean they wear that funny underwear and say things like “gosh darn to heck”. You would think that a church that was once the target of an extermination order in Missouri would be a little more accepting of others.
Spin #1 – unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage is between any two adults regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
This is untrue. California Education Code 51890 provides that “pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health.” The focus is on health. The statute provides for community participation, including lectures by practicing professional health and safety personnel from the community. Things that are to be taught include, for example, drug use and misuse, nutrition, exercise, diseases and disorders, environmental health and safety, as well as “family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” Another section of the Education Code (51933) deals with comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention. It provides that instruction shall be age appropriate and medically accurate, shall teach “respect for marriage and committed relationships,” and shall encourage a pupil to communicate with his or her parents about human sexuality. Therefore, no provision of the Education Code requires any teacher to teach that same‐sex marriage is “just as good” as traditional marriage. Teachers are to teach respect for marriage and committed relationships, and Proposition 8 will not change this law.
I agree with your reasoning that everyone should be treated equal. Let’s protect the homosexuals to do whatever they want. Next step is to protect the polygamists. Did you see how they weren’t hurting anyone in Texas? How dare the government step in to break that up. After that, let’s push to protect all those who want to have ‘relations’ with underage children. After all, if they are old enough for their body to function sexually, they should be allowed to practice it. What’s wrong with a 14 year old being pregnant? If it was wrong, their body wouldn’t allow it, right? How narrow minded we all are. Shame on us.
Tracy, Prop 8 does not “protect children from being taught in public schools that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage.” In fact, this proposition says nothing about education at all. Children are in school to learn math, science, history, etc., and that would stay exactly the same. I personally would want my children to be taught that all people deserve to be treated equally, and as much as the religious right likes to say that domestic partnerships and marriages grant exactly the same rights, this simply is not true. California happens to have a comprehensive domestic partnership law that grants almost the same rights as marriages. Almost, but not all. You also have to keep in mind that, unlike a marriage, the benefits of a domestic partnership are only valid within the state the partnership is formed. If a lesbian couple were to move to Washington State, they would have only a handful of these benefits. “Feeling in your heart” that homosexuality is wrong does not give you the right to deny them rights and freedoms.
Wow, I’m amazed that Tracy G can use her heart instead of her brain.
Doing “what they feel is the right thing to do” is not the same as doing “what they have researched, questioned, and reasoned to be the best decision” (my preferred method). I like to have a reason for making a decision.
One point that the author made was not about what “feels right”. The point that I read, was:
What harm is done to others by granting homosexual couples the right to “marry”? Tracy, what harm does a legally married homosexual couple do to YOU specifically ?
John Doe, your logic could use some work. What occurs between consenting adults is a far cry from pedophilia. I’m not surprised you didn’t want to reveal your name.
Jon Doe,
Perhaps you should read the article again and attempt to comprehend it one more time.
Honestly, you are ranting and pulling illogical arguments out of the woodwork. What does a “husband” (according to his church, not the state) who rapes his 14 year old “wife” (because his religion says it is OK) have to do with two adults in a commited relationship? Is this distasteful to you because YOUR god says it is NOT OK for them to be in one if they are both men?
Perhaps next time you will post a reply with logical substance.
Tracy, I’d just like to add one more thing I ought to have pointed out earlier. You seem to have missed my parallel between this issue and “Separate but Equal.” The argument you are making could easily have been applied in 1896: “Blacks will still have the same rights, just in a separate facility.” It wasn’t right then, and it isn’t right now. If a person today just “felt in their heart” that blacks should be separate, no one would take them seriously.
TracyG seems to have missed the entire point of the article (as pointed out) and does a good job of perpetuating the stereotype that christians, using their bibles as justification, are able to be bigoted, exclusive, and condescending. “I don’t believe that this is how god wants us to live” is what she said. What she means is “I would like to take the dogma from my own un-provable belief system and force everyone else to abide by it.”
She is free to believe as she wishes — but she should stop forcing oppression on others by trying to legislate her dogmas. If she is so afraid of gay people, and wants to pass that prejudice on to her children — well, I guess that says a lot about her morality and tolerance. Once again, the morality of unbelievers surpasses the celestial-guided “morality” of christians. Their book just gives them excuses to preclude and persecute people and groups.
