I'm going to apologize up front. After neglecting this blog for over a week, the next week will likely be very political. I generally keep the politics and religion on my other blog and this post will involve both, but I believe that it is important enough to bring up here.
This is about Proposition 8, a ballot initiative to amend the Constitution for California which Californians will be voting on next week.
Proposition 8 is a response to a court ruling allowing same sex marriage, and seeks to make a Constitutional amendment prohibiting such unions.
I am pro gay marriage and hence opposed to proposition 8. That said, I don't vote in California, but since the dominant church in Utah saw fit to support this initiative financially, as well as 'call' its members to oppose it, I think I am well within my rights, and probably obligated to share my opinion.
The thing is that the argument is not being presented honestly by the proponents of it.
I believe the equation is:
Gay Marriage = Equals rights for all who enter into committed relationships
By equal rights I mean tax breaks, hospital visitation, heath care confidentiality, death benefits and all of that.
It is however being presented as:
Gay Marriage = Public homosexual orgies
Gay Marriage = Your children will be forced to enter into Same Sex Marriages
Gay Marriage = Your Church will be forced to accept Gay Marriage.
On the last thing, if you rent out your Church or building for marriage and are profiting from it, haven't you cheapened the marriage institution any way?
LDS Churches are able to be used free for weddings, but honestly, what gay couple would want to make their marriage official in the building of a Church which opening campaigned and supported against them doing it, and even it a Church were to be used for a Same Sex marriage, how would that in anyway desecrate the building. It's not like the ceremony will consist of anything other than two people committing themselves to each other. If they have a problem with this, then they can make a good start by removing the "All Welcome" phrase off their buildings, or qualify it with something like "who accept our view of how things should be."
LDS Temples require special approval to enter, and this is currently outside the reach of all but the most devoted members. If non-members can't get married inside, then why would a court force them to allow same sex marriage - it just makes no sense. In foreign countries where LDS Temple marriages are not recognized as legally binding, couple perform a civil ceremony first to satify the law, and then have a spiritual ceremony performed inside the temple. It doesn't demean the value of the marriage, and what young lady wouldn't enjoy getting married twice?!
In summary, the entire argument for Prop 8, is based purely on irrational fear and intolerance. That's my opinion and you are free to disagree - just try and make sense when you do so! I had a somewhat ignorant and pious individual tell me on another blog, that if it came down to a religious argument he would crush me in seconds. It was his only response for me to ask him to justify his position on Gay Marriage without bringing religion into it. The problem is that I guarantee you, he and I worship very different Gods, therefore he has no foundation on which to base any argument he might raise in that arena. So don't try the "My God says homosexuality is evil" approach with me, unless you can demonstrate without any doubt that there is a God, and that you and I worship the same one.
What you said, double!
ReplyDeleteIt's tough to divorce religion from marriage, since the concept of marriage has deep religious roots.
ReplyDeleteBut I'll humor you and discuss it in terms of culture and law.
First of all, the term "marriage" has always, always meant a heterosexual relationship. It's a union that the State (big 'S' there) chooses to sanction (the State is not obligated to sanction any relationship of any form. It continues to do so for primarily cultural reasons). The State could get out of the marriage business completely tomorrow if it wanted to.
That being established, is there a compelling reason for the State to sanction gay marriage? If so, what is it? What's in it for the State? It would be one thing if the majority had a cultural stake in it and wanted the sanction. But currently, this is not the case.
California already had a very strong civil union law that granted gays everything that they needed legally-- except social approval.
Now to the legal side of the debate. If advocates of SSM are hell-bent on being labeled "married," they should push for a constitutional amendment that will make it a right. Currently, it is not. The CA Supreme Court's decision was, any way you cut it, constitutional.
Holy Cow! It almost seems like we are in agreement on this.
ReplyDeleteI think there are two ways to look at marriage. Overwhelmingly it has been a religious concept and as such I think religion has the right to define it for itself. If one Church recognizes gay marriage and another doesn't it's really nobodies business but the churches and married couples themselves.
In terms of State sanctioning, the only role I see the State fulfilling here is by offering specific rights, privileges and protections for people who meet it's definition of marriage. In this respect I think it only fair and right under the constitution to offer these right equally to all who engage in a committed relationship. I don't think government should be in the business of defining what marriage is though, and I would support them completely stepping out of the marriage business as a potential solution to this problem as well.
The only compelling reason I see for the State to sanction marriage of any kind is purely a legal matter and based on freedoms guaranteed by the state - I don't care what they want to call it, just make it equal.