Until now, I have focused my blog posts on answering criticisms of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In light of the upcoming Proposition 8 measure in California and the legalization of gay marriage in Connecticut, I'm going to digress in order to voice my opinion on the matter.
That is not to say that our doctrine of marriage is not the target of criticism. And the issue of gay marriage is doctrinal for us. But I am going to spend very little time on an apologetic approach based in scripture. I recognize that most people who support gay marriage do not necessarily view the Bible as final in its moral authority, so an appeal to scripture would probably be of limited usefulness.
The Bible's Teachings About Homosexuality
Nevertheless, there are those who maintain that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality as far as Christianity is concerned. They believe that it is Christlike to be tolerant, and that the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality does not apply to the enlightened period after Christ. They conclude that we ought to embrace gay marriage. Of course, you have to be very selective in your characterization of Jesus' teachings in order to come to that conclusion. Christ forgave sinners but did not tolerate sin. The New Testament provides plenty of passages condemning homosexuality (Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 1:7). Same-sex attraction is not a sin, and it is clear that we must show love and tolerance for all people, gay people included, but the New Testament is clear in condemning gay sexual acts.
Legal and Social Problems With Gay Marriage
One problem with gay marriage is that it destroys the only barrier protecting us from further extremes. Those judges who have legalized gay marriage (in all three states where it is legal, it has always become legal by judicial ruling, not by legislation) believe that it is unequal to limit the definition of marriage by gender. They say that "It is against our moral values" is too arbitrary an objection to gay marriage to be valid. They have not answered the question: If it is not acceptable to limit marriage by gender, is it acceptable to limit marriage by number? If mere violation of society's moral values is not sufficient grounds to prohibit a proposed form of marriage, then on what grounds could we prevent three women from marrying each other?
Up until now, we have prohibited incestuous relationships on moral objections. When pressed for a less "arbitrary" reason, we have said that society has an interest in protecting against the genetic problems that arise when close family members procreate. But gay partners cannot procreate. What basis do we have now to prohibit a father and son from getting married (if both are adults), or two brothers or two sisters? What about three siblings of the same gender, or two brothers and one of their buddies? The courts have not addressed these questions. I'm not convinced that they've even considered them.
The typical response to these objections is, "Oh, we won't do that. We're not interested in that." That response fails to consider that surely someone, sometime, will want to try out these more extreme forms of marriage. We live in a country of 300 million people. No one can guarantee me that it's acceptable to dismantle the legal protections against these scenarios because no one will ever push for something more extreme. Someone most certainly will. And while we may not allow two brothers to marry, we will have no excuse for our double standard.
Some gay marriage proponents will dismiss all of this as ridiculous, as if that negated the need for a straight answer. Without pressing the issue further, we can turn our attention to more immediate concerns. It is one thing for a government to allow for civil unions and adopt policies that tolerate and accommodate for such. It is quite another thing for a government to grant gay unions the status of marriage, an institution promoted, regulated, and endorsed by government, and completely equal to traditional marriage. When that happens, any public bias in favor of the traditional family or traditional marriage over gay marriage will be unacceptable. Sex education in public schools will be required to include education about gay sex. In California, state law requires that school curriculum promote the institution of marriage. Because marriage now includes gay marriage, the state will need to rewrite curriculum to promote gay marriage and same-gender parent headed families as completely equal to traditional marriage and families. In Massachusetts, gay marriage has been legal for several years, and these changes are now starting to take place. Kindergartners have been given children's books depicting same-gender parent headed families. Courts have ruled that parents have "no legal right to object" to such curriculum.
The Most Likely Scenario
Let's extrapolate one step further. Let's imagine that gay marriage remains legal in California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. One does not have to be a resident of California in order to be married there. So let's imagine that Prop 8 failed in November 2008, and it's now 2013. For five years, gay couples from all over the country have gone to California to be married. When their home states have challenged their marital status, they have sued, and courts have upheld the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution (from Article IV, Section 1), ruling that other states must recognize gay marriages performed in California. Gay marriage is now practically legal in the entire country. Most states have simply legalized it in resignation. There have been attempts to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment, but these have not had sufficient support.