In Massachussetts, gay marriage is legal. It’s being taught in schools and the parents who do not want their 5 year olds asking questions about this, have absolutely no say on whether or not their child is taught this. You can check it out. There’s a video and interviews etc on their experience with it. In 27 states, marriage is legally defined as something between a man and a woman and in the rest of the states, except MA, it’s been ruled under the Supreme court as being defined as between a man and a woman. If a gay couple gets married here or in MA and moves to another state, that marriage is no longer recognized. To me this has nothing to do with blacks having the same rights. My own opinion is that you can’t control what color you are(unless you’re michael jackson) but you can control what your sexual orientation is. I realize that a lot of people might disagree with me on this because they feel that homosexuality is not a choice. If I believed that it was not a choice and something you were born with, I might have a different opinion. So agree to disagree?
Psst, Christians, homosexuals have been getting married for years and your God evidently doesn’t care. Get over it. Horrors, kids will be taught about it. Do ya think they won’t find out? Sorry that you can’t put your ignorant blinders on your kids.
Please show how homosexuality is a choice. If you believe it’s so, you must have some right?
Tracy, Shawn Parker has graciously provided the education code above, which you can read for yourself. The health curriculum that districts are recommended to follow (not even required) includes information about the legal and financial responsibilities of marriage and the differences between dating, serious relationships and marriages for high school age students. It is quite possible that students at this age might be informed of the fact that same sex marriage is legal in the state of California, and I suspect our high school students can handle it. As far as 5 year olds go, I can only assume you are reffering to the David Parker case in Massachusetts, although you’ve listed no sources. For those who have not heard the story, Mr. Parker’s 5 year old child came home with a bag of books promoting diversity. Among the contents were information on various cultures and traditions, as well as a copy of “Who’s in a Family?” which depicted various family units, including a same sex couple raising children. So? Do you really think that informing a child about reality, that same sex couples exist, is going to destroy our childrens’ future? This is hysteria. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but there are over 50,000 children being raised currently in same sex homes in the state of California alone. Should these children not be represented? Should their families not be considered families at all? Opponents of gay marriage keep saying, “Think of the children!” I agree. Let’s think of the children. Let’s think of those 50,000 children and what many of them will endure from other children who are being taught, not about diversity, but that homosexuality is wrong. Period. End of discussion. It is precisely this viewpoint that has led to the statistic that suicide is the leading cause of death among young homosexuals. Maybe if our children were taught that it’s okay to be who you are, this would not be the case. As far as homosexuality being a choice, every new study that is released points to the same thing – that it is biological. You can choose to ignore this evidence if you like, but as I’ve pointed out in my article, whether or not it is a choice makes no difference at all. You choose to be a Mormon. I “feel in my heart” that Mormonism is wrong, but I don’t have a say in that because it’s your life and your body and your mind and you get to choose what to do with it.
I do not know if it is possible to quantify the impact of same sex marriage on traditional marriage, however I had a recent experience that concerned me and has resulted in my support of Proposition 8. About ten years ago I volunterred to assist the Boy Scouts with a regional campout for the Thunderbird District in Los Angeles. This is the area that comprises the neighborhoods of Inglewood extending east into South Central. About 20 scout troops were involved and I enjoyed working with the inner-city troops and their leaders. Last year I volunteered to assist with the same campout again. This time there were less than half as many scout troops. Virtually all of the inner-city Scout troops in that District no longer exist. I asked why. The answer is because in 2000 the Boy Scouts were involved in a discrimination suit related to their dismissal of Gay scoutmasters. This matter was taken to the Supreme Court and the Scouts prevailed because they are deemed to be a private organization. Unfortunately, activists pursuing punishment of the Boy Scouts identified the United Way as a major charitable sponsor of the Scouts. These activists threatened legal action against the United Way for its support of discriminatory organizations such as the Boy Scouts. As a result, the United Way of Los Angeles pulled financial support for the Boy Scouts. Did this impact the white-bread scouts from the suburbs? No. But the inner-city troops are gone and as far as I know there has been nothing to replace them. Tolerance is a two-way street. Obviously there are arguments to be made on both sides of this issue, but there is plenty of “evidence” to show that kids have been hurt and opportunities have been lost. I don’t trust anyone who endeavors to play slash and burn in the name of tolerance and civil rights.
