Proposition 8 passed this last Tuesday in California which amended the CA Constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual act and also overturned a CA Supreme Court decision which briefly legalized same-sex marriage. I'm sure you all have heard, but doubt that any are really surprised, that Mormons are the ones getting the blame. Yep, Prop 8 opponents have taken to the streets, have vandalized LDS chapels, and demonstrated outside of the LA Temple. Police had to be called in to disperse the angry crowd. Yesterday William Weigand, a Roman Catholic Bishop, from Sacramento released the following statement:"Catholics stand in solidarity with our Mormon brothers and sisters in support of traditional marriage — the union of one man and one woman — that has been the major building block of Western civilization for millennia. The ProtectMarriage coalition, which led the successful campaign to pass Proposition 8, was an historic alliance of people from every faith and ethnicity. LDS were included — but so were Catholics and Jews, Evangelicals and Orthodox, African-Americans and Latinos, Asians and Anglos. Bigoted attacks on Mormons for the part they played in our coalition are shameful and ignore the reality that Mormon voters were only a small part of the groundswell that supported Proposition 8. As the former bishop of the Diocese of Salt Lake City, I can attest to the fact that followers of the Mormon faith are a good and generous people with a long history of commitment to family and giving to community causes. I personally decry the bigotry recently exhibited towards the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — coming from the opponents of Proposition 8, who ironically have called those of us supporting traditional marriage intolerant. I call upon the supporters of same-sex marriage to live by their own words — and to refrain from discrimination against religion and to exercise tolerance for those who differ from them. I call upon them to accept the will of the people of California in the passage of Proposition 8.”
I'm just curious to hear everyone's opinion regarding Prop 8 and the subsequent Mormon scapegoating. (I'd especially appreciate the Matt Daines perspective given that he lives in the LA area with his wife and 2 children) Does anyone else see the irony here? Or am I the only one that gets the impression that the hard left only favors a fair, legitimate, democratic vote when it favors their agenda? Just a thought . . . what do you guys think about this?
19 comments:
1. I heard about the protests (nationally reported), but not the vandalism. Where did that report come from?
2. I'm not sure this is a left-right issue. Nationally, 95% of blacks voted for Obama, and usually blacks vote around 80-90% for the democrats. But on Prop 8, 70% of blacks voted in favor.
3. I do see ironies. You can bet that opponents of Prop 8 would have been satisfied with the voice of the people had the measure failed; And if, after a failure, proponents had protested in any way, they would have been accused of being sour on democracy.
4. The other danger I see in the reaction to the vote is a general trend that we all have to not engage in dialogue, but to claim that those with views different than our own should not even have a say. The opponents' claim that the LDS Church (or any other faith) should not be involved in politics is the equivalent of covering their ears and screaming "You're not speaking!" and telling everyone else "You can't listen to them because they don't have a right to speak!" How democratic is that?
5. The most interesting part of this, to me, is the issue of whether and when religions should be involved in politics. On this larger question, as with so many others, it seems to sadly depend on whether on a particular issue the person speaking to the issue wants the aid of the religions involved or not. For example, when the LDS Church spoke out against the deployment of MX missiles in the Great Basin, those who shared that view welcomed the Church's input (which ran directly contrary to President Reagan's plans). I'll bet that many of those who oppose the LDS Church's active opposition to Prop 8 (which seems closer to the "moral issue" end of the continuum than deployment of missiles) on the supposed grounds that religion has no place in the debate, were nonetheless happy to have the LDS Church speak out on the other issue. Such inconsistent philosophy (lacking integrity) is troubling. The malady of expedient, convenient ideals, shaped to the issue of the moment, is not, however, the exclusive province of liberals or democrats. There are examples galore of conservative and republican hypocrisy as well. You will probably notice this theme running through many of my comments and posts.
I was actually thinking of saying something about Prop 8, but you're so much better with the word-smithing what I am. I was shocked (and completely thrilled) when I heard about it. I see plenty of irony in this, as with so many other social issues that benefit the Left. It seems that if you're the least bit conservative it's only ok for you to invoke your 1st Ammendment right as long as it doesn't offend anyone else, but the Left can say whatever, whenever and we're all supposed to be satisfied...??
I hadn't heard anything about anyone blaming us. I can't say I'm terribly surprised, though. I guess it was only a matter of time before we were brought into all of this. It's assinine that anyone would solely blame us. It's so ridiculous that it's almost amusing, really. I guess it's one more way of proving the mentality of late.
I thinks it says a lot about Weigand for coming to our defense. That's probably the most Christ-like thing I've heard in a long time-outside of church, of course.
Gay marriage is a VERY hot-button issue for me. When I took GOVT I got into with 2 people in my class because I was adamantly against it. I was one of only two people in there that would actually stand up for my beliefs. No one bothered to attack the other guy-only me. I stated my case and was immediately attacked by 2 different people. Both of whom managed to twist the teachings of The Bible AND tell they didn't see how it is a moral issue. I guess it's a good thing I LOVE to argue. I still pulled an A in there.
I heard one of the libs (probably Nancy Pelosi since she's always got some brilliant gem to throw out there) saying that gay marriage didn't have anything to do with school or religion. I thought about it. Eventually (if they haven't already) when the kids are taught about marriage and families, they'll be taught that same-sex relationships are normal and part of life. They'll teach MY children that it's perfectly acceptable to engage in homosexuality. MY CHILDREN AND YOUR CHILDREN! It isn't their right to teach my children anything except what's fact, not what society has deemed so.
And how doesn't gay marriage have anything to do with religion? Aren't most Christian organizations against homosexuality? Doesn't The Bible teach us that it's wrong? Won't religion be looked upon as encoraging bigotry? Gay marriage has EVERYTHING to do with school and religion.
