I've been having roughly the same conversation with different people for the last month or so, and I finally just decided to blog about it, because what better way is there for me to make my opinions publicly known without the risk of actual face-to-face conversation? Also, I can delete comments, which makes me feel like a wizard. So, that said...
I was raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I learned a lot of important lessons going to church, and that upbringing definitely had a great influence on who I am today. My parents, also, taught me that I should a) think for myself, and b) value education. They also taught me that I should be compassionate. So I went to BYU, and I read my scriptures, and I went to church, all the while fighting against some of the ignorance that is present when any ethical or religious group congregates. I could accept that - people are people, and entitled to their own opinions. And I was okay with the Church's position that homosexuality is morally wrong, but that it's not okay to persecute or insult or tell other people what to do or how to vote. I felt okay affiliating with it because the Church leaders themselves had always encouraged its members to "search, ponder, and pray" about what is right, and to act on that - instead of telling its members what to believe and leaving no room for personal meditation.
That changed a couple years ago, when the Church publicly - and from the pulpit - began getting political. It is now the practice of its leaders to tell its members how to vote on an issue, not that they should get involved in what they believe is right. And instead of choosing a side on, oh, really important, valid, and urgent issues like health care or poverty or mental health or child abuse or education - you know, things that affect every single person in this country - they choose an issue regarding the rights of a person to make a personal decision. A decision that has no impact on me or my family whatsoever. An issue that very nearly crosses the line from "morality" to simply "hate". Who cares if two men in Connecticut love each other enough to want to make a legally binding committment to each other? Really?
And I've heard the "preservation of family" argument as well - but you know what? Show me a perfect family. Show me any statistics at all the provide evidence that gay marriage a) adversely affects other families, or b) gay couples divorce more often, or c) children being raised by gay couples more often grow up to be totally messed up, or God forbid, homosexual themselves. Show me any evidence of that at all and I will agree to listen to your case. The "One-Man-One-Woman" argument also leaves out families with one parent, or step-parents, or grandparents raising kids, etc. etc. Um, Jesus had a stepdad. Who remembers that? There are all sorts of families in this world, and what makes one successful and another not is compassion, love, and patience, not who Daddy is attracted to. Studies show that if a child sees love and compassion between his parents (gay or not), that child will continue those positive habits (gay or not). There are plenty of problems between "traditional" families - why not start programs to improve those relationships? Oh, I dunno, improve healthcare so counseling is more available? Parenting lessons? Improving the welfare system to support one-parent families while not enabling those that take advantage of it?
Phew. That was difficult to write. And, I'm sure, difficult to read, for some that know me well but were not aware of my thoughts.
That being said, I present you with this list by Facebook's group: "Gay Marriage Killed the Dinosaurs"
Top 17 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
17. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
16. Gay culture is a new fad created by the liberal media to undermine long-standing traditions. We know this is true because gay sex did not exist in ancient Greece and Rome.
15. There are plenty of straight families looking to adopt, and every unwanted child already has a loving family. This is why foster care does not exist.
14. Conservatives know best how to create strong families. That is why it is not true that Texas and Mississippi have the highest teen birthrates, and Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire have the lowest. This is a myth spread by the liberal media.
13. Marriage is a religious institution, defined by churches. This is why atheists do not marry. Christians also never get a divorce.
12. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why our society has no single parents.
11. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
10. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
9. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
8. Gay marriage should be decided by the people and their elected representatives, not the courts. The framers checked the courts, which represent mainstream public opinion, with legislatures created to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Interference by courts in this matter is inappropriate, just as it has been every time the courts have tried to hold back legislatures pushing for civil rights.
7. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because "separate but equal" institutions are a good way to satisfy the demands of uppity minority groups.
5. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
4. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
3. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
2. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
1. METEORS and VOLCANOES.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Here I go with the sensitive topics...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Many good points, but I would like to clarify a couple of things: The Church's stand on "political" issues did not start "a couple of years ago." The Church has always made a stand on issues that it considers important. The only reason this seems to be recent is because gay marriage has recently become a more political issue.
The Church still tells people to search, ponder and pray about these things. I have not heard anywhere that it is a commandment to vote for prop 8 in CA, or any similar measure. The Church announces its position, and Church members a invited, as always, to find out if it is true. Last time I checked, how you voted on gay marriage and/or rights issues was not on the list of temple recommend questions.