In our hypothetical scenario, gay marriage has become recognized and accepted in the entire country. Gay couples now want to not simply be married by a justice of the peace, but to have a wedding ceremony in a church with a walk down the aisle, organ music, recitation of vows, and all the trappings just like any other couple. The Episcopal Church has been happy to oblige, but the Catholic Church refuses to comply. It is against their fundamental doctrine, they say. At that point, the gay community has started to question the Catholic Church's ability to perform civilly recognized weddings. The government has authorized them to do so, despite the fact that they discriminate against a legally recognized and fully legitimate group. Gay advocacy groups have argued that the government should not recognize marriages performed by the Catholic Church and other churches if they won't perform gay marriages. Nor should they enjoy tax exemption.
I don't know how gay marriage advocates would respond to this scenario, but I imagine that they might say, "That would not happen. Gays understand the need for tolerance and compassion. They may disagree, but they would not try to punish churches that way." Elton John is at least one gay person who does not feel that way. "From my point of view," he said, "I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate." Is it any wonder that religious people do not trust the gay rights lobby?
Some think, "I don't see what's so wrong with gay marriage. If other consenting adults want to get married, that's their business. It doesn't affect me, and I don't have the right to tell them no." By now, it should be obvious that it does affect you. We do not live isolated lives on desert islands. We are all part of a society, and changes like this affect everyone. We have every right to have an interest in attempts to alter the moral values of our society.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
On Gay Marriage
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Keep up the good work Travis! You continue to amaze me as one of the best thinkers we've got around these parts. This is truly the most critical issue of our time. Proper understanding of the consequences should hopefully lead us to proper action.
Interesting blog Travis. I am amazed that with your studies, law school preparations, and social life you have enough time to write so much. If you are not too busy I could use your help writing some papers for me. I must disagree with you a little bit. Marriage has progressed throughout our nation's history and must continue to progress. Historical there were laws against bi-racial marriages. Yet, as a society we have progressed and liberalized the institution of marriage to include such unions. Also, the comment on gay marriage leading to incestuous marriages is just like the claim that a black marrying a white would dilute the gene pool with their "blood." That is why it is preposterous to make such a claim. What is keeping a Dad from marrying his daughter is the same that would keep a dad from marrying his son. I have to disagree on the importance of this issue and the money and effort the Church is contributing to such a cause. Their efforts and ours would be better spent on more global concerns such as poverty, peace, and the eradication of preventable diseases. Keep up this blog because I think it is a good idea and a good platform for discussion.
I'm making time for this issue because I think it's far more important than most people realize. Most people think it's about gay rights. Gays already have all the rights of married couples in California. This isn't about their rights—it's about forcing the rest of us to accept them as morally equal.
You are right to point out that there have been some changes in how societies regulate marriage throughout history: many societies have allowed polygamy, some have restricted interracial marriages, and most have discouraged or even prohibited marriages across class lines. But all of these forms of marriage were between a man and a woman. (Polygamy is not a marriage between a man and multiple women or a woman and multiple men; it is allowing one person to simultaneously have multiple marriages.) I don't see gay marriage as the natural next step after eliminating racial restrictions.
You say that the same reasoning that prevents close relatives of opposite genders from marrying would also prevent close relatives of the same gender from marrying. Could you explain that? The threat of genetic problems arising from incest is the reasoning preventing incestuous marriage in heterosexuals. That does not apply to gay marriage. And I think it would be the definition of "double standard" for gay marriage advocates to say that our societal values are sufficient to deter such a thing from happening.
