Okay, so he’s not really the devil, but I thought that was pretty funny after I dugg the article, that’s what showed up. As a matter of fact, I think Mr. Olberman is anything but the devil. Keith’s comments are thought provoking and, I believe, very appropriate. I know that perhaps my feelings on the issue may be contrary to those of many people I know, but I wish to make my feelings known.
Unlike Mr. Olberman and many others, I have a personal stake in the fight. Though I have no close friends that have struggled with coming “out of the closet” nor am I homosexual myself, I have worked with people whose lives have been utterly shredded and fractured by this issue. I have seen the pain it causes first hand. I know of people who have taken their own lives in fear of being stigmatized as “gay” and people who continue to live lives of misery, ruining their families and children, for the same reason. I have committed to myself and others to fight social injustice and this is as unjust as anything I have seen in my lifetime. I have moved from preaching acceptance to practicing it and in doing so have learned much about myself, but more importantly others.
People, It is time we rid ourselves of the hatred and ill-conceieved “tolerance” that has so long defined this issue. The underpinnings of Proposition 8 do, in fact, share a history of sordid legislation, which in many places in this country - for well over a century - worked to keep loving heterosexual African-American couples from enjoying the same rights and privileges as their white counterparts. The majority deciding the rights of the minority has been an oft-repeated mistake from which this country has yet to learn.
Though all religions have the right to include and exclude people as they see fit, they do not have the right to legislate from the pulpit matters relating to our constitutionally-guaranteed equal treatment. I believe it hypocritical to teach love and acceptance of all while supporting such bigotry. I would rather have people be honest and admit their secret disdain for others than to see them cover their feelings under the transparent veil of tolerance.
Without equal treatment, our freedom to believe what we wish would simply not exist. With equal treatment not mostly in place, this topic would never have been up for discussion. Our ability to speak and believe what we will are guaranteed by these same rights and selective execution is a practice which has been ruled against time and again. In our system, these same rights may work for or against us and with that being said, I make the following statement: Any group - religious or otherwise - who takes upon themselves the responsibility of working against the cause of equality - equality guaranteed to all by our country’s most sacred document - is dead wrong in calling the backlash to any such work “persecution.” When the pendulum is pushed to far to one side, it will inevitably swing back to the other.
Finally, I will say this: I will NEVER support any such legislation, proposition, referendum, or the like which conspires to undermine equal treatment of those to whom such rights are promised under the law. To me, same-sex marriage deals not with the issue of right or wrong; rather it deals with the issue of the rights of all citizens and wrongs committed against them.
To the reader: Regardless of your religious or political leanings on the issue of same-sex marriage, I encourage you to watch Mr. Olberman’s message and as such, have decided to embed the video in this post.
I have watched and seen that side of the issue. I can understand why people are confused at those like me who support things like proposition 8. I took it upon myself to watch the video you posted to see the point of view. There are some valid questions, but to say it will not affect me is presumptuous. Their are many issues which were overlooked.
Now I invite you to watch a video. This is a person from Princeton who is not LDS who makes religious and philosophical arguments to why marriage should stay defined as a man and a woman.
http://byubqt.byu.edu/BYUForum/2008/10/BYUForum20081028-2345.mp4
Also a question, the Brethren have collectively decided that this is important enough to do support this - are they prophets, seers and revelators - or are they not? I know that sometimes individually many have their own opinions which are to be regarded as opinion, but when they work collectively, I believe, they act as their roles indicate.
Before I continue, let me state that my post was a post of opinion, not an attempt at persuasion. As far as the message, I believe you missed my point: I do not personally see this as a religious issue, nor do I see it as an issue of morality. It is an issue of basic rights. Rights granted to many, but withheld from some.
Regarding your last question: As far as they function in the church, yes. As far as they function in the context of interpreting the constitutional rights of others, no. That is a point upon which I am simply not willing to cede nor will I argue it. In 1947, church leaders wrote to Dr. Lowry Nelson, explaining why blacks and whites should NOT intermarry. This letter states that interracial marriage is “a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now.” REPUGNANT!?! I argue that same phrase applies to the issue of same-sex marriage. Perhaps it was the climate of the times, but it is not unlike the climate of today.