Dan,
I read that you are voting Yes for Proposition 8 because the United way isn’t going to fund a discriminatory organization, is that correct?
Suppose that from the inception of the United Way program to solicit funds for the BSA, that all potential donors (as well as the United Way) knew of the BSA’s discriminatory practices. It is likely that funding would have not been given to the BSA in the first place.
If the BSA was not discriminatory, United Way funding most likely would still be present.
The BSA does not have a great history regarding discrimination against minority groups. Why can’t the “white bread” suburb troops share money with the inner-city troops?
It is interesting to me that you choose to be upset with the homosexual community rather than be upset with a discriminatory organization.
This tells me that in the face of reason, you still side with your irrational biases.
Brilliant. Well stated. Articulate. A voice of rationality rising above the Two Minutes’ Hate that the Big Brothers in Salt Lake are distracting their Party members with.
Great article , thanks
I have an openly gay brother who i view as one of the greatest people on the face of this earth. I also have Mormon in-laws and it causes me a great deal of pain to know that this is being pushed so hard by them.
I am tired of the suggestion that the Church’s experience during polygamy should have anything to do with the stance against homosexual marriage. No one is suggesting the state should actively break up homosexual couples or keep them from engaging in that consensual sexual activity. If, however, homosexuals were being imprisoned, separated, and driven from the country by the forces of proposition 8, then the comparison would be accurate. But it’s not.
Based on my experience, it is inaccurate to believe that those who oppose gay marriage oppose it because they hate gays or even fear them.
To Tracy and others that say that, since gays have the right to domestic partnerships, Prop 8 will not take away any rights. I ask you: if your right to marry were taken away but you still had the right to a domestic partnership, would you believe that you had lost a right?
I currently have the right to marry the person I love in California. Proposition 8 would take away that right. Period. All that it would take away from you is the legal justification for viewing my marriage as any less worthy or legitimate than yours.
And please do your research: the rights of marriage are not co-extant with those of domestic partnership, from both legal and practical perspectives.
Bill wrote: “Based on my experience, it is inaccurate to believe that those who oppose gay marriage oppose it because they hate gays or even fear them.”
I don’t see anyone claiming such. I believe people who oppose gay marriage are merely misguided and misinformed.
From a churchs standpoint, allowing gay marriage causes few but big problems. One is that people look at catholic priest raping childrens or w/e and they view that as hypocritical no? Well what if you walked into a church called “The Holy Church of God” and saw the “I do” as the priest married the gays? That would just cause more hypocrisy inside the church. And what if the priest refuse to marry gays? That would be violating law. So really what option do they have? Now im somewhat unclear but wouldn’t that violate separation of church and state? State forcing the church to marry gays. hmmm
Nick, I recommend actually reading my article, which you clearly have not done. In paragraph 4, I address the myth that churches will be forced to perform same sex marriages, which is simply not true.
Ok, so how exactly do we applaud that group? Is there a link to their site or something?
Jim, thanks for the question.
Here is their site: http://signingforsomething.org/blog/
They are still collecting letters and signatures for the petition and will deliver updated versions at a later date.
Man, Prop 8 better not pass. Here I was all happy that America was showing some progress on the civil rights front, and religious bigots have to come along and try to screw it up.
Do you guys know same sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, then they teach gay marriage in kindergarten for those children only 5. That is crazy. Parents cannot complain since same sex marriage is legal in that State.
If Pro 8 do not pass in California, same thing will happen in California. If you do not care about your children, then you can vote NO.
Moreover, all tax payer will pay more because all public school need to teach on gay marriage, use more material. And so if you don’t care about spending more, vote NO again.
I found a true sad story happen in Massachusetts, check out in Youtube.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puI4pfRB0w0
As a public school teacher in the great state of California and someone who teaches sociology I support Prop 8 not because I hate homosexuals but there are several points of interest that seem to be overlooked and it will effect ALL California’s and eventually ALL Americans as it has in all 9 countries that have legalized same sex marriages around the world. First for those who keep clamoring they need the right to vote ONLY several hundred (not thousands)of same sex couples have been wed since its legalization in June of 2008. That seems to stick with the 2% rate of same sex couples getting married in the other 9 nations. Not only does same sex couples not get married but also there is a huge decline in heterosexual couples. This leads to a 48% increase in the number of children born out of wedlock. If you look at social indicators of those who are incarcerated, poorly educated, and drug/alcohol addictions, the number 1 factor across the board were people who came from broken homes (male and female parents not married). Some would continue to say, so what! Well, let’s connect the dots…high incarceration rates; higher taxes to care of them, lower educational achievement, poorer job choices and eventually forces higher minimum wages due to majority of population to support themselves and increase of entitlement programs (higher taxes again), higher drug/alcohol abuse, more crime to pay for addictions and poor work habits (see russia and their alcoholism problem with their workforce). In the end taxes have increased in the 9 countries to above 65% of the average workers income to support the results of the destruction of the “traditional family”. Those 9 countries now regret what they have done to destroy their countries. I love my country too much to allow a small amount of the population estimated at 4%(gay & lesbian) to determine the fate of The United States of America. There is ssome great information on prop 8 and its arguments on the following website please visit it to become more informed in some of the arguments for yes on 8.
http://www.yeson8.info
If you don’t agree with my assertions look them up yourself, you’ll see they are supported with data.
The LDS church has put out a lot of information to explain itself and why it is supporting the issue with such vigor. I think it is important to remember also that the LDS church is always acting as part of coalitions with other faiths that have similar moral and doctrinal definitions of marriage, the LDS Church has simply been more able to mobilize its members to take action themselves. This is not a matter of intolerance or hate, it is a legal battle with an eye towards the legal ramifications of the decision.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
A couple excerpts:
“The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.”
The legal outcomes of this decision could very well threaten the freedom of religion in the U.S.:
“Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.” [16]
“The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.”
“Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership. [18]”
“Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. [19] Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished.”
A quote from one of the members of the leadership group of the LDS church:
“Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.”
Visit http://www.protectmarriage.com/
YES ON 8!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To Kelvin and Martin (and anyone else planning on commenting without reading previous replies), please go back and read my article and the comments preceding yours. This has already been discussed, and Martin, I even discussed the exact story from the video you’ve posted. Keep the ignorance in check people; I’m getting tired of repeating myself
pj gildernew, it’s interesting that you tell us to look up your claims ourselves to see that they are supported with data. Yet, I cannot find a single one of your claims that is supported with data. If the data is really there, why do you not cite it? The claim that legalizing same sex marriage will lead to a decline in heterosexual marriage and an increase in out-of-wedlock births is probably a reference to the ramblings of uber-Conservative Stanley Kurtz, although if that is your source, I think even he would want to correct your erroneous claims, as you have completely misrepresented his position. Mr. Kurtz, in this article, http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/10/death_of_marriage_in_scandinavia/, cites the fact that the majority of children are being born out-of-wedlock in Scandinavian countries (that’s Sweden, Norway, and Denmark) as an indication to him of “a sharp cultural separation between the ideas of marriage and parenthood.” However, unlike your claim, he does not place the blame solely on the acceptance of same sex marriage. In fact, he states in his article that this decline in marriage rates began occuring long before same sex marriage was legal. He, instead, blames it on a myriad of factors, such as “contraception, abortion, women in the work force, individualism, secularism, and the welfare state.” That’s one point where you’ve misrepresented his opinions (and not even data, but opinions).
Now, here’s the second point where you diverge from Mr. Kurtz, and this is where you’ve REALLY got it wrong. Mr. Kurtz makes no connection between this and an increase in crime, poor education, and drug and alcohol addictions. He would be a fool to do so, because the crime rate in these Scandinavian countries is far, far lower than the crime rate in the United States. To give just one statistical example showing that these countries are far more peaceful than the U.S.: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita (See how easy it is to post references?)
Of all your conveniently missing references, I think the source I would most like to see is for your claim that “Those 9 countries now regret what they have done to destroy their countries.”
Kat, thank you for pointing out to us that it is not only the LDS Church that is discriminating against homosexuals. Many, many people of various faiths are doing so.
As to the bulk of text you’ve copied and pasted, I see a whole lot of fear mongering and claims on par with, “Oh no! If the government stops discriminating against homosexuals, my organization might have to as well!” The horror!
