- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is in response to the recent discussion in the Introductions section that began to address Prop 8 and SSM. I am opening a new topic to discuss those issues specifically. Comment away.
Just copied from the thread over on the intros. Sorry, but didn’t have the heart/time to redo it all. Quote:I voted “no” on 102, although my DH voted “yes,” and I don’t think less of him for his opinions. We are both pro-gay rights (anti discrimination), but Prop 102 was specifically changing the law to restrict the definition of marriage constitutionally. To me, that felt unnecessary since AZ doesn’t allow gay marriage, and I disliked the fearmongering arguments the Prop 102 proponents put forward.
I am ambivalent about SSM, truly, but I am very strongly pro-gay rights / anti-discrimination. Most of my gay friends (at least the non-LDS ones) are not that interested in SSM so long as their rights are not infringed, although many are in long-term relationships. Most of my gay friends are not that religious, which may be why. Personally, I don’t like legislating morality either (I’m not sure SSM is doing that, though). I would prefer to reduce the amount of government we have. I would rather ensure that marriage is not given preferential treatment by the law than providing that preferential treatment to all. But of course, that’s not what the legislative choices have offered thus far.
My best friend (TBM) has a brother who is homosexual who served a mission and all…it kind of makes the topic more understandable when you know someone to keep it in perspective and you see everyone else as real people, not stereotypes. I have never had to vote for it one way or another, but would probably vote against Prop 8 based on my knowledge (very little) of the subject.
I don’t believe the government must make everything equal for everybody. A boyfriend and girlfriend living together is different than a husband and a wife. A girlfriend in love with another girl is different than a husband and a wife. Why do we need to redefine marriage to accomodate differences. Let the differences exist and don’t let there be discrimination against those differences.
I’m so proud of myself for getting an intro thread moved. In response to Heber13 and the question of why I felt morally obligated to resign:
Two reasons– first, as an imperfect devoted follower of Christ’s teachings, I feel that He would never disqualify a person the opportunity for the fulness of the gospel (especially eternal companionship). I know He loves every person unconditionally and I believe that He allows us to become who we are and, in that sense, He “created” us. A fellow human who is naturally attracted to the same sex is the creation of a loving Heavenly Father. He accepts them as He created them and expects them to find love, happiness, service in the “state” that they are in. NOT to try to “fix” the “condition”, or “overcome” the “struggle”. Those are, frankly, bigoted ideas. A bigot is a person who feels justified in deeming that another human being is somehow “broken” or “incomplete” or “not quite human” or “unnatural”. Nazi’s killed the disabled as well as Jews, homosexuals, gypsys, etc.
The church’s official position on homosexuality (which they have posted on lds.org) is essentially that homosexuality is some sort of “disability”, akin to being blind; that it is a struggle to overcome just like someone with say cystic fibrosis, and that many people with SSA can lead meaningful lives in the church by staying celibate for life or discovering a way to still get married, have kids, and lead a “normal” life.
God created the condition of homosexuality in the same way that he created heterosexuality. Just as he created the races, the languages, genders, etc. In my heart, I believe that the church left Christ on this topic and I chose, for myself, to follow the Christ that I’ve always tried to follow. In fact, I tell people that when they ask: I feel that the church left me, not that I left the church. (I am fully aware of the egotistic nature of that comment)
Second, as I’ve noticed by reading many of the posts on this forum, alot of you are politically libertarian even if you don’t admit it. I am too and feel strongly that the more that religion inserts itself into the civic discourse the greater the danger for the loss of religious liberty in the long run. The church is opening itself up to government oversight, regulation, etc. and potentially the loss of tax-exempt status by its political posture. The church could never have been founded, the gospel restored without the religious liberty protection of the constitution (in spite of the trampling of the right by some citizens of missouri, illinois, etc.) Which, to bring it full circle, is why the church’s current “doctrinal” stance and political position on this issue is so ironic.
IMHO, needless to say.
swimordie wrote:Second, as I’ve noticed by reading many of the posts on this forum, alot of you are politically libertarian even if you don’t admit it.
Well, I don’t call myself a libertarian because I hate assigning labels to myself. It then makes it hard for me to disagree with my chosen “box.” But yes, you’re correct, I have most in common with the Libertarian party. I’m an Austrian School proponent, and socially liberal. BTW, swimordie are you in CA then?@Heber13
I will write something later about the problems as I saw them with the push from the church in CA for Prop 8. But not tonight.
jmb275 wrote:swimordie are you in CA then?
Actually, I’m in Arizona where prop 102 was exactly the same as prop 8 and the only other place the church did their underground fundraising for the respective campaigns. btw, there were like, 7 different ballot issues about abortion in other states and the church did not fundraise for any of these.
Personally, no matter how anyone feels about the initiatives themselves, I actually like the fact that the Church only gets involved in issues they think they have a chance of winning. Again, regardless of how someone feels about the specific issues, if the Church is going to get involved I don’t want it to be a waste right from the start – like initiatives in MA or the other New England states. That’s just the practical me talking; I might not like how some of the time and effort is spent, but I would like it even less if I felt it was being spent with no hope of getting the outcome they want. Old-Timer wrote:Personally, no matter how anyone feels about the initiatives themselves, I actually like the fact that the Church only gets involved in issues they think they have a chance of winning.
