-
Website
http://www.louisgray.com/live/ -
Original page
http://blog.louisgray.com/2008/10/prop-8-tangles-religion-tech-and.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
In addition, Prop 8 opponents are spouting feel good fluff about how they just want to love and be loved, and want to be treated the same as every one else. This is either ignorance or a smoke screen designed to distract from the real issues. Rights to joined themselves in a civil union, adopt, benefit from insurance policies, have hospital visitations, and not testify against a spouse in court etc. would not be withheld from same sex couples if prop 8 passed (see for yourself: web search Family Code §297.5). This is not about homosexuals loosing their civil rights. It is about churches, organizations and individuals loosing their rights to believe as they choose.
Very knowledgeable lawyers have determined that we are at risk of loosing our freedom to worship without government restriction and penalties, and to control our children’s education about homosexuality. The ramifications are that they will use the law to force (directly or indirectly) the indoctrination of your kids in school, allow for only churches that teach that same sex marriage is ok to have tax exempt status and will preclude any organization that doesn’t agree with them from having access to public resources (student loans etc.) or participating in government regulated activities (adoption, marriage etc.). You may think that these scenarios are just paranoia, but they’re not. This is already happening.
But underlying these issues is the “right to disagree”. This is also correctly termed “tolerance”. Tolerance allows people to disagree without fear of oppresion, violence, threats, or persecution of any type. Unfortunately the term tolerance is misinterpreted by prop 8 opponents to mean, “everyone must agree that my lifestyle is ok”. You would think that it would be obvious and natural to be able to disagree on a topic while maintaining your own beliefs and still respect others right to do the same. Unfortunately, “live and let live” isn’t good enough for some people. Why? Because all the diversity policies, parades, flag waving, clubs, parts in movies, and special recognition days haven’t accomplished their intended purpose. That is, to make homosexuals feel better about their lifestyle choice through mainstreaming their agenda. They’re desperate to make others accept their lifestyle choice as being normal, healthy and good. And most people don’t believe this. And now it’s come to the point that if you don’t believe their rhetoric, then they’re prepared to force it on you and your children without your consent.
Same sex marriage proponents have lies, smear tactics, hate filled campaigns, and lobbying for the inappropriate legislative acts of liberal activist judges to force their agenda. Interestingly, or appallingly as is the case, these were the same tactic used by Hitler to force his doctrines on the citizens of Germany. Make laws that promote the indoctrination of children, legitimize the suppression of those who refuse to cooperate and generally promote hatred towards those that don’t believe the way you do. Promoting hatred and anger was at the heart of the tactics used by the Nazi régime, and it scares me to see this type of attitude promoted by some opponents of prop 8. I’m continually surprised to learn of the venomous acts of hatred, vandalism, destruction and violence towards prop 8 supporters and their property. And the stories keep pouring in. I’m assuming that the prop 8 opponents who do these things are typically decent people. What is it about this proposition that brings out such behavior? It reminds me of the civil rights era and the oppression, propaganda and violence used against those trying to protect the rights of African Americans. Respectable citizens, parents, and even young children got caught up in the hate. While those who were fighting for freedom were passive and never gave into hate. Are there prop 8 proponents that give into hate? Yes, unfortunately. But in general those who want to protect marriage are peaceful, hardworking, sober and passive citizens. I’ve also met, and believe that the majority of those who oppose prop 8 are good and decent people (gay and straight).
What scares me the most is where this will all lead if allowed to continue un-checked. For these reasons I believe that it is imperative that we do all we can to save our civil liberties from annihilation by a very few vocal and hate filled activists. We need to do this for ourselves and our posterity. And I can’t think of a better way to do that this November then by voting “yes” on proposition 8.
Bill Daily
Livermore, CA
To answer your closing question, I think there is common ground, but it's going to take a massive re-shifting of perspective on both sides to get there, and a world of hurt for all parties, most likely.