The definition of marriage is the critical issue here, not equal rights.
Paul Nathanson is a Canadian who is a sociologist, first, and a practicing homosexual, second.
This is what he has to say:
http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/mmmode.pdf
The below story of a gay couple who will vote YES on Proposition 8. It speaks for itself.
Source:
http://www.mixx.com/stories/2426768/california_conservative_blog_archive_gay_men_support_prop_8
“So, our position on Prop 8 now is as follows: We encourage our family and friends around us to “vote their hearts, values, and religious beliefs.” Whatever they choose we will respect and honor their choice. As for us, we intend to Vote YES on Prop 8 because we dislike the bastards who misjudged us and our values as members of the GLBT community.
Proposition 8 has forced us and others like us to make a choice: A choice between “going with the flow” and voting as gay men OR protecting our families values, their right to worship in peace, and their right to their religious institutions (like marriage).
We have news for many in our community: When our community condones, supports, or tacitly approves of such baiting tactics, then you can bet we will cross lines. We will protect our families and all the beliefs they hold dear regardless of what mainstream West Hollywood or San Francisco will be doing.
Prior to this ballot measure, we were really indifferent to the whole matter. However, as voters and as a gay couple it has now gotten personal. We are now being asked to make a choice between our families and our community.
We have news for all those angry-bitter people in our community; we choose to protect our family from the gay activists who threaten our families’ beliefs and religious institutions. This is a no-brainer.”
Stephanie,
Lovely sentiment, but factually incorrect. Marriage, from a state law perspective, is not a religious institution, and allowing a certain type of marriage doesn’t force any religious organization to allow a ceremony for the types of marriages it rejects.
There is absolutely no evidence that state-based allowance of same-sex marriage results in harm to families who reject same-sex marriage. Basically, if you don’t want to get married to someone of your own gender, then don’t.
It’s interesting how your source prides himself on promoting voting based on “religious beliefs, hearts, and values,” but does not acknowledge that there are quite a few people out here in the world with differing beliefs and values, who wholeheartedly oppose undue interference into the liberties, freedoms, and privacy of all, regardless of orientation.
Your example is analogous to the arguments used to oppose interracial marriage, to oppose emancipation, to oppose integration, and to oppose women’s suffrage. Dissenters in all of those cases argued that people should oppose such novel ideas, as they were not biblically supported, that they deviated from tradition and what people were accustomed to in heart and mind, and in their “values.” They argued that each and every one of those new freedoms would cause irreparable harm to the community, to society, to families.
Those arguments held no weight. They relied on fundamentally flawed and antiquated sexist and racist ideas, when, at those times, they didn’t even acknowledge the existence of “sexism” and “racism.” We’re on the brink of acknowledging and rejecting another ‘ism, and your source, perhaps you, and many others will find yourselves forever etched in history as the angry dissenters who opposed giving equal rights to people who love each other and just happen to be of the same gender.
pj gildernew, I don’t quite understand your logic, if you have any. Am I to believe that families will break up if gay people can marry when they would otherwise stay together if gays couldn’t marry? How does that work exactly?
And you include that with the claim that not many homosexuals chose to get married. So…. wouldn’t that mean the effect is lessened, if less people are defiling society with the abomination of gay marriage? Or is it the mere legal status of same-sex marriage that influences society, as some magical, invisible force?
Someone please explain that to me, because I’m truly missing out on how gay marriage is anymore harmful than heterosexual marriage, or what it is they’re trying to protect given the shambolic state of marriage before any of this happened.
When same-sex marriage is not legally recognised, it means that marriage laws are gender discriminatory. How on earth is it damaging to society to take away this arbitrary and unlawful discrimination? With this, men and women can become a little more equal in the eyes of the law. If this does have a flow-on effect to families, hopefully it will be to see fairer outcomes from court cases involving failed marriages, family splits and parental rights.
The following is an perspective posted in the OCRegister blog.
A Libertarian Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
by Wayne Lusvardi
I strongly oppose the superficially “libertarian” positions expressed in the media against California Proposition 8 which would ban same-sex marriage; and although I am in favor of Prop 8, I am nevertheless disappointed and unpersuaded by the conservative and religious arguments for it.