I'm still surprised that it passed, and I'm still thrilled that we crazy Right-Wingers got some sort of victory last week. Those are my thoughts on this subject. But for now, it's time to get the kids ready for bed. At least I have 2 kids that can bathe themselves. I'll take what I can get.
I was happy about proposition 8 passing. I thought it crossed the line between separation of church and state. I think where it has been passed, those states have seen some negative consequences. Like in Massachusettes where same-sex marriage is legal. According to an interview conducted on NPR, sex education teachers there teach about gay sex, which crosses many lines I believe. (for the full text of that report, go to http://www.massresistance.org/docs/a8a/general/NPR_091304.htm ) In California, same-sex couples currently hold all the legal rights that a married couple would have. The only thing proposition 8 did was make sure they would not receive the title of being married. I do not blame them for their response. Think about where they are coming from. All they want is to be seen as equal, and they do not see anything wrong with their behavior, and are angry with what they see as others imposing their morals and values onto them. I personally (and I know a lot of people disagree with me on this) do not blame them for feeling the way they do. I imagine I would feel the same exact way if I was in their shoes. I think now more than ever though, if any of us have any kind of relationships with homosexuals, that we should love them all the more. I wish there was some way we could show them we don't hate them, or think that they are all horrible people, or even that we are bent on taking away their rights. I truly believe the Savior would have us show an outpouring of love for our homosexual brothers and sisters, not to ridicule or criticize them for their choice of lifestyle. So while I am happy that proposition 8 passed (in a majority Democrat state by the way, showing that us democrats aren't the moral-less heathens a lot of republicans like to think we are) because it does defend the Lord's plan and his plan for families, I just also wish there was some way we could reach out to these people and help them come unto Christ as well.
Well, as usual, I am going to play the devil's advocate on a couple of points here. I can already hear the "crazy liberal" comments from the peanut gallery.
1 - I believe that homosexuality is immoral.
2 - I also believe that "marriage" should apply to a union between a man and woman. However, I do, in fact, believe that it is discriminatory to refuse many of the legal benefits of marriage (such as hospital visits, health insurance benefits, etc.) to people who choose to live a lifestyle with which I personally may not agree. I think that people should be able to make those type of life choices for themselves, regardless of the moral views of others.
3 - I believe the church has every right to have an "official position" on any issue. However, I strongly disagree with "bullying" members into not only supporting such measures, but campaigning for them. I realize that many members chose to do this on their own, and fully support their right to do so, but from my understanding, making phone calls and campaigning on this issue was actually turned into a calling in some areas. I personally would have turned down the calling and don't feel that my political views, provided that I live my own life in a manner worthy of a temple recommend, are any business of other members.
4 - I am frequently appalled by the behavior of many church members toward the gay community, and honestly, I can understand why many of them feel slighted, to say the least. True, it isn't just the mormons who take this stance, but I think this whole situation should be a wake up call to those who feel morally superior. I think all heterosexuals should be very grateful that we don't have to face the challenges that come with being gay. Be grateful that you are naturally attracted to someone you are allowed to be with, marry, have sex with, have children with, share a lifetime with; all without the shame or embarrassment of the stigma associated with that lifestyle.
5 - I believe that leading by example, not legislation is the best way to protect morality in a free country. Protect my rights, as well as the rights of those who don't agree with me, to live as freely as possible. In my mind, that is what the separation of church and state is all about. Ultimately, I feel that "civil unions" of some type should be legal. Leave the definition of marriage, families, and morality to churches. Call me a McCain supporting, Palin hating, ultra liberal if you like.
I actually think I have a moderate view on legalizing gay marriage, which sort of encompasses both sides of the discussion. On the one hand, I don't feel morally outraged by other people making private life decisions that I don't agree with because that doesn't inherently diminish my own views. I can maintain my own beliefs that gay marriage is morally wrong, without "intruding on their rights," so-to-speak. However, I am EXTREMELY skeptical that it will end there, because I feel like as soon as things like this become "accepted" in the sense that they have legal backing, the oppressed will become the oppressors, if you will, and I think this article is itself direct evidence of that. Also, from what I hear, similar developments have occurred in Massachussetts, where now that gay marriage is legal they're implementing homosexual segments into mandatory sex ed. videos at public schools and not even warning parents. It seems like a slippery slope: once you grant a right in the name of tolerance, it gets turned around and forced on you, i.e. the "irony of intolerance." Now that's just blatant hypocrisy, and in my opinion justifies our intolerance in the first place. In other words, if I have to choose between not allowing gay people to get married or having them bully their views on me, I think the former wins hands-down, sorry. Call me a cold-hearted conservative if you must, but I personally don't think you deserve a right in the first place if you're just going to turn around and use it to bully other people out of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech.
That said, there's another issue here I think deserves consideration, because the fact is this issue is still FAR from over. Although you'd think (even hope) that an amendment (or revision?) to a state constitution would be the end of it, especially in America, but there are still at least two more obstacles which I think look very bleak. The first obstacle will be the CA Supreme Court, and yes, you can bet your bottom dollar one of those couples who had previously gotten married after the original SC decision will file a suit which will make it to that level. There's actually a Massachusetts case with almost the exact same scenario except the issue was with the death penalty, where the Supreme Court of that state explicitly ignored a constitutional amendment, ruling the exact opposite way than was intended by the amendment. They pretty much got away with it, too, because when you think about it, their job is to interpret and apply the state constitution, of which this amendment was only a part. Reading the opinion it's obvious they were grasping at straws (Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Abimael Colon-Cruz: basically they claimed that the criminal system was flawed because of plea bargaining...), but nonetheless their ruling (formally speaking) stands unless appealed and reversed on the federal level...which brings us to the next potential obstacle: the U.S. Supreme Court. Assuming the same thing happens in CA that did in MA, given the intense nature of the issue here, obviously the S.C. is going to have to step in here. Right now I think it could technically go either way (depending on how Kennedy votes), but there's a chance that the gay community might wait until Obama has a shot at replacing a conservative justice (assuming he gets re-elected, probably), which would practically guarantee the creation of a brand-new Constitutional right.