I fall into the gay-marriage-is-a-civil liberties camp. I've had my own (bad) experiences with organized religion, and walked away from Catholicism as soon as I was recognized as an adult in the eyes of the Church.
I've also walked away from marriage--my one and only, with no plans to re-up for a second tour. Not because I can't imagine wanting to be with someone until death did us part, but because I'm extremely uncomfortable with the spiritual/religious overtones (or would they be undertones? Not especially musical, I.)
For me, standing on the outside of this sad and scary mess, the solution seems obvious: civil union and mutually exclusive church-recognized marriage. Anyone who wants rights accrued by "marriage" (as it stands now, all muddled together) must be "married" by the courts. Leave marriage-marriage to the churches to decide. France ain't all great, but as far as I'm concerned, they've got the marriage/civil union thing nailed.
The problem is--well, one of the many problems is that France is France and the U.S. is not. We like things black or white, metaphorically speaking (although there's a whole lot of real-life ugliness around that, too), and are uncomfortable with shades of gray (no pun intended!). I wonder whether pulling apart the issue--rendering unto Caesar, etc.--would satisfy either side. I mean, I'd be fine with it, but I'm neither gay nor religious nor particularly nuts about marriage, period. You tell me: would a staunch Mormon elder perceive civil unions (for all) as a threat? Would the GLBT community, which can be pretty militant in its own way, accept anything less than full surrender?
For the record, I'm voting "no" on 8, as is pretty much everyone in my progressive pocket of SoCal. I do it with a bit of a heavy heart, which I'm loathe to admit to my (many, *many*) gay friends, because I'm really unconvinced that we're fighting the right battle here. Or that we are, but the wrong way.
But, let's have a discussion. First, you are right to separate marriage into two things: the spiritual and/or cultural event that one does at a church, or with friends, etc. and the legal event that one does at a courthouse that gives you legal rights.
I really don't care what you do at your church. So, let's take that off the table. I think we can all agree that religious freedom is a pretty important principle our country was founded on and it's not one I'm willing to give up.
But this is more about the law than about anything else. Do we all have equal protection and equal rights under the law? Now there I DO care about your position and there I will argue very hard that those who want to take away other people's rights are doing real harm to society and law itself. You'll notice that this amendment is trying to change our state's constitution. Why? To take away other people's rights.
On that point you either are on the side of light or you are on the side of darkness. Would you have been having this internal debate with yourself if you lived in 1938 Germany? Would you have been having this internal debate if you lived in 1960s North Carolina? Would you have been having this internal debate if you lived in South Africa under Apartheid? I would hope not.
The only answer here is to push our friends and the institutions we care about to join the side of light and right.
Louis, this was an excellent post. I think many people, mormon or not, have the same dilemma as you do. I have not heard of a church that has gone against prop 8, or it has not been heavily publicized. People need to think about what they want, and not be told by someone what they want. No religion is perfect, no political party is perfect, and no people are perfect. It is all about compromises.
Like I said, you've got to decide whether you're on the side of light or the side of darkness. Churches have invariably been on both sides in the past, but it does seem that the older, more conservative ones, are on the side of darkness way too often and then need to apologize later.
night). It should be clear from my post that the decision would be
pretty cut and dry for me (to vote No) if it wasn't for the church's
involvement. I tend to believe that if the issue of marriage is
important enough to God, then it should be he who makes these kinds of
judgment calls, and that while here on Earth, we should be supporting
our friends who have chosen a different path.
Though I appreciate the historical references to 1938 Germany, Jim
Crow and apartheid, this debate hasn't, until recently, been caged in
the position of rights and their subsequent removal. Even at the VP
debates from this year, you saw Joe Biden making a separation between
supporting gay couples and opposing marriage. It's likely that was
done for political purposes, but the platform that they have these
rights, and that they will subsequently be removed, is new.