In the 1960s, the gay rights lobby said, "We only want to abolish anti-sodomy laws. We're not going to push for gay marriage. We don't even want it. Marriage is an artificial construct, and we're above that." So we took their word for it and abolished anti-sodomy laws. "It's preposterous to say that this will lead to gay marriage," said the gay rights advocates. "This is just about keeping the government out of the bedroom."
Let's not overlook the other problems: Education will be retooled to treat gay marriages the same as heterosexual ones. In sex education classes, students will be instructed on how to engage in gay sex. The rights of religious groups (such as adoption agencies) will be curbed. Doctors will be forced to artificially inseminate lesbians, even if they are morally opposed and other willing doctors are available. All of this is already happening, and the No on 8 people haven't answered these concerns.
This is a huge issue, and our actions make all the difference. We could divert our resources into promoting world peace, as you suggest, but frankly, I think this is more important (especially considering that the people behind genocide in Africa don't pay attention to American activist groups). I'm much more concerned about this systematic reprogramming of our societal values.
Travis, you make some good points but I still must disagree with some of your counter arguments. First of all on the arguments about incestuous relationships as the next step for gay rights people, I will just skip that argument because it is just too outrageous to talk about for both of us. Sex education seems to be a big fear for Pro Prop 8ers. The idea that someone would teach a kindergartner about homosexuality is just typical of the fear mongering used by social conservatives. In 2003 CA Legislature passed SB 71 which already teaches comprehensive sexual education. Prop 8 would only take away rights from a large majority of people to discuss their orientation in a respectful manner according to the dictates and maturity of age. About sodomy, not just homosexual participate in sodomy. About Churches losing their tax-exemption status. Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.” Again about sexual education being forced upon children CA is different than Massachusetts unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won’t affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts. Also the fear of doctors and others being sued for denying services to homosexuals California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.
This social issue is not as important as you make it seem. The world has not ended, the rights of homosexuals need to be guaranteed. Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens. Gay marriage or hetero sexual marriage do not degrade or take away from each other but actually build a stronger foundation for families and communities by having traditional and nontraditional families in the communities. Diversity is the bedrock of our nation and by supporting Prop 8 we will add more cracks to an already fragile and divided nation.
Finally, civil unions are not the same as marriage. If it was then homosexuals and heterosexuals would be arguing over the use of a word--which they are not. Prop 8 is simple: it eliminates the rights for same-sex couples to marry. Prop 8 would deny equal protections and write discrimination against one group of people—lesbian and gay people—into our state constitution. “Proposition 8… would eliminate the fundamental right to same-sex marriage. The very act of denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry – traditionally the highest legal and societal recognition of a loving commitment – by definition relegates them and their relationship to second class status.” Los Angeles Times Editorial, August 8, 2008 Domestic Partnerships are NOT the same as marriage. Domestic partnerships are just legal documents. They don’t provide the same dignity, respect, and commitment as a marriage. In a marriage, a paramedic doesn’t tell you that you cannot get into an ambulance with your spouse. Married couples can automatically make life or death decisions for each other in these crisis situations, no questions asked.
I'll address it point by point:
1) I think I made a good point about there being no logical reason to prohibit two brothers from marrying once we allow gay marriage. If you think my argument is so outrageous, it should be easy to give a logical answer. Until then, my argument stands.
2) The thing about teaching kindergartners is reality in Massachusetts. I can't think of a better test case to see what will happen in the future. It's another US state. If the No on 8 lobby wins this one, details of the education code are easy to change. The California legislature tried to subtly overturn Prop 22 a couple years before the courts did; if Prop 8 fails they will feel they have a mandate from both the people and the courts, and won't hesitate to more aggressively remove whatever meager barriers remain.
3) "Prop 8 would only take away rights from a large majority of people to discuss their orientation in a respectful manner according to the dictates and maturity of age." That is not true. Prop 8 would not take away anyone's rights to discuss their orientation.
4) I only used the word "sodomy" in reference to the anti-sodomy laws of previous decades, so I don't think it's relevant. But I looked it up in the dictionary and discovered that you're right; it can include heterosexual activities as well.
