Did you know that Proposition 8 was only 14 words long? "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Nothing about taking away rights. Nothing about adopting children. Nothing about prohibiting civil unions. Why is it meeting such opposition?
I believe that the only purpose the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is trying to accomplish is to define what they hold to be a sacred, God-sanctioned institution. They are not denying people rights or privileges. I don't think they are saying that homosexual couple should not have the right to be together. Just maybe that we shouldn't call it "marriage".
After reading this article, I felt physically ill:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest7-2008nov07,0,3827549.story
This issue is creating such a divide among people, even within our own Church. The poster "You have two wives, let me have one husband" is so off the rocker it makes me upset.
What is your opinion on this Proposition and the backlash on the Church?
I completely agree with you! Way to speak your mind!
ReplyDeleteWHAT IF IT WERE REVERSED? What if a prop just passed that banned heterosexual marriage? What if gays said that they think marriage is sacred, and you don't qualify for one? What if they said maybe you could have a civil union, but your marriage to Erik is in now in question? What if there were a gay church that encouraged all of it's members to donate time and money to stop heterosexual marriage? To remove the right from the constitution? How would you feel? How would you react?
ReplyDeleteWith Love, Auntie
There are 1138 federal rights, protections and benefits when two people are legally married in the U.S. These are rights that no one has to file or petition for specially--they are automatic. For example, under civil unions, there are MANY fewer (or no) federal and state legal benefits, tax relief benefits, emergency medical rights, immigration rights. There are also no government benefits in the case of death (earned Social Security, veterans benefits, pensions, etc.), as there are for those who are legally married. Perhaps most importantly, no child support benefits are guaranteed out of the state in which the union occurred. Separate but equal? Not quite.
ReplyDeleteIn California, marriage between two individuals of the same gender was completely legal from May 2008 until Prop 8 was passed. By passing Prop 8, a right that was finally legally granted to a group of people has been stripped--that is one reason why people say rights are being "taken away." Additionally, there are thousands who have been married since May whose marriages may become null and void. Yes, the state may say, "Nope, your marriage doesn't count."
No one (well, no one in the No on 8 campaign) is saying that people of the same gender should be married within the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints. I fully believe that if the Mormon church does not want to marry people of the same gender, then it does not have to. But in the U.S., we talk about separation of church and state, and I do not see a reason why people of the same gender cannot get married in their backyards, in a courthouse, on a beach, in a fancy mansion on the water, or in a religious institution where marriage equality is supported.
I, too, am upset about the level of ignorance shown in the article you mention. If all people would show the same level of compassion and open-mindedness that they expect from others, the world would be a much better and just place.
Thanks for asking difficult questions and giving me the opportunity to show another side.
With nothing but respect, Jen
it doesn't have to SAY it takes away rights to take them away. gay marriage has been legal in california for 5 months. now it isn't. for the time being, anyway. in this country, we fight FOR equal rights, not against it. californians voted to protect the rights of animals, but not the rights of fellow humans. that is disgusting.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate everyone's comments...I hope we can all discuss this as rational and well-thought adults who respect each other, no matter how different their views. Thank you for sharing yours with me!
ReplyDeleteI asked Jen about this, but does anyone know of the issue being raised that the Supreme Court might have overstepped their bounds in overturning the people's vote in the first place? I've heard that they shouldn't have had the authority to make the ruling in the first place, and that the courts should have been wary to allow marriages in the first place. I'm trying to figure out if that is substantiated or not...
Wow. First of all, I think the protests that the Church should not have been involved, or that it "bought the election", are ridiculous. A church teaches certain moral values (well, some still do, anyway), and it is natural for its adherents to act in a way consistent with those values. Leaders of the LDS Church did not demand that its members donate to Yes on 8--they urged, suggested, asked, but did not demand. This is not a separation of church and state issue. The Church did not pull any legal strings--it simply, rightfully, and powerfully mobilized its people. Jeff Flint's comment in the Times article--if the same actions were being taken against Catholics or Jews, etc, then onlookers would be dutifully outraged--is interesting. Why doesn't the general public step in in defense of the Mormons? 52.2% voted in favor of 8. Period. That's a majority. I don't like Obama. Unfortunately for me, a majority of Americans do. Too bad for me. I accept the outcome of the democratic process. I'm not picketing the White House. I wish the No on 8 folks would recognize that they are acting just the way they accuse Mormons of acting--discriminating and bigoted.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Brit, this comment is a little more charged than you would probably like.
Marriage has historically been only between a man and a woman. Those who argue in favor of legalizing heterosexual "marriage" are proposing a change in the definition of marriage. I have yet to hear 1) an acknowledgment that the homosexual marriage movement is seeking to change the definition of marriage and 2) any explanation of why I am supposed to accept the fact that homosexual "marriage" is the same as heterosexual marriage. All arguments I hear focus on granting couples equal rights and allowing two people who love each other to be together.
ReplyDeleteI don't see any legal reason not to allow heterosexeual couples to have the same legal benefits of marriage (tax exemptions, emergency medical rights, immigration rights etc.). However, this is not marriage as the term has been historically defined. What's wrong with calling homosexual "marriage" a "civil union" and then passing a law saying that all references to marriage in previously enacted laws will be read as including civil unions. That way homosexual couples and heterosexual couples all have the same rights, we just have different words to refer to two different unions. If this whole issue is truly about equal rights, I don't see why this solution wouldn't be acceptable.
As a religious believer with many liberal friends, I have come to realize that we cannot change each others' viewpoints. My position opposing gay marriage is indeed founded upon the teachings of my religion. However, just because my belief is religious does not mean it is wrong, as liberal detractors seem to claim. Moral code must be based on something, and religion is a time-honored basis of civil laws (such as prohibitions against stealing and murder)—indeed, marriage itself probably started as a religious institution. I believe that God has instituted certain laws that bring salvation and joy to those who follow them, and for me to deny those laws would be to deny my God.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean I am imposing my religious beliefs upon a secular nation? I don’t think so. Not when I am merely upholding the position society has taken for several thousand years. Not when fellow supporters include people from many backgrounds, including Catholics and Jews, Evangelicals and Orthodox, African-Americans and Latinos, Asians and Anglos.
I understand that those not of my conviction will never agree with my position. I hope the two sides can at least meet in the middle, to agree that all people deserve to be treated with respect, and that people who wish to give each other certain rights under the law, such as inheritance and hospital visitation, should be allowed to do so. But I have rights as well, and as an American, I claim the right to vote my conscience.
Your second comment from Kaylynn has probably many fundamental errors, one of which is:
ReplyDeleteMarriage is not a constitutional right. Marriage isn't mentioned once in the US Constitution. The only reference to marriage being a right in the California constitution are the 14 words added by Proposition 8.