I'm sure many of you are familiar with how controversial Roe v. Wade has been...I think this one will be just as big, if not bigger and more heated and controversial. I'll admit there's some conservative bias here, but I think this could actually create some intense negative backlash, possibly even change most people's stance's on judicial activism in general, even among many liberals (as Creighton pointed out, many of the people who voted on the amendment were liberal, which means they won't be thrilled when the S.C. overrules their democratic-made "voice," if-you-will). If some were skeptical that the S.C. has really been acting as Platonic Guardians (basically enforcing their morals on the masses because they think they know better), this will at least be more likely to give them pause, being a result that they don't actually agree with.
Sorry for the novel guys, just felt like these things were worth saying.
Ok, because I live here and had to deal with all of this I will give my input.
1) The people with church jobs in regards to prop 8 were asked if they would take on the responsibility but not as an official calling. Only after they said yes was it made a calling. In my understanding it was not an upfront calling as per usual, more of a volunteer job.
2) It was made very clear (at least by the bishop) that people who were uncomfortable with the issue or disagreed with it all together were still very welcome at church.
Just as a funny side note: When one lady in our ward noticed we did not have a "Yes on 8" bumper sticker on our car she actually asked if we needed assistance. As if we wanted to but just couldn't figure it out.
My biggest problem with this is that it is being misconstrued as a Civil Rights issue which I do not believe that it is. So here is my argument:
Let’s leave God out of this argument for now. Let’s also leave out the argument of good or bad. Let us simply take a look at the definition of the word “choice”.
Choice: To decide on a course of action, Typically after rejecting alternatives.
Many have stated that homosexuality is not a choice, but is actually the equivalent of being born with black skin. let’s break down these false-hoods in a way of understanding and not that of condemnation. That one may be born with a desire or sexual attraction to the same gender may be true. Yet, this conclusion is unproven scientifically and can only be judged upon the testimony of the individual. What is more certain, is that when one acts upon any desire, whether inherent or developed, they are “deciding on a course of action”. What is more, is that by acknowledgement of this desire they have implicated that they have an understanding of, and are “rejecting the alternative”.
Black individuals never “decided on a course of action” in respect to the color of their skin. Nor did they accept or reject any alternatives, for none were ever placed before them.
If we as a society are to accept that the presence of a personal desire leaves us with no choice but to follow and therefore is a Civil Rights issue. We must also understand its implications to the application of the wide ranging desires of other individuals. To rightfully dole out the all important liberties of Civil Rights we must truly understand what a choice is and what it is not. To act upon any desire or state of existential consciousness wether for good or bad is by definition a choice or "a course of action".
Under our democratic society, do supporters of same sex marriage have the right to do all they can (within the realm of decency) to sway public opinion? Yes! When they do not gain a majority of support do they have the right to petition the courts for a redress of grievances based on the platform of Civil Rights? No they do not. It is not a Civil Rights issue, and to claim that it is, is to sweep under foot the high ideals upon which these rights were founded.
Great stuff people! I love reading your comments and hearing your feedback! Here are my thoughts in response to some of yours mixed in with my general take on the issue(s). This is a long comment, but please read all of it because there are some important instructions at the end!
1- I agree with Matt that the fallacy driving this movement to legalize gay marriage is that gay people were born that way and they have no choice but to be gay. This is puzzling to me, but I know of some church members who have bought into that myth as truth. Here’s the way I see it (please correct me if I’m wrong): many people come into this world pre-disposed and prone to struggle with certain temptations. However, these pre-dispositions don't doom them to live their life in sin. For example, some are tempted (in varying degrees of severity), and then succumb to that temptation to look at pornography or be unchaste, others are prone to have problems with drugs or alcohol, and to others it is unfortunately an attraction to others of the same sex. But Matt is right – this isn’t an “Equal/Civil Rights Issue” because we all have the CHOICE whether or not to act on those pre-dispositions. In my opinion, "Equal Rights and Equal Protection" should only apply to those groups who have no choice or control over how they are (blacks, women, the handicapped, etc),i.e. those whose "social status" would be determined exclusively by their genetics. I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure that a "gay gene" has not been discovered. To me, this is not surprising.
2-Bringing God and His plan into the discussion, would it make sense that He would command His children to "multiply and replenish the earth" but send them into the world WITHOUT having "prepared a way to accomplish the things which He hath commanded them?" God would not be just if that were the case. The flawed logic that people have no more choice to be gay than black people have a choice to be black is a serious (but subtle – that’s how Satan works) distortion of the truth. The truth is that while we can’t choose which temptations will be HARDER or EASIER for us to overcome, God DID not and WOULD not ever take away our free agency to either repent and draw upon the infinite power of the Atonement or succumb to the influence of the adversary. We are free to choose to sin or to obey Him.
3- Before anyone calls me a heartless, cold conservative for those thoughts, let me first whole-heartedly agree with Creighton and Jenn by saying that true Christians should “love them [homosexuals] all the more.” I am saddened to hear of cruel treatment of homosexuals by heterosexuals, especially by LDS members. We know better. Like Christ, we all need to cultivate the ability to separate the sinner from the sin by loving the former while at the same time condemning the latter. I’ve learned a lot from how my wife’s family interacts with Melanie’s homosexual uncle. While we may disagree with his choices, we all make a concerted effort to include him and make him feel warm and welcome at family functions. We interact with him in a very positive manner, even though he chooses to live a different, yet still immoral lifestyle.
4-By the way, I don’t think that the Church crosses any lines or is “oppressive” or “unfair” when it prevents homosexual members from enjoying certain benefits that come with living righteously (Temple Recommends, certain callings of authority, sacrament privileges, etc). However, it would be bad if the sign on the chapel read, “straight visitors welcome." I realize that sometimes certain members act that way (I'd hope that these are unfortunate and limited exceptions, not the rule), but the truth is that the church itself wants to help all those who struggle with a same sex attraction. Why would the Ensign print articles about overcoming such temptations if that weren’t true?
5-Likewise, and in my opinion, a government is not “oppressive” or “unfair” when it does not reward a certain group for its voluntary behavior by legalizing (and hence ENCOURAGING) it when the effects that followed would ultimately be detrimental to society if such a group had “equal rights/equal benefits” as those who obey the law.
6-Like Chris (and Elder Maxwell, as you will later read)I think it is ironic when Prop 8 opponents tell church-goers to not vote on this “moral” issue because it would violate the “separation of church and state.” (after reading the entire U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, many are surprised this specific phrase is not in either place! That will be another post for another day) Anyway, here’s the irony as I see it: democratically-elected legislators make laws which govern other “moral” issues all the time! Is it “oppressive” when government deprives rapists, thieves, murderers, liars, etc. of certain “rights” (liberty, money, etc) as a consequence to their voluntary actions that are detrimental to society? Churches teach their congregations that these things are wrong, yet, you don’t hear proponents of these detrimental activities clamoring that by legislating on these “moral” issues, US citizens who go to church or their elected officials are violating the “separation between church and state,” or better yet, "intolerant" with their vote. It seems like there is some inconsistency going on here (lacking integrity, as Chris would say). Like I said before, Satan is very crafty. He knows that it is a tougher sell to convince a majority that rapists, thieves, murderers, liars, etc do what they do because "that's the way God made me" or "I have no choice." He has done a great job at convincing so many that gays are gay because "God made me this way! I didn't choose this life! Why would I subject myself to such a negative stigma-hell!" Convincing, but sadly and subtly this is what the devil wants THEM and US to think. This is how he quietly erodes the sacred institution of the family.
7-Am I saying that society would crumble if we allowed homosexual couples to have equal hospital visitation rights? No! However, I do believe that the inevitable effects from the legalization of gay marriage (Jeff and Ev’s ‘slippery slope’ arguments come in here) such as the integration and justification of gay sex in the public education sex-ed curriculum, the removal of non-profit status from churches who will still teach that homosexuality is wrong even though it is legal, more lawsuits filed against churches who refuse to marry two men or two women, and others ARE detrimental to society. I can and WILL teach my children to be Christian towards homosexuals, but I don’t like the fact that my kids or me personally will likely be accused of being “intolerant” or even “hateful” if I choose to keep them home from school the day(s) when schools teach about gay sex! The irony of intolerance . . . the oppressed become the oppressors. These aren’t unfounded fears either – we’ve already seen a lot of these effects in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal!
8-Like Jeff said, I too respect a person’s right to choose (although I know these things are morally wrong) to live with and/or 'fall in love' with someone of the same sex. However, I disagree that they are as deserving of the same “equal benefits” to which other law-abiding citizens are entitled. ESPECIALLY when the law that governs whether or not a homosexual couple can get married was created by a fair democratic majority vote by the citizens, gay and straight, Mormon and non-Mormon, of California! I also agree with Jeff’s very good points about the reality that this will be a short-lived victory for decency given that we have judges who have no qualms about stepping out of their proper role of interpreting and applying the law. I find it interesting that in order to overrule this law, Supreme Court Justices have to deem it “unconstitutional” for one reason or another. That this will likely happen even after the individual citizens DRIECTLY voted on this issue (not even through their elected officials) should be very concerning. It’s hard for a law to be more “constitutional” than that! Such blatant judicial legislating will be painfully obvious when this amendment gets overruled from the judicial bench.
9- This comment would be incomplete without adding a few amazingly prophetic quotes from a 1979 talk that Neal A. Maxwell gave. I can't take credit for finding this gem - my bro in law Matt Messina emailed me this talk. These next quotes are truly awesome!
“Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency . . . we are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies while it is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion.”
He continues by quoting M.J. Sobran, “What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs . . . A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it.” (funny quote, but sadly true!)
Maxwell continues, “This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened. In its mildest form, irreligion will merely be condescending toward those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values. In its more harsh forms, as is always the case with those whose dogmatism is blinding, the secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments. It is always such an easy step from dogmatism to unfair play—especially so when the dogmatists believe themselves to be dealing with primitive people who do not know what is best for them . . .
Am I saying that the voting rights of people of religion are in danger? Of course not! Am I saying, “It’s back to the catacombs?” No! But there is occurring a discounting of religiously based opinions. If people, however, are not permitted to advocate, to assert, and to bring to bear, in every legitimate way, the opinions and views they hold which grow out of their religious convictions, WHAT MANNER OF MEN AND WOMEN WOULD WE BE?
Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church. Notice the terrible irony if this trend were to continue. When the secular church goes after its heretics, where are the sanctuaries? To what landfalls and Plymouth Rocks can future pilgrims go?
If we let come into being a secular church which is shorn of traditional and divine values, where shall we go for inspiration in the crises of tomorrow? Can we appeal to the rightness of a specific regulation to sustain us in our hour of need? Will we be able to seek shelter under a First Amendment which by then may have been twisted to favor irreligion? Will we be able to rely for counterforce on value education aided in school systems which are increasingly secularized? And if our governments and schools were to fail us, would we be able to fall back upon and rely upon the institution of the family, when so many secular movements seek to shred it?
If the challenge of the secular church becomes very real, let us, as in all other relationships, be principled but pleasant. Let us be perceptive without being pompous. Let us have integrity and not write checks with our tongues which our conduct cannot cash. Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel.