The church's position, as outlined last week, is that people are born
with characteristics and differences. They believe gender to be a key
facet of who we are as human beings. They also believe a
predisposition to same gender attraction to be similar to a
predisposition toward drug addiction, pornography, etc, and that we,
as said in the post, don't have all the knowledge of why these things
are so critical.
If my gay friends called me today and said they were getting married
and wanted me to act as their best man, I would be there, just like
one of them was best man at my wedding in 2003, and just like we
raucously applauded at the wedding two weeks ago. But for whatever
reason, the church has said that the issue isn't cut and dry between
our mortal lives and our eternal lives, and it is asking us to think
about why this would be the case.
Anyway, this is why I separate marriage into two pieces: the religious/cultural piece and the legal rights piece. I don't see how having gay marriages will affect your church's beliefs. In fact, there is a case that they will make them stronger (by providing people with a choice the right choice becomes stronger -- if people are forced to decide one way then God could question whether you really made the right choice). Gay marriage makes my straight marriage stronger. It doesn't take anything away from me, it adds onto the happiness around me.
So, as individuals, we've gotta separate our hatred, disgust,, bias, religion, and all that out from our legal decisions. We've always got to be on the side of human rights. If we aren't and we justify that for whatever reasons then we plunge back into the darkness that brought us all the problems we've beaten over the years.
In an odd sense, Prop. 8 supporters are following the same logic as people warning about Global warming. They say in essence -- something really really bad might happen if we keep tampering with our global climate by pouring ton after ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. They can't *prove* that everything bad they predict will happen (our climate system is extraordinarily complex) but they suggest that the evidence and our best models predict this.
Conservatives are conservatives (I count myself as one) because they believe that our institutions follow a deep logic built over the centuries that we don't and cannot fully understand -- as the recent troubles in the financial markets demonstrate.
Families are *the* fundamental institution of society upon which all other institutions rest. I, for one, worry that in our ignorance, we might damage a fundamental thread that holds together our society. Can I prove this? No of course not but the models I believe in certainly suggest that.
Great post, though.
It was the KKK talking about interracial marriage.
Isn't that just as arrogant?
leverage these new platforms to offer transparency in all we do. The
idea of having attended the wedding two weeks ago, and celebrating
their partnership, only to turn around a month later and ask for it to
be invalidated, seems like cerebral gymnastics. I wanted to provide a
safe platform for discussion, and illustrate my own feelings, while
clarifying some misconceptions.
If I were a US citizen and a resident of California, I would vote against this measure. You can't put Pandora back in the box and, once a marriage is granted, I don't believe there is any precedent for the government to intervene and cancel, void, or annul the marriage. But, if you don't do that if 8 is passed, then you create further inequality between those who have been able to marry and those who cannot marry a same-sex partner after 8 is passed. I think passing 8 would create more problems than it would solve and that California will find itself in legal battles for years to come.
I am struggling with the right or authority of any institution to dictate morality, religious or otherwise, but I realize alternatives are very tricky and likely to be chaotic.
The only possible way that I could think to find common ground is to put yourself in this scenario: if you had a loved one (friend or family) who truly loved a same-sex partner and they were, for want of a better word, a good person, would you deny them the right that they now legally have to marry that partner?
I can't imagine anyone getting too upset on either side because of the tone Louis took.
Further, I think it's absolutely essential that issues of faith not be dismissed or ridiculed when the topic of gay marriage comes up - a typically unhelpful leftie response. Really, there are few commentators willing to take this head on, and for that Louis, I thank you.
Finally, if you've ever been to a Pride parade you know that the contingent that gets the biggest, affectionate cheers is always PFLAG. ;-)
One thing that has brought me the most support has been my church's stance and my deepening relationship with God - on a personal level. I have found the message of love, acceptance, and service.
This attitude cannot support hate or bigotry. I do not, nor would not, choose to condone same-sex marriages in a religious context, but if you ask me, "Do you think same-sex couples should be afforded the ability to recognize their unions by law - to afford the granting of medical benefits and ability for chosen partners to have all the legal rights an opposite-sex spouse would?" My answer would be yes, without a doubt.