Black people’s status within the LDS church remained marred until a quarter decade later in 1972. Their status change provoked many of the same feelings as does the issue of same-sex marriage. Many felt threatened, as if their perceived superiority was being undermined or social order was coming undone.
So, as far as the church goes, YES, leaders may receive revelation for its members, but any such revelation has no power to override the equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
I thought a prophet was a prophet.
I’ll see your red herring and raise you one…a prophet is a prophet, not a law-maker and as I see it, the issue is one of legality, not morality. I thought separation of church and state is separation of church and state?
Jared, you beat me to the punch on this one; I was going to post about prop 8… though, after trying to keep my comment here short, I’ve decided that I still will.
I’m interested in reading what you have to say.
I decided to see both your red herrings and raise you another (since I couldn’t fit it in my long, long essay):
Is the prophet entitled to opinion?
Yup, but the letter that was read asked people 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 moves way past opinion.
Ah, I wasn’t sure if that was actually true. One of my coworkers that’s a recent convert told me about that, but it’s hard to know if he’s always telling the whole truth.
I actually pulled that right from the LDS Newsroom site.
I searched for it on a couple of the church’s sites back when he told me about it, but I couldn’t find it (though tonight is the first time I’ve actually seen the LDS Newsroom). Regardless, it doesn’t change my opinion.
When the first presidency writes a formal letter in counseling the members of the church, it is the mind and will of the Lord. If it wasn’t then they would cease to be the leaders with the keys and authority to lead the Lord’s church. We all have differing opinions on this, but to state that these men, who I believe are divinely inspired are “mistaken” in this is treading dangerous water.
KEB, I’m sorry, but I feel you’re continuing to miss the point of my argument. IMNSHO, this issue is not one of religion. As I see it, equal treatment under the law cannot be denied; the 14th amendment guarantees it. Since marriage is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as being between one man and one woman, subsequent Amendments are utilized in deciphering what rights individuals are subject to. Furthermore, “mistaken” in such context was your word, not mine. When I used the word mistake, meant that the it is WRONG for the majority to impose their beliefs on the minority. That is how some of the worst oppressions in this country have been allowed to happen. I have NO problem with church leaders leading church members in matters pertaining to their personal lives; however, I DO have a problem when the council given to church members asks them to dictate the rights of others whose lifestyles are contrary to their own. Legislating from the pulpit is specifically banned in this country for churches who enjoy a non-profit status and I believe the LDS First Presidency crossed the line when this letter was written. I for one, am not threatened by same-sex marriage and I will support it. How do you interpret this: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”?
So the Lord crossed the line?
Way to dodge the question. The answer? Regarding the laws of man, YES! And in this country, we are bound by them and we are bound by the obligations of the constitution. Remember “in the world, but not of it?” Law is an “of the world” situation in America because America was founded with the idea of church and state being separated to prevent the religious persecution that the pilgrims sought to escape.
According to LDS (and protestant) theology, the Lord made it possible for this country to be founded and it was done so under his will. Correct? Manifest Destiny? The promised land? Zion? Remember those things? Clearly, if he allowed it to be colonized and the constitution to be written as having all men being created equal, it must have been his will for all men to be equal at some point. Equality means equal rights without segregation, that is the point of the 14th Amendment.
During the Civil Rights Movement, the Supreme Court had issue a ruling against some states because those states were not following it (the “Black Codes,” separate but equal, etc.). Seems incredibly similar to the current topic, no? Remember, the Founding Fathers made provisions that prevented the large states from having too much say over the small states. Preventing a ruling majority has been the rule of this country from the start.
At this point, you have completely detracted form the point of the argument and insist on laying theological traps instead of discussing the issue. I answer your questions, but you cannot answer mine. Apparently, unlike yourself, I do not make my political decisions based on my spiritual beliefs because I believe the separation of church and state was a premise of this country for a reason. If you cannot see the conflict between the two, I see no point in carrying this on.
I guess you are not seeing what I am driving at. Sure there are logical points on either side, and I could argue them. I could go on why marriage should remain as it is, and I have arguments religious and philosophical. The thing I am trying to show is that, if one believes in the Prophet and his mission, and in the divinity of the quorum of the twelve, and raised his hand to sustain these brethren as prophets seers and revealators, that even though we may not totally understand something or even agree with it, that person should have faith that they are inspired and doing the Lord’s will. So we either sustain them, or we do not.