The conventional libertarian argument against ballot initiatives and laws which ban same-sex marriage is that the state should not have anything to do with sanctioning marriage in the first place (i.e., Steven Greenhut). However, this would lead to an expansionist libertinism where politicians would be continually seeking new constituencies to provide sanction for marriage, not limited government libertarianism. Such a position is antithetical to the libertarian notion of limited government under the rule of law. To resolve this problem a bright line first needs to be drawn between what is expansionist versus limited government with regard to marriage.
The arguments in favor of California Prop 8 are overly defensive, conjectural, seemingly discriminatory and wrongly moralistic. Concern over a speculative future harm to children as the weakest members of society will not likely overcome the perception of actual discrimination against gays today in the eyes of much of the liberal public. Moreover, many believe that the paramount religious value is to teach children not to discriminate against gays or other groups.
Conversely, the arguments against Prop 8 on the basis of injustice and unfairness and the unhappiness and social stigma inflicted on gays by denying them the sanction of marriage equally miss the mark. The social status of gay couples is no different than that of anyone else who lives in an unmarried status, including widows.
The utopian notion that progressive “change” will overcome the “centuries long struggle for civil rights” for gays is historically myopic. The past Progressive reforms of busing in our public schools (“white flight”) and recent reform of affordable housing credit as a civil right (“sub-prime” loan foreclosures and investor wipe-outs) are tragic cases of the unintended consequences of the misguided quest for “civil rights.”
The word “marriage” comes from the Latin word “mater” for mother. And “mater” is what matters in marriage. Marriage is unavoidably built around female sexuality and procreation. Marriage can only concern a relationship to a woman for procreation. Marriage is the opposite of concubinage, which is an involuntary relationship with a man of higher status in a traditional society.
Civil libertarian and feminist philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote “over one’s mind and over one’s body the individual is sovereign.” A social order that doesn’t protect a woman from rape or incest or concubinage can’t give women freedom to control who the father(s) of their children are, or their own bodies, or even their own health. Marriage is the structure of this freedom of choice for women in a modern society. Women’s freedom to control access to their body is what marriage is all about. Without that there is no legitimate societal basis for laws to protect marriage, including gay marriage.
Feminists are essentially right about marriage but not same-sex marriage. Defining marriage down to a mere contract between companions or non-procreative sex partners will only end up harming all women for if everyone can marry, no one needs to and it becomes meaningless. Women will ultimately suffer most. Gay marriage robs something that belongs exclusively to women. Man-woman marriage is not anti-gay, it is pro-feminine. Same sex marriage is anti-feminist.
Modern society has no legal basis to sanction same-sex marriage because there is no procreation, no need for protection and safety and no need to preserve freedom and choice for women. If California Prop 8 is defeated at the polls the politicians will never cease pandering to so-called discriminated groups excluded from marriage in order to buy votes and spread patronage.
Traditional society is about fate; modern society about choice. Modern marriage isn’t a conspiracy of patriarchs, straights, or the respectable capitalistic bourgeoisie class. It is about the sovereignty and choice of individual women.
The only basis for government to sanction marriage is to preserve freedom for women not to elevate the status of a few famous elite gays. This transcends the politics and religion of Left and Right. Even though I am disappointed with the arguments of the proponents for Prop 8, I nonetheless urge you to Vote Yes on Prop 8 as the libertarian option.
I disagree, but it is an interesting read.
According to the dictionary, the definition of marriage is, “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. ”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
Why should a minority group be allowed to change the definition of anything? Should anyone be permitted to do such a thing?
Its like a cat is a cat. The sun is the sun. A human being is a human being. And, following the same line of logic, a marriage is a marriage. If gays want to go do their own thing, that is their choice, their right. But don’t call it marriage. Don’t call it something its not.
Indeed, like how a minority eventually established that “separate but” was not an acceptable implication in “equality.”
You know, originally in the U.S., marriage between a “white” person and “black” person was illegal. Like, ILLEGAL illegal. Not the “don’t spit on the sidewalk” kind of illegal that no one prosecutes, but “throw your ass in jail, hang you from a tree” kind of illegal.
Let’s play trivia. What year, in the U.S., did we officially allow interracial marriage?
Was it:
1792?
1819?
1901?
1967?