5) You say, "Nothing in Prop 8 would force Churches to do anything." I think you meant, "Nothing about the failure of Prop 8 would force churches to do anything." Anyway, that's true--it wouldn't have immediate consequences in that regard. But we have a legitimate concern that once gay marriages are considered equal to traditional marriages, legislation prohibiting any form of discrimination against gays will soon follow. Laws against gender orientation-based discrimination in the workplace are already common. Is it such a stretch to think that a law could be passed saying that no organization that discriminates on basis of gender orientation may receive any preferential treatment (e.g., tax exemption) from the government? What the Supreme Court said could be easily ignored. All you have to say is, "The Court was not ruling on this question when they made that statement," or "The Court asserted that churches would not be forced to do anything, and they are not. However, they forfeit government-granted privileges if they choose to discriminate."
6) The Massachusetts case is not irrelevant, despite what the No on 8 website says. The only difference between Massachusetts law and California law is one vote of the state legislature. And it doesn't help that you can excuse children from offending portions of class. I was excused from several classes in high school when the teachers chose to show violent or sexual movies in class. There is quite a lot of peer pressure against doing something like that. Gay rights advocates say that they need the marriage status in order to avoid being judged as inferior. Do you think that kids whose parents send them to study hall during the sex ed classes will not be judged by their peers? Once the public schools teach that it is discrimination to believe that gay marriage is morally wrong, kids who believe otherwise will be persecuted by their peers. Excusing kids from class won't prevent it. It's the use of shame to mold public opinion to what you want it to be.
7) You're right; it's already true that doctors can be forced to artificially inseminate lesbians, even if it violates the doctor's personal beliefs and there are willing doctors available. And Prop 8 will not solve that problem. But if Prop 8 fails, you can bet that any effort to solve that problem will get nowhere.
8) You said the rights of homosexuals need to be guaranteed. They already are, and Prop 8 wouldn't change that. It would just prevent them from forcing the rest of us to accept their moral values.
9) You said the constitution guarantees the right to gay marriage. This claim is based on a very vague sentence in Article I, Section 7, which reads, "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens." If that means that gays have the privilege to get married just like heterosexuals, then we could also interpret it to mean that janitors have the right to rule on cases before the California Supreme Court, just like California Supreme Court justices. In other words, you could extract any unwarranted right out of that sentence. And that is the closest thing in the California State Constitution to a right to gay marriage.
10) I don't argue that judges shouldn't protect rights. I argue that judges shouldn't protect rights that they made up. It's the legislature's job to make up rights, if such a thing is to be done. But if marriage is really "a basic civil or human right of all people," as the Court asserts, then doesn't that just play into my argument that "all people" could also include two brothers? No? Then where did the Court define what "all people"?
11) I'm not sure I would enshrine diversity as the bedrock of our nation. But setting that aside, I'm actually worried that the failure of Prop 8 would lead to a decrease in diversity. It would be the first step in stamping out diverse opinions on this topic by gradually mobilizing the tide of public opinion against those who are morally opposed.
Sorry; I didn't see your most recent comment when I posted my response. You say that civil unions aren't sufficient and argue that a paramedic might prevent a gay person from getting in the ambulance with his/her partner. If Prop 8 passes, gay partners would have the right to get in the ambulance the same as if they were married. They would just have to say, "I'm his/her legal same-sex partner." You might respond, "But the paramedic might not understand the law. We have to allow gays to be married, so that everyone in society considers gay marriages equal to other marriages and doesn't bat an eye at the notion." Ah, so it is about changing the way the rest of us think after all. My view is, "You can legally do what you want in your private life, but I personally believe that gay sexuality is immoral and that gay partnerships are not the foundation of society the way traditional marriages are." You believe that gay marriage is necessary in order to stamp out views like mine--to make sure that no one views gay partnerships as second-class. That's the objective: Just like racism used to be common and is now completely taboo in our society, make it taboo to believe that gay sexuality is immoral. Shift society's values to silence those who believe as I do. I'm glad that racism has been (mostly) eliminated from our culture, but I think this issue is completely different, and I defend my ability to think that without being labeled a bigot. I say tolerate gay couples' choices, but do not endorse.