Who am I to tell someone they should not be afforded the same rights I have simply because I disagree on religious principal? I am not, nor would I.
I do not pretend to completely understand the intricacies of your religious doctrine, Louis; nor do I fully understand all of the varied aspects of mine own ;-) What I can say is that ultimately I will be left to answer to my God on my own. I will not be standing with my pastor or even my wife, whose opinions I value so dearly.
As such, I would rather say that I loved truly and completely everyone that I met - and more importantly those lives I touched that I may have never met.
While I agree that it is tough when religious and personal ideologies conflict, but I hope my thoughts might in some way help...
Great post, and great comments all.
labeling. And as you say, many have tried to separate the issue of
marriage between religious and civil.
I cannot profess to know all the reasoning behind why some religions
are so opposed to gay marriage. And on the reverse, I cannot profess
to know what it is like to be gay and see others have the power to
decide whether you have the option to get married or not. That we are
asked to make this decision, impacting others, is troubling.
Thinking tangentially, religion often has specific roles by age and
gender. Some religions feature female clergy, and others do not. What
if there were a ballot measure that asked churches to recognize female
clergy and grant them the priesthood, as has been exclusively a male
position for centuries? I know it's not the same, but for institutions
to be based on what's thought to be sacred teachings, and for them to
be impacted by civil decisions, clearly is a foundation for this
struggle.
My feeling on your example is one of laughter, to be quite up front. I have long held that the reason this is not so in, let's say, the Catholic denominations is that those in positions of power do not trust themselves around women and choose to persecute others based upon their own failings.
This tangent could be extended to an attractive woman wearing provocative clothing in public. Sure it will catch my eye, I'm a man. However, my opinion of what she is wearing and my control or lack thereof is my issue - not hers. Her choice of clothing may be a statement of her character or it may be representative of her opinion the human body is beautiful. Either way, it is not an invitation for me to scoff, jeer, or otherwise limit her freedoms in a public area or the privacy of her home.
Let me put it this way... My religion and moral upbringing are as much a part of me as are my genetic code. I believe that my background and education influence the majority of my morals. While I believe in separation of church and state, let us remember this separation was to prevent persecution. Morals were, and still should be, intended to influence our decisions and our government. As an elected and representative government, our representatives' belief structure should reflect the majorities beliefs while being considerate of the minorities rights.
On the surface,I see supporting discrimination is bigoted and is evil- even if it's not that simple. I have such a hard time wrapping my head around the many layers of complex issues that involve going from point a to point b- but must admit they DO in fact exist. I think when you mix deeply held religious beliefs that are in conflict with what appears to be civil rights, you can't help but be confused and befuddled. As I had friend after friend tell that just because they do not support gay marriage they were not a bigot, I found myself asking for the reasons why. Which lead to very long discussions regarding their beliefs.
I"m not sure I'm comfortable with any of their answers, to be honest. But I do respect that they know their beliefs better than I.
It doesn't help, as an opponent of the measure, to watch over 10 million dollars from Utah come into my state to fund something I wholeheartedly disagree with. I get angry, and I get upset and ...well..rants occur. lol.
I do think it's an important topic for this community and others and I'm glad to see you talking about it.
wanted to extend the dialog, with you included.
I agree with your comment in regards to out of states funds supporting
the initiative. I don't think Californians should send their money to
other states to support or denounce local propositions, or vice versa.
I also agree with your comment that supporting discrimination and
bigotry is wrong. My gay friends are the closest I have, including the
two aforementioned best friends from high school. I wish them the
best, and we have had long talks over the years with each other when
we have found differences in ideology.
