(Closed) California’s Prop 8 :(

posted 13 years ago in Legal
Post # 47
Member
1929 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: February 2008

Sparkles, I disagree.  We might be banging our heads against the wall in this particular instance, but being silent when others put forth a rationale to discriminate is not OK in my book.  Not to be trite, but if Rosa Parks and other people who were part of the  civil rights movement had been silent in the face of those people who believed segegration was ok, we might still be "separate but equal".  All those who believe in equality need to give a voice to the cause.  If we don’t talk about it, we will never move forward.  Threads veer around, they don’t HAVE to stay on the OP topic 100%.  People who don’t like the discussion are more than welcome not to read the thread.

Post # 48
Member
296 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: December 1969

I agree with you Janna19- I was fearing the tone the thread was veering towards.

Post # 49
Member
1929 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: February 2008

Ah, yes (filling in the blank), that is a good point!! 

 

Post # 50
Member
1485 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: July 2008

December – I’m not sure what church you belong to – maybe you said and I missed it.  But I have to say that your apparent desire to insulate yourself from ANYBODY whose lifestyle is different from yours in this particular way is interesting.  I am left to assume that you would be happy to financially advise/photograph/hold parent-teacher conferences with pedophiles, adulterers, drug addicts, and child abusers, but not with homosexuals?  That’s an interesting morality.  And apparently it’s just married homosexuals that bother you – how would you actually know if you were financially advising, or holding a parent-teacher conference with a gay man, or whether you were just interacting with a single father?

And by the way, you are pretty much welcome as, say, a wedding photographer or a financial advisor, or any other small business owner, to turn away any business you like, as long as you’re not obvious about the reasons.  If you tell people that you won’t manage their retirement accounts because they’re gay you going to get sued eventually – if you turn them away because you’re just too busy at this time, who would be the wiser? 

The whole issue of justifying bigotry with religeon just makes me sad because, honestly, it’s not very Christ-like.  I would encourage anybody who thinks it is acceptable to go back and read the New Testament again, and put some thought into it this time around.

Post # 51
Bee
514 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: November 2007 - Radisson Hotel

creeping in here: claps for Suzanno.

 

creeping back out. 

Post # 52
Member
49 posts
Newbee
  • Wedding: March 2009

More claps for Suzanno, doctorgirl, RyanT and other similar sentiments. 

Current laws that discriminate against homosexual couples are as repugnant as the racial discrimination that has plagued this country for years.  It’s no different. 

These discussions can be upsetting and uncomfortable for some, but we will never make progress towards real equality without having them. 

 

 

Post # 53
Member
112 posts
Blushing bee
  • Wedding: October 2021 - LDS Seattle Temple & Hotel 1000

As the LDS bee I would like to say that the LDS church DID not contribute, IN ANY WAY to the propoistion 8 fund. Those who claim to have memos, where did you get them? An anti-LDS site maybe? You can be angry, and you can be hurt, but don’t spread lies about my church.

 The money came from the members. Yes, the leaders encouraged it, but not one penny of my tithing funds went into the fund. That tithing paid for my tuition at BYU, and for my friends missions, and to build meetinghouses and temples around the world, but it did not fund this proposition. People, good people, doctors, and lawyers, and students, and mothers and fathers donated their time and money to a cause that they believe in. You may call them bigots, and you may hate them, but the minute you start throwing lies around and hating them for standing up for their belief, I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that you step into the territory of bigotry yourself. 

If these so called "truthful memos" are indeed truth, I say bring them out into the open, take away the tax-exempt status of the church with them, becaue if the church is indeed violating it’s contract with the govenant it should be taken down. This, however, will never happen because it did do no such thing. You will attack me for this. I will be attacked many many times over for this statement, but I cannot stand by and watch you tear my belief system, and all of the good members who believe the same way to pieces. 

If you would like to engage in civilized conversation about these "memos" that prove what an evil empire the church is, please PM me. Attacks will not be responded to or appreciated.

Post # 54
Member
166 posts
Blushing bee
  • Wedding: May 2010

i just want to add that i think suzanno’s assumptions are appalling. how on earth would you come to the conclusion that she supports pedophilia and adultery? she neither said or implied any of that.

i accept that you disagree with me, why can you not accept that we have a different point of view? we disagree with your beliefs just as firmly as you disagree with ours.

and for the record, suzanno: i strive daily to be Christ-like, and with that comes applying Biblical standards to my life. Christ absolutely did not approve of homosexuality, and that is quite certain. THAT BEING SAID, just as Christ did, i LOVE EVERYONE. Christ was endless in his love for sinners (yes, i believe homosexuality is a sin – you don’t have to agree), and that is the example we are supposed to follow. i have had quite a few homosexual friends.  i may not agree with their lifestyle, but i will love them forever. there is a big difference between loving and respecting homosexuals and accepting their lifestyle.