Travis,
1. Your first point is just outrageous. There is no data that an influx of incestuous marriages would flood the local court house if Prop 8 fails. You do not have any data to back that claim up. This is just another fear tactic used by the social conservatives to proselytize their agenda.
2. Do you really think that they are showing explicit picture of homo sexual and hetero sexual relationships to 5 and 6 year olds? It was a book that showed two dads. Nothing more. Are you upset if they show a divorced parent? An adulterous dad or mom? What about being raised by a gay uncle or aunt? This education was illustrating the differences in society and helping children be more acceptable and tolerant of the differences. There are no graphic depictions of sexual positions or procedures. This is parents making a mountain out of a mole hill.
3. Prop 8 would take away the rights of a major minority to discuss their orientation. This is what the proposition is about, silencing same sex advocates in society, whether it is in public or private. We should be educating society in a non-biased manner.
4. Utah still has anti-sodomy and adultery laws.
5. You grasp and use fear to make your argument about the non passage of Prop 8 as the eventual downfall of the Church. Freedom of Religion prohibits the government from dictating the theology and practice of religion.
6. Massachusetts is irrelevant. I am sorry that you had to be excused from class when the teachers were presenting pre-approved material. No or Yes on prop 8 will not affect education since it is decided by the school board and state legislature. Sex is not a bad thing. We should not view it as the Boogie Man and something to be feared. We should be knowledgeable about it and our bodies. Should we watch pornography? No. But, we should be open to a respectable discussion with our peers about sexual activity and voice or concerns and standards as well.
7. If I am right why are you arguing? Huh?????
8. Passage of Prop 8 would force our values and morals and make a subset of rules for a major minority.
9. About the Constitution, you go to the extremes once again to spread fear. Oh course janitors cannot go before the Supreme Court unless they are members of the Bar. Marriage and domestic partnerships are not the same. They do not constitute equal allowances and rights; therefore it is in violation of the Constitution.
10. They are there to interpret the laws that the legislature makes up. If the laws that they make up are unconstitutional and infringe on another citizen’s rights then they have the constitutional authority to deny its passage.
11. I would enshrine diversity as the bedrock of our nation. It would show that we can accept the differences in other people and accept them into society. We do not have to condone their actions by granting them full membership into the Church. But we can allow them to practice the dictates of their hearts as they deem to live by. Being gay does not make you a bad person or any less in society. People are going to has adverse opinions of those who support Prop 8 because it is a lack of progressive thinking.
12. Gay marriage is not a moral issue for everyone. You may find it morally and spiritual repulsive. But to same sex couples and others it is not a moral issue but a social and human rights issue that transcend the immorality that causes others to be disgusted.
Travis please do not put words in my mouth as I have tried not to put words in yours. But I believe that we need to be more progressive at the way we view society and the choices of others. I do not believe that gay marriage is necessary to stamp out your views and I have never said anything like that. Traditional marriage is changing and it has evolved in society since the beginning and will continue to evolve. What is traditional now days anyways? 50% of marriages end in divorce. 1 in 2 men will cheat on their wives. Single parents, teen pregnancy, and abuse are all characteristics of the family life in the US. I do not want gays viewed as second class no more than I want heterosexuals, blacks, Muslims, Jews, or Mormons viewed as second-class citizens. Society’s values are shifting what was once taboo has become normal. I applauded your stance but I also recognize the human rights of those who seek equal status under the law. I never once labeled you a bigot and am pleased that you can “tolerate” other people’s choices. Do you know any people that are gay? Do you really know someone? Perhaps a friend, relative, confidant is gay. Have you sat down and talked with them? I have. I have more than just my investigators from Thailand. But my very best mission companion is gay and struggling with it. A cousin is gay. Siblings of my three hometown best friends are gay. As well as numerous friends who are gay. Talk to someone and empathize with them. I have not sacrificed my morals or values. I do not force my morals or social values on others and I expect them not to do the same. I guess we have a couple weeks left to see if it is the beginning of the end or the just the beginning.