My mother, and other church members, have wondered if their position
on this initiative is something like a litmus test. If you say you
support the church and its leaders, how then can you ignore or go
against them when they ask for your help here? How can we fully
understand why this has become such a major issue for them, without
knowing all things? To turn against their promptings and to vote with
my friends is the easy way out for me, and I'm doing what I can to
better understand why I would think to support the other side of the
issue.
Thanks for the visit and the comments. There is room for healthy,
respectful debate, and I hope to continue that. This is going to be a
big November of change at the national and state levels. Should be
very interesting.
As a legal issue, in California a person doesn't even have to get married with someone of the opposite sex for legal "marriage" to effectively take place. If you live with someone for 8 or 10 years (I forget the length of time) rights start setting in that normally require a legal marriage document. This makes it obvious that have multiple definitions of "marriage" is acceptable by the state. And it should stay that way.
One could put the view on it's head: "If you want the right to marry as a man and woman in your church, let others have a right to marry as they choose within their churches." Then, all the state has to do at a legal level is let people register as a union that wants rights of the former definition of marriage.
Religion and government aren't supposed to be mixed anyway. Currently, recognizing certain religious marriages and not others could be construed as a violation of the constitution (or, more correctly, recognizing marriages at all since they're always of some belief or faith, even if it's a unique, individuals).
Louis, your church sounds like it has open views -- the "free agency" -- but by trying to get their members to vote (and donate) a particular way, it's not really following their own views. That's unfortunate and doesn't help folks like yourself who want to exercise their rights to have their own views.
I've looked at both sides of this debate and honestly don't find much substance in the "pro-prop.8" arguments.
We're talking about consenting adults, so the fear that permitting gays to marry will lead to pedophiles marrying children is baseless.
Gay marriages will not impact straight marriages. They won't even force those who are opposed to the idea to accept it, any more than giving Blacks equal rights forced all the bigots to accept those rights. There are still racists, most likely there will always be racists. There will always be those who don't accept homosexuality.
Permitting gays to marry is a civil rights issue. Our society grants rights to married spouses that it denies to unmarried partners. To deny any group of citizens the same rights any other group of citizens enjoy in the same context is unjust and indefensible.
Sex education is not taught to second-graders. When students do study sex-ed, can't homosexuality be discussed without the implication that it's endorsed by the school, the same way any sexual activity is discussed without the idea that it's being recommended? Gay students need guidance in safe sex as much as straight students. Finally, no student is going to "turn gay" by being exposed to the topic.
Those like you who have to grapple with a religion that teaches a way of thinking that conflicts with your own conscience have my sympathy. It can't be comfortable. Having to choose between offending your church or offending your friends isn't easy. Personally I would hope you'd trust your own life experiences and conscience and vote the way you yourself believe is right. Only you can decide if you trust your own perceptions more than your church's opinions.
have reached a point in our society where people can openly say they
are gay without concerns of repercussions and bigotry, as you did
here. As Jesse Stay and I have mentioned, the promotion for the Pro 8
campaign leaves much to be desired, at the very least. I despise scare
tactics and divisive advertising, which is what I feel they have done.
If there are reasoned approaches and logic, that I can respect, and
this is why I cite the discussions I've heard from our church meetings
more than any ridiculous commercial.
Additionally, my worry is that it is too easy to change the
constitution and make amendments in this state. Every few years, a
polarizing group can get enough signatures to force a referendum that
can have people pitted against one another. There has got to be a
better way.
Not since the ERA in the 70's has the LDS Church been so vocal on a "political" topic. I was very young when the ERA was being considered, but I remember the conversations with my parents around our dinner table. The ERA had a big impact on members of the LDS church and caused divisions amongst them right down party lines. I get the sense the debate on Prop 8 is different--not dividing by party lines, but dividing acquaintances, friendships and families.
I don't have an answer for you, but I want to simply thank you for sharing, if only by proxy, the deep thought and intense struggle so many in the religious community have over political issues. Your post raises the level of discourse and debate. Your post demonstrates to anyone who thinks that a belief in God and adherence to religious principles, or a specific religion, creates hegemonic automatons incapable of rational thought, is simply not true.