From lds.org: “Some, however, have mistakenly asserted that churches should not ever be involved in politics when moral issues are involved. In fact, churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society. While the Church does not endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues. “
I completely understand your point, though I disagree with it whole heartedly and I also disagree with the statement from the church as it is contrary to the law that upholds their very existence. 501(c)(3) status specifically bans such institutions from campaigning for office or influencing public elections. Furthermore, though they can educate individuals on issues which may be of public interest, they are specifically prohibited from advocating a position on a specific bill.
I have pledged my allegiance to this country from a very young age and have been sworn to fight against social injustice - in all forms - as a professional. My allegiance is to my country first, before any religion, as the establishment of this country was the VERY FOUNDATION upon which Joseph Smith and other protestant leaders were able to conduct their work. You are free to make of that what you will, but as I alluded to some time ago when we spoke on another issue, I have a feeling that the gap between my views and yours (and most church members for that matter) is more of a chasm. Though many people say I have “joined the dark side,” I believe I have finally seen the light.
Quote from Jared:
“I DO have a problem when the council given to church members asks them to dictate the rights of others whose lifestyles are contrary to their own. Legislating from the pulpit is specifically banned in this country for churches who enjoy a non-profit status and I believe the LDS First Presidency crossed the line when this letter was written.”
Mike:
I don’t see anything in the LDS position that prohibits anyone from practicing a gay or lesbian lifestyle. In terms of insurance benefits or the right to visit a patient in the hospital or make contracts I personally have no problem with some sort of legal union. All the church is doing is supporting the definition of marriage as what it is defined by scripture that the church holds to be the word of God.
On the other hand I have a problem with society attempting to force these alternative lifestyles down my throat. There have, in fact been lawsuits filed against various religious groups by those who wish to practice this lifestyle in places and in settings that would violate the civil rights of those in those religions.
Legislating presupposes that the church itself introduces the legislation. This is definitely not the case here. The church maintains neutrality where individual candidates are concerned but there is no restriction when an issue has been introduced by another organization. The church is free to exercise the right to promulgate their opinion on such matters.
Now, as to red herrings. To frame this question in terms of civil rights is such. The African Americans (approx 70%) who voted in favor of Prop 8 apparently don’t see it that way. Carried to the extreme we might say that one could support marriage as being valid between a man and his TV or a woman and a dog, and if this is argued on moral grounds then one could argue that the rights of the dog or the TV have been violated.
If the people have spoken on this issue decisively twice. I believe it is time for judges to cease legislating from the bench,
(speaking of no authority to legislate).
Mike, thanks for chiming in. First, I disagree with your statement that all the church was doing was supporting a definition. Their statement didn’t say “we support this,” rather as I cited above in the official church letter obtained from the LDS Newsroom, it said use everything you have and do everything you can to see this legislation through. That sir, is advocating a position. If I may, this is straight from the IRS website regarding 501(c)3 status and non-profits not being “action organizations”: they “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.”
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html Influence legislation, see that? It is not JUST introducing legislation.
I know a lot of people in the South had a hard time with “society” shoving the ban on slavery down their throats or putting an end to legal and illegal segregation, though I don’t think any sane person today would argue that those were poor decisions. I’m not arguing the fact that the church should allow gay marriages within the realms of its jurisdiction. Any such legislation to support same-sex marriage does NOT mean churches have to perform them or honor them within their organizations. Churches in this country have far more protection than that.
Framing the question as a civil rights issue is certainly NOT a red herring. I framed the issue as a civil rights issue in my original post (as I believe it IS a civil rights issue). I noted KEB’s red herrings because he was attempting to divert the argument and actually has yet to answer several questions posed to him, rather answering them with diverting statements (e.g., “so the lord crossed the line?”). Furthermore, African Americans are not the ONLY disenfranchised population this country serves and I’m trying to figure out how pointing out that 70% of them voted in favor of Proposition 8 proves anything. Again, civil rights is not about African Americans and majority rule doesn’t always uphold the rights guaranteed to individuals; I think I’ve already established that. If you think that civil rights ended, just because racism was legally abolished, I have news for you, that was just the beginning. How would you feel if the rest of the country voted and said that LDS marriages weren’t legal? Would that not be a violation of your rights? Would you complain loudly then? What about you cramming your lifestyle down other people’s throats, where’s the justice in that? Is it because you believe you are “right” or that you are somehow morally superior and those below you have no access to the same rights you enjoy as part of the majority?