Post # 55
Member
43 posts
Newbee

There are parables somewhere about throwing stones and removing logs from your own eye that I want to point to here. There is nothing in the Bible that says Christ dislikes homosexuals, rather his testament said that all people are sinners and should be forgiven for their sins. Leviticus in the Old Testament is anti-homosexual though, but also says something about allowing people to take slaves from neighboring tribes  (I could use a Canadian washing my dishes) or me being banished if I lie in the same bed as my fiancé when she is menstruating, or being put to death for having a ham sandwich or a lobster roll. (I have had some worth dying for) or not being allowed to plant more than one crop in my field. So let’s just take your interpretation of what the Bible has to say out of this, because this is about how legislation affects real people.

As for, "It wasn’t the church it was its members who supported prop 8," argument I guess you may be able to wiggle out of the monetary support, but that has little to do with the actual statute in California law rescinding religious status. Money is not speech even if 4 out of every 5 dollars spent on "Yes on Prop 8" was from a Mormon donor, as long as, as you have stated the council of twelve leaders advocated for it in any broadcast that is an "attempt to influence legislation." For that the letter of the law can be applied, but I wish didn’t have to.

 If I were against the Mormon church, I may oppose any government dollars going to ressearch studies undertaken at BYU. But this assault on your neighbors’ rights is isunconscionable and not Christ-like. So if you won’t act like a church, then just be an organization without tax exempt status. Pay more money, your members seem to be willing to spend it on this cause.

Post # 56
Member
39 posts
Newbee
  • Wedding: September 2008

JanieLeigh, I don’t think suzanno’s statement implied that December supports pedophilia or adultery.  I believe it was meant to underscore her point that December’s rationale for why gay marriages would affect her and other individuals opposed to gay marriage  – i.e., that she/they may have to provide services to married gay couples – is flawed in its assumption that service providers do not already provide services to individuals engaged in behavior they find morally objectionable. As most services providers do not ask their clients whether or not they engage in adultery/pedophilia/etc., there’s always a possibility that they are providing services to individuals who engage in activities they find highly objectionable/abhorrent.  Accordingly, that justification does not really support an argument against gay marriage.

Post # 57
Member
316 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: December 2008

For the record, I am a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

A number of misconceptions I’d like to address —

The gay marriage controversy equals interracial marriage controversy strawman: This is, as I said, a strawman. There is NO parallel here, other than the unfornuate fact that interracial marriage was once illegal. I deplore that that was once the case, and I fully support interracial marriage now. And this is comparing apples to oranges — interracial marriage is still a marriage between a man and a woman.

Statements that I want to discriminate against gays or that I want to "insulate" myself from them (???): No. I do not. I believe that gays should had full access to all the civil rights that our country provides. Marriage is not a civil right. I don’t really want to get into that right now, because it’s 1 am CST and I just don’t have the power for that after a week’s worth of school. As for insulating myself, no, I fully expect to interact with all sorts of people in my day to day life and I look forward to it. I have yet to have prolonged interaction with a homosexual person (to my knowledge), but I certainly don’t fear or abhor the thought.

Something I feel I should make clear — if gay couples want to be couples who make a life-long commitment to eachother, and hold to it publically, that’s fine. I will support that. If they want me to treat them as a unit, ok. I can respect that. If they are raising a child and I am that child’s teacher, then I will meet with them both and attempt to treat them no differently than any other set of parents. BUT — marriage has been defined since prehistoric times as between men and women — sometimes more than one man and woman, yes, but always men and women. What I object to is the government redefining a pillar of communal life that is thousands and thousands of years old to include something that was never supposed to be a part of that, and then forcing me to treat it as if this was how it was all along. It’s telling me that I have to believe in something that I believe cannot exist.

And NO, I would not be happy to interact with all those people that Suzanno listed. My morality is that 1. I am an honest person, and if I’m going to refuse someone my business on ethical grounds, I’m going to be honest about it. 2. I believe that gay marriage is an oxymoron, and therefore, I’m not going to act in my professional life (I am none of those things, by the way) that it can exist.