(this next part speaks DIRECTLY towards the events of last week in CA, in my mind)
There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious of itself.”
10-HOW PROPHETIC!! It is extremely comforting to know that even though society’s definitions of “right” and “wrong” (in a morally acceptable sense) change over time as reflected by the laws men and women pass, God’s definitions of right and wrong are eternal. God is not a God of confusion or injustice. And the way I see it, Gordon B. Hinckley acting as God's Prophet, Seer, and Revelator already “issued a calling,” if you will, to the Saints and everyone else when he said, “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” (Family Proclamation) So I think it would be fair to say that those who voted for Prop 8 or even voluntarily campaigned for its passage were simply “magnifying their calling” per se, whether they knew it or not! I do agree with Jenn however, that if they WERE “bullied” or coerced into campaigning for the passage of Prop 8, I’d be disappointed as too. (If you haven't already noticed, I'm kinda big on this whole 'individual choice' thing!) However, from what Matt Daines said, it sounded like the word “bullied” didn’t necessarily fit the facts.
11- Those are my thoughts. Thank you all for commenting! Please feel free to continue to comment on this subject. I really enjoy hearing from everyone. To promote fairness, I invite either Creighton, Jenn D, Uncle Dave, or his fam (the more liberal-leaning crew) to create the next post/question/issue that all of us will then address, whenever that may be. I don’t want to turn this into a conservative-heavy forum where those of you who are more "liberal" feel constantly under attack or on the defensive based on what the more "conservative" crowd posts. What do you say, everyone? Sound good/fair? If not, I’d be open to other ideas. Thanks again for reading the novel!
One more thing: For the reasons stated in the previous comment, I refuse to believe the absurd idea that it is "stupid, pointless, etc" for a person to vote based SOLELY on one or two "moral" issues. In my opinion, it is far more intelligent to vote for a candidate based only on his or her stance on "moral" issues than it is to only vote for a candidate based only on a general quality of "charisma" or only because he is she comes from the same or a different ethnic background as you do, or he is she is the same or a different gender as you are. Call me racist or sexist if you must, but let's face the facts people, there were a lot of people who voted this way who belonged to BOTH parties. Don't you think such a mentality is worse than that of voting for someone based on their stance on one or two "moral" issues? We can agree that it is BEST to combine the "moral" issues with the non-moral ones (economic policies, foreign policies, etc). I just don't like to hear people criticizing others (or discounting their vote) when they are only voting based on one or two "moral' issues. Neither would Elder Maxwell.
translation: "he is she" = "he OR she" Sorry, it's late and I need to go to bed now :)
Devin-I love everything you said. When I was taking GOVT, I was accused of being homophobic, encouraging intolerance in my children, and basically not having the common sense to see the "right" way to live my life. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth.
I've already said that one person said it isn't a moral issue. I was trying to keep God out of the argument because so many people don't accept Him as a valid argument anymore. Sad, but true. She brought God into it by telling me that because of her Roman Catholic upbringing, she doesn't support homosexuality. But she supports gay marriage. (Call me crazy, but some social issues are more black-and-white than others-at least to me.) Needless to say, that opened the can of worms.
It wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was an abomination, but today it is acceptable, almost encouraged. When will pedophilia be accepted as a "natural" part of life? ("Natural" is a reference to one of their arguments.) What about incest? Will it be ok as long as there aren't any children produced? Murder? What if someone is predisposed to that behavior? Aren't serial killers kind of "predisposed" these days? Where do we draw the line?
With those arguments, another guy tried to justify every single one of them. He brought ancient Roman culture and some mythology (among other things) into it. But he twisted what the Bible teaches to suit his arguments. I was appalled. I understand that people will translate things differently, (even scripture, though it seems pretty straightforward) but to blatantly pervert it is beyond my comprehension. It confirmed to me exactly what's wrong with today's society.
It's ENTIRELY an issue of morality. I agree that it's a choice. One's trial, yes. I will not believe that, given the church's teachings, it's a "natural" evolution. However, what one does behind closed doors is their business...until it infringes on my children and me.
One of my best friend's brother is gay. I love him dearly. He's also one of my best friends. It's funny with him because, even though he's gay, he's against gay marriage or rights. (Yes, he's very gay.) I'm not judging the people. I don't agree with their choice, but I won't judge them as people because it isn't my place. I can love the sinner and not the sin. It's hard to keep them seperate sometimes, but it IS possible. Perhaps judgement is one of MY trials. I firmly believe that one day it will be that "the oppressed will become the oppressors." I hurt for my children.
What little there is of my bleeding heart, I ALMOST feel sympathy for them because Prop 8 passed. At the same time, I know how wrong it is, therefore I can't feel it at all.
I'd love to stay and chat, but I have yet another psych paper to throw together. I'm trying to get the rest of this class done by tomorrow for Friday brings my arthroscopy.
I have to say something, about this notion of being born gay or whether it is a choice. In many conversations with my uncle (who is an active homosexual, he has a partner and was part of the demonstration on temple square the other night) I have decided there is no way he chose to be gay. I know it's hard to change your way of thinking, but keep an open mind and I will share with you his story. I believe that his may be typical of many Latter-Day Saints. Let me tell you that if you asked my uncle (Rob) if they made a pill that magically switched you from gay to straight and offered it today, he would take it. He has repeatedly said how much he wishes he was straight. Does that sound like a choice? When he was in high school he went to his bishop to confess he was attracted to men and not to women. The bishop told him to pray it away, make out with girls, even to look at pornography. Rob did everything the bishop told him too in order to be straight. They also told him if he went on a mission this burden would be taken from him and he would be straight. He did serve a mission, for the whole two years, and honorably. After returning home, he was still gay. BEING GAY IS NOT A CHOICE. At least for men, women seem to me to be different, a lot more shifting, but if you have a gay man, he is gay. Now Rob when he got back figured that since the Lord didn't change him like the church leaders had promised, that God must have made him that way for a reason. Now, if you were in his shoes, wouldn't you feel the exact same way? Now it's easy for us to say (who most of us are in heterosexual marriages) "oh you're gay? that's too bad, looks like you just need to never act on it." Can you imagine living without your spouse, even living with no hope of never having a relationship with someone you love? That would be incredibly difficult. Now you can draw your own conclusions, and I have drawn my own, but I think the Lord would have us judge a little bit less harshly and be more loving to these people who are just as much His children as we are. I guess the whole point of this post is just to help you think about being in their shoes before judging them, because I think it's much harder than any of us could imagine.