1. Of course I have no data on the future. Nor do you have any data to demonstrate that it wouldn't happen. Nobody knows what would happen, and no one can guarantee that my scenario won't happen. You think it won't; I think it's likely. I think that's as far as we're going to get on that one.
2. The book "Who's In a Family" portrays various alternative family types and was shown to kindergartners. "King and King" is another book about a prince who marries another prince, and was read to second graders. No, they're not showing anything sexually explicit to children that young. I didn't mean to imply that they are; only that sex ed for older students will include descriptions of gay sex. But I object to teaching children as young as kindergartners and second graders about what kind of adult relationships are normal and acceptable. Depictions of divorce I think I would not object to, but depicting an adulterous mom or dad? Absolutely not. I firmly believe that parents should be able to decide when and how to start discussing such adult themes with children.
3. Prop 8 takes away no one's free speech rights. Nor does it overturn the California law guaranteeing gay civil unions all the same civil rights as married couples (besides the right to call it marriage).
4. I didn't know that.
5. I never said anything about the downfall of the Church. We know it won't come to that. But we also know that freedom of religion has been violated in this country before over marriage issues. Remember the Edmunds-Tucker Act? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds-Tucker_Act) I am indeed using an argument based on fear, because I am afraid. I am afraid of what I see happening. And while I cannot prove to you that the scenarios I present will happen, I don't think you can prove that they won't.
6. I believe that the state school board and legislature are fairly liberal bodies, and would take the failure of Prop 8 as a mandate from the people to push more liberal reforms.
7. My point is that the more liberal political environment resulting from the failure of Prop 8 would make it very difficult to resolve the issue of doctors who are forced to perform artificial inseminations against their beliefs. I concede that it's not directly related to Prop 8; on that I am not arguing with you.
8. I guess we have different views about what the bigger threat here is.
9. I gave an extreme example to demonstrate that by a literal reading of that sentence, you could justify giving nearly any right to nearly anyone.
10. Agreed. What I disagree about is whether Prop 22 was unconstitutional. I think that the California Supreme Court read a right into the constitution that isn't there. But we've already been through this.
11. I would enshrine traditional marriage as the bedrock of our society. I would tolerate gay civil unions and have punishments in place for people who persecute them, yet not grant the institutional endorsement that we give marriage. I say tolerate them, but do not endorse. And I think that is where you and I differ, and we probably won't get much further on this part of the issue, either.
12. As a society, we deem certain actions morally wrong and therefore criminal. There are other actions about whose morality we make no judgment--at least, not as a society. But using illegal drugs, for example, is something that we believe is morally wrong, and therefore we prohibit it as a society. There are some who do not see it the same way that we do; who think it's a civil right to use illegal drugs. But they must submit to the moral judgments of the greater society. That's the social contract theory.
I'm sorry if I misrepresented what you believe. I think the majority of Prop 8 opponents do not necessarily want to shame views like mine into silence, but nor do they understand that that is the direction that we're heading. They're unaware of the agendas of some of the groups against Prop 8.
The decline of traditional marriage is not, in my mind, a reason to endorse other forms of marriage. It should be a wake-up call for the need to reassert the place of traditional family values. I do not want gays viewed as second-class citizens. But I do not think that marriage is necessary in order to be a first-class citizen. Do you view single people as second-class citizens? No. By that same token, we should not think that we must sanction gay marriage or else gay people will be viewed as second-class. Once again, is it not an issue of how other people are viewing them? Did I misunderstand? I think you're saying that gay marriage is necessary in order to prevent people from viewing gay unions as inferior to heterosexual marriages. That to me seems to be an admission that this is about trying to alter viewpoints such as mine, even if you hadn't thought about it in those terms before. On this point, please correct me if I misunderstood.