As to the example of Christ. Christ IS my example. I would encourage any of you who mentioned that I should reread the New Testament, do so as well. I do, on a daily basis. This is what I find: "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17, if you’re interested. The Law and the Prophets = the Old Testament, in case you were unaware. And most Christians I know draw a distinction between ancient Israel’s political and ceremonial law, which set them apart as a special people and governed their specific nation, and the moral law, which is given as a standard for all followers of God throughout time. The prohibition of homosexuality falls under the moral law. If you’d like a New Testament reference to homosexuality, however, 1 Corinthians 6:9 is pretty succint.

It has been really difficult to pursue this topic in the face of allegations that I am a bigot, not being Christ-like, afraid of/wanting no association with gay people, etc. I have shed tears and said prayers over my participation in this thread. I have tried my best to be as honest and loving as I can be, but I simply could not let these things pass by without letting you all know what I really meant. I really try to live by 1 Peter 3:15-16 "…always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." I truly do apologize and ask for forgiveness of anyone on this thread that I have not treated with gentleness and respect.

I do hope that I have answered your questions, and I would ask that if you have further ones, to address them as questions and not as assualts on my character.

Post # 58
Member
3793 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: July 2009

Avocado,

I definitely was thinking of you because I did not want you to think that I was attacking your church.  I do have a memo, which I will forward to you by PM.  The last thing I wanted was there to be any bashing of a religious organization, just the same as I wouldn’t want a particular religious organization to be involved in my state’s legislation… 

My information comes from a news blog, and though I asked the person who obtained the memo where he got it, he did not reveal his source… so all I can do is present the memo to you.

Again, I believe in traditional marriage very strongly.  I believe that extending marriage rights to all couples in the form of "marriage" will continue to strengthen marriage as an institution.  I’m also not a big fan of seperate but equal (which is what I think having civil unions for homosexual couples is equivalent to), which is why I prefer the idea of marriage to civil unions, but I would be willing to support civil unions if it was the same for all couples.

Anyway, I sense that people are getting more heated, and I do not want to get heated myself… so unless anyone has a particular question for me, I think I’ll be stepping away from the thread.  I really can feel this issue from both sides, since my family is very conservative and I’ve grown up in that environment.  I hope we all have enough respect for each other to transcend our differences of opinion!  All in all, I appreciate hearing the different viewpoints.

Post # 59
Member
1139 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: September 2009

I once heard (maybe on a different thread here) the idea of instead of the government recognizing marriages they only recognize civil unions for <span class=”Apple-style-span” style=”font-style: italic”>everyone.  The term marriage would be left to religious entities to recognize.  

 

I haven’t heard or been able to think of any reasons why this would not be a logical way to go about it.  Has anyone else? 

Post # 60
Member
43 posts
Newbee

Arguing on the internet is about as useless as it gets. I will never convince the person I am arguing with, but hopefully others reading the thread will read the comments and be swayed one way or another. Speaking truth to power as Elie Weisel put it, is the mark of courage. I applaud anyone willing to talk about what they believe is truth here in the face of a passionate opposition.

inter-racial marriage like gay marriage is a marriage between a commited couple in love. Instead of man and man or woman and woman people used to say, one race and another race. It is not a straw man, but rather an analogous structure of discrimination. Like comparing oranges to grapefruits.

Jesus  had NOTHING to say about homosexuality and while he may have said he wanted to uphold the law of the prophets, that means that if you read it with Leviticus then you believe that Jesus condoned slavery. It means that he believed I should be put to death for eating shellfish. That is not Jesus, he is about forgiveness and love of everyone.

As I blend my finances and my insurance and will and investments with my fiancé’s I am thankful that we will be recognized as a couple in the eyes of the law. We need at least civil unions to make sure that when my partner is sick, I can visit them in the hospital. That she can take care of our children should anything, God forbid, happen to me. That she can be taken care of if my insurance is better than hers, or if my family for whatever reason decided they had more claim over my finances should I pass on or become unable to manage them. Gay couples need these things just like you and I do and I do not care if it is against your sensibilities. They are people who we need to treat with basic human compassion.

In the end I will defend to my dying day your right to hold your religious and personal beliefs. Just like I will be trying my hardest to support the rights of gay couples. I do not label anyone a bigot but simply point out that I believe their views might be viewed differently when the dust settles years from now. I come from a state with gay civil unions and a vocal openly gay representative in the Congress. One day we may see our first openly gay president and first partner, look how far we’ve come with this election.

God bless and keep you and all who you love. No matter how we argue, Jesus has led the way and I DO love you even while I disagree with you. Please remember that.

 

Post # 61
Member
3952 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: July 2010

The topic ‘California’s Prop 8 :(’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors