I've been waiting to simmer down my angst regarding the passing of Proposition 8 in California before I post something. I'm finding it taking longer than I thought it would. Even though this isn't about me, it is about what it means to be an American and whether we have equal treatment under the law. Proposition 8 sought, and now will acheive the goal, of rolling back rights granted to homosexuals to enjoy the "civil" rights of marriage.
The two major villians in this drama just happen to be two major religions whose members, under guidance from their leaders, ponied up the bulk of the funds promoting this sad proposition. Admittedly, when religious leaders wish to use the apparatus us the state to impose their own religious dogmas on the rest of the population, I get really irritated, and it becomes hard to me to maintain the calm, reasoned discourse that I aim for in my posts. It just seems so arrogant to send a message, that those of us who agree with us, deserve more rights than those who we disagree with. And through this, when LDS officials try to piously sound like they love gay people, but just want to preserve the institution of marriage, it sounds more smug and insincere to those of us who either haven't consumed their koolaid, or have disgorged it before it consumed us.
Having donated alot of money during the time I believed in Mormonism, having spent countless volunteer hours to "build" their kingdom, I feel a certain responsibility for this. Yes those donations were tax exempt and were part of my Schedule A on income taxes. My donations to political action organizations promoting gay rights are not. There seems to be an underlying unfairness, where the government subsidizes bigotry, but taxes efforts at equality. Am I the only one concerned?
I don't have a problem with the LDS Church defining marriage for their members. Frankly, if they wanted to bring back plural marriage, I would have no problem with it as a religious practice with a couple of caveats (consenting adults, filial economic support, etc.). But I strongly object to the LDS leadership wishing to take their religious beliefs and imposing it upon those who mean them no harm. For a church that used to sanction the marrying of teenage girls to old patriarchs to smugly and condescendingly decide that gays cannot take advantage of the civil institution of marriage, is mind-bogglingly arrogant and hypocritical.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Thank you for your post, Obi wan.
LDS leaders have officially stated they do not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships. There is even a movement to legalize gay rights in Utah with LDS cooperation.
If you're interested, there's an article about it here:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10952932
One other thing that I think is unfortunate is the amount of effort and expense (especially emotional) frittered away on semantics. No matter what the outcome of Propostition 8, there will be no change in behavior. Homosexual and heterosexual behavior will continue. Feelings of love or desire between men and women, men and men, women and women, or even people and animals will continue, no matter what the label is that we attach to their relationships.
All of this turmoil turning on the definition of a word! I think that the church picked the wrong fight, as well as the wrong arena in which to do battle.
There may be some room for criticism of some of the other parties to this issue, as well. While many in the gay community would be happy with complete civil equality using a word other other than marriage, there are some aggressive activists who will never be satisfied with that. They would be just as guilty of denying some of the rights of those who wish to practice their religion and lifestyle quietly.
Some of them have a vision of what society should be like that does not include other freedoms that they do not value, and will use the court system to attempt to deny that to others.
We have extreme views on boths ends of this spectrum, and I do not feel that either are helpful. The venom and intensity of feelings from both sides are a terrible departure from the values or principles that both groups claim to espouse.
Keith's comment is poignant. To say it another way, the LDS church has tricked itself into acknowledging and at least not standing in the way of homesexual relationships. I'll be interested to see where this leads.
I guess I have mixed feelings about this, and as a point of accuracy, I'm not sure Obi is strictly all there in his facts, but for rhetorical purposes I'll let him have all his points.
To look at this completely Borkian, the constitution says "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, that would mean that any adult can marry anyone whom they please. That would include state recognition and rights conferred on gay marriages and plural marriages. If Obi agrees with that, then I'll go along with that.
Following this reading of the 14th Ammendment, we will also need to eliminate affirmative action, Head Start, all minority scholarship programs, set asides and contracts for women and minority businesses and any other form of differentiating between citizens for any reason.
This is what Bork means when he says you can't choose a sentence in the constition and say "see it says this and it must be so" and then ignore it other times. That is purely wishing for outcomes and not even application the law. If you want even application of the law then it really needs to be even, as illustrated above.
If you want a world based on outcomes and not the law, then thats what you have elections and legislators for. Sometimes those elections and legislators won't do what you want them to do all the time. Meaning, it just isn't what you want, its what everyone wants.
So that brings us to the election. As much as you and I may not like the outcome, that's what the voters of California chose.
So you need to make a choice. Do elections rule, or does even application of the law rule?
If all the pro gay marriage people also go along with eliminating the above list of non-equal protection by the States, then I'm with them.
Regardless of semantics, arguments about rule of law and all of that, I think it comes down to love.
I am (or was) a faithful member of the LDS Church. I inteject 'was', because the Stake President spoke from the pulpit this morning, and apparently I am now an enemy of the Church, due to the fact that I oppose the Church's support of Prop 8.
I am disgusted that my donations in years past, were to an organization which now places its resources and support behind such a horrible and unChristlike campaign. That said, I can't do much about it now, but future donations will likely be directed to Primary Children's Hospital and other organizations which care for my fellow men, the way I used to think my religious organization did.
I felt the spirit today, but it wasn't in Church. My wife and I felt it as we view the clip from MSNBC here -> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27652443#27652443
Post a Comment