I do know some gay people, but not as many nor as closely as you do. I don't think any gay person would say I have persecuted or discriminated against them. The one I know best actually overcame homosexuality and is now married. I know that's not a viable solution for all gay people--and not one many would seek--but there are some.
I think that on many of these points, we've gotten to the root issues we disagree about, and on those issues, we shouldn't belabor the point.
Good Discussion, I found this board just trying to find your editorial in web form. http://newnewsnet.byu.edu/pdf/du20081027.pdf (on page 4)
I have already voted absentee on Prop 8 in favor, but have had a very hard time understanding the ramifications of it if it passes or if it doesn't. Thanks for a solid editorial that articulates my fears of being branded a bigot for upholding my own personal values that engender no hate towards the gay community. I can't wait for this to be over, I hope things will calm down once it does, this issue seems to bring out the worst in a lot of people on both sides; polarizing them and leaving resentment. I really want there to be peace and understanding to thrive between all types of sexual orientation.
Hey Travis, it's Danielle. My blog is daniellelussier.blogspot.com. ;)
Wow, you are totally missing the point and you are the greatest example of why I no longer interact with members of this "true" religion. I am "straight" with many gay friends who I believe should have the same "political" rights as I do, why not?
The battle for the recognition of gay marriage is more about allowing same-sex couples all of the rights that "normal" married couples are able to enjoy.
Read This:
Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue?
When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.
One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?
Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?
If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?
These are far from being just theoretical issues; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you numerous horror stories of friends and acquaintences who have been victimized in such ways. One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice?
These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.
By writing this post in your blog and by actually believing in what you have written, you have become the one thing that Jesus told us never to become, A BIGOT! Congratulations.
-N8
I was going to reject this comment for being too long, but we already have a lot of very long comments on this strand. And besides, I want to respond.
You claim that same-sex couples don't enjoy the legal benefits of marriage. That is true in many places, and I am not disputing the need for reform of those laws. But it's not true in California, where gay couples are guaranteed all the rights of married couples, and Prop. 8 was a California measure.
Then you say I'm a bigot, in capital letters and with an exclamation point. See Point #4 from my response to your "No on 8 Then and Now" comment, re: being respectful.
For a supposed enemy of intolerance and bigotry, I find it ironic that you hurl insults at people with whom you disagree--not to mention that you say you refuse to interact with any member of the LDS faith! I assume that you're well-intentioned, but this is not the way to go about dialogue.
With all sincerety, I apologize. While I will stay anonymous due to my personal expanding reach online, I would would like to note that this blogging thing is new to me. I am a inactive baptised member of the church and am extremely emotionally involved in attempting to understand the current state of the church. I promise to breathe and re-read before hitting the post button next time, I would like to continue discussions with you in this forum as I continue trying to understand this religion.
-N8
Thank you. That shows character. If you'd like to discuss these issues more, I invite you to post a comment with your email address (if you have an email address you're comfortable giving to me), and I will note the address and delete the comment so that it does not appear on the Internet. Otherwise, you can comment within the limits of the comment board format.
For now, I'd like to offer this thought: In a news release, the LDS Church said that it "does not object to rights for same-sex couples 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 traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches." So I think that the issues you talked about are within common ground for discussion. I think the Church would be much more worried about gay rights that involve adopting and/or raising children.
The LDS Church is very concerned about protecting the rights of families, children, and religious groups, and the gay rights people are very concerned about protecting the rights of gay people against unfair persecution. I think that people who want to persecute the people on the other side of the issue are a minority in both cases. The primary motivation for both sides is protection of their interests which they see as threatened.
Post a Comment