The problem, politically, is that this is a loser issue. A repeal Prop 8 will be on the ballot in CA every two years until it’s repealed and that’s just a matter of time. Judging by the exit polling, it will probably happen in 2010. (African-Americans turned out in record numbers to vote for Obama and they voted yes on Prop 8 by 35-40% margin)
What will the church do when it gets on the ballot in Utah? It’ll happen in the next 10-15 years. Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court could get involved before and make it all moot, just as they did on the miscegenation issue. Btw, if you want to know the probable trajectory of SSM, study the miscegenation process.
Loving v. State of VirginiaDo we want members of the church spending millions on pointless campaigns? Members in CA donated roughly $40million and in AZ roughly $20million on the respective campaigns in 2008.
swimordie, I am not defining “win” on a long-term scale. I agree totally that fighting SSM probably is a “lost cause” as to eventual outcome, but that doesn’t mean it’s a waste to be one of the primary driving forces behind Prop 8 in CA. Please understand that I am being analytical here.My own personal stance is civil unions for all (with equal civil rights) and marriages according to the standards of each religion /denomination performing them. If a religion really wants to make marriage sacred and special, I also support much more active “punishments” (as in removal of rewards) for divorce – established, again, by each religion / denomination according to their own standards. Again, regardless of how someone feels about the issue itself, I can see a very valid reason for the Church to take the stand it took with Prop 8 – particularly in regard to missionary-related activities. I think, as an organization, if the leaders really, truly believe in the long-term mission of preaching the Gospel and providing opportunities for people to hear and accept the Church and the Gospel (which I believe they do), they simply must weigh the best way to “come out of obscurity” and appeal to people who are most likely to accept the Church and the Gospel.
The Church’s conversion rate in the Eastern US and Canada (in the more politically liberal states) is stagnant at best, while its growth in the Western US and internationally still is quite good. The Church, therefore, is altering the traditional distribution of missionaries to place more missionaries in areas where more people are joining (and remaining active). Missions in the Eastern US and Canada are seeing up to a 33% reduction in the total number of missionaries they will have over the next few months, with a corresponding increase in the Western US and internationally. My point?
It is primarily the more conservative-moderate citizens who are joining the Church – not the more liberal ones. That simply is undeniable. Ironically, the Church as an institution actually is becoming more liberal in many ways (gradually, but steadily), but the part of the population that tends to join and remain active is the more centrist to right portion. Therefore, being seen as a champion of traditional families and (really) the only effective voice against redefining “marriage” is a huge perceptual plus for the Church – especially in populations that have been hard to crack up until now.
Two examples in my area:
1) We are seeing an impending explosion of interest in the Church in our ward and stake in the Black community – and not a little of the interest is because the news coverage of Prop 8 often linked two sources as primary in the outcome of Prop 8: the Mormon Church and black churches. That fascinates me, frankly.
2) We have been able to develop the beginning of a strong relationship with the Catholic Archdiocese in this area – and, again, much of that is because they recognize that we “came to their rescue” in CA with regard to Prop 8.
Again, I’m not saying I agree with much of the reasoning used in the campaign for Prop 8. I’m not saying I agree in the end with the “solution” it represents. I’m not saying I think it was the best political stance to take. etc, etc, etc. What I am saying is that we are seeing some fascinating results of the effort way out here in OH, and I have to believe we aren’t the only case.
This is going to sound cynical, but I don’t mean it to be. I mean it to be nothing more than practical – and a chance perhaps to look at this issue from a different angle and paradigm:
What if, for the future of the Church as a growing organization, prophets sometimes are inspired to do things that don’t make a lot of sense in the short-term but which pay great dividends in the long-term? After all, as society evolves, given our belief in on-going revelation and historical willingness to accept revelations that cause MAJOR changes, there is a chance that we will end up changing our stance on SSM at some point in the future. If so, perhaps the Church’s actions with regard to Prop 8 weren’t uninspired after all – especially if it opens doors in the here and now that might not have opened in any other way – and that wouldn’t have opened in a “defeated” campaign.
I’m not writing this comment from an apologetic standpoint. It really is the result of what I have experienced in the past few months here in Ohio – and it is a perspective I have not shared anywhere else in the Bloggernacle yet. I’m not sure I will, but it felt right to share it here and now.
Ray, That would put SSM right up there with polygamy and the priesthood ban on major doctrinal and fundamental shifts in church history, which happened before so it could happen again.
The thing that would be different, IMO about this issue, is the brethren just went through a major effort to publish the Family: Proclamation to the World, which specifically establishes the stance as it was anticipating these social issues and preparing to take the stand against them.
In my view, to have a revision of doctrine so soon after it was ratified, would greatly hurt the leadership’s position on revelation, and I think would be more difficult than the polygamy and priesthood ban issues which are decades later still creating issues for people. Kind of like what jmb275 mentioned on the other thread on Joseph Smith, it becomes a trust issue on the leadership.