Question 2: What’s the total number of people who made that decision?
Question 3: Just for you, Tarl: Are you opposed to interracial marriage?
YES ON 8!!!!!!!!!!!! DO THE RIGHT THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Adam, your argument has blown me away. Here I thought that I should be basing my decision on reason, evidence, and rationality, but clearly I was wrong. How can reason possibly compete with that many exclamation points?
Laura-
What about the belief that Christian groups hold that they will be forced to perform same sex marriages? As has been shown again and again, this claim is patently ridiculous. Religious organizations are currently permitted to discriminate as they see fit. As a non-Mormon, I am not permitted to even attend, much less participate in, a Mormon marriage ceremony. Our country allows this, because it gives private organizations and individuals the freedom to practice their beliefs. It should be this way… and it already is.
That has nothing to do with my point of causing more hypocrisy in the church. I suggest you read my comment
Nick, I have read your comment a few times over and it is no more clear than the first time. Perhaps English is not your first language, but with the current grammatical errors and incorrect sentence structures of your original post, I interpreted it as best I could. If you have another point to make, you’ll have to figure out how to make it more clear.
Wow so you’re going to bag on my grammar over the INTERNET and make no arguement to my point? God sometimes i hate athiest.
GO ADAM W00T W00T
As I said, your “point” is indecipherable. Apparently, comprehension is also a problem.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA it passed!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.stateofprotest.com/2008/11/05/erasing-decades-of-moral-progress-with-proposition-8/
Well Laura,
I guess by now you and your bull dyke lover aree back out on the sidewalk waving signs and thinking about how things WERE!
I’m glad to see that you be able to toungue bash your lovers crotch as long as you wish, but when each of you look at the rings on your fingers, know that they are worth nothing more than the value of the material therin. To know that your feelings are not true and pure, and that any words or promises made between the two of you are also pointless and nulified.
Have a great unmarried year—-beaver eater
JH
JH,
I could quite easily delete your comment, but I would like it to stand here as a testament of your character. A previous commenter thought it was innacurate to say that those who opposed Prop 8 did so out of hate or fear. I feel quite silly now for agreeing with him, as you and a few other commenters have clearly demonstrated the opposite of his claim. I feel immeasurably grateful not to carry around the vile hatred in my heart which you so clearly do.
Additionally, it’s quite sad that I have to actually point out that not only homosexuals care about homosexual rights. I am a straight woman, and my boyfriend and I both care deeply about equal rights for all.
May reason be your guide, JH, and may you never bring children into this world.
Near the end of your article you mention that many opponents to gay marriage act as though marriage were a religious contract, a religious monopoly. You went on to assert that it is actually a secular right granted by the government. You couldn’t be more wrong. God instituted the covenant of marriage when He created the first family. Long before any government on earth existed, marriage began. I have no problem with equal rights, there are already domestic partnership rights all over the country. But marriage is a different matter. Marriage was created by God and is therefore sacred. It cannot be re-defined to suit the personal preference of special interest groups. I remember well when homosexual groups claimed that they “didn’t care” about marriage–all they wanted were partnershiip rights. Now that they have been granted that, they’ve moved on to the “right” to marry. And I am appalled at the tactics being used to get their message out there–in addition to peaceful protests, there have been death threats to pastors, churches vandalized, and in at least one instance, worship services disrupted. Do you really think that stomping on the cross and throwing condoms in a church service will convince Christians to look more favorably on the homosexual’s demands?
Lynda,
If your claim that marriage is a solely Christian institution were true, then Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, atheists, etc. would not get married. As we all know, there are people of all faiths who consider marriage “sacred,” as you do. Many homosexuals consider marriage to be sacred, and I’d really like to see some evidence for your claim that there was a time when homosexuals “didn’t care about marriage.” As I said, the beliefs that you hold surrounding your marriage are religious, but the contract you hold from the government is not. Our government’s purpose is not to uphold Christian principles; its purpose is to protect people of all faiths, as well as people of no faith, and allow all people equal rights and freedoms.
[...] Proposition 8, the Mormons, and the New “Separate but Equal” [...]
I wasn’t aware of this.
Well said, just what I was looking for.
I have also run across another site that may be of interest: http://findtruelove-datingsite.blogspot.com/
Thanks again.