Oh, by the way, the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t guarantee equal treatment under the law to TVs and dogs. I wish people would stop talking as if it does.
Regarding your final statement: “the people” spoke decisively many times on slavery, racism (and not just of African Americans, but mexicans, chinese, and white Irish folks too), and the genocide of America’s native peoples. Just because the majority agrees, doesn’t mean that it’s “right.” Also, I always find it hilarious how bench legislation is always cited when someone disagrees with something possibly being overturned. Also, I’m sure many people in this country wouldn’t mind a little bench legislation on the issue of Roe v. Wade. 3 of 9 passed propositions that have gone before the California Supreme Court in the last century have been overturned; I think this will be 4 of 10.
I’m fully aware of the wide variety of opinions regarding this issue. I was simply expressing mine. I posted Mr. Olberman’s video because I thought it had some great points. I watched KEB’s video, per his request, though it changed nothing for me, just as my arguments likely changed nothing for him. I brought up the issue of the LDS Church’s advocacy because I believe a line was crossed and believe there is a glaring example as to why. You are welcome to argue your points of view, I’m okay with that and actually enjoy the traffic, but keep in mind you’re not speaking to a fence-sitter and I’ve heard all of these arguments before.
Quote from IRS:
non-profits not being “action organizations”: they “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.”
Mike:
The key word is “substantial”. If all the Church did, or even the majority of what they did was lobbying, we would have a problem. But this issue is a core moral issue and is within the purvue of religious thought. The church itself did not contribute more money than allowed. The people who contributed did so of their own free will as private citizens to the campaign, not to the church. There was no religious proscription involved for those who opted not to contribute. Also, since neither political party took a stand on this issue the lobbying was of a non-partisan nature.
If the church had broken the rules the IRS would already be revoking the tax-exempt status.
Jared, you were not the first to bring up the civil rights equation and you and I disagree on it’s being a red herring.
If P.I.T.A. has it’s way dogs will one day have civil rights as well.
Jared:
I’m not arguing the fact that the church should allow gay marriages within the realms of its jurisdiction. Any such legislation to support same-sex marriage does NOT mean churches have to perform them or honor them within their organizations. Churches in this country have far more protection than that.
Mike:
http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/07/lawsuit-against-church-in-nj-coming.html
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Lawsuit Against Church in NJ: Coming Soon to Mass.
One of the many ways “the sky is falling”: LifeSite News reports that a lesbian couple in New Jersey is suing a church for refusing to let them have their “civil union” ceremony on church property. It won’t be long before we see similar lawsuits in Massachusetts against churches that refuse homosexual “marriage” ceremonies on their properties. Just as in New Jersey law, Massachusetts bans discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of “sexual orientattion.” Freedom of religion? What’s that?
Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony
OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey lesbian couple has filed a civil rights complaint against a Christian seaside retreat association that refused to facilitate their “civil union.” Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed the complaint June 19 with the state attorney general’s office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.
Bernstein and Paster demanded “whatever relief is provided by law” including unspecified “compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, [and] mental pain.” New Jersey’s anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who “offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public” from “directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual” on the basis of sexual orientation.
However the OGCMA has stated that it must adhere to the rules of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which forbids homosexual civil unions from being performed in churches and other areas for worship. “The facility that they requested is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869,” Scott Hoffman, OGCMA’s chief administrative officer told LifeSiteNews.com. …
Here’s the Mass. law:
Chapter 272: Section 98. Discrimination in admission to, or treatment in, place of public accommodation; punishment; forfeiture; civil right
Section 98. Whoever makes any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object, deafness, blindness or any physical or mental disability or ancestry relative to the admission of any person to, or his treatment in any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, as defined in section ninety-two A, or whoever aids or incites such distinction, discrimination or restriction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and shall be liable to any person aggrieved thereby for such damages as are enumerated … All persons shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons. This right is recognized and declared to be a civil right
Mike: “If the church had broken the rules the IRS would already be revoking the tax-exempt status”
Jared: Without a long, drawn out, and highly publicized court case? I highly doubt as much. This law is broken all the time, especially by Evangelical organizations, yet there has been little action against them (which is a shame really). The church isn’t going to get nailed from one infraction (the first I recall in my lifetime).