Personally, I would almost like to see a division in the civil and religious roles of marriage, like in some other countries. Marriage began in many cultures as a religious institution (cultural as well, I suppose, since religion was often directly tied to culture). I am in favor of the rights of marriage for homosexuals, but I don't like it called marriage--I associate that word with the religious aspect of marriage. It's just semantics, I know, but it is important to me. Maybe we should have "partnerships" for all civil marriages, and then each religion can issue its own definition of marriage, and perform its own ceremonies.
I think a lot of people fear gay marriage because they think the government will eventually gain power to tell their religion what qualifies as a marriage, and thereby exert control over religion. As much as the constitution guarantees freedom of religion, courts have eroded that guarantee, and I am not confident that this would not happen.
I love you, Blair, but that last paragraph seems absurd to me. Um, gay marriage will lead to government regulation of religions? You honestly believe that?
And by "the Church getting political," I am referring to the reading at the pulpit of official statements by leaders encouraging its members to act in a certain political way... the first I remember was a few years ago, when the Church "reminded" its members of the Proclamation of the Family and that we should essentially do everything we could to prevent gays having the right to marriage by law. THAT is not encouraging members to pray about it - it's telling members what to do. And that is something that bothers me greatly.
Yes, the Church has made official political declarations. The most recent was on June 30th, 2008, when the First Presidency declared: "The Church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal." This is directly addressing Prop 8 in CA. "We ask that you do all that you can do to oppose the constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."
As far as separating religious marriage from civil - your statements, to me, imply that gay marriage could or should not have spiritual or religious blessing, that they somehow should only be cold and civil. I am offended. Honestly, how many gay people do you know well and consider your friend? What makes you think they are atheistic? What makes you think that they don't WANT the blessed by their church? By the government recognizing one particular's church's stance on marriage but not another's, isn't it practicing discrimination? Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?
And tell me if I'm wrong, but don't the American citizens make the decision over how much control government has over "religion"? I mean, I know that our gov't isn't perfect, but that's exactly what these Propositions are deciding. Don't vote "no" on something and then say you voted no because you don't want the government controlling you - that's a circular argument. Obviously the government does not have control over religion, because the people are the ones telling the government what they want.
Obviously this has potential to get heated, but one thing stood out to me:
If you "think a lot of people fear gay marriage because they think the government will eventually gain power to tell their religion what qualifies as a marriage, and thereby exert control over religion."
If you think that... how is having the government define for its people what is and is not a marriage a good thing? Aren't you granting them the exact power you don't want them to have? What do you do when it becomes populist to define an aspect of family or faith that the church doesn't happen to be in such agreement about? Didn't you yourselves make it okay for the government to do that when you vote for things like Prop 8? It seems like a foolish precedent to set, no matter how justified you might feel the reason would be.
Thanks for posting about this topic, Audrey. One of the best weddings Pat and I have ever been to was a gay wedding. They love each other in the same way that Pat and I love each other--and that's what marriage is all about these days, love. Marriage in this country used to be more about family politics, money, and survival, but nowadays it's commonly believed that people should marry for love. And I think we'd agree that nobody can tell you whom to love. The gay people that I know just want to have the same rights and protections that we do, and want the freedom to be married and make their relationship "official."
It shocks me to hear that church leaders have the audacity to tell the congregation how to vote. I hope that people think about their votes carefully, and can separate what they truly believe from what they are being told to believe.
I agree this has the potential to get very heated. I love you both, and I don’t want it to be that way. Please understand that I only want to be understood. I am not trying to dissuade anyone from feeling the way they do about this.
First of all, I never said whether or not I would vote for prop 8—I have never voted for a measure like that. (of course, that is easy for me to say—I haven’t lived in a jurisdiction where that was an issue.) Like I said, I would prefer that government get out of the marriage business entirely. The replies to my comment are putting words in my mouth. I would rather see registered partnerships for everyone, and the various religions can decide what is a marriage according to their doctrine. Many countries do it this way.