I think on this particular issue the opposition has successfully labeled it a "civil rights struggle" and those that support it as intolerant. It may be intellectually appealing to equate, as Robert Scoble suggests, the Gay, Lesbian and Bi-sexual lifestyle to a civil-rights issue, but I think many civil rights leaders would take exception to the comparison.
As a conservative, my concern is with elevating a lifestyle to minority status--which has implications far beyond gay marriage. To do so creates a precedence for any segment of the population to define itself as a "minority" and to then seek redress from the government. Where do we as a society draw the line?
Thank you again for posting. May God gives us all the wisdom to what is right as we wrestle with tough issues.
opposition to Prop 8 known, including signage and funding. The church
can't force anyone's hand on the subject, as noted in the post, though
their position has been made quite clear. In a follow-on story in the
Chronicle, it stated Steve prefers to remain neutral on politics and
hasn't made any kind of statement.
That said, the church has hundreds of thousands of members in
California. Though I don't have the most recent stats, a 1990
statistic estimated more than half a million, and I don't know how
many of them Steve Young's endorsement (or that of his wife) would
sway. I've met the guy, and he struck me as being more humble than
aggressive.
These are dangerous principles that can lead to many other conclusions if we are not careful; I don't think you have to be religious to be in favor of Prop 8.
your own rights. You say you're forced to recognize it as marriage.
But by the same token, aren't we supposed to recognize all the clearly-
doomed opposite gender marriages? I agree that you can separate
religion from your voting on this issue, but I wouldn't call asking
you to recognize a legal action as being legal as a dangerous principle.
Again, I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with Prop 8 here, I'm just saying the issues are not exactly "dark" or "light" here. There is proof that certain practices are bad for society, which is why we have limits around those. The question becomes, is it a "right" or "wrong" thing for society to permit Gay people to become married? Society still hasn't proven that it is or isn't a genetic or born inclination, and even if it is, how will it affect society? Honestly, I don't know the answer. I see the points of both sides on this, frankly.
I get very upset and passionate about this issue because I grew up with at least one gay person in my family. I am very close to what my relative has gone through, and I can assure you that this loved one did not "choose" to be gay, and that being gay should in no way be paralleled to "having a substance abuse problem" or some other mental health challenge. In no way would I be able to deny my relative or my close friends who happen to be gay or lesbian the same equal rights and protections of the law that my husband and have.
There's a lot more I could say about all of this, as I have had two long-term relationships that were considered marriages by all our relatives and friends (I was widowed in the first one). For a long time, I have not believed in the need to get married, either in the eyes of the state or the eyes of any particular religion. I still do not believe anyone should have to get married to enjoy the same rights as legally married people, whether they are gay or straight. Our own decision was a very personal one, and no, California does not have common law marriage, or I would have been married legally in both of my long-term relationships (over 7 yrs. in both). For me, it's really very simple—do you love other people enough to allow them to be as happy and fulfilled as they want to be, making their own choice about how they want to live? Do you respect other human beings enough to give them equal rights, justice and protection under the law, even if you disagree with them for any reason, be it your religion or otherwise? The choice is simple—let's not make it too hard. If you have a mind and can think, and you believe in a God that made you that way, you have the freedom and responsibility to disagree with your own religion, or the way it's being practiced in specific instances. Yes, I said the word responsiblity. Please keep that in mind when you vote.
Does it diminish the "sanctity"? Wow, think of all the lousy, questionable motive and short-lived marriages of famous and non famous people that would qualify for that fear.
Does it spend tax payer dollars? No, except for the campaigning and proposition.
The law can't touch religion and religion should not be able to touch law. Civil union should be available to all humans, and frankly I don't care if that's two or twenty-two people.
Looks like I replied in the wrong place and can't see how to delete. Oh well..