If they hadn’t put the proclamation forward recently, I might feel differently.
Old-Timer wrote:What if, for the future of the Church as a growing organization, prophets sometimes are inspired to do things that don’t make a lot of sense in the short-term but which pay great dividends in the long-term?
I’ll agree with you that this view IS very cynical. I understand your point completely and agree with you and Heber about the practical aspects of it as it relates to PR, etc.
Otoh, there are 14 year old boys in Happy Valley contemplating suicide due to this PR. I know that statement is a form of fear-mongering and I would be hesitant to use it as a rebuttal to your much more practical tone, but I feel like that issue is lost in the political posturing of the church. I hope to not use emotionally charged references in future posts.
What if the laws of the land are written in a way the church feels it needs to protect our religious freedom? Could the church’s open involvement with Prop 8 be that if overturned and same-sex marriage allowed, then the Church (by law) would have to allow homosexual marriages in temples or else be subject to anti-descrimination laws?
Therefore, it is not about the church leaders being bigots. The church could welcome homosexuals into congregations, just like alcoholics are welcome to join worship services to hear Christ’s teachings (yikes, should I shy away from any comparisons?? I hope I’m not out of line with that…if so, correct me), however if the church teaches temple marriage is only between man and women, they would want to protect their right to maintain that without having to it subject to legal issues according to non-discrimination laws?
From that angle, it is not about shunning homosexuals, it is about protecting its ability to stick to man and woman marriages in the temple, regardless of what happens outside the temple.
Please, enlighten me.
Heber13 wrote:Could the church’s open involvement with Prop 8 be that if overturned and same-sex marriage allowed, then the Church (by law) would have to allow homosexual marriages in temples or else be subject to anti-descrimination laws?
There’s two ways the church can go, imo, and one will damage the right of religious expression and one will safeguard it.
Current path is very similar to priesthood ban; at some point the Supreme Court will count this as discrimination and the church will be forced to change under the threat of no more tax-exempt status.
OR, the church could get ahead of this curve and fight for freedom of religious expression by pushing for a change in the laws with respect to the word “marriage”. This is how other countries have handled it. If two people want to get “married” they get a civil union license from the state. For most that’s it, but for the religious, they can then go get married by their respective clergy, but this marriage is only ceremonial; clergy do not have the power from the state to legally create a civil union. In countries where this is the law, the church waives the one year wait period to get sealed in the temple.
The future of this legal battle is almost assuredly going to be over the word “marriage”. As that term has legal ramifications (nearly 1,000 uses in federal law) the equal access clause of the constitution will force the supreme court to recognize this discrimination (in time).
btw, I’m not a lawyer, armchair quarterback, yes, lawyer, no.
Final thought: The church could get WAY, WAY, WAY out in front of this and recognize that eternal marriage is just that: eternal. Ray even mentioned in a post over on the JS thread that we have no idea how creation of spirits may happen in the next life, does gender matter, etc. A commitment between two people who would like to be together for eternity would be blessed by God, in my oh so very humble opinion.
swimordie, the separation of civil unions for all and marriage for religious institutions is exactly my proposed solution. Heber13, fwiw, I don’t anticipate the Church allowing same-sex sealings ANY time in the near future. Perhaps a few decades from now, but not sooner. Otoh, there would be few, if any, actual wording changes to the current Law of Chastity as articulated in the temple that would have to happen to allow gay members to attend the temple if same-sex marriage is allowed by the government. The Church could allow active involvement of married gay members without performing sealings for them – leaving that “to be decided by God in the hereafter” as the official stance. I know that’s radical and has little, if any, chance of happening soon, but I think most members would be shocked at how little would have to be altered in the temple language to allow it to happen.
Heber13 wrote:What if the laws of the land are written in a way the church feels it needs to protect our religious freedom?
Could the church’s open involvement with Prop 8 be that if overturned and same-sex marriage allowed, then the Church (by law) would have to allow homosexual marriages in temples or else be subject to anti-descrimination laws?
From an analytical critical thinking standpoint, this is the slippery slope argument. It carries little weight in my book. Religious freedoms are VERY heavily protected in this country. Examples to the contrary used by the church and the protectmarriage.com campaign were grossly misrepresented IMHO.This is what got me so upset initially (with the church and prop
, and what I was going to write about. As I started looking into the issues in New Jersey, CA, and MA, I got a completely different picture than what the protectmarriage.com campaign was claiming. I did a lot of research on this issue (I was quite passionate about understanding both sides at the time) and both sides were full of half-truths, fearmongering, and disrespect.Besides any of this, if the church
reallywants to protect its religious freedom and tax exempt status it should support agendas that get the gov’t lessinvolved in our lives, not more involved. By putting legislation governing personal relationships directly into the state constitution we have committed the ultimate invasion of gov’t in our personal lives. Marriage is nota gov’t affair, it is a social one. The more the church support legislation to advance its moral causes, the more it risks action by the federal gov’t. Finally, I would ask, are doctrines more important than people? Are we more interested in preserving our doctrine than we are about offending people, driving people away, and furthering the high suicide rates among religious homosexuals?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.