Aud, I am sorry that you are offended at the “cold and civil” result in removing government from marriage. Please re-read my comment. I did not say that I wanted the government to only recognize one particular church’s brand of marriage. I am sure that many gay people want the blessing of their church. What I argued for IS the separation of church and state. If the governmental and religious purposes of marriage are separated then the government isn’t controlling anyone’s religious practices. In my opinion it is a win-win situation—homosexual AND heterosexual couples can both get the legal benefits of marriage in a partnership, then go to their respective churches to get married, if their church allows such an action in their doctrine.
If you don’t think the government isn’t already regulating religions, you haven’t been paying attention. The precedents are already in place, and in some places (such as MA and NJ) have been used to force religious organizations to accept gay marriage.
As for the Church’s actions, telling people how they should vote on an issue is not new—it’s been done for a long time. The Church has always told people how they should live their lives—it tells you to keep the commandments, love your fellow man, serve each other, etc. I don’t think this is any different. As always, the Church invites members to pray, gain their own testimony of the commandments, and choose the proper course of action for themselves.
I was actually surprised to get such criticism of the registered partnership by the government / marriage by the religions idea. Its quite libertarian when you think about it. I don’t see it as being discriminatory in any way. It leaves any discrimination up to Churches, not the government.
I hope that clarifies my view. I mean no disrespect to anyone, and I am sure we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on the matter.
Yes, that does clarify things a bit, thank you. And while I know this conversation could be a heated one, I have enough faith in my friendship with you and some others to think that this will not affect it seriously.
For me, the Church admonishing people to pay tithing or follow the commandments is very, very different than telling them how to vote on an issue. I remember time after time, growing up, when the Church leaders would stress that we should make up our own minds about political issues, and that the Church does not endorse any candidate/measure. They were very clear on that. During election time, people would want to testify about certain political leaders, but at the pulpit, that was never allowed, and members were reminded regularly. At least, that was the case where I grew up (TX and ID). That basic practice - the refusal to tell members how to vote - was why I stayed in the Church for so long. I struggled with many things, but because the Church never once endorsed a candidate or told us how to vote (in our lifetime, at least - I guess during FDR there were a few statements made), I could feel okay affiliating myself with it. The instant that it told members "vote THIS way on THIS issue", I felt wrong about it. The Church was crossing the line.
Wow, excellent discussion. Weird that we were posting on the same topic yesterday.
The church has been politically active on a number of issues in its history. The church claims the right to enter the political arena on moral issues. Things like fighting against liquor and gambling. And gay marriage :)
It's within its rights to do so, but when there is a difference from taking a stance on an issue and telling the members how to vote. The letter read over the pulpit didn't tell members to pray and ponder and be politically active on the issue; it told them to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.” That has caused some people to bristle.
If they bristle too much, they might wind up in church court like this guy:
http://new.khastv.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=14614&storytopic=4
You can read his story, but I think his voice got a little too loud for someone in SLC.
I believe this is the biggest social policy issue of our generation. It will be interesting to see how the church reacts to the changes that are happening.
It was 14 years after the civil rights act was passed that blacks were granted equality in the church. I wonder how long gay mormons will have to wait?
Audrey, you read my mind! I was coming up with a post on this very topic. This is a very good post and the comments have been informative and well-thought out.
In my mind, the illegality of gay marriage has always been linked to the anti-miscegination laws in the U.S. (and other places). It has to do first and foremost with an individual's rights, not the rights of religious institutions. I believe it wasn't until 1967 that the Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegination laws were unconstitutional (I'm at work or I would do a little research). It breaks my heart. This is a very, very important issue to me. Maybe I'll write about it on my blog soon.
First, may I say I have thoroughly enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts and opinions (including Paul's on his own blog) on this topic. My mind has expanded and my own opinions further developed because of it and I thank you all for that. I also sincerely hope that my upcoming thoughts will be received as were yours.
That said, I really have only one comment with respect to all that has been said...unfortunately that one thing is a little wordy. The latter-day prophets and apostles are called to lead the world toward eternal life. It is their job to direct the church and its members in the way that the Lord would Himself direct. They teach us and tell us how to live with God again.
So if that is their charge, and it is, then why would we limit the types of things they would tell the people of the world? So what if they tell us how to vote?