First of all, it wasn't right of the church leaders to make promises such as that. They should have known better. You can't just pray something away or serve a mission to make it better. And I'm not saying your uncle is a vile person, because I'm sure he's a wonderful, good and decent person. I believe it's a trial for anyone that feels that way.
I'm not saying, "oh, well, you better not think like that anymore," either. I know it isn't something that can be shut off just like a light. I understand that it has to be worked on, little by little. I'm not THAT naive.
You're right. If I had to live without my husband (which I do more often than not since he's an E-6 in the army and is currently deployed for 10 more months), it's EXTREMELY difficult. I'm not saying homosexuality should be outlawed, either, mostly because it can't be stopped. It's kind of like abortion. Sure, you can ban it, but it isn't going to stop anything. I'm not going to be held accountable for another's trangressions, so I don't judge them. I just believe gay marriage is very, very wrong. And I don't want it crammed down my kids' throats, either. How am I supposed to explain that? It goes against everything the church teaches. Why should I have to explain to my 6 year old why so-and-so has 2 moms? Why should my innocent daughters be exposed to such an abomination so early? Again, I'm not saying the people are abominations, just the lifestyle choice.
If it was the Lord's intention for homosexuality to be acceptable, He wouldn't have commanded otherwise. That's all I'm saying.
Ok, let me just state that I am not saying that people are not born with an attraction to the opposite sex. I am simply saying that this (for arguments sake I will say) fact does not exclude the action of homosexuality from the definition of the word choice. This is not about good and bad. This is not about judgement ( trust me, I do not). This is about understanding the definition of a word.
Homosexual thought or desire does not make you a homosexual any more than the desire or thought of charity makes you charitable. We are defined by our actions, and every conscious actions predecessor is a choice.
I believe that it is fair to say, as Creighton did;
"Oh you're gay? that's too bad, looks like you just need to never act on it." Can you imagine living without your spouse, even living with no hope of never having a relationship with someone you love?"
This is a fair statement, yet the compassion that it elicits still does not preclude the act of homosexuality from the definition of the word choice. This is not a emotional argument for me, it is purely definitional. Homosexuality IS A CHOICE. Heterosexuality IS A CHOICE. If I deny this, I deny the substance of existence. Which is to make choices, every day, thousands and thousands of choices which in turn define me. I am not willing to give up the definition of myself to any one or anything other than me, and neither should anyone who choses a homosexual lifestyle.
Matt I agree with you. They did not choose to be who they are, but they choose what they do with it. My sense is that a majority choose to act on it. Why? Because happiness and joy can be found in intimate relationships, like that between husband and wife. I perceive my uncle and his partner to be very very happy. Both are former members of the Church, both are return missionaries. I really think there is something we all don't know with this group of people. If you are a student of church doctrine you know that since both these men are from families sealed in the temple, the prophets have taught they will be saved in the Celestial kingdom. They may have to suffer for their sins, but Joseph Smith taught they would be saved by virtue of the sealing. Will they be exalted? I don't think that's for any of us to decide. One thing is for sure, they are God's children, and He loves them and He wants them back just as much as any of us. Why they were born with those homosexual tendencies is absolutely beyond me.
Disclaimer: I'm not attacking anyone personally, doubting anyone's testimony, and am not passing judgment (I can't - there are too many beams in my own eyes) with what I will say next. I am honestly having a hard time reconciling things said previously with some things I have learned as a fellow "student of church doctrine." Please help me reconcile my beliefs with those previously stated.
1- It seems to me that the big issue here is whether or not homosexual ACTIONS (not the people who commit them or their pre-dispositions or tendencies)are wicked, and are therefore sins. Once this question is resolved, the rest should fall into place. Let's look at a reliable source,the topical guide, for the answer. Under "homosexuality" we see the references Jude 1:7, which reads: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh, are set forth an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." The general authorities in charge of creating the topical guide (Bruce R. McConkie, if I'm not mistaken) interpreted the phrase "giving themselves after strange flesh" as "homosexuality" (see footnote c) In my mind, this means that homosexual ACTIONS are wicked. Is this correct? If not, how do I reconcile that with this scripture and all the others dealing with homosexuality?
2-If homosexual actions are wicked, and therefore sins, my next question is "how can someone be 'happy' - in a gospel sense of the word - while in an intimate relationship that is inherently wicked?" I know many people who THINK they are happy and may tell you they are happy with a big smile on their face while committing sins, creating the perception that they are happy. However, I thought that "wickedness never was happiness." See Alma 41:10. For more on this, take a look at Mosiah 2:36-41. Can we be truly "happy" if we don't have the companionship of the Spirit? Isn't he offended and withdraws himself when we sin? I didn't think that the Spirit could dwell in unholy temples. Again, how do I reconcile?