Mike: “But this issue is a core moral issue and is within the purvue [sic] of religious thought”
Jared: We clearly disagree on homosexuality being a moral issue and most anything is purview to religious thought. Is someone immoral because just they were brought up with different mores and values than the majority? Is that upbringing their fault? I have known, lived with, and now work with many homosexual people and I can tell you that homosexuality is no more about sex than is heterosexuality. How can you argue that someone who has NEVER been attracted to the opposite sex is immoral? Is that not how God meant for them to be? What about the genetics of homosexuality? So, it’s okay when God’s creations have Down Syndrome via chromosomal abnormalities, but not when the mutation of alleles causes homosexuality? If it is a moral issue, why don’t we ban heterosexual sex with multiple partners before marriage? Is that not a moral issue as well? Does that activity not place a greater burden on society through the births and subsequent difficulties of illegitimate children than that of couple who cannot reproduce? If one of the core arguments for heterosexual-only marriages is reproduction, why are barren individuals allowed to marry? Why not ban divorce since 50% of all heterosexual marriages fail? Clearly, I believe the moral issue is riddled with holes.
Mike: “If P.I.T.A. [sic] has it’s [sic] way dogs will one day have civil rights as well”
Jared: I think you mean PeTA, and that is a gross exaggeration. Need I remind you, if the LDS church had its way back in the day, you’d have more than one wife. So what? Great, so they want ethical treatment for animals. Is there something wrong with them pursuing that end? A search of their website returns NO results of anything even closely related to what you allude.
Mike: “Jared, you were not the first to bring up the civil rights equation and you and I disagree on it’s [sic] being a red herring.”
Jared: Can you show me when I claimed to have done so? I still fail to understand how applying a law that prevents discrimination to a population who has clearly been discriminated against, is a red herring, which according to Webster means “something that distracts attention from the real issue”, also, go ahead and read up on the various red herring fallacies on Wikipedia. If anything, trying to call something simply “moral” when in fact it has legal and constitutional implications as well is “distract[ing] attention from the real issue.” I’ll give you some examples from the above conversation on what a real red herring looks like: “I thought a prophet was a prophet” in response to my comments on revelation and its application to people not of the LDS faith; and “So the Lord crossed the line” in response to my question about how KEB would interpret the Fourteenth Amendment.
Discrimination IS the issue in that people are not being granted the right to marry based on sexual orientation. Discrimination IS EXACTLY the purpose of section one of the Fourteenth Amendment. Our disagreement on this is fine though and I see it even as evidence of the core of this discussion; we think very differently.
Re: The Mass. law. That’s a tricky situation. Mostly because I believe churches should be allowed to determine who is fit for membership and marriage in their organization. The church granted me a spiritual marriage in addition to my legal marriage and any such law on same-sex marriage should not prevent that from continuing; just not from churches dictating civil marriages (not unions). I base this on my opinion that the separation of church and state goes both ways and that the government should not force church organizations to accept those who do not act in accordance to the beliefs and core doctrines of their sacred texts and documents. If anything, I think the Mass. law itself is incongruent with the higher law of the land (at least as it relates to its application of law to valid religious organizations). Fortunately, we have a Supreme Court that has time-and-again ruled various state laws as unconstitutional or not in accordance with Federal laws and statues. If they rule the other way, I guess all churches are in great trouble, no?
If some day, the high courts of this land rule in favor of same-sex marriages, the difficulty for the church would seem to become the profession in the Twelfth Article of Faith that church members “believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Not “sustaining the law so long as it is moral,” but “honoring and sustaining the law.” Would you support and sustain such a law then or would you continue justifying defiance of that profession by citing it as another example of liberal bench legislation?
Thanks for your comments, but I’m done spinning my wheels and clearly, neither you or I will change our minds on the issue.