The brethren (leaders of the church) have asked many things of the church's members, both temporally and spiritually, in the last 178 years. Things as simple as only wearing one pair of earrings to things as complex as striving for perfect purity in this life. I guess my point is this, the prophets and apostles will continue to ask things of the church and its members. It is our duty to seek out personal revelation and confirmation of the counsel given by those priesthood leaders. If the prophet told me that I would find lasting, eternal happiness by wearing pink t-shirts everyday, then I would get a testimony of that doctrine and go buy some pink shirts.
The prophets have told me that Prop 8 should be supported. But that's not why I would vote for it. I would vote for it because regardless of my associations and feelings for my dear homosexual uncles, cousins, colleagues and friends, the Holy Ghost has witnessed to me that I should.
My family has had some "lively" discussion about this issue too. :)
Anyone discussing the church's stance on this absolutely needs to read this article so they can have an informed conversation: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
Agree with their reasons or not, you'd have to be stubborn not to at least understand where they're coming from on this and their many reasons. The article speaks to a lot of the issues brought up, so it's a starting point for understanding them.
By the way, the precedent HAS been set in other states where churches are losing their religious freedom in the name of "discrimination," so it is a realistic concern for churches.
Also, people get confused about the church/politics issue a lot. The church does tell people how to vote sometimes, but never for candidates or parties. Rather than clarify myself, I'll paste the official church policy on this below:
The Church does not:
* Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
* Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
* Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
* Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.
The Church does:
* Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.
* Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.
* Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church.
* Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.
I do understand where the Church is coming from on this matter; and regardless of the gay marriage issue or not, it goes against every grain in my body to be a part of a religious organization that will TELL its members how to vote, not just encourage them to pray and seek testimony for themselves. I see this as an intrusion into my own relationship with God. I myself have felt testimony that there is no reason for me to NOT support gay rights. I myself have felt comfort, peace, love, and yes, even the Holy Spirit AT a gay wedding. And if the Church tells me to do something that goes AGAINST what has been testified to me, when what am I to do? The basic belief system of the Church is founded upon testimony - praying about something until the Holy Ghost tells you it's true. So, by it's own practice, I CANNOT stand behind any political measure that will attempt to take away rights that I believe we all, AS HUMAN BEINGS, have. The ability to make a spiritual commitment with someone we love, for their whole lives, and for that to be recognized by others, is a right I believe we all have.
And I think that really, telling members how to vote on ballot measures is not very different than telling them which candidate to vote on, especially when candidates so closely campaign using gay rights as a platform issue.
Also, please know that this post, and this change, is VERY difficult for me. It's not like I've been laying in wait for an excuse to accuse the Church of something, then rant about it. This has been something that has weighed on my mind for years, but only recently been forced to finally take a stand on what I believe is right. Many times in my life I've felt the Spirit tell me one thing when the rest of the Church is doing another. That is not an easy thing to live with - wondering who's right, and why the Holy Ghost would tell people different things, and where exactly Truth comes from. But really, that's what it boils down to - because I DO believe there is absolute Truth out there somewhere, and I believe the Universe (or Spirit, or Holy Ghost, or God, or Nature, or whatever you believe in) DOES speak to people, and I am just simply trying to live that Truth... which, at the moment, means that I can no longer affiliate with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
I love this post and the resulting discussion. It brings up so many questions. Is it right for the church to tell people how to vote on any issue? Is the evidence for or against gay marriage important, or does it all come down to a spiritual witness? What if one person’s spiritual witness is different than someone else’s? How do we even define/find truth? Huge questions with huge implications.
Thanks for your testimony Audrey. I'm glad you put your feelings into spiritual terms. I’ve heard and read the testimonies of many other LDS people that have had the same spiritual experience as you on this issue. Many of them are taking a similar course and leaving the church. Some are staying and putting themselves at risk of excommunication by actively protesting the church’s actions.
I appreciate the variety of viewpoints represented here. From everyone’s comments to the church’s press release that Skye linked to, we have viewpoints from one end of the spectrum to the other. It’s interesting to me to think that just a few years ago my stance would have been more in the middle of the spectrum and now it’s on the far end. I believe that as we continue to discuss this issue and people become more informed about it that other people’s opinions will likely shift. Even if they don’t I’m glad to be a part of a community of people that communicates about a “sensitive topic” so respectfully.
Post a Comment