3-the next head-scratcher for me was the following idea: "since both these men are from families sealed in the temple, the prophets have taught that they will be saved in the celestial kingdom. They may have to suffer for their sins, but Joseph Smith taught that they will be saved by virtue of the sealing." I'm sorry, but I've never thought of my parents' sealing as my get-out-of-jail-free card should I choose to engage in wicked behavior and not individually and sincerely repent of my sins. I thought that it was MY actions, not those of my righteous parents, which determined what kingdom I would end up in after this life. See D&C 76:111. I was under the impression that God conditioned the blessings that come attached with the gospel ordinances we receive as individuals upon our individual faithfulness and obedience to His commandments thereafter. A temple sealing is important, yes, but if the parents OR the children are not faithful and disobey God's commandments afterward without repenting, how can they receive the blessings attached? God is merciful yes, but He is also just, and is "no respecter of persons." Please show me a Joseph Smith (or any other prophet) teaching, in its entire context, that will help me understand how any man who chooses to act on strong homosexual desires and does not repent of such behavior can "be saved in the celestial kingdom" ONLY BASED ON "the virtue of [his parent's] sealing." I have never read or heard anything that would suggest such an idea. However, I have read all about how the cleansing power of Christ's Atonement is accessible to everybody, and we all need it because we all have sins. Sadly, your uncle and his partner and my wife's uncle are all included in this group. I don't believe scripture references are necessary here. I'm just not aware that God carved out any exceptions to repentance for individuals who have strong tendencies to commit certain sins and act on them, even if their parents were sealed. We can't choose the cards God gives us, but we are free to choose how we play them. God will judge us accordingly. See Helaman 14:30-31. I too believe that there can be repentance and progression in the next estate. However, I thought that the desire to repent has to come within us, and if we don't repent here or in the next life, Christ's Atonement will have no power over us. Repentance can't be forced upon us. He came to save us FROM our sins, not IN our sins.
4-If your uncle's bishop counseled him to look at naked women, make out with girls, or even have sex with girls, are you surprised that his missionary service didn't "cure" him of his desires? Can one wicked behavior "cure" another one? His Bishop will be judged according to his actions too. But nothing in the gospel that I have come across suggests to me that your uncle could legitimately use the bishop's actions, his own mission, or his parent's sealing in the temple as sufficient reasons why he belongs in the celestial kingdom if he has not personally repented for his own sins. I thought that being "saved" was a personal thing based on many scriptures I have read. No one is perfect, but the keys to accessing God's mercy and Christ's Atonement are a broken heart, a contrite spirit, faith, repentance, and enduring to the end. These are the things I have learned from a study of the gospel doctrine. I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong, I just seriously want to know how our two opinions can co-exist! How can I reconcile my beliefs with yours?
5- Again, this was not meant to be an 'attack' on anyone or a 'challenge' or me being 'holier than thou.' I honestly DO want to know how I can reconcile my beliefs with those in the last comment when they are both rooted in gospel principles and scripture. That's it.
PS- I had a feeling that this post would inevitably lead down the path of a more religious discussion than a political one. That's way I tried to keep the question posted restricted to a more political setting. So Creighton, maybe when you respond to my last comment, email it to me instead of posting it on here. I'm the one who forgot that this blog is called "our political ramblings" not "our religious ramblings." My bad.
Devin,
First of all let me just say Devin that there are no hard feelings, no contention in my heart, and no ill-will. We both obviously love to have opinions and defend them. I read your posts carefully and have an open mind. I think it is appropriate to list my reply on here. I know there are probably some people who are wondering what I meant, and what doctrines I was referring to. I will respond to each point in order that you presented it.
1. Like you, as I read the scriptures, it seems to me that homosexuality is clearly laid out as a sin for a number of reasons. Paul (to my knowledge) is the one of the only ones who taught about it, and he mentions it several times in the New Testament. I don’t think there is anything mentioned specifically about homosexuality in the Book of Mormon, and I am not sure about the Doctrine and Covenants, but I don’t remember reading anything. But the current Prophets and Apostles have taught that it is wrong, and that is good enough for me. Christian homosexuals would argue with us (yes there are Christian homosexuals) that since we don’t believe everything in the Bible (ex. We don’t practice the Law of Moses anymore) that we can’t say it is authority on all doctrine. However they do not have the benefit of having modern day Prophets and Apostles to act as authority on interpretation of scripture (or maybe they do but just choose to ignore that.) So one thing we can agree on, homosexuality is a sin.
2. I have often wondered about exactly what you just said, how could someone engaging in sinful behavior truly be happy when the scriptures teach us the exact opposite. “Wickedness never was happiness,” Alma taught to his son Corianton in Alma 41:10. But I am going to ask you the same question, only reversed. Why is it that homosexuals in the Church, living a celibate lifestyle and trying to keep the commandments, are often depressed, fall into despair, and commit suicide? It has happened, and quite often. There are LDS hotlines and groups set up by the Church to minimize this from happening (LDS Reconciliation.) I don’t have the answer. From what I can gather from talking with my uncle and hearing other stories on the web and in books (Circling the Wagons), my own personal opinion (all it is, just an opinion) is that they have struggled to rid themselves of their homosexual tendencies but to no avail. On top of this they live in a church which adamantly rejects and opposed their inborn tendencies. Many of them have much difficulty in resolving who they believe God made them to be, and what the Church teaches about that. Their whole life they are told homosexuality is an abomination, even as Sodom and Gomorrha. I think they give up on God’s love, thinking that they are not worthy of the Celestial kingdom because they are gay. I know there are those who disagree with me, but can you at least see how horribly difficult this must be? Ultimately my response is I don’t know Devin. I don’t know how someone can be living in a homosexual lifestyle and yet be happy. I don’t think it’s my place to tell someone they are happy or not based on what I believe, because to me the ones I have met all seem pretty happy. They are a wonderful group of people. Since I was a child my gay uncle was always my favorite (I didn’t learn he was gay until I was 13.) He has always been so kind, so generous, and very loving to all of us. His partner Doug is equally as good a person. When I left on my mission they gave me more money for my mission than anyone else. They come to our family gatherings and I am so happy they do (believe me two gay men can lighten up a big Mormon family gathering.) They are not horrible people. I never said that anyone did say they were horrible, but the ones I know are very good people.
3. This doctrine has been taught by many prophets, even Joseph Smith himself.
“The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught a more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain. Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God” (Orson F. Whitney, in Conference Report, Apr. 1929, 110).
Brigham Young taught: “Let the father and mother, who are members of this Church and Kingdom, take a righteous course, and strive with all their might never to do a wrong, but to do good all their lives; if they have one child or one hundred children, if they conduct themselves towards them as they should, binding them to the Lord by their faith and prayers, I care not where those children go, they are bound up to their parents by an everlasting tie, and no power of earth or hell can separate them from their parents in eternity; they will return again to the fountain from whence they sprang” (quoted in Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:90–91). And Boyd K. Packer taught “It is not uncommon for responsible parents to lose one of their children, for a time, to influences over which they have no control. They agonize over rebellious sons or daughters. They are puzzled over why they are so helpless when they have tried so hard to do what they should.“It is my conviction that those wicked influences one day will be overruled. …“We cannot overemphasize the value of temple marriage, the binding ties of the sealing ordinance, and the standards of worthiness required of them. When parents keep the covenants they have made at the altar of the temple, their children will be forever bound to them” (“Our Moral Environment,” Ensign, May 1992, 68).
So the question becomes were my grandparents faithful enough to be deserving of this blessing? The answer is absolutely. I do not know a more faithful man as my grandpa. Both him and my grandma came from less-active families but decided to be strong in the Church, and they were. All of my cousins (even the girls), all of my uncles (my mom was the only one who didn’t serve a mission from the family) have all served full-time missions. My grandparents served a mission not too long ago, and then worked in the temple up until my grandma’s health declined and she passed away. I do not know of a more faithful couple, and I do not know of a better environment my uncle could have been raised in. They still pray, hope, and agonize over my uncle. They are heartbroken he has left the Church, but still love him as much as their other children. Are they not deserving of this blessing taught by the Prophet Joseph? I do not know the what the path back will be, but I do know it will be there.
4. The fact is, he trusted his priesthood leaders and followed their counsel. This is not a cut and dry issue in the Church. Many church leaders have mentioned we do not understand homosexuality. There were some bad things that happened in the 70’s with homosexuals. (BYU professors and grad students in psychology conducted Aversion experiments, which is showing someone a stimulus and providing a shock to associate negative feelings with that stimulus, it was unsuccessful and resulted in suicide.) The issue was misunderstood and a bishop gave advice he thought would work. I don’t think he was acting under influence of the Spirit. But Rob obeyed, as he always had. He obeyed everything the Bishop told him. He was an eagle scout, a great kid, and a good student. My grandparents had no idea. He was the oldest and the first to leave on a mission. My point is that he tried everything he was supposed to do. I believe he lost faith after his mission and decided that if the Church was wrong about him changing, they must be wrong about homosexuality being a sin. I don’t agree with this but can you at least see his point of view? Would you come to the same conclusion? Maybe, maybe not. Thank goodness we don’t have to. But I have a tremendous amount of empathy and love for my uncle who feels completely rejected by what he loved. I stumbled across an interview my mom did with him for one of her classes about 8 years ago and it broke my heart. In the interview he was sobbing as he explained the feelings of doubt, frustration, anger, loneliness, and depression as he tried to live as a homosexual in a heterosexual world. All he wanted was to be accepted for who he believed God created him to be. Luckily it is not for any of us to judge him or say what kingdom he belongs in, but I believe God is a loving, forgiving, understanding God.
5. Sorry this was so darn long (I’m turning into you Devin =) ) but ultimately I just hope we can show unconditional love for anyone, any sinner, regardless of race, religion, economic status, sexual orientation, etc. Truly the greatest commandment is to love God with all our souls, but the second is almost as important to love our neighbor, and in this world, anyone is our neighbor.
Creighton,
Thanks for your response. I'll try to keep mine a little shorter this time:) And I'm so glad that we can discuss these things in a civilized manner, each knowing the other won't take things personally. I like that we can agree to disagree. So thank you.
-thanks for providing me with those quotes. To me though, all of them still suggest an underlying truth that there still must be repentance on the part of the individual (i.e. "like the penitent prodigal." "painful experience" etc.) before he or she can be cleansed from sin and enter into the celestial kingdom. I'm not saying that righteous parents are no longer the parents of their children if those children disobey. For me, this is the only way my mind can reconcile these two views. I like those quotes, but at the same time, I don't think that those quotes in and of themselves trump all of those other scriptures and principles I talked about earlier.
-Another way I have come to terms with this whole business is to simply recognize the humbling and finite limits to my mind and understanding. I like the scripture in Isaiah that says something along the lines of "my ways are not your ways, my thoughts are higher than your thoughts" type of thing. I'm glad that God is the perfect and omniscient judge and knows how to sort everything out. Like you said, it isn't my, our your place to do that. For me, I can study the gospel in such a way that I can know what is expected and required if I want to be happy in the next life together with my family. That is good enough for me.
-And lastly, I certainly agree with you that we are commanded to love our neighbors, no matter what their sexual orientation may be! I definitely agree with you there! I respect you for your honest responses
I would absolutely agree with you that repentance would be mandatory in order for the lost sheep to return to the fold. I guess what I get out of those quotes is that the sealing bond is strong enough to bring them back and ultimately give them a desire to repent. It may be after this life (more than likely for most practicing homosexuals) but I believe it will happen. It will be especially hard for my Uncle though because he feels betrayed by the Church, and now he feels they are fighting against him. I also like what you said about our ways not being God's ways. What if the purpose of homosexuality is just to make sure there's enough good looking guys to marry all the faithful women that never got married that deserved a good looking guy? Just kidding but hey you never know